Disaster Management Bill [B10B-2015]: briefing by Department of Cooperative Governance

Meeting report

The Chairperson asked for a moment of silence and meditation and then officially began the meeting, remarking on the importance of this meeting to attend to the Disaster Management Amendment Bill which was tagged as a Section 76 Bill.

Disaster Management Bill [B10B-2015]: briefing by Department
Ms Ane Bruwer, Chief Director: Policy and Compliance at the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) in the Department of Cooperative Governance, said disaster management is a functional area listed in Schedule 4A of the Constitution. This implies that the national legislative authority has concurrent competence with the provincial legislative authority. The Disaster Management Act, 2002 is internationally reputed for its emphasis on prevention and its relative comprehensive approach to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). The main thrust of the principal Act and the National Disaster Management Framework, 2005 (NDMF) centres around the creation of appropriate institutional arrangements for disaster management. It is argued that the ideals of disaster management cannot be achieved without structures to support its myriad of actions. However, the implementation the Act, beginning in 2003, has posed significant challenges, particularly at the level of local municipalities. The purpose of the review was to tackle these challenges by maximising the effect of disaster management legislation to communities, especially those most at risk.

Ms Bruwer noted that the aim of the principal Act is to ensure implementation of an integrated and coordinated approach to disaster management across all spheres of government involving all relevant stakeholders. Some challenges were experienced in implementing the principal Act, which necessitated that the Act be amended making it simpler to implement, to strengthen certain regulatory provisions, avoid ambiguity and provide greater legal certainty.

Ms Bruwer described the process of how the Amendment Bill came to be. Cabinet approved the publication of the draft Disaster Management Amendment Bill for public comment in June 2013.The key issues raised during the consultation process were incorporated in the current Bill. In September 2014, Cabinet approved the submission of the Bill to Parliament. The explanatory summary of the Bill was published in the Government Gazette in January 2015 and formally introduced in March 2015. The National Assembly processed and passed the Bill in June and it was now before the NCOP.

The review of Disaster Management legislation formed part of the strategic plan of the Department of Cooperative Governance. Due consideration in the amendment process was given to the Government's Programme of Action and the 18 key targets of the National Development Plan. The disaster management approach of the Department of Cooperative Governance pays specific attention to the pressing needs of poor communities in relation to both natural and human induced disasters in the context of a developmental and capable state. The proposed amendments to the principal Act, provide more impetus on aspects of disaster management planning that support these priorities.

Calls to amend the Disaster Management Act had come from political leadership, the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), Disaster Management Institute of Southern Africa (DMISA), National Disaster Management Advisory Forum (NDMAF), academics, practitioners, and others.

Ms Bruwer indicated the significant amount of consultation which went into drafting the Bill. Consultation resulted in the drafting of the Disaster Management Amendment Bill which is aimed at:
- Clarifying terminology.
- The representation of traditional leaders in the disaster management advisory forums.
- Providing for the National Disaster Management Advisory Forum (NDMAF) to serve as the SA National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) thereby incorporating the obligations set out in global commitments (Hyogo Framework of Action, followed by Sendai Framework for DRR).
- Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of organs of state to assist the disaster management structures.
- Strengthening reporting on policy implementation, DRR, relief, recovery and rehabilitation efforts using inter-governmental relations (IGR) structures.
- Expanding the contents of disaster management plans of organs of state to include expected climate change impacts and risks.
- Re-affirming the role of municipalities (both at district and local level) to establish disaster management centres and improve capacity for the development and coordination of disaster management plans.
- Granting the Minister authority to make regulations on education, training, research and the classification and declaration of disasters.

Issues that could not be dealt with
She highlighted two key issues elevated by stakeholders that could not be dealt with by the Bill:
▪ There is a notion that implementation challenges are experienced due to the inappropriate location of disaster management centres within the organisational structures of provinces and municipalities.
▪ There is no specific funding allocated for disaster risk reduction efforts across the spheres of government.

She suggested options to address these issues:
▪ Careful consideration should be given to the placement of Disaster Management Centres in the organisational structure to fulfil its strategic role to effectively reduce the risk of disaster and be responsive to the needs of communities in the municipality. The Head of the Disaster Management Centre should thus form part of the decision-making structure of the organisation and should ideally report to the highest office within a municipality and province, respectively. Such an approach empowers the executive leadership to ensure that the disaster management centre is fulfilling its coordination and strategic role to effectively reduce the risk of disaster within that particular sphere of government.
▪ The matter was partially and indirectly addressed in the Bill by prescribing reporting requirements to IGR structures, thereby highlighting the strategic importance of issues of disaster risk reduction and the management of allocated disaster funding. This legislative provision should ultimately also raise the profile of disaster management centres within the respective spheres.

Implementation
The Chief State Law Adviser had suggested the Bill be tagged as a Section 76 Bill since it contains provisions affecting the interests of the provinces. The NDMC will continue to support the parliamentary process. Once the Bill is passed into law, the Department of Cooperative Governance will have sessions to engage with provinces and municipalities (including SALGA) on the substance of the Amendment Act. Circulars will also be distributed to provinces, municipalities and stakeholders. Regulations concerning the declaration and classification of disasters will be published before the end of the 2016/17 financial year.

Governance implications
- Organisational structures and personnel: There are no new implications. However, the principal Act already requires all organs of state to have capacity to develop and implement disaster management plans and perform the disaster management function. In many instances, especially in sector departments and local municipalities, little or no organisational capacity for disaster management currently exists. A few local municipalities (LMs) have recognised the need for dedicated disaster management capacity and have appointed officials to coordinate and implement the disaster management function in the municipality with positive results (such as Tlokwe LM in NW; Polokwane LM in Limpopo; Kwadukuza LM in KZN; Greater Giyani LM in Limpopo; Rustenburg LM in NW; Mafikeng LM in NW). The Amendment Bill re-emphasizes the requirement to establish capacity to implement disaster management effectively.

- Financial implications: Current legislative provisions already give organs of state across the spheres and sectors of government a responsibility to provide for developing disaster management plans and the implementation thereof. The Amendment Bill seeks to affirm these responsibilities by having organs of state assign the required resources to perform its mandated functions.

- Communication implications: Once the finalised Disaster Management Amendment Bill has been published, appropriate communication mechanisms will be activated through Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) and the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS).

- Constitutional implications: The Bill seeks to give effect to the principles of co-operative government set out in chapter 3 of the Constitution through clear guidance on disaster management across the spheres of government. By placing emphasis on reducing the risk of disasters, it affirms the collective duty to ‘secure the well-being of the people of the Republic'.

- Implications for vulnerable groups: The interest of vulnerable communities and groups are protected through a focus on disaster risk reduction across the spheres and sectors of government.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked why the crucial components of the location of the disaster relief centres and their heads as well funding could not be dealt with in the Amendment Bill. While the implementation of disaster prevention and response in the original Act fell to the districts, the amendment shifts the responsibility more towards the municipalities. He asked for elaboration on this and how funding to enact this shift would be attained.

Mr M Mhlanga (ANC; Mpumalanga) asked for clarity on slide 12 that lists the municipalities that have already shifted to this model. He noted some Mpumalanga municipalities had shifted to further decentralised response centres and were not listed.

Ms Bruwer clarified that the examples on slide 12 were a non-exclusive list of local municipalities that had disaster response centres. All districts in the country have disaster response centres, but these local municipalities were highlighted because they realised the need to establish these centres to confront disasters in a collaborative manner with the larger district centre.

On the question on the organisational structure, she replied that due to the overlapping nature of disaster prevention and management into other spheres of government, the NDMC was advised by their legal council to make recommendations regarding the organisation of the centres and not prescribe a specific set up. The NDMC believes that structure follows strategy, so as districts strive to align themselves with the new strategy, they will naturally restructure themselves to a more decentralised system. In this way the NDMC does not need to prescribe a specific plan for each sphere of influence. As they realise the importance of the strategy and deal with the situation appropriately, they will align themselves with the plan.

In terms of the principal Act, it is prescribed that there must be a disaster management centre in each metropolitan municipality and district municipality, as well as a provincial disaster management centre. What is not prescribed is to where the head of the centre reports in the organisational structure.

As for funding, the NDMC wanted to introduce a budget specifically for disaster risk reduction. She noted that there are adequate funds for responding to disasters mainly in the form of conditional grants. When consulting with National Treasury on the matter, the Minister was advised not to include appropriation of funds in the amendment because it would then become a money bill. COGTA has the authority only to prevent and manage disasters, not to appropriate funds. Treasury indicated that within the current funding framework of government, there is provision to deal with disaster management. Each organization is to provide for disaster management in their own budgets and money can be allocated from the Equitable Share if necessary. Prioritization of funds is also calculated by the amount of risk in a particular area.

She reiterated that this is not a new function. It has already been prescribed in the principal Act, so there are many examples of this new strategy being done well in certain local municipalities.

Mr L Nzimande (ANC) was concerned with the latter part of Ms Bruwer’s answer. These issues weaken what the Bill is trying to achieve. There is also no prescription about the location of the head of administration. He called this a “high fly bill” and wondered what was actually going to happen with this amendment and the actual weight of the decision. He felt the Bill is quite weak and the provinces need to take a good look into what they are trying to achieve. It is vaguely dumping the financial responsibility into already congested areas, particularly relating to the equitable share. He questioned whether the amendment bill had been properly thought out due to the complexities regarding funding and implementation of the plan. He also asked about the rationale for not assigning the head of the administration. He reiterated his fear of the amendment being too vague.

The Chair agreed that the two areas that were not addressed in the amendment bill are areas of crucial importance to the local municipalities. Many local municipalities and districts struggle with basic disaster management such as fire. He questioned whether adding extra responsibilities on to them would be the correct decision if they cannot even function on a more basic level. He asked if an assessment was done to determine whether local municipalities would be able to handle the extra responsibilities.

Ms G Manolope (ANC; Northern Cape) asked why the House of Traditional Leaders was excluded from the presentation and Bill since they are at the local level. She asked if this was an intentional omission.

Ms Bruwer remarked that during the process of having the Bill taken through the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, a submission was made by the National House of Traditional Leaders which welcomed the provisions made to include them in the formal structures of disaster management.

The Chairperson remarked it was not in the presentation.

Ms Bruwer apologised and added that the traditional leaders' submission made at the stakeholder’s meeting of the Portfolio Committee, was very positive about the amendments.

She then moved to the topic of the organisational structure and funding. She clarified this by emphasising key points in the principal Act. The principal Act prescribes what must be done regarding disaster management for organisational purposes. It says that each district municipality and each metropolitan municipality must establish a disaster management centre in its area. The council of the municipality then must appoint a head of the centre. It is very clear that it is to be a part of the organisational establishment of the municipalities.

The amendment process was basically only to say when the NDMC goes to the local municipality level, they suggest that there should also be the necessary capacity to handle disasters. The principal Act says each organ of state, which is interpreted as each municipality, must have a disaster management plan. This amendment simply tries to clarify this. She stated that many local municipalities want to establish these functions, but they did not have enough support from the legislation. These municipalities requested the NDMC to clarify this issue in the legislation so they could more efficiently work in the municipalities for disaster management. She stated this amendment is nothing new. The Bill is meant to provide greater legal certainty and clarification.

The existing arrangements, in terms of the Municipal Systems Act, states that the disaster management plan of a municipality is a core requirement of the Integrated Development Plan. This means it has already been there; there are no new functions.

The Chairperson said that the Committee agreed with this point and that the area on which they wanted clarification was the moving personnel and the head from the district municipalities to the local municipalities as well as funding. He wanted to ensure the Committee has a clear understanding of this amendment bill so they can answer for this bill when it moves forward.

Mr M Mhlanga (ANC; Mpumalanga) saw that the Minister has the authority to allocate funds to a disaster zone and wondered who had the authority do declare a disaster.

Ms Bruwer explained that the responsibility to declare a disaster falls to the head of the sphere of government in which the disaster occurred and the type of disaster. If it is a local disaster, the council of the municipality can declare a local disaster; a provincial disaster affects more than one municipality or the entire province and this is declared by the premier of the province. A national disaster can be declared by the Minister of Cooperative Governance. It all depends on the magnitude and extent of the disaster.

As for the allocation of funding, in terms of responding to the immediate effects of disasters, there are specific conditional grants for municipalities and provinces that are easily accessed to deal with the immediate effects of disasters. The conditions of this are that the disaster must be declared and certain assessments must take place, then it goes to the National Treasury which either pays the money directly to the municipality or the sector department that was affected by the disaster (such as Housing or Education).

The Chairperson asked Members if they had any further comments about this particular issue.

A Committee member remarked that this issue would need to be kept in mind as they continued with their work on this Bill.

The Chairperson asked if there was additional input from the other members of the delegation.

Mr Jurgen Dyssel, NDMC Senior Manager: Legislation Policy and Compliance Management, sought to clarify the local versus district municipality interaction. He noted there are different ways at looking at disaster management. While looking at the local level, you must look at it within the context of other local legislation. You need to consider many different acts like the Structures Act, the Systems Act, and others. These pieces of legislation discuss how local municipalities, looking at each individual environment, can decide how to bring a particular service. When looking to set up a disaster management centre in terms of the Act, the autonomy of local government needs to be kept in mind. One needs to look at each particular municipality’s needs because disaster risks are very different.
 

He provided the example of Tlokwe and Ehlanzeni Local Municipalities. In Tlokwe, the municipality said they would prefer a much more hands-on approach. They wanted a local municipality centre with local personnel, but would continue to liaise with the district on larger issues. In Ehlanzeni, the leaders saw that the risks in the district were similar so they were able to consolidate and share certain resources and funds. In this way they are also using the authority to set up local structures that not only deal with disaster management but also can enact local government legislation. That is the goal of this amendment bill – to provide local communities the opportunities to look at their risks, resources, and their individual needs and then, with guidance from the NDMC, decide what structure they want to implement. It is also important to understand that risks change over time. If certain risks are identified and are mitigated, it is obvious the risk will change. There need to be dynamic organisations to deal with these kinds of issues. In his opinion, taking into consideration the advice that was received, the best way to deal with this local versus district issue is to give the ability of municipalities to manage their own affairs within the objectives of the Disaster Management Act.

The Chairperson agreed this was an important issue and would need to be further discussed.

Ms Bruwer concluded by reassuring the Committee with the fact that a study will be done together with National Treasury and the Financial and Fiscal Commission to review the existing policy framework around funding. She added that the Disaster Management Policy Framework can be reviewed and changed to optimise the use of funds since, although it was legislatively put in place, it is policy and not law.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for its briefing.

The Committee Secretary outlined what would be the next steps for this bill. Next week, that is, Week 2, the Department will join members on their trips to their provincial legislatures to explain the amendment bill. Week 3 the nine legislatures will discuss their negotiating mandates. Week 4 the Committee will be reviewing the negotiating mandates from the nine provinces. Week 5 the provincial legislatures will consider their final mandates. Week 6 each provincial representative in this Committee will vote on the Bill according to the final mandate from their province.

The Committee agreed that Week 2 will effectively have to move to the third term due to the programmatic needs of meeting with their respective provinces.

Meeting adjourned.