THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE OF SOUTHERN AFRICA
(DMISA)
ORAL EVIDENCE ON THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT BILL
TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE
THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE OF SOUTHERN AFRICA
AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
ON 28 AUGUST 2001

Honourable Chairperson and Members of the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government, it is indeed a privilege to be afforded the opportunity to present oral evidence before you today on the Disaster Management Bill.
As you are no doubt aware, my Institute - the Disaster Management Institute - or DMISA as it is commonly known - represents the body of disaster management practitioners in South and Southern Africa. I speak therefore on this historic occasion on behalf of those practitioners, whose very task it will be to ensure the effective and efficient practical implementation of this legislation in the Provincial and Local spheres of government in our country.

The major paradigm shift internationally, over the last decade from an inordinate focus on purely reactive post disaster measures - designed to deal solely with consequences - to that of a pre disaster risk reduction focus on developmental issues, is the most significant challenge facing us in South Africa, today. It is common cause that the impact of poverty is a pivotal factor in the progression of vulnerability to hazards. This is of particular relevance in the South African scenario, with the huge legacy left by the Apartheid government of desperately impoverished and disadvantaged communities who, as a result are extremely vulnerable to disaster.

Accordingly the introduction of a National Disaster Management Policy Framework for South Africa, as reflected in this Bill, is welcomed with the sense of urgency, which it merits.

I wish at the outset to place on record my Institute’s support for the Bill, which it considers to be essentially an excellent piece of enabling legislation. It is therefore not our intention in this submission to attempt to delay the process but rather to briefly highlight those aspects which in our opinion are either inadequate or have been omitted, in the expectation that these issues will be fully addressed in the development of the National Framework and the Regulations.

We submit our comments as follows:

Clearly, the intention of the Bill is to replicate or cascade the key elements of the National Framework - including the establishment of the disaster management centres as set out in Chapter 3 - to Provincial and Municipal spheres.

The first aspect on which I wish to focus is:

THE APPOINTMENT OF HEADS OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT CENTRES AND STAFFING
In terms of the existing legislation – the Civil Protection Act of 1977 - the tendency at local authority level was to appoint the Town Clerk or Chief Executive Officer of the municipality as the Chief of Civil Protection (Disaster Management) – in some instances the task was even delegated to a volunteer. Furthermore the Civil Protection Act places no obligation on a local authority to appoint any dedicated full time disaster management practitioners. Clearly the failure to appoint any suitably qualified practitioners to perform the function and implement legislative requirements will result in vastly varying levels of capacity, commitment, expertise and training - if any at all.
It is common cause that the disaster management function and capacity in general, is currently totally inadequate in both provincial and municipal spheres in South Africa. Historically disasters were regarded as inevitable rare occurrences, which are unavoidable, and when they did occur it was left to the Defence Force and Police Services to rescue the situation. We are all conscious of the fact that disaster management is not the primary function of the aforementioned services. These resulting inadequacies referred to above are primarily due to the shortcomings of the Civil Protection Act, 1977.

In addressing these shortcomings, Section 10(2) of Chapter 3 of the Disaster Management Bill - which deals with the establishment of a National Disaster Management Centre – requires the Minister to appoint a person who will hold office as the Head of the National Centre thus providing a clear indication for the appointment of a dedicated full time official at National level. Unfortunately however, the matter is not addressed similarly in the relevant sections for Provincial and Municipal Centres. As a result there is already evidence that Municipalities currently involved in restructuring, are interpreting Section 44(1) to mean that the status quo can remain and the practice of appointing the Municipal Manager as the Head of the Centre can be sustained. It must be understood that disaster management is a highly complex and diverse subject, which requires specialised training, and expertise and therefore such interpretations would spell doom for the intentions of the Bill. In view of the aforementioned, my Institute is of the opinion that, Sections 31(1) and 44(1) should be clearly worded in a similar fashion to Section 10(2) in order to avoid any misinterpretation of the intention of the Bill. Namely that at Provincial level the MEC be must appoint a person to hold office in the relevant department as the Head of the Provincial Disaster Management Centre and similarly that the Executive Mayor at Municipal level appoint a person to hold office as the Head of the Municipal Disaster Management Centre. The same argument holds for the Section 13(1), which deals with staffing.

The second matter, which I wish to discuss, is:

THE PLACEMENT OF THE FUNCTION AT THE THREE SPHERES OF GOVERNMENT
It is important to note that Disaster Management is not a line function but a management function. The functions and powers vested in the various Centres as set out in Sections 15, 30 and 43 of the Bill, will undoubtedly require the appointment of a dedicated, full time and suitably qualified functionary at a sufficiently senior level, who is capable of executing independent decision making, as head of the centre. Taking into account the intentions of Sections 18(1)(2) and (3), 32(2)(a)(b), and (c) and Sections 45(2)(a) and (b), read in conjunction with Section 55, which deals with Offences, it will clearly not be possible for the Head of the Centre to perform the required functions and exercise the powers of the Centre from within a line function department. Taking these factors as well as international benchmarks into account, the Institute is of the opinion that the function be located in the Office of the Presidency and similarly in the Office of the Premier in Provinces, and the Office of the Executive Mayor in Municipalities. Accordingly it is considered imperative that clear indication be given on the placement of the function within the institutional frameworks of the relevant spheres.

PREVENTION AND MITIGATION is the third aspect of this submission
Prevention and mitigation is the most critically important aspect of this new legislation - in that it focuses on strategies to reduce vulnerability - particularly in relation to poverty stricken and disadvantaged communities who are most at risk. It also provides for the integration of risk reduction strategies into developmental initiatives. Strangely however, whilst these strategies are spelt out for National Disaster Management in Sections 20 and 21 of the Bill, and in Sections 33 and 34 for Provincial Disaster Management, there is no similar flow-through to Municipal Disaster Management - and yet it is exactly at municipal level where these strategies will have to be implemented. This is of particular concern in the light of Section 53, which makes the provision of any financial contributions from the National government for the alleviation of the effects of Local and Provincial disasters, subject to the initiation of adequate prevention and mitigation measures by the province and/or municipality concerned. It is therefore desirable that the strategies for the municipal sphere be spelt out similarly.

The second last point, which I wish to discuss, is that of:

FUNDING
In terms of the Constitution, Disaster Management is a concurrent National and Provincial competency. Accordingly, the Municipal Structures Act does not define disaster management as a core function of Municipalities and yet Section 26(g) of the Structures Act specifically states that the Disaster Management Plan must be a core component of the municipality’s Integrated Development Plan. This appears to be somewhat contradictory to the competency issue and yet it is interesting to note that no other function has been singled out in this regard. Whilst the Bill adequately deals with the funding of post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation, what has not been addressed is the source of funding for what will, with the enactment of this Bill ultimately be, an assigned function of municipalities. The future implementation of the intentions of this Bill will be doomed to failure if disaster management continues to be what is construed by municipalities to be an un-funded mandate – as is currently the case, in terms of the Civil Protection Act. This issue should therefore be addressed as a matter of extreme urgency.

Finally, I wish to address
THE ROLE OF VOLUNTEERS
The volunteer corps is fundamental to effective disaster management within communities at local level. It is therefore unfortunate that there is scant reference to volunteer issues and training and capacity building in the Bill. Section 43(1)(g) makes provision for the recruitment, training and utilisation of volunteers to participate in disaster management in municipal areas. It is anticipated that these issues will be fleshed out in detail in the regulations. However, the major concern for practitioners is that no provision has been made in the Bill for compensation for death, bodily injury or disablement of volunteers whilst undergoing training or in the performance of their duties. Section 9 of the Civil Protection Act, 1977 does make such provision, however the repeal of that Act in terms of Section 57 of the Bill, will render all existing and future volunteers unprotected. This is a matter of major concern, as it will effectively paralyse all volunteer activity at community level. Serious consideration must also be given to the issue of public liability cover in relation to the rendering of assistance by volunteers.

In closing, Honourable Chairperson, I once again wish to place on record our very sincere appreciation to you and your committee for this very important opportunity. I trust that this submission presented on behalf of my Institute will be accepted in a positive light and viewed as a constructive contribution to this vitally important process.

I thank you.

PATRICIA M REID
PRESIDENT