Report of the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government on the Disaster Management Bill [B 21 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 3 September 2002:

The Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government, having considered the subject of the Disaster Management Bill [B 21 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 76), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 76 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 21A - 2002].

The Committee wishes to report further, as follows:

1. The original Disaster Management Bill was introduced in Parliament during 2001. The Committee conducted comprehensive public hearings on that Bill and deliberated extensively on its provisions. However, that Bill was withdrawn in order for the Department of Provincial and Local Government to comply with section 9 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, in particular to allow the Financial and Fiscal Commission to make an assessment of the financial implications of the Disaster Management Bill, and for the Ministry and Department to consider that assessment.

2. The present Bill was introduced in Parliament during the first half of 2002, and reflected all the amendments proposed by the Committee in respect of the Bill that was withdrawn during 2001.

3. The Committee notes that the Financial and Fiscal Commission has offered the following proposals regarding the funding of disaster management:

(a) Emergency preparedness for local government should be funded as follows:

* Start-up costs: conditional grants from national government targeted primarily at municipalities with little capacity.

* Ongoing institutional costs: incorporated into the equitable share. Such an increment must be informed by a study of specific financial implications.

(b) Prevention/mitigation should be funded as follows:

Municipalities and provinces should apply for funding for specific projects, which should be assessed against the national priority list of disaster risks. This funding should be on the budget of a national department.

(c) Emergency response should be funded as follows:

A portion of the Contingency Reserve should be set aside for immediate response for emergencies:

* Funding to national departments should be based upon expenditure incurred. National departments that are frequently involved in emergency response activities should estimate the required amount based upon past expenditure and should budget for such amount. Once this amount is exceeded, an emergency appropriation could be requested.

* Provinces and municipalities should fund emergency response activities up to a "financial threshold", after which central funding would be obtained.

(d) Infrastructure rehabilitation should be funded as follows:

National departments, provinces, and municipalities should submit requests for reconstruction funding to national government. A budget appropriation should be requested, based upon the sum of the approved claims.

(e) Relief to individuals should be funded as follows:

The three existing relief funds (i.e. the Disaster Relief Fund, Social Relief Fund and State President's Fund) should be combined and administered centrally. The funds should be budgeted for, and where funds are exceeded, the Contingency Reserve should be drawn upon. The fund should be made available to provinces, municipalities and non-governmental agencies for payment to individuals.

(f) The national contingency reserve should ideally be referred to as "central contingency reserve" to reflect its accessibility by all spheres of government.

4. The Committee acknowledges that the report of the Financial and Fiscal Commission is very comprehensive, and expresses its appreciation.

5. The Committee lacks the technical expertise to evaluate the viability of the funding proposals made by the Financial and Fiscal Commission. However, it urges the Ministry for Provincial and Local Government to give serious consideration to these proposals and, at an appropriate time, to report back to Parliament on its position regarding the respective proposals.

6. Notwithstanding paragraph 5 above, the Committee feels serious consideration should be given to the following:

(a) Clear principles should be determined for provincial governments and municipalities to access funding from the central contingency reserve.

(b) The possibility of providing funding to facilitate the establishment of municipal disaster management centres, and to provide an incentive for municipalities to get involved in disaster management.

(c) The possibility of providing funding to provinces and municipalities for prevention and mitigation.

(d) The three existing relief funds referred to in paragraph 3 should be combined and administered centrally.

7. The Committee notes that, with the passing of the Disaster Management Bill, disasters would be declared twice - in terms of the Disaster Management Act and the Fund Raising Act, 1978. The Committee urges the executive to consider resolving this anomaly.

8. Whilst the Committee recognises the need to have appropriate command structures for units of volunteers, which includes matters such as insignia and uniforms, the Committee would like to caution against an overly militaristic approach to disaster management volunteers.

9. The Committee urges the executive to expedite the setting up of the National Disaster Management Centre with the requisite start-up funding and funding for responding to disasters, and the appointment of its Head, so that the national disaster management framework can be in place as soon as possible. It is also important that regulations necessary to support the successful implementation of the Disaster Management Act should be in place before the Act is put into operation.