IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Case StudiesChapter 9Most states have some form of disaster risk management legislation orare in the process of enacting it (UNDP 2005; UNISDR 2005b). In 2011,48 countries reported substantial achievements in developing nationalpolicy and legislation; importantly, almost half are low or lower-middleincome countries (UNISDR, 2011b). An increasing number of countrieshave been adopting or updating existing legislation modeled on HyogoFramework for Action principles. Countries with new or updated lawsinclude India and Sri Lanka in 2005; El Salvador, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent,and the Grenadines in 2006; Anguilla (United Kingdom) and Gambia in2007; Indonesia in 2008; Egypt and the Philippines in 2009; and Zambiaand Papua New Guinea in 2010 (UNISDR, 2011b). As yet some of the newlaws addressing disaster risk have not been harmonized with preexistinglegislative frameworks in relevant sectors, such as water, agriculture,and energy (UNISDR, 2011b). Although these national legislations fordisaster management do not necessarily include a disaster risk reductionorientation (Pelling and Holloway 2006), the evidence suggests a globalparadigm shift from the former responsive approach to disastermanagement toward more long-term, sustainable preventive action(Britton, 2006; Benson, 2009). India, Pakistan, Indonesia, South Africa,and several Central American states have enacted such paradigmchangingamendments to disaster management legislation and, inEcuador, the “notion of risk-focused disaster management was rooteddirectly into its new constitution adopted in 2008” (IFRC, 2011).In the case of South Africa, the country was impacted by floods anddroughts, and there was a high motivation for change in the post-Apartheid era (Pelling and Holloway, 2006; NDMC, 2007), which startingin 1994 led to legislative reform for disaster risk reduction. A “GreenPaper” first solicited public input and debate, and a second “WhitePaper” translated responses into policy options for further technical andadministrative deliberations. These documents are noteworthy for theirconsultative approach and their emphasis on disaster risk reductionrather than traditional response (Pelling and Holloway, 2006; NDMC,2007). Thereafter the Government passed three disaster managementbills that culminated in the promulgation of the Disaster ManagementAct No. 57 of 2002 and of the National Disaster Management Frameworkin 2005 (Pelling and Holloway, 2006; NDMC, 2007).9.2.12.3. Description of StrategySouth Africa’s 2002 Disaster Management Act and its National DisasterManagement Policy Framework of 2005 (Republic of South Africa, 2002,2005) are noteworthy because they were among the first to focus onprevention, decentralize DRR governance, mandate the integration ofDRR into development planning, and require stakeholder inclusiveness.The Act and Framework define the hierarchical institutional structurethat governs disaster risk reduction at national, provincial, and municipallevels. They effectively decentralize DRR by mandating each level ofgovernment to create:• A disaster risk management framework – a policy focused on theprevention and mitigation of risk• A disaster risk management center – inter alia, to promote anintegrated and coordinated system of management, to integrateDRR into development plans, to maintain disaster risk managementinformation, to monitor implementation, and to build capacity• A disaster risk management advisory forum – for government andcivil society stakeholders in DRR to coordinate their actions• An interdepartmental disaster risk management committee – forgovernment departments to coordinate or integrate activities forDRR, to compile disaster risk management plans, and to provideinterdepartmental accountability (Republic of South Africa, 2002,2005; Van Niekerk, 2006).The Act further details each entity’s responsibilities. South Africa’slegislation makes a legal connection between disaster risk reductionand development planning. Some other countries adopting thisapproach include Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Hungary, Ivory Coast,Mauritius, Romania, and Uganda (Pelling and Holloway, 2006).The Act requires that municipalities include risk management plans intheir integrated development plans (Republic of South Africa, 2002; VanNiekerk, 2006). Municipal-level requirements are supported with amandate for provincial governments to ensure that their disaster riskmanagement plans “form an integral part of development planning” andfor the National Centre of Disaster Management to develop guidelinesfor the integration of plans and strategies into development plans(Republic of South Africa, 2002).Closely related to the ability to influence development planning is theauthority to lead coordinated government action for DRR acrossgovernment agencies. The interdepartmental committees mandated bythe Act for each level provide the opportunity to communicate plansand develop strategies across ministries and departments, avoidingunilateral action that may increase risk. The forums established by theAct similarly give voice to additional stakeholders to participate in DRRdecisionmaking. South Africa, Colombia, and the Philippines’ DRR laws,for example, include provisions for the involvement of NGOs, traditionalleaders, volunteers, community members, and the private sector indisaster risk reduction.9.2.12.4. OutcomesImplementation of South Africa’s benchmark legislative provisions hasproven challenging. Many district municipalities have not yet establishedthe disaster management centers required by the Act or these are notyet functioning adequately (Van Riet and Diedericks, 2010; Botha et al.,2011). The majority of local municipalities (which are subdivisions ofdistrict municipalities) have not yet established advisory forumsalthough it should be noted that the Act does not require their creationat this level (Botha et al., 2011). A greater percentage of metropolitandistricts have established advisory forums. Similarly, interdepartmentalcommittees, which facilitate cross-sectoral governmental collaborationand the integration of DRR into development planning, have also not yet520