FFC SUBMISSION: AN ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT FUNDING ____________ PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT 13 August 2002 1
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 2
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 3
International trends • Mitigation the key to effective emergency management – Particularly relevant where there is weak infrastructure and inappropriate location of settlements • National co-ordination 4
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) 5
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 performancebased budgeting would be undermined 6
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 7
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 8
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 9
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 10
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 11
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 12
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)? 13
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? 14
Скачать презентацию FFC SUBMISSION AN ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT FUNDING
d0304feb643691753a64bfd70351bf80.ppt