A critical analysis of the South African Disaster Management Act and Policy Framework

A critical analysis of the South African Disaster Management Act and Policy Framework

Dewald van Niekerk Director, African Centre for Disaster Studies, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

The promulgation of the South African Disaster Management Act No. 57 of 2002 and the National Disaster Management Policy Framework of 2005 placed South Africa at the inter-national forefront by integrating disaster risk reduction into all spheres of government through a decentralised approach. Yet, good policy and legislation do not necessarily translate into good practice. This paper provides a critical analysis of the Act and Policy Framework. Using qualita-tive research methods, it analyses the attitudes and perceptions of senior public officials on all levels of government, the private sector and academia. The study finds that one of the weakest aspects of the Act and Framework is the absence of clear guidance to local municipalities. The placement of the disaster risk management function on all tiers of government remains prob-lematic, funding is inadequate and overall knowledge and capacities for disaster risk reduction are insufficient.

Keywords: disaster risk management, legislation, policy, South Africa

IntroductionSouth Africa was one of the first African countries to legislate disaster (risk) man-agement comprehensively (Vermaak and van Niekerk, 2004). The legislative and policy-making process started in June 1994, after severe flooding in the Western Cape province (South Africa, 1998; 1999). This process culminated in the Disaster Management Act No. 57 of 2002 (DMA) and the National Disaster Management Policy Framework (NDMF) in 2005 (preceding the Hyogo Framework for Action). Through this process South Africa established itself as a nation at the forefront of integrating disaster risk reduction in its public sector (Pelling and Holloway, 2006). The Act and Framework facilitated a shift in traditional disaster response thinking, to disaster risk reduction, prevention and mitigation (Reid, 2005; Reid and van Niekerk, 2008; van Niekerk, 2005; 2006). The aim of the DMA is:

to provide for an integrated and co-ordinated disaster management policy that focuses on preventing or reducing the risk of disasters, mitigating the severity of disasters, emergency preparedness, rapid and effective response to disasters and post-disaster recovery; the estab-lishment of national, provincial and municipal disaster management centres; disaster management volunteers; and matters incidental thereto (South Africa, 2002).

doi:10.1111/disa.12081

Disasters, 2014, 38(4): 858−877. © 2014 The Author(s). Disasters © Overseas Development Institute, 2014Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

A critical analysis of the South African Disaster Management Act and Policy Framework 859

The decentralisation of responsibilities ensured that the three tiers of government in South Africa incorporated the function of disaster risk reduction in their hierarchi-cal structure (van Niekerk, 2006) and, as discussed later, to a limited extent within their core operations. Similar processes are under way in other countries, notably in the Philippines (Britton, 2006), India (India, 2005) and Colombia (Colombia, 2009), which allows for comparisons between developing counties. Disaster risk reduction refers to the practice of:

reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events (UNISDR, n.d.).

The South African Disaster Management Act presents disaster risk reduction as multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary in nature (South Africa, 2002). Yet, a review of the implementation of the abovementioned Act and Framework within the South African public sector reveals that some significant discrepancies exist between the ideals espoused in the legislation and the realities within government. Now that ten years have passed since the promulgation of the DMA, it is possible to analyse the DMA and the NDMF in terms of their implementation and limita-tions, and to consider potential improvements. This reflection is in line with national government processes to revisit and revise the DMA and NDMF in 2011–12 (South Africa, 2013). With the aim of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the DMA and NDMF, a quantitative research intervention was applied to determine the per-ceptions and attitudes of senior public officials on all levels of government, the private sector and academic and research institutions engaged in disaster risk reduction. This research builds on findings presented in the literature and previously con-ducted research projects. The first section of the article provides a broad overview of the Disaster Management Act and National Disaster Management Policy Framework of South Africa. It is followed by a literature review in which some key critiques are highlighted. The third section discusses the research design and findings. The paper concludes with amendment recommendations for the DMA and NDMF.

Synopsis of the Disaster Management Act No. 57 of 2002 and the National Disaster Management Policy Framework South Africa was one of the first developing countries to pass disaster risk management legislation that places emphasis on the decentralisation of disaster risk management activities (Pelling and Holloway, 2006). The law stipulates that such decentralisation should occur across the three spheres of government—local,1 provincial and national—and within government departments. The DMA calls for the development of an integrated and coordinated policy for disaster risk reduction, in which the main emphasis is on disaster risk reduction and certain aspects of post-disaster recovery. The resulting

Dewald van Niekerk 860

National Disaster Management Policy Framework was published in 2005. The Act further elaborates on the various disaster risk management structures to be established within the tiers of government, with a drive towards the involvement of local ‘at-risk’ communities, the private sector and government parastatals such as the utili-ties companies, centres of research and the higher education sector, as well as non-governmental, faith-based and community-based organisations (collectively referred to as NGOs) and traditional leaders. The Act also provides detailed information on the creation of disaster risk management centres and other intergovernmental struc-tures at each level of government. The main thrust of the DMA and NDMF centres around the creation of appro-priate institutional arrangements for disaster risk management. It has been argued that the ideals of disaster risk management cannot be achieved without structures to support the myriad of actions involved (NDMC and Reid, 2008a–f; van Niekerk, 2006). These structures relate to the formation of disaster risk management centres—referred to as ‘the function of disaster risk management’ in van Niekerk (2006)—on each of the three tiers of government as well as the inclusion of disaster risk man-agement activities within various sector departments—called the ‘activity of disaster risk management’ in van Niekerk (2006).

Table 1 DMA and NDMF contents with corresponding HFA priorities for action

DMA sections NDMF sections Corresponding HFA priorities for action

Chapter 1: Interpretation, application and administration of the Act

Key Performance Area 1: Integrated institutional capacity for disaster risk management

Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with strong institutional basis for implementation

Chapter 2: Intergovernmental structures and policy framework

Key Performance Area 2: Disaster risk assessment

Identify, assess and monitor risks and enhance early warning

Chapter 3: National disaster management

Key Performance Area 3: Disaster risk reduction

Reduce the underlying risk factors

Chapter 4: Provincial disaster management

Key Performance Area 4: Response and recovery

Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels

Chapter 5: Municipal disaster management

Enabler 1: Information management and communication

Use knowledge, innovation and edu-cation to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels

Chapter 6: Funding of post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation

Enabler 2: Education, training, public awareness and research

Use knowledge, innovation and edu-cation to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels

Chapter 7: Disaster management volunteers

Enabler 3: Funding arrangement for disaster risk management

Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with strong institutional basis for implementation

Chapter 8: Miscellaneous

n/a n/a

Sources: South Africa (2002; 2005); UNISDR (2005).


To situate national policy within the broader international context, Table 1 indi-cates which DMA and NDMF sections correspond to priorities for action of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), a global agreement signed by more than 180 countries under the auspices of the United Nations (UNISDR, 2005). Whereas the DMA provides guidance as to what disaster risk management in South Africa should be, the NDMF aims to show how the objectives of the Act can be reached. The NDMF, in turn, is divided into two main sections: key performance areas and enablers. The rationale behind this division is that the enablers are elements that need to be present in each of the key performance areas in order for them to be successfully implemented and sustained. Figure 1 depicts this interaction. It is not the aim of this paper to discuss each of these elements of the DMA and NDMF in detail, but rather, in the sections that follow, to identify deficiencies and provide a critique of the practical implementation of each of these documents, reflect-ing both the results of the literature review and of the research findings. The follow-ing section provides a literature review of the most important aspects associated with the research.

Literature reviewDisaster risk is a hypothetical construct that is difficult to characterise (Bosher, 2008). Only once all of the prerequisites for a disaster are present, such as a materialised disaster risk, do its consequences become evident. There is universal agreement that the level of disaster risk relates to the interaction between hazards—natural or anthropogenic—and the vulnerable conditions to which humans and the systems on which they depend are susceptible.2 The contemporary understanding of risk has grown to such an extent that scholars from a variety of different disciplines—such as sociology, anthropology, geography, architecture, agriculture, meteorology, engi-neering, law, public administration and development studies—are jointly researching issues of disaster risk (Vogel, Moser and Kasperson, 2007; McEntire, 2007).

Figure 1 Interaction between the key performance areas and enablers of the National

Disaster Management Policy Framework

Source: South Africa (2005).


Since the turn of the century a significant international drive has evolved towards the reduction of disaster risk (UN, 2004). Due to the extreme nature of disasters, the reduction of the risks associated with these events can only be meaningfully addressed through collective action (UN, 2011). In essence, the protection of humans against disasters has almost become a human right (Wisner et al., 2011). As a result, the role of the state becomes increasingly important as a key player (Williams, 2011). The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 calls on governments to enhance and support disaster risk assessment and related processes. For disaster risk reduction to be successful, the local application of disaster risk reduction measures remains imperative. The UN’s Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction highlights the need for more investment in disaster risk management, ‘particularly within sectors and through local government’ (UN, 2011). The DMA, promulgated two years before the adoption of the Hyogo Framework for Action, aimed to address the over-emphasis on the costly disaster response focus of government by adopting elimination, prevention and mitigation measures. The DMA places a premium on the decentrali-sation of disaster risk reduction to the local sphere of government. The tenor of the Hyogo Framework for Action, supported by research undertaken by a global civil society network—the Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Risk Reduction—and reaffirmed by the 2011 UN Global Assessment Report is that the communities should benefit from the decisions taken at a strategic level and that an incremental process of decentralising disaster risk reduction may be the best way forward (GNDR, 2009; UN, 2011). The argument can therefore be made that if a government promulgates good policy, legislation and strategies regarding disaster risk reduction, but subsequently fails to implement these measures, it is defeating the purpose of disaster risk reduction efforts. There is general consensus that disaster risk reduction policy should focus on providing robust measures to cope with several risks, as linked to other forms of legislation (Pelling and Holloway, 2006). Policy implementation must be funded, it must be based on comprehensive and up-to-date information on national disaster risk reduction priorities, and it must have provisions for accountability (Britton, 2006; Mattingly, 2002; Schipper and Pelling, 2006).

Focus of the DMA and NDMF

The timing of the naming of the DMA was somewhat unfortunate. In the years following the promulgation of the DMA, 2003–04, significant international emphasis was placed on the use of the term ‘disaster risk management’ as opposed to ‘disaster management’ (UN, 2004; Bosher and Dainty, 2011). The reason behind this is the fact that ‘disaster management’ has many connotations of post-disaster activities, whereas the international (and national) focus had shifted towards ‘disaster risk management’. In 2005 the NDMF indicated the difference between the two terms and clearly stipulated that the term ‘disaster risk management’ was ‘preferred in this framework because it is consistent with the use of the term internationally’ (South Africa, 2005, p. 2). However, as van Niekerk (2007) shows, in practice much resistance towards


adopting the term ‘disaster risk management’ existed at the time. Over the past decade, South African practitioners and academics alike have opted to use the term ‘disaster risk management’ to indicate the function of ‘disaster management’ in gov-ernment as well as the multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary activities for reducing disaster risks (van Niekerk, 2008; Vermaak and van Niekerk, 2004; van Riet, 2009a). Various scholars in disaster risk management have commented on the progressive-ness and robustness of the DMA and NDMF—that is, the enforced decentralisation and disaster risk management focus with an emphasis on sectoral and community engagement.3 It should therefore come as no surprise that the DMA has significantly influenced the focus of the legislation and policies of other countries on disaster risk reduction, such as Botswana, India, Malawi, Namibia, and Zambia, to mention but a few.4 It would be safe to argue that from an international perspective, the contents of the DMA and NDMF are sound in terms of contemporary disaster risk reduc-tion (Pelling and Holloway, 2006; Wisner et al., 2011). However, previous research has highlighted some of the constraints and challenges in the implementation of the DMA and NDMF.

Institutional aspects

The implementation of the DMA and NDMF is hindered by the lack of a strong institutional basis. Although Chapters 2–5 of the DMA, as well as Key Performance Area (KPA) 1 of the NDMF, are quite explicit about the various institutional arrange-ments needed for effective disaster risk management, Botha et al. (2011) and van Riet and Diedericks (2010) find that these key structures are not always in place. If they are in place, they typically do not function adequately or productively. This is specifically true at the provincial and district levels, with metropolitan municipalities faring much better in this area (Botha et al., 2011). Even though the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) published a number of priority guidelines for the implementation of the DMA and NDMF in the format of handbooks,5 implementation does not readily occur. This situation is not unique to South Africa. Mattingly (2002) and Britton (2006) cite similar exam-ples in Asia. Linked to the above are the roles of the different sectoral departments and various organs of the state. In the ten years since the promulgation of the DMA, not all relevant national departments have implemented the required disaster risk man-agement activities, nor have they identified focal points for disaster risk management as required by the NDMF (South Africa, 2005; Botha et al., 2011). Research has shown that the failure of the DMA and NDMF to address disaster risk management at the local municipal level—as opposed to district and metro-politan municipalities—hinders the implementation of both the legislation and the policy (Botha et al., 2011; NDMC, 2009; van Riet and Diedericks, 2010; Visser and van Niekerk, 2009). According to Section 43 of the DMA, a district municipality is expected to establish and operate its disaster risk management function and activities in partnership and in cooperation with the local municipalities in its area of juris-diction (van Niekerk, 2006). Yet research by Botha et al. (2011) shows that more than


half of local municipalities in South Africa report that district municipalities did not consult them in establishing their disaster risk management structures. In contrast, Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution of South Africa stipulate the concurrent legislative competencies of provincial and local government spheres (South Africa, 1996). Yet disaster management is not one of the competencies allo-cated to local government, but rather to national and provincial government. Without this allocation, the DMA is arguably unconstitutional. However, legislation in South Africa may not contradict its Constitution but must add value to its core principles. The DMA (and NDMF), in this case, add such value. Furthermore, note should be taken of the public participation and open discussion process followed in the prom-ulgation of the DMA (van Niekerk, 2005). Without exception, all political parties in Parliament and the National Council of Provinces agreed to the need for, and content of, the DMA. This new allocation of the disaster risk management function to municipalities also followed the procedure as stipulated by the Municipal Systems Act No. 32 of 2000 (South Africa, 2000). The argument around the unconstitution-ality of the DMA is therefore invalid. Nevertheless, as mentioned, the Municipal Systems Act is quite specific in the allocation of new responsibilities to local govern-ment (South Africa, 2000, ss. 9–10). The principle of ‘funds follow the function’ applies. In the case of the DMA and according to the research of Visser and van Niekerk (2009), the disaster risk management function at the local government level (metro-politan and district municipalities) remains inadequately funded. Funding for disaster risk management is severely limited at the municipal level—or maladministered, according to research by van Zyl (2011). The fact that the DMA and NDMF are silent on the application of disaster risk management by local municipalities can also explain the limited attention disaster risk management receives at this level of government. In the light of the above, this paper argues that the failure of the DMA and NDMF to address the specific requirements of local municipalities in disaster risk management leads to the avoidance of responsibilities. However, success stories in implementing disaster risk management at the local municipality level do exist. In a number of instances, local municipalities have used the provisions of the DMA and NDMF to fully implement disaster risk management in their administration. Examples of the Polokwane Local Municipality (Limpopo Province), Drakenstein Municipality (Western Cape Province) and the Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality6 (Eastern Cape Province) can be cited (City of Polokwane, 2012; Drakenstein Municipality, 2013; Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality, 2011).

Placement of the disaster risk management function

South Africa is one of the few African countries that have not opted for the place-ment of the disaster risk management function within the highest political office—meaning that the National Disaster Management Centre has not been placed in the Office of the President or Deputy/Vice-President. This placement is similar to that of the Philippines, whose newly renamed National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council is situated in the Department of National Defence (Philippines,


2010). In South Africa, the National Disaster Management Centre is placed within a line ministry, the Department of Cooperative Governance. The rationale behind the placement of the disaster risk management function within the highest political office is centred around necessity and functionality. As a cross-sectoral coordinating function, disaster risk management necessitates the place-ment of the national centre within an environment that will allow for its effective functioning and the implementation of its mandate. Botha et al. (2011) indicate that provincial and local governments tend to follow the same institutional implemen-tation as does the national level of government. Thus, the problematic placement of the disaster risk management function at the national level is replicated at lower levels. Consequently, the functional application of disaster risk management—that is, organ-ising, leading, control, funding provision and coordination—and implementation of the DMA and NDMF became constrained. The problematic placement impacts directly on the authority of the NDMC in enforcing the DMA and NDMF. Similarly, in the Philippines, with the turn of the century, consideration was given to moving the disaster management function to the Office of the President (Mattingly, 2002). As this move did not take place, the results were similar to those experienced in South Africa (Britton, 2006). Closely linked to the placement of the disaster risk management function is the commitment and allocation of appropriate funding.

Funding of disaster risk management The research of Visser and van Niekerk (2009) and van Niekerk et al. (2011) contains ample information on the possible funding mechanisms for disaster risk management in South Africa. Funding in this instance relates to all aspects of disaster risk reduc-tion, including start-up costs for municipalities and ongoing disaster risk reduction activities (multi-sectoral), as well as disaster response and recovery funding. However, as van Niekerk et al. (2011) show, these funding mechanisms are not uniformly applied or implemented by all spheres of government. One of the main concerns raised by the mentioned research is the lack of disaster risk management and development planning (which is also a legislative requirement). The argument is that all development planning in a province or municipality must be planned for through the Integrated Development Planning process, which is directly linked to the allocated budget for the province or municipality. A core com-ponent of these development plans is the need for a disaster risk management plan. In this process, all development projects and planning must consider the disaster risk profile of the specific level of government before funding can be allocated. Schipper and Pelling (2006) stress the need for disaster risk reduction and devel-opment integration due to the dramatic rise in the number of disaster events and their impact on development gains. The DMA and the Municipal Systems Act place significant emphasis on the integration of disaster risk management in development planning. Yet research has demonstrated a lack of disaster risk reduction integration in development planning at all levels of government (Botha et al., 2011; Hoogstad and Kruger, 2008; van Riet, 2009a; 2009b; van Riet and van Niekerk, 2012). However, the lack of such integration at the local government level is especially worrisome


because this is the tier of government most responsible for development, achieving the objectives of a developmental South Africa (Koma, 2010; Pieterse, 2007), and reducing disaster risks. On perusal of several integrated development plans of local as well as district municipalities, van Riet (2009a; 2009b) finds very little evidence of such plans containing any reference to disaster risk management, let alone the existence of integrated disaster risk management plans.

Classification and declaration of disastersLastly, the literature points to a discrepancy in the classification and declaration of a state of disaster once risk materialises into disaster. The DMA and the NDMF make provision for the classification and declaration of states of disaster at the municipal, provincial and national levels (South Africa, 2002, ss. 23, 26, 27, 41, 55; 2005, Key Performance Area 4, s. 4.2). Both the DMA and the NDMF call for the development of uniform standards for the assessment of a potential disaster. One of the critiques emanating from this research centres around the guidelines that need to be developed as stipulated in the policy and legislation. The ‘key perfor-mance areas’ linked to Section 4.2 of the NDMF all refer to ‘guidelines and uniform methods’; however, with the exception of the abovementioned priority guidelines, these standards are yet to be developed. In view of this lack of standardisation, it stands to reason that the classification and declaration of a state of disaster will remain ambigu-ous at all levels of government. The first time a state of disaster was declared in South Africa under the DMA was in June 2008, in response to xenophobic attacks on foreigners in the Western Cape and Gauteng Provinces (South Africa, 2008a; 2008b). For five years, from 2003 to 2008, this section of the Act had not been invoked. Since then, a number of states of disasters have been declared, the most significant being the 2010–11 floods in most parts of South Africa. The declaration of these events tested the functionality and measures associated with such declarations. The process and procedures for declaring states of disasters are unclear and cumbersome. In almost all instances the difference between the classification and declaration was unclear, despite the explanations provided in the NDMF. Similarly, the roles of the district municipalities versus those of provinces, and versus those of the NDMC, were reportedly muddled. Considering the lack of clear guidance on this issue, this ambiguity should come as no surprise. The significant emphasis on the role of the NDMC in the classification and dec-laration of a state of disaster is questionable. One of the key aims of the DMA is the decentralisation of disaster risk management. Yet, in the classification and declara-tion of a state of disaster, it remains the role of the National Disaster Management Centre to undertake such classifications. Any event remains a local disaster until the NDMC classifies it otherwise. This requirement essentially disempowers municipali-ties from declaring a state of disaster. This situation leads to a shirking of responsi-bility and the perception that the NDMC will intervene if necessary. Complicating matters is the lack of clarity regarding the process for scaling up a disaster due to a ‘new’ classification by the NDMC. If, for example, the NDMC clas-


sifies a local disaster as a provincial disaster after conducting an assessment, it is the role of the provincial premier to declare a provincial state of disaster. Neither the DMA nor the NDMF makes provision for the process associated with such reclassification. The final criticism of the process of the declaration of a state of disaster relates to the duplication of declarations, which occurs once other legislation is invoked. The only other Act that makes provisions for the declaration of a disaster is the Fund-Raising Act No. 107 of 1978 (South Africa, 1978). This legislation is administered by the Department of Social Development and requires the declaration of a disaster—as opposed to the declaration of a state of disaster by the DMA—by the president of South Africa. The aim of the Fund-Raising Act is to address the relief of social dis-tress resulting from a disaster event. An assessment of the two Acts reveals contradictions and duplications. On the one hand, the DMA aims to decentralise the declaration of a state of disaster and makes provisions for such declarations before a hazardous event has turned into a disaster—hence the state of disaster. On the other, the Fund-Raising Act can only be used to declare a disaster; that event will already exceed the ability and resources of the affected community to deal with its consequences. Moreover, this declaration can only be made by the president, as opposed to the provincial premiers and municipal councils, which are involved in declaring local and provincial states of disaster. A review of the declared states of disasters since 2002 confirms this hypothesis. In all instances of disasters, the Fund-Raising Act was used to declare the event. Only since 2008 has the DMA been applied, but the Fund-Raising Act was also invoked, thus effecting a dual declaration. Not only does this situation call for an alignment of the DMA and the Fund-Raising Act, but it also underscores the need to develop very clear guidelines for the assessment, classification and declaration of states of disasters and to disseminate these to all spheres of government. The literature review discussed in this section forms the foundation of the research design. By identifying constraints and other issues associated with the implementation of the DMA and NDMF, the literature provides entry points for further analysis. The following sections describe the research methods used and present the research findings.

Research method Based on the issues identified in the literature review, a qualitative design was used to test and obtain the perceptions and attitudes of selected respondents. First, an e-mail questionnaire was distributed to a specific and purposively sampled target group encompassing individuals from sector departments and lower levels of government (n=8). The e-mail questionnaire asked the following open-ended questions:

• Do you think the DMA and NDMF have been successfully implemented since 2002? Please explain in detail.

• What are the major challenges and obstacles that you can identify with the imple-mentation of the DMA and NDMF?


• Do you think the DMA and NDMF makes adequate provision for the dynamics of disaster risk management on all levels of government in South Africa? Please explain in detail.

• Do the definitions in the DMA adequately allow for its interpretation?• Can you identify any omissions, or any new aspects that must be included in the

DMA and NDMF for successful disaster risk management?• Are there any specific sections of the DMA and NDMF that you feel must be

amended? Please explain in detail.

Secondly, responses to the open-ended questions were used to guide the develop-ment of an online questionnaire, which was distributed to approximately 150 indi-viduals (n=53) working at all levels of government, private sector and academic and research institutions. All respondents were sampled purposively regarding their specific knowledge of the DMA and NDMF. The online and email discussion responses were analysed and interpreted.7 Various themes were identified and these also formed the foundation of the discussion of the findings in this article. Triangulation in the research was achieved through cross-referencing with numerous recent research find-ings commissioned and undertaken by the NDMC (n.d.), the South African Local Government Association (Botha et al., 2011), the African Centre for Disaster Studies at North-West University (van Riet and Diedericks, 2010; Visser and van Niekerk, 2009) and the Financial and Fiscal Commission of South Africa (van Niekerk et al., 2011).

Results

The results of the online survey are represented by a number of categories emerging from the analysis of the data. Where appropriate, qualitative and quantitative find-ings are interlinked to add to the validity and richness of the results. The research

Table 2 Respondent breakdown per affiliation

Affiliation Percentage of respondents

National Disaster Management Centre 3.8

National government department or other organ of state 22.6

Provincial disaster risk management centre 11.3

Provincial government department or other organ of state 1.9

District or metropolitan disaster risk management centre 18.9

District or metropolitan government department or other organ of state 3.8

Local municipal disaster risk management centre or office 7.5

Local municipal government department or other organ of state 11.3

Private disaster risk management consultancy (private sector) 3.8

Academic and research institutions 15.1

Source: author.


indicated a number of constraints in the implementation of the DMA and NDMF. The following sections refer to some of the more salient issues and findings. Table 2 presents the affiliation of the respondents.

Implementation of the DMA and NDMFThe majority of the respondents (65.5%) stated that the DMA and NDMF make ad-equate provision for the implementation of disaster risk management in South Africa (see Table 3). The most critical respondents represented the disaster risk management centres at the district level. Qualitative responses from respondents in this category indicate that the lack of clear guidance on the role and function of local municipali-ties in disaster risk management is the hindering factor.

Constraints in the implementationThe major constraints identified by respondents were inadequate funding (76% of respondents), a lack of understanding of disaster risk management by other stake-holders (72%) and a lack of cooperation and involvement by other government depart-ments (72%). A lack of political will (60%), especially at local government level, was also highlighted. Sixty percent of the respondents also noted that the internal lack of human resources hindered the implementation of the DMA and NDMF (see Table 4). It is worth noting that except for the respondents from the category ‘national departments and organs of state’, all others (72% of the total) indicated that the lack of disaster risk reduction understanding is a constraint in the implementation of the

Table 3 Responses to the question, ‘Do you think that the DMA and NDMF make adequate

provision for the implementation of disaster risk management in South Africa?’

Affiliation Percentage of responses

Yes No Uncertain

National Disaster Management Centre 5.7 0 0

National government department or other organ of state 22.8 5.7 0

Provincial disaster risk management centre 8.5 2.9 2.9

Provincial government department or other organ of state 2.9 0 0

District or metropolitan disaster risk management centre 8.5 11.4 0

District or metropolitan government department or other organ of state 0 0 0

Local municipal disaster risk management centre or office 5.7 2.9 0

Local municipal government department or other organ of state 2.9 2.9 2.9

Private disaster risk management consultancy (private sector) 0 2.9 0

Academic and research institutions 8.5 0 0

Total 65.5 28.7 5.8

Source: author.


relevant policy and legislation. It may be deduced that national departments are overestimating their understanding and effective implementation of disaster risk man-agement. If the opposite were true, then the other respondents would most likely have placed much less emphasis on the lack of involvement by national sectoral depart-ments and organs of state.

Interpretation of the DMA and NDMF

The majority of the respondents (55.2%) indicated that the DMA makes adequate provision for its interpretation through the definitions listed in the document (see Table 5). While this is the perception of the majority, it is worrisome that close to half of the respondents dispute that the definitions in the Act facilitate implementa-tion. The qualitative analysis of responses to this question shows that the majority of the respondents argue that the name of the legislation should be changed. One sug-gested that the name be amended to ‘Disaster Risk Management Act’. The respond-ents qualified their responses by noting that the current title of the Act was not an

Table 4 Responses to the question, ‘What are the major challenges and obstacles that

you can identify with the implementation of the DMA and NDMF?’

Identified constraints Percentage of respondents

Lack of clear guidance 24.0

Lack of understanding (by other stakeholders) 72.0

Varied and different interpretation of the Act 36.0

Lack of political will 60.0

Inadequate funding 76.0

Lack of guidance or cooperation from other spheres of government 56.0

Lack of cooperation and involvement from other departments 72.0

Incorrect placement of the disaster risk management centre 32.0

Lack of human resource capacity 60.0

Lack of infrastructure capacity 56.0

Lack of adequate knowledge of disaster risk management 48.0

Source: author.

Table 5 Responses to the question, ‘Do the definitions in the DMA adequately allow for

its interpretation?’

Percentage of respondents

Yes No Uncertain

55.2 27.6 17.3

Source: author.


accurate reflection of what was happening in practice, which is disaster risk manage-ment, and not traditional disaster management. The research indicates that disaster risk management officials experience frustra-tion regarding the varied interpretations of the DMA, a finding that applies to the implementation of almost all legislation (Botha et al., 2011). To cater to the semi-autonomous, semi-federal state system of South Africa, the DMA contains numerous references to sections that ‘may’ or ‘must’ be implemented. For example, Section 5 of the DMA stipulates that ‘the Minister must establish a National Disaster Management Advisory Forum’ (emphasis added); however, Section 51 notes that ‘a metropolitan and district municipality may establish a municipality disaster management advisory forum’ (emphasis added). In contrast, Section 1.3.1.3 of the NDMF specifies that it is ‘strongly recommended that all metropolitan and district municipalities establish a municipality disaster management advisory forum’. The discrepancies in the messages communicated by the DMA and NDMF under-standably lead to varied interpretations and confusion. The majority of the respond-ents indicated that all the ‘may’ wording in the legislation should be amended to read ‘must’. One argument for such a change is that all the sections in which the ‘may’ references appear are prerequisites for the implementation of the ‘must’ sections of the NDMF.

Decentralised disaster risk management

Fifty-five percent of all the respondents said that the current three-tier disaster risk management dispensation in the DMA is not entirely functional or functioning. The qualitative responses varied according to the different affiliations of the respondents. Those representing the national level observed that the semi-autonomous dispensa-tion limits their oversight ability. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa designates the three spheres of government as semi-autonomous tiers (South Africa, 1996, s. 40). While the DMA cannot legally contradict the Constitution, national-level respondents indicated that the limits on authority over the lower levels of govern-ment complicate the implementation as well as monitoring, evaluation, transparency and accountability. Since no punitive measures can be invoked, only limited stand-ards can be enforced (as required by the DMA). This lack of a mandate over the other spheres of government has a direct impact on how disaster risk management is being applied. Interestingly, qualitative responses from the provincial and local spheres of govern-ment welcomed more oversight from the NDMC in the implementation of disaster risk management, as well as the development and enforcement of standards. Mention was also made by a number of respondents as to the varied successes in implementing the DMA and NDMF across provinces. Variations in the overall approach to disaster risk reduction are thus noticeable. A significant finding of the research is the emphasis placed by all respondents on the silence of the DMA and NDMF with respect to the exact role and responsibility of local municipalities in South Africa. This finding is in line with previous research


results discussed above. The failure of the DMA and NDMF to address the specific requirements of local municipalities in disaster risk management leads to the avoid-ance of responsibilities. This finding is ironic considering the international perspec-tive that the strength of the DMA and NDMF lies in the decentralisation of disaster risk reduction activities. The omission of the lowest level of local government—the local municipalities—is especially striking.

RecommendationsBased on the literature review, the assessment of South Africa’s disaster management legislation and policy framework, and survey responses, a number of recommenda-tions regarding the possible amendments to the DMA and NDMF can be made. In view of the evolution of disaster risk management in South Africa over the past ten years, it is strongly suggested that the name of the DMA be changed to read: Disaster Risk Management Act. Similarly, the NDMF should be renamed: National Disaster Risk Management Policy Framework. These changes would align the DMA and NDMF with international best practices as well as current scholarly and research focuses in disaster risk management. The DMA must make provision for the application and implementation of disaster risk reduction within local municipalities. Based on the responses on the decentrali-sation of disaster risk management, the Act must be amended to specifically indi-cate the role and function of local municipalities. This recommendation is in line with international findings on the need and importance of decentralised disaster risk reduction with emphasis on local ownership (GNDR, 2009). Such an amendment would ensure that the DMA and NDMF addressed disaster risk management where disaster risks are created. With respect to the interpretation of the DMA and NDMF, specific attention must be paid to the wording in the DMA as it relates to actions that ‘may’ and ‘must’ be taken. It would be prudent to change each ‘may’ in the Act to ‘must’, specifically in Sections 37(1), 43(2)(b), 51(1), 54(2) and 58(1). The use of ‘may’ and ‘must’ has created significant confusion and has led to varied interpretations of the Act. Standardisation to an enforceable ‘must’ would facilitate uniform application of the DMA and NDMF. Based on the assessment of the DMA and NDMF, the Act must clearly stipulate the placement of the National Disaster Management Centre and, subsequently, all other disaster risk management centres at the provincial and local government levels. The NDMC should be placed within the highest political or administrative body or office. The correct placement of the disaster risk management function of govern-ment will lead to better implementation and monitoring of the DMA and NDMF. An assessment of the literature on the classification and declaration of states of dis-aster indicates that the process for the classification and declaration of a state of disaster must be addressed and clarified. The Fund-Raising Act of 1978 should be amended to align it with the DMA. A single, defined and agreed process for the classification and declaration of states of disasters would allow for the deployment of rapid assistance


to wherever it is most needed. Such a process could be applied as a disaster risk reduc-tion measure and not only as a disaster response. The findings shown in Table 4 suggest that the NDMC should implement a robust monitoring and evaluation system. Such a system should encompass all the aspects of disaster risk management as they relate to the various spheres of government, as well as all organs of state. A monitoring and evaluation system would add to the accountability of disaster risk management, enhance corrective actions, identify where timely assistance is needed and facilitate redress. Lastly, the findings in Table 4 also indicate that the NDMC should embark on a countrywide capacity development initiative in partnership with institutions of higher learning. Political decision-makers, multi-sectoral stakeholders and disaster risk management officials must receive focused training and guidance on the correct interpretation and implementation of the DMA, as well as on budgeting for disaster risk reduction.

ConclusionThis article presents an in-depth study and critique of the South African Disaster Management Act and National Disaster Management Policy Framework. It highlights the most salient issues of concern in these two documents through a literature review and original research. The DMA and NDMF provide a strong legislative and policy mandate to all spheres of government towards the realisation of the ideal of disaster risk reduction. However, the research findings are a clear indication that the imple-mentation of the policy and legislation has not been entirely successful. A function-ing democracy is one that constantly assesses how it is faring and makes necessary changes to its governance. The DMA and NDMF of South Africa have reached a point—with the DMA having been promulgated more than ten years ago—at which certain amendments are needed in order for disaster risk reduction to become a real-ity for communities most at risk.

CorrespondenceDewald van Niekerk, Director, African Centre for Disaster Studies, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, North West Province 2520, South Africa.Telephone: +27 (0)18 299 1634; e-mail: [email protected].

Endnotes1 South Africa has three different types of municipalities: local, district (consisting of a number of

local municipalities), and metropolitan (which do not comprise any local or district municipalities).2 See, for example, Bankoff (2003); Cardona, Ordaz and Marulanda (2010); Hewitt (1997); Quarantelli (1998);

and Smith (2009).


3 See, for example, Pelling and Holloway (2006); Strydom (2006); van Niekerk (2005; 2006); van Riet (2009a; 2009b); Wisner et al. (2011).

4 See Botswana (2008); India (2005); Malawi (2011); Namibia (2009); and Zambia (2010).5 See NDMC and Reid (2008a–f ).6 Buffalo City received metropolitan status after the 2011 local government elections (Province of

the Eastern Cape, 2008a; 2008b).7 See Tesch (1990).

ReferencesBankoff, G. (2003) Cultures of Disaster. London: Routledge.Bosher, L. (2008) Hazards and the Built Environment: Attaining Built-in Resilience. Oxon: Taylor & Francis.Bosher, L. and A. Dainty (2011) ‘Disaster Risk Reduction and “Built-in” Resilience: Towards Over-

arching Principles for Construction Practice’. Disasters. 35(1), pp. 1–18.Botha, D. et al. (2011) Disaster Risk Management Status Assessment at Municipalities in South Africa.

Pretoria: SALGA.Botswana (2008) Draft National Disaster Risk Management Plan. Gaborone: Government of Botswana.Britton, N.R. (2006) Getting the Foundation Right: In Pursuit of Effective Disaster Legislation for the Philippines.

Paper presented at the Second Asian Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2006. Manila, 10–11 March.

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municiaplity (2011) Integrated Development Plan. East London, South Africa: Buffalo City Metropolitan Municiaplity.

Cardona, O., M. Ordaz and M. Marulanda (2010) ‘Disaster Risk from a Macroeconomic Perspective: A Metric for Fiscal Vulnerability Evaluation’. Disasters. 34(4), pp. 1064–83.

City of Polokwane (2012) Integrated Development Plan. Polokwane, South Africa: City of Polokwane.Colombia (2009) Informe Nacional del Progreso en la Implementación del Marco de Acción de Hyogo. Bogotá:

Dirección de Prevención y Atención de Desastres, Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia.Drakenstein Municipality (2013) Integrated Development Plan. Paarl, South Africa: Drakenstein

Municipality.GNDR (Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction) (2009) Clouds but

Little Rain. . . : Views from the Frontline—A Local Perspective of Progress towards Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action. Teddington, United Kingdom: GNDR.

Hewitt, K. (1997) Regions of Risk. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Hoogstad, W.J. and C. Kruger (2008) The Link between Development Planning and Disaster Risk Manage-

ment in Selected Municipalities. Potchefstroom, South Africa: African Centre for Disaster Studies.India (2005) Disaster Management Act 53 of 2005. New Delhi: Government of India.Koma, S.B. (2010) ‘The State of Local Government in South Africa: Issues, Trends and Options’.

Journal of Public Administration. 45(1.1), pp. 111–20.Malawi (2011) Draft National Disaster Risk Management Policy. Lilongwe, Malawi: Department

of Disaster Management Affairs.Mattingly, S. (2002) Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangements. Regional Workshop on Best Practices

in Disaster Mitigation. Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, Bangkok. 25–27 April.McEntire, D.A. (2007) Disciplines, Disasters, and Emergency Management. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Namibia (2009) National Disaster Risk Management Policy. Windhoek: Government of Namibia.NDMC (National Disaster Management Centre) (2009) National Education, Training and Research Needs

and Resources Analysis (NETaRNRA) for Disaster Risk Management in South Africa: Report. Pretoria: COGTA.

NDMC (n.d.) Website. http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Documents/Publications.aspx.


NDMC and P.M. Reid (2008a) Handbook 1: Introducing the South African Disaster Risk Management Hand-book Series—Scoping the Implementation Process. South African Disaster Risk Management Hand-book Series: District Municipalities. Version 1.1. Pretoria: NDMC. http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Documents/PriorityGuidelines.aspx.

NDMC and P.M. Reid (2008b) Handbook 2: Introducing the South African Disaster Risk Management Hand-book Series—Establishing Foundational Institutional Arrangements for Disaster Risk Management. South African Disaster Risk Management Handbook Series: District Municipalities. Version 1.1. Pretoria: NDMC. http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Documents/PriorityGuidelines.aspx.

NDMC and P.M. Reid (2008c) Handbook 1: Introducing the South African Disaster Risk Management Hand-book Series—Scoping the Implementation Process. South African Disaster Risk Management Hand-book Series: Metropolitan Municipalities. Version 1.1. Pretoria: NDMC. http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Documents/PriorityGuidelines.aspx.

NDMC and P.M. Reid (2008d) Handbook 2: Introducing the South African Disaster Risk Management Hand-book Series—Establishing Foundational Institutional Arrangements for Disaster Risk Management. South African Disaster Risk Management Handbook Series: Metropolitan Municipalities. Version 1.1. Pretoria: NDMC. http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Documents/PriorityGuidelines.aspx.

NDMC and P.M. Reid (2008e) Handbook 1: Introducing the South African Disaster Risk Management Hand-book Series—Scoping the Implementation Process. South African Disaster Risk Management Hand-book Series: Provinces. Version 1.1. Pretoria: NDMC. http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Documents/PriorityGuidelines.aspx.

NDMC and P.M. Reid (2008f ) Handbook 2: Introducing the South African Disaster Risk Management Hand-book Series—Establishing Foundational Institutional Arrangements for Disaster Risk Management. South African Disaster Risk Management Handbook Series: Provinces. Version 1.1. Pretoria: NDMC. http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Documents/PriorityGuidelines.aspx.

Pelling, M. and A. Holloway (2006) Legislation for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction. Teddington, United Kingdom: Tearfund.

Philippines (2010) National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act No 10121. Manila: Government of the Philippines.

Pieterse, E. (2007) South African Local Governance: Ambitions, Experiences and Challenges. Paper presented at the planning workshop of ‘Trilateral Dialogue on the Role of Local Government within a Developmental State’. Bonn, 26 February–3 March 2007.

Province of the Eastern Cape (2008a) Notice 166 of 2008. Municipal Demarcation Board. Bisho: Government Printer.

Province of the Eastern Cape (2008b) Notice 261 of 2008. Municipal Demarcation Board. Bisho: Government Printer.

Quarantelli, E.L. (1998) What Is a Disaster? A Dozen Perspectives on the Question. New York: Routledge.Reid, P.M. (2005) A Model for an Incident Management System for South Africa. Master’s dissertation.

Potchefstroom, South Africa: North-West University.Reid, P.M. and D. van Niekerk (2008) ‘A Model for a Multi-agency Response Management System

(MARMS) for South Africa’. Disaster Prevention and Management. 17(2), pp. 244–55.Schipper, L. and M. Pelling (2006) ‘Disaster Risk, Climate Change and International Development:

Scope for, and Challenges to, Integration’. Disasters. 30(1), pp. 19–38.Smith, K. (2009) Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster. 5th edn. New York:

Routledge.South Africa (1978) Fund-Raising Act 107 of 1978. Pretoria: Government Printer.South Africa (1996) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Act 108 of 1996. Pretoria: Govern-

ment Printer.South Africa (1998) Green Paper on Disaster Management. Pretoria: Government Printer.South Africa (1999) White Paper on Disaster Management. Pretoria: Government Printer.


South Africa (2000) Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000. Pretoria: Government Printer.South Africa (2002) Disaster Management Act, 2002 (Act 57 of 2002). Pretoria: Government Printer.South Africa (2005) National Disaster Management Policy Framework. Pretoria: Government Printer.South Africa (2008a) ‘Classification of a Disaster: Western Cape Province’. Notice 31130. No. 640.

Pretoria: Government Printer.South Africa (2008b) ‘Classification of a Disaster: Gauteng Province’. Notice 31130. No. 641. Pretoria:

Government Printer.South Africa (2013) ‘Disaster Management Amendment Bill’. Government Gazette. No. 36580. Pretoria:

Government Printer.Strydom, E.M.L. (2006) Essential Social Security Law. 2nd edn. Cape Town: Juta.Tesch, R. (1990) Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. New York: Flamer.UN (United Nations) (2004) Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. Geneva:

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.UN (2011) Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Revealing Risk, Redefining Development.

Oxford: Information Press. UNISDR (2005) Hyogo Framework for Action: Building the Resilient of Nations and Communities

to Disaster. Geneva: UNISDR. UNISDR (n.d.) ‘Terminology: Disaster Risk Reduction’. Geneva: UNISDR. http://www.unisdr.

org/we/inform/terminology.van Niekerk, D. (2005) A Comprehensive Framework for Multi-sphere Disaster Risk Reduction in South Africa.

Ph.D. thesis. Potchefstroom, South Africa: North-West University.van Niekerk, D. (2006) ‘Disaster Risk Management in South Africa: The Function and the Activity—

Towards an Integrated Approach’. politeia. 25(2), pp. 95–115.van Niekerk, D. (2007) ‘Disaster Risk Reduction, Disaster Risk Management and Disaster Management:

Academic Rhetoric or Practical Reality?’ Disaster Management: Southern Africa. 4(1), pp. 6–9.van Niekerk, D. (2008) ‘From Disaster Relief to Disaster Risk Reduction: A Consideration of the

Evolving International Relief Mechanism’. Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa. 4(2), pp. 355–75.

van Niekerk, D. et al. (2011) Alternative Financing Model for Disaster Risk Reduction in South Africa. Pretoria: Financial and Fiscal Commission.

van Riet, G. (2009a) ‘Disaster Risk Assessment in South Africa: Some Current Challenges’. South African Review of Sociology. 40(2), pp. 194–208.

van Riet, G. (2009b) ‘Qualitative and Quantitative Community Level Approaches: Disaster Risk Assessment in the Fezile Dabi District Municipality’. Africanus: Journal of Development Studies. 39(2), pp. 31–43.

van Riet, G. and M. Diedericks (2010) ‘The Placement of Disaster Management Centres in District, Metropolitan Municipality and Provincial Government Structures’. Administratio Publica. 18(4), pp. 155–73.

van Riet, G. and D. van Niekerk (2012) ‘Capacity Development for Participatory Disaster Risk Assess-ment’. Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions. 11(3), pp. 213–25. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2012.688793.

van Zyl, K. (2011) Guidelines for Mainstreaming the Funding Mechanism for Recovery and Response as Part of Disaster Risk Management. Draft report. February. Pretoria: Agri SA.

Vermaak, J. and D. van Niekerk (2004) ‘Disaster Risk Reduction Initiatives in South Africa’. Development Southern Africa. 21(3), pp. 555–74.

Visser, C.B. and D. van Niekerk (2009) A Funding Model for the Disaster Risk Management Function in Municipalities in South Africa. Potchefstroom, South Africa: African Centre for Disaster Studies. http://acds.co.za/uploads/research_reports/drm_funding_ver1.pdf.

Vogel, C., S. Moser and R. Kasperson (2007) ‘Linking Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Resilience Science to Practice: Pathways, Players, and Partnerships’. Global Environmental Change. 17, pp. 349–64.


Williams, G. (2011) Study on Disaster Risk Reduction, Decentralization and Political Economy: Global Assessment Report on Disaster Reduction. Geneva: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

Wisner, B. et al. (2011) Political Will for Disaster Reduction: What Incentives Build It, and Why Is It So Hard to Achieve? A Contribution to the Review of the Draft Global Assessment Report on Disaster Reduction 2011. Geneva: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, chs. 5–7.

Zambia (2010) Disaster Management Act 13 of 2010. Lusaka: Government of Zambia.

A critical analysis of the South African Disaster Management Act and Policy Framework

Documents

Transcript of A critical analysis of the South African Disaster Management Act and Policy Framework