IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

Chapter 9Case Studiesbeen established in a majority of municipalities. Although municipalitiesreported good progress in integrating their disaster management plansinto integrated development plans (Botha et al., 2011), such plans asyet contain little evidence of integration (Van Niekerk, 2011).Provincial and municipal levels attribute the lack of progress inimplementing the Act and Framework to inadequate resources forstart-up costs for municipalities as well as for the continuous operationsof disaster risk reduction projects (Visser and Van Niekerk, 2009; NDMC,2010). There is also the continuing need for resources for responserecovery and rehabilitation activities. Reasons for the lack of fundinginclude a lack of clarity of the Act on funding sources and confusionregarding the processes to access various sources of funding (Visser andVan Niekerk, 2009). Although the mechanisms to obtain funding exist,not all municipalities and provinces are using them, hence the perceptionof inadequate funding persists (Van Niekerk, 2011). In some cases thereappears to be an absolute lack of funds, such as in district municipalities,which are more rural and less densely populated, and have a narrowertax base to fund DRR (Van Riet and Diedericks, 2010). This situation issimilar to that in other countries, such as Colombia, where more than80% of municipalities are able to assign only 20% of their own nonearmarkedresources to risk reduction and disaster response. Becausethe law does not stipulate percentages and amounts, municipalitiesallocate minimal sums for disaster risk reduction (MIJ, 2009) givencompeting infrastructure and social spending needs (Cardona andYamín, 2007).South Africa and Colombia’s experiences are replayed around the world.Governments informed in their 2011 Hyogo Framework progress reportsthat the lack of efficient and appropriate budget allocations remains oneof the major challenges for effective disaster risk reduction legislation(UNISDR, 2011a). Even in countries in which funding for disaster riskmanagement is mandated by law, actual resource allocation for disasterrisk reduction remains low and is concentrated in preparedness andresponse (UNDP, 2007). The Philippines has new legislation thatattempts to address these issues. The Philippines new Disaster RiskReduction and Management Act 10121 renames the Local CalamityFund as the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund andstipulates that no less than 5% shall be set aside for risk managementand preparedness (Republic of the Philippines, 2010). Further, to carryout the provisions of the Act, the Commission allocated one billionpesos or US$ 21.5 million (Republic of the Philippines, 2010). Unspentmoney will remain in the fund to promote risk reduction and disasterpreparedness. The adequacy of this provision has yet to be tested as theAct is recent and implementation has yet to begin.In South Africa, all relevant national departments have yet to undertakerequired DRR activities or identified sectoral focal points; consequently,the advisory committee at the national level is not yet functioningoptimally (Van Niekerk, 2011). Similarly, at provincial and municipal levels,departmental representatives are absent or too junior to make decisionsat meetings, reflecting lack of understanding about their department’srole in DRR and about DRR generally (Van Riet and Diedericks, 2010).Moreover, as mentioned above, between 55 and 73% of municipalitieshave not established a committee, which Botha et al. (2011) point outhampers local government’s ability to implement integrated multisectoralDRM.The Philippines’ Climate Change Act, enacted in 2009, addresses thechallenge of inter-sectoral government collaboration by creating acommission to be chaired by the president and attached to that office, thusensuring highest-level political support for collaborative implementationof the law (Republic of the Philippines, 2009). The commission is composedof the secretaries of all relevant departments as well as the Secretary ofthe Department of National Defense, as Chair of the National DisasterCoordinating Council, and representatives from the disaster risk reductioncommunity. The main functions of the Commission are to “ensure themainstreaming of climate change, in synergy with disaster risk reduction,into the national, sectoral, and local development plans and programs”and to create a panel of technical experts, “consisting of practitionersin disciplines that are related to climate change, including disaster riskreduction” (Republic of the Philippines, 2009).Implementing the multi-sectoral DRM envisioned by South Africa’slegislation may be hindered by the placement of the National DisasterManagement Centre within a line ministry (the Department ofCooperative Governance) (Van Niekerk, 2011). Sub-national levels havelikewise placed their centers within sectors with insufficient politicalauthority; consequently, local municipal and district levels rate currentinterdepartmental collaboration as low (Botha et al., 2011). This placementallows other departments to disregard DRM, as the National DisasterManagement Centre cannot enforce punitive measures (Van Niekerk,2011).Similar to South Africa’s arrangements, the Philippines’ highestpolicymaking and coordinating body for disaster risk management, theNational Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (formerlycalled the National Disaster Coordinating Council), sits within theDepartment of National Defense. As such, it is focused on disasterpreparedness and response and does not have sustainable developmentand poverty reduction responsibilities. The Philippines’ new DisasterRisk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 attempts to redress thisissue by including experts from all relevant fields as members of theCouncil and expressly defining its mandate on mainstreaming disasterrisk reduction into sustainable development and poverty reductionstrategies, policies, plans, and budgets at all levels (Republic of thePhilippines, 2010).Positioning DRR institutions within the highest levels of government hasproven effective because this position often determines the amount ofpolitical authority of the national disaster risk management body(UNDP, 2007; UNISDR, 2009a). National disaster risk managementoffices attached to prime ministers’ offices usually can take initiativesaffecting line ministries, while their colleagues operating at the subministeriallevel often face administrative bottlenecks (UNDP, 2007).High-level support is particularly important to enable disaster risk521