Weaknesses of the Disaster and Risk Management Systems in South Africa

Abstract

Background: South Africa, like many other nations, faces a myriad of natural and man-made

Full text

Weaknesses of the Disaster and Risk Management Systems in South Africa
Dr. Zamokuhle Mbandlwa
Department of Public Administration and Economics,
The Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa.
ZamokuhleM@dut.ac.za
21240964@dut4life.ac.za
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7528-3565
Abstract
Background: South Africa, like many other nations, faces a myriad of natural and man-made
disasters. The efficacy of disaster and risk management systems in the country is pivotal in
mitigating the impact of such events on communities and infrastructure.
Purpose: This paper aims to identify and analyse the weaknesses inherent in the disaster and
risk management systems of South Africa. By exploring these weaknesses, it seeks to provide
insights into areas requiring improvement and potential strategies for enhancing the country's
resilience to disasters.
Objectives: The primary objectives of this paper are to assess the current state of disaster and
risk management frameworks in South Africa, identify key weaknesses, examine their
underlying causes, and propose recommendations for addressing these shortcomings.
Findings: Through a comprehensive review of existing literature and empirical evidence, this
paper uncovers several weaknesses in South Africa's disaster and risk management systems.
These include inadequate infrastructure, limited resources, insufficient coordination among
stakeholders, gaps in policy implementation, and socioeconomic disparities exacerbating
vulnerability.
Conclusion: The findings underscore the urgent need for concerted efforts to strengthen South
Africa's disaster and risk management capabilities. Addressing the identified weaknesses
requires a multi-faceted approach encompassing policy reform, capacity-building initiatives,
community engagement, and enhanced collaboration between government agencies, civil
society organizations, and international partners. By addressing these weaknesses, South Africa

can bolster its resilience to disasters and better protect its population and assets in the face of
future hazards.
Keywords: South Africa, Disaster management, Risk management, Weaknesses, Resilience
Introduction
South Africa, a country rich in cultural diversity and natural resources, is no stranger to the
challenges posed by natural and man-made disasters. With a landscape that encompasses
coastal regions, mountains, deserts, and urban centres, the nation faces a myriad of risks
ranging from floods and wildfires to industrial accidents and pandemics (Srivastav, Srivastav
and Nishida 2019). In response to these threats, South Africa has developed disaster and risk
management systems aimed at mitigating the impact of such events on its population and
infrastructure (Toulmin 2009). However, despite concerted efforts, these systems are not
without their weaknesses. This paper explores the vulnerabilities inherent in South Africa's
disaster and risk management frameworks, examining factors such as institutional capacity,
resource allocation, socio-economic disparities, and governance issues that contribute to their
limitations. By understanding these weaknesses, stakeholders can work towards bolstering the
nation's resilience and ensuring more effective responses to future crises (Ross 2011).
Disaster Management in South Africa
Disasters, whether triggered by human activities or natural phenomena, are sometimes
unpredictable events. It is crucial for governments to effectively manage such occurrences, as
they can have significant impacts on both human populations and the environment.
Governments play a vital role in disaster management through the enactment of legislation,
allocation of resources, and the implementation of rational planning and sustainable
development strategies. Disaster management and planning are integral components of
governmental responsibilities (Davies 2015).
Disasters stem from a range of causes, including both natural occurrences and human actions.
The response required to address them can strain the capacities of both communities and
governments. However, certain disasters exhibit patterns that allow for proactive planning,
prevention, and mitigation efforts.

Disaster management seeks to minimize the occurrence of disasters and mitigate their impact
through coordinated efforts at various levels of government. Municipalities are mandated to
develop comprehensive disaster management plans as part of their broader Integrated
Development Plans, ensuring preparedness and resilience. These plans encompass the
establishment of structures and mechanisms for disaster response, as well as the identification
and management of regular disaster occurrences (Alexander 2018).
In situations where local capacities are exceeded, higher levels of government step in to
coordinate response efforts and mobilize additional resources. Collaboration with external
entities such as the military and volunteer organizations may also be necessary.
Disaster management activities encompass a range of measures, including coordinating
response agencies, developing and practicing contingency plans, and providing education and
training initiatives. The declaration of disaster areas enables governments to allocate resources
swiftly for immediate relief and reconstruction efforts. This involves the submission of
proposals by local and provincial authorities to the national government for expedited action
(Wijkman and Timberlake 2021).
Understanding potential disaster hazards in specific areas is crucial for effective preparedness
and response. These hazards may include mass events, storms, floods, fires, oil spills, transport
accidents, and hazardous material spills. Preventive measures at the community level involve
building awareness, resilience, and self-reliance. Public education, adherence to safety
guidelines, and the implementation of practical measures can significantly reduce the risk of
disasters, particularly fire incidents common in impoverished areas and informal settlements.
By implementing robust disaster management plans, communities and governments can
mitigate the impact of disasters and enhance overall resilience, thereby safeguarding lives and
livelihoods (Smith 2013).
South Africa confronts escalating levels of disaster risk, encompassing various weather hazards
such as droughts, cyclones, and severe storms, which can lead to widespread adversity and
destruction. Additionally, its extensive coastline and proximity to shipping routes expose it to
numerous marine and coastal threats. The country shares borders with six southern African
nations, posing cross-boundary risks, both natural and human-induced, as well as humanitarian
obligations during emergencies. Despite progress in extending essential services to
impoverished urban and rural areas, a significant portion of the population resides in conditions
of chronic disaster vulnerability. These areas, underserved or ecologically fragile, face

recurrent threats ranging from droughts to frequent informal settlement fires (Slovic and Weber
2013).
Legislative reform in disaster risk management gained urgency following severe floods in Cape
Town's historically disadvantaged Cape Flats in June 1994. This stimulated a consultative
process leading to Green and White Papers on Disaster Management. These documents
facilitated consultation with various stakeholder groups, laying the groundwork for draft
legislation in 2000 consistent with international trends in disaster risk reduction. Subsequent
efforts culminated in the promulgation of the Disaster Management Act, 2002 (Act No. 57 of
2002) on January 15, 2003.
The Act establishes an integrated and coordinated disaster risk management policy, focusing
on prevention, mitigation, preparedness, effective response, and post-disaster recovery. It
mandates the establishment of national, provincial, and municipal disaster management
centres, along with disaster risk management volunteers.
Recognizing the diverse roles of government, civil society, and the private sector in disaster
risk reduction, the Act emphasizes the need for uniformity in approach. The national disaster
management framework, outlined in the Act, aims to provide a coherent, transparent, and
inclusive policy appropriate for the entire country (Birkmann, Buckle, Jaeger, Pelling, Setiadi,
Garschagen, Fernando and Kropp 2010).
The framework acknowledges various risks and disasters in southern Africa, prioritizing
developmental measures to reduce vulnerability. It emphasizes disaster prevention and
mitigation as core principles, in line with international best practices.
The national disaster management framework informs the development of provincial and
municipal disaster management frameworks and plans. It comprises four key performance
areas (KPAs) and three supportive enablers, guided by specified objectives and key
performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor progress (Eiser, Bostrom, Burton, Johnston,
McClure, Paton, Van Der Pligt and White 2012).
Supportive enablers focus on information management and communication, education,
training, public awareness, research, and funding mechanisms for disaster risk management.
The establishment of an effective policy-making process, integrated direction, and
implementation mechanisms are essential for effective disaster risk management. This involves
intergovernmental coordination, stakeholder participation, and international cooperation. Key

performance indicators track the effectiveness of these arrangements (Gordon and Young
2021).
Weaknesses of disaster management in South Africa
Bruwer, van Staden, Le Roux and van Niekerk (2017) delve into the domain of disaster
management and risk reduction in South Africa in Chapter 13. They commence by
underscoring the findings from the 2015 Global Assessment Report, which indicates a rising
trend in mortality and economic losses linked with extensive risks in low and middle-income
nations. These risks, characterized by recurrent but minor disasters, have inflicted substantial
damage amounting to US$94 billion across 85 countries and territories over the past decade.
The authors emphasize the significance of addressing these pervasive risks, which often go
unnoticed and are underestimated, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities and
hindering long-term development prospects (Van Niekerk 2014).
In South Africa, the scenario mirrors the global trend, with the populace frequently facing not
only major disasters but also a plethora of recurrent natural hazards such as droughts, floods,
fires, cyclones, and severe storms. The cumulative impact of these hazards translates into loss
of life, infrastructure damage, environmental degradation, and disruptions in various spheres
of life. Scarce resources, diverted towards disaster relief, exacerbate the challenges faced by
poverty-stricken communities, impeding sustainable growth and development. Moreover,
factors like climate change and urbanization exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, necessitating
proactive disaster risk reduction measures to safeguard against the escalating threat to poverty
alleviation and sustainable development (Williams, Máñez Costa, Celliers and Sutherland
2018).
The disaster management and risk reduction strategies in South Africa, using fire hazards as a
case study. Alarmingly high casualties and injuries from fires prompt a critical examination of
disaster risk factors and their ramifications.
Findings and discussions
In 2005, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) was adopted by 168 UN Member States. It
comprised three strategic goals and five Priorities for Action aimed at significantly reducing
disaster losses, encompassing human lives as well as social, economic, and environmental
assets of communities and nations. Governments have been evaluating their progress in
implementing the HFA since 2007 using the online HFA Monitor. Through three biennial

reporting cycles, governments have compared their performance in each Priority for Action
against 22 Core Indicators, providing supporting evidence and verification methods. The
extensive collection of over four hundred HFA Progress Reports since 2007 serves as a valuable
public archive, offering insights into how countries are tackling the HFA and the associated
challenges, issues, and opportunities (Von Oelreich 2015).
The Third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction took take place in Sendai City, Japan,
in March 2015. During this conference, countries adopted a new Post-2015 Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction to succeed the HFA. In 2013, the Chair's Summary of the Global
Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction urged UNISDR to spearhead efforts in developing targets
and indicators for monitoring risk reduction and the implementation of the post-2015
framework (Olowu 2010).
As a preliminary step towards devising a new progress monitoring system, UNISDR conducted
a detailed analysis of the HFA Progress Reports submitted by countries thus far. This analysis
has been reflected in the biennial UN Global Assessment Reports on Disaster Risk Reduction
and a standalone 2013 publication titled "Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action
Summary of reports 2007-2013." Unlike previous endeavours, the current publication delves
deeper into the majority of HFA Progress Reports from 2011 and 2013, focusing on identifying
the primary challenges, issues, and opportunities that countries encounter and must address in
the post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction. Additionally, it evaluates the suitability of
the HFA Core Indicators for measuring progress in disaster risk reduction, serving as a crucial
input for designing a new system of indicators for progress monitoring (Zhou, Perera,
Jayawickrama and Adeniyi 2014).
The study utilizes 22 HFA core indicators and presents UNISDR's analysis of the qualitative
aspect of countries' key policies for addressing disaster risk. Moreover, it highlights several
challenges and good practices associated with each HFA core indicator to contribute to
discussions on a new indicator system.
The analysis in this study is confined to countries that submitted an HFA progress report during
the 2011-13 and 2009-2011 periods. Due to resource limitations, the analysis primarily focuses
on reports written in English, although insights from reports in French and Spanish from
2011/13 have been included where possible.

The UNISDR examined the progress reports of countries voluntarily submitted during the
2009-11 and 2011-13 cycles of the HFA. These reports offer valuable insights into the
challenges countries face in implementing disaster risk management (DRM) policies and
activities, as well as showcasing effective practices for future planning. The analysis reveals
recurring challenges that transcend geographical regions and affect countries globally, which
includes South Africa (Shaw, Islam and Mallick 2013).
One common challenge reported is the inadequate implementation of monitored activities.
Despite the existence of DRM plans and risk-sensitive building codes, enforcement is often
lacking due to government capacity issues, low public awareness, or extensive development in
the informal sector. Furthermore, although risk assessments yield valuable information, it often
fails to translate into policy due to policymakers' unfamiliarity with its application. Simply
staging public awareness campaigns may not suffice, as they may not lead to tangible changes
in behaviour. Hence, it is crucial to ensure that risk assessment data and institutional
arrangements effectively influence behaviour at all levels to enhance risk management
(Matsuoka and Shaw 2011).
Another prevalent challenge is the necessity to bolster local capacities for DRM
implementation, including the establishment of local-level mechanisms and risk assessments.
Weak local capacity undermines the enforcement of building codes and land use plans,
necessitating the adaptation of national policies to local contexts. Climate change integration
into DRM poses a third challenge, as it requires adjustments in risk assessment, research,
building codes, and land use planning. Although some countries have amalgamated DRM and
climate change adaptation policies, achieving effective policy coordination remains an ongoing
endeavour (Matsuoka and Shaw 2012).
Additionally, DRM policymakers encounter obstacles in garnering political and economic
commitment due to competing priorities. Despite the acknowledgment of the importance of
reducing disaster risks, inadequate funding and attention are allocated due to other pressing
issues like poverty reduction and economic growth. Poor coordination among stakeholders
further complicates DRM efforts, emphasizing the need for enhanced information sharing and
mainstreaming of DRM across policy areas.
Lastly, while some countries are transitioning from a response-based emergency management
paradigm to the DRM paradigm embodied by the HFA, others are advancing beyond the HFA

towards a new paradigm where disaster risk management is integral to sustainable
development. This ongoing paradigm shift necessitates clear evidence, including cost-benefit
analysis, to demonstrate the practicality and necessity of DRM commitment alongside other
priorities (Matsuoka and Shaw 2014).
Source: UNISDR , 2009
Table 1 outlines a comparison between the traditional paradigm for addressing risks and a new
paradigm, specifically in the context of disaster management and risk reduction. Exogenous
risks are perceived as external events or factors, often viewed as unpredictable or beyond
control. Endogenous risks are recognized as embedded within development processes,
implying that they can be influenced or mitigated through various interventions. Traditional
Paradigm focuses on recognizing problems when they occur, often leading to reactive
responses. New Paradigm emphasizes the need for proactive measures, such as disaster risk
reduction (DRR), to address underlying factors contributing to risk. There is a need for
Effective Response and Recovery. Traditional Paradigm relies on contingency plans and
emergency drills to respond to disasters after they occur. New Paradigm prioritizes investments
in early warning systems and DRR measures like infrastructure improvements to enhance
preparedness and resilience. Main Policy Tools and Traditional Paradigm primarily involves
contingency plans and emergency drills. New Paradigm incorporates a broader range of tools
including early warning systems, DRR investments such as levee construction, land use

planning, and ecosystem management to address underlying risk factors. Required Knowledge
and Traditional Paradigm focuses on risk and loss assessment. On the other hand, New
Paradigm expands the scope to include socio-economic impact assessments alongside risk and
loss assessments to better understand the broader implications of disasters.
Overall, the table highlights a shift from reactive, event-driven approaches to proactive, holistic
strategies for disaster risk reduction, emphasizing the integration of risk management into
development processes and the engagement of diverse stakeholders to build resilience and
achieve sustainable development goals (Enia 2013).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the weaknesses within South Africa's Disaster and Risk Management systems
represent significant challenges that need urgent attention and reform. The lack of adequate
infrastructure, resources, coordination, and implementation strategies undermines the country's
ability to effectively respond to and mitigate disasters (Wanner 2020). Addressing these
weaknesses requires a comprehensive approach involving government, civil society, and
international stakeholders to prioritize investment in infrastructure, capacity-building, and
community resilience programs. By bolstering these areas, South Africa can better safeguard
its population, infrastructure, and environment from the increasing frequency and severity of
disasters, thereby fostering a safer and more resilient society for all its citizens (Maskrey 2019).

References
Alexander, D. 2018. Natural disasters. Routledge.
Birkmann, J., Buckle, P., Jaeger, J., Pelling, M., Setiadi, N., Garschagen, M., Fernando, N. and
Kropp, J. 2010. Extreme events and disasters: a window of opportunity for change? Analysis
of organizational, institutional and political changes, formal and informal responses after mega-
disasters. Natural hazards, 55: 637-655.
Bruwer, A., van Staden, M., Le Roux, A. and van Niekerk, W. 2017. Disaster management and
risk reduction in South Africa. South African Risk and Vulnerability Atlas: Understanding the
Social & Environmental Implications of Global Change: 105-111.
Davies, T. 2015. Developing resilience to naturally triggered disasters. Environment Systems
and Decisions, 35: 237-251.
Eiser, J. R., Bostrom, A., Burton, I., Johnston, D. M., McClure, J., Paton, D., Van Der Pligt, J.
and White, M. P. 2012. Risk interpretation and action: A conceptual framework for responses
to natural hazards. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 1: 5-16.
Enia, J. 2013. The spotty record of the Hyogo Framework for Action: Understanding the
incentives of natural disaster politics and policy making. The Social Science Journal, 50 (2):
213-224.
Gordon, G. A. and Young, R. R. 2021. Natural Hazards: Hurricanes, Cyclones, and Typhoons.
Encyclopedia of Security and Emergency Management: 676-683.
Maskrey, A. 2019. From Exogenous Disasters to Endogenous Risks: Why the Hyogo
Framework for Action Failed to Protect Development from Itself. University of Northumbria
at Newcastle (United Kingdom).
Matsuoka, Y. and Shaw, R. 2011. Chapter 7 linking resilience planning to Hyogo framework
for action in cities. In: Climate and disaster resilience in cities. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, 129-147.
Matsuoka, Y. and Shaw, R. 2012. Hyogo framework for action as an assessment tool of risk
reduction: Philippines national progress and Makati city. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public
Policy, 3 (4): 18-39.
Matsuoka, Y. and Shaw, R. 2014. Hyogo framework for action and urban disaster resilience.
Emerald Group Publishing.

Olowu, D. 2010. The Hyogo Framework for Action and its implications for disaster
management and reduction in Africa. JAMBA: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 3 (1): 303-
320.
Ross, A. 2011. Bird on fire: Lessons from the world's least sustainable city. OUP USA.
Shaw, R., Islam, A. and Mallick, F. 2013. Disaster, risk and evolution of the concept. Disaster
risk reduction approaches in Bangladesh: 3-21.
Slovic, P. and Weber, E. U. 2013. Perception of risk posed by extreme events. Regulation of
Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste (2nd edition)(Applegate, Gabba, Laitos, and Sachs,
Editors), Foundation Press, Forthcoming,
Smith, K. 2013. Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge.
Srivastav, A., Srivastav, N. and Nishida. 2019. The science and impact of climate change.
Springer.
Toulmin, C. 2009. Climate change in Africa. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Van Niekerk, D. 2014. A critical analysis of the South African disaster management act and
policy framework. Disasters, 38 (4): 858-877.
Von Oelreich, E. 2015. In-depth study on the United Nations contribution to the implementation
of the Hyogo Framework for Action: viewed.
Wanner, M. S. 2020. Drivers of change in national disaster governance under the Hyogo
Framework for Action. Politics and Governance, 8 (4): 256-269.
Wijkman, A. and Timberlake, L. 2021. Natural disasters: acts of God or acts of man?
Routledge.
Williams, D. S., Máñez Costa, M., Celliers, L. and Sutherland, C. 2018. Informal settlements
and flooding: Identifying strengths and weaknesses in local governance for water management.
Water, 10 (7): 871.
Zhou, L., Perera, S., Jayawickrama, J. and Adeniyi, O. 2014. The implication of Hyogo
Framework for Action for disaster resilience education. Procedia Economics and finance, 18:
576-583.