Disaster response found lacking
A performance audit by the auditor-general's office has found that emergency teams responding to natural disasters are not as proactive as they should be, and instead respond on a case-by-case basis.
It found flawed training, lack of cooperation from other role players, incomplete assessments of disaster-prone areas and a tendency to improvise responses rather than planning ahead.
The report covers the years 2013/14 to 2015/16.
One of its main findings was that the Disaster Risk Management Act of 2012 “did not help to improve the cooperation of the regional disaster risk management committees (RDRMC) and relevant stakeholders.” The auditors warned that the “lack of enforcement and active participation by all the RDRMC members hampers the effectiveness and efficiency” of the disaster responses.
Another problem highlighted by the report was a failure to conduct mapping, needs and risk assessments before disasters, which “may result in the regions not being proactively prepared for disasters”.
Regional committees were not capacitated to conduct mapping, needs and risk assessments.
The lack of such assessments shows that the regions are dealing with disasters in a reactive manner instead of in a proactive manner, the audit found.
The report, which is a follow-up of an initial audit for the financial years 2002 to 2007, notes that livelihood zones were mapped in 2010.
The auditors were provided with assessment reports on rural food security and livelihood vulnerability for the period reviewed, which covered mostly food insecurity resulting from droughts and floods.
Beyond that, no other disaster management assessments were conducted during the period under review. The absence of comprehensive training was also worrisome, the auditors found.
The report noted that the regional disaster management committees in three regions that were visited had not conducted an assessment of training needs and proposals as recommended by the AG after the initial audit.
The training that was provided was described as insufficient and inconsistent.
RDRMC teams in the Khomas and Zambezi regions received no disaster-related training in the period under review.
“Insufficient disaster-related training, as well as the non-sensitisation of RDRMC members on the Disaster Risk Management Act, hampers their effectiveness as the members do not understand their roles and responsibilities, which ultimately result in the regions not being disaster prepared,” the audit report warns.
And, even though the Disaster Risk Management Act is in place, it has “not improved the RDRMC members' and other stakeholders' interest in attending meetings”.
Meetings were only held in a reactive manner when disasters took place. No schedules of meetings were issued to members as per the previous AG recommendations and RDRMC meetings were not held regularly during non-emergency times. Further, while the Directorate of Disaster Risk Management (DDRM) assisted most regional councils to develop contingency and multi-hazard disaster plans, the majority of these plans remained in draft form at the time of the audit. This delay in finalising and approving the plans “may result in the regions not being prepared for disasters because the plans cannot be implemented”.
Another major finding is that some of the department's warehouses were insufficiently stocked and not all RDRMC members kept a list of resources.
A visit to the Hardap Region found that the warehouses there were not properly stocked or staffed to render relief aid.
In the Zambezi Region, the warehouse was described as unsuitable for storing food and lacked the capacity to deliver relief aid.
The latest report's recommendations include more active involvement from all RDRMC members and other role players, improved training on emergency responsiveness, and ensuring proactive disaster responses by collecting sufficient information and doing risk assessments.
JANA-MARI SMITH
It found flawed training, lack of cooperation from other role players, incomplete assessments of disaster-prone areas and a tendency to improvise responses rather than planning ahead.
The report covers the years 2013/14 to 2015/16.
One of its main findings was that the Disaster Risk Management Act of 2012 “did not help to improve the cooperation of the regional disaster risk management committees (RDRMC) and relevant stakeholders.” The auditors warned that the “lack of enforcement and active participation by all the RDRMC members hampers the effectiveness and efficiency” of the disaster responses.
Another problem highlighted by the report was a failure to conduct mapping, needs and risk assessments before disasters, which “may result in the regions not being proactively prepared for disasters”.
Regional committees were not capacitated to conduct mapping, needs and risk assessments.
The lack of such assessments shows that the regions are dealing with disasters in a reactive manner instead of in a proactive manner, the audit found.
The report, which is a follow-up of an initial audit for the financial years 2002 to 2007, notes that livelihood zones were mapped in 2010.
The auditors were provided with assessment reports on rural food security and livelihood vulnerability for the period reviewed, which covered mostly food insecurity resulting from droughts and floods.
Beyond that, no other disaster management assessments were conducted during the period under review. The absence of comprehensive training was also worrisome, the auditors found.
The report noted that the regional disaster management committees in three regions that were visited had not conducted an assessment of training needs and proposals as recommended by the AG after the initial audit.
The training that was provided was described as insufficient and inconsistent.
RDRMC teams in the Khomas and Zambezi regions received no disaster-related training in the period under review.
“Insufficient disaster-related training, as well as the non-sensitisation of RDRMC members on the Disaster Risk Management Act, hampers their effectiveness as the members do not understand their roles and responsibilities, which ultimately result in the regions not being disaster prepared,” the audit report warns.
And, even though the Disaster Risk Management Act is in place, it has “not improved the RDRMC members' and other stakeholders' interest in attending meetings”.
Meetings were only held in a reactive manner when disasters took place. No schedules of meetings were issued to members as per the previous AG recommendations and RDRMC meetings were not held regularly during non-emergency times. Further, while the Directorate of Disaster Risk Management (DDRM) assisted most regional councils to develop contingency and multi-hazard disaster plans, the majority of these plans remained in draft form at the time of the audit. This delay in finalising and approving the plans “may result in the regions not being prepared for disasters because the plans cannot be implemented”.
Another major finding is that some of the department's warehouses were insufficiently stocked and not all RDRMC members kept a list of resources.
A visit to the Hardap Region found that the warehouses there were not properly stocked or staffed to render relief aid.
In the Zambezi Region, the warehouse was described as unsuitable for storing food and lacked the capacity to deliver relief aid.
The latest report's recommendations include more active involvement from all RDRMC members and other role players, improved training on emergency responsiveness, and ensuring proactive disaster responses by collecting sufficient information and doing risk assessments.
JANA-MARI SMITH
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article