7.3 Decentralization of DRM functions

Across the world, central governments are quietly sharing more power with subnational actors (O’Neill, 2005). In theory, decentralization facilitates citizen participation, more engaged decision makers, more local knowledge, more resources and more accountability, but in reality, that potential may not be always realized (Scott and Tarazona, 2011).

Over the past 20 years, many countries have adopted a decentralized approach to DRM. Most DRM functions require local-level planning and implementation, and the HFA itself calls for the decentralization of authority and resources to promote community-level disaster risk reduction. Honduras’s 2010 Law on the National Disaster Management System, for example, establishes decentralization as a guiding principle, and the 2010 Philippines Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act makes capacity strengthening of its most decentralized administrative units a state policy (IFRC, 2011). However, not all new legislation takes this approach, such as the centralized plan in Thailand’s 2007 Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act. Of the 82 countries and territories that reported progress implementing the HFA in 2010, as of February 2011 only 48 confirmed that local governments have legal responsibility and budgets for DRM.

Decentralizing responsibilities can also have negative results if local governments are unable to assign resources or dedicated staff with adequate technical expertise (Pelling, 2007; ECHO, 2008; Salazar, 2010; Scott and Tarazona, 2011). In Latin America, several countries that have invested in decentralized national systems of DRM for more than a decade, such as Colombia and Nicaragua, still struggle with inadequate local government capacity and resources (von Hesse et al., 2008; Hardoy, 2010). Some 900 of Colombia’s 1,098 municipalities have mandated local committees for disaster risk reduction, but only 14 percent implemented emergency and contingency plans. A similar story is seen with South Africa’s 2002 Disaster Management Act. Although DRM is supposed to be integrated into development planning in most municipalities (Botha et al., 2010), poor local government capacity has severely limited integration (IFRC, 2011; Johnson, 2011; Scott and Tarazona, 2011; Wisner et al., 2011).

Decentralization without supporting legislation has also proven very challenging in countries that have attempted it, such as Timor-Leste (IFRC, 2011). In traditionally centralized states, decentralized systems have experienced difficulties even after the enactment of new laws. For example, Indonesia’s 2007 Disaster Management Act provided for the decentralization of certain powers and responsibilities for disaster risk reduction and response, and each region and city was required to create its own disaster management agencies and committees. However, as of 2009, only 18 of the 32 provinces had established such bodies, and local government resources had not yet been allocated (Kuntjoro and Jamil, 2010). In its self-assessment, India also reported that the devolution of power and financial resources to local authorities has been a major challenge, often hampered by state governments’ retention of control.

More attention, therefore, needs to be paid to how DRM functions are layered and tailored to local contexts. DRM activities need to be locally grounded, and responsibilities should be devolved to the local level as much as capacities allow. Not all functions need to be fully decentralized, however, and some may be more appropriately located at higher levels, with greater capacity, political weight and decision-making power. For example, central governments should provide technical, financial and policy support, and take over responsibility for DRM when local capacities are exceeded (Scott and Tarazona, 2011). Another approach is to build up horizontal cooperation, where strong local governments support weaker ones, particularly in countries which have a number of well-resourced and relatively independent local authorities (Box 7.2).


Complete decentralization of budgeting and reporting can also generate problems. Although it may ensure that spending is in line with local priorities, it almost inevitably leads to divisions with national and sector policies and programmes (Benson, 2011).

An incremental approach to decentralization (Box 7.3) may be the best alternative. Where local government capacity and resources are particularly weak, ‘deconcentration’ may be a good interim step towards the full devolution of responsibilities and functions. In Mozambique, for example, responsibility for DRM is highly centralized in the National Institute for Disaster Management (INGC). Its functions, however, are implemented through deconcentrated regional offices and local committees, separate from and in parallel to the decentralized system of local administration. As disaster risk reduction has a high profile in Mozambique, these deconcentrated mechanisms are well resourced, and staff can relocate freely between central and local levels depending on needs. Given that local government capacity is weak, most risk reduction functions are undertaken by INGC staff (Scott and Tarazona, 2011). However, while improving effective delivery,such arrangements may in the long term undermine local government authority and capacities.

7.4 Strengthening accountability

The quality of national and local governance in general, and factors such as voice and accountability in particular, influence why some countries have far higher disaster mortality and relative economic loss than others (Kahn, 2005; Stromberg, 2007; UNISDR, 2009). For example, the level of corruption has a direct and statistically significant impact on government efficiency and the rule of law, two key components of risk governance (Lavell et al., 2010). Corruption also affects the level of trust that citizens have in their government, administration and services (Rose-Ackerman, 2001; Morris and Klesner, 2010). In general, more democratic, accountable states with more effective institutions tend to suffer lower mortality (Anbarci et al., 2005; Escaleras et al., 2007).

If it is true that ‘political survival lies at the heart of disaster politics’ (Smith and Quiroz Flores, 2010), then accountability mechanisms are particularly important in generating political and economic incentives for disaster risk reduction. The risk of being held to account for decisions that result in avoidable disaster risk can be a powerful incentive to make DRM work.

In DRM, as in many development sectors, establishing accountability is not straightforward (Olson et al., 2011). Making direct attribution and tracking of responsibility is complicated by having multiple actors involved in the construction of any specific risk. Outcomes of any one actor’s decisions and actions may not become visible until years or decades later, and inaction or symbolic actions may have greater effects than decisions and actions actually taken. Moreover, the dynamics of accountability in any single context are subject to the historical evolution of regulation and governance, of cultural values and social norms.

Nevertheless, there are examples where direct responsibility for action and inaction is monitored, and bearing personal responsibility for disaster losses can provide a powerful incentive for investing in DRM. Indonesia has enacted legislation that makes leaders directly responsible for disaster losses, and in Colombia the decentralization of DRM responsibilities has meant that mayors have been imprisoned when people were found to have died needlessly from a disaster (Scott and Tarazona, 2011).

Access to information is a key factor that drives accountability (World Bank, 2010b; Gupta, 2011). However, access to information is only effective when governments actively support the right to information, and when citizens are aware of their legal right and are willing to assert it. In addition, structural barriers, such as illiteracy, may impede access to and use of information (Gupta, 2011).

The 1883 explosion of Krakatoa, Indonesia, followed the introduction of the telegram, and so became the first globally reported disaster (Winchester, 2003). Today, most disasters are broadcast around the world in real time, through television, radio, print media, mobile social networking and the Internet. The media, therefore, plays an increasingly important role in holding governments, NGOs, international organizations and other stakeholders to account (Olson et al., 2011). This applies only when the media is free and, more importantly, responsive to disaster risk reduction perspectives, which means it looks beyond the images of catastrophe and body counts, and reports on of the causes and longer-term impacts of disasters (Radford and Wisner, 2011; Wisner et al., 2011).

The media play four different roles in the wake of disasters: observing and reporting facts such as mortality rates and the volume of assistance provided, holding governments and humanitarian actors to account, analysing the causes of the disaster and raising public awareness about potential improvements in DRM (Olson et al., 2011). Importantly, and given its global reach, the media can help create political incentives not just in the disaster-affected country, but in other countries with similar risks. As Box 7.4 shows, after the 2010 earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, media outlets in Jamaica and Peru paid increased attention to their own risks, highlighting the concern that ‘it could happen here’ (Olson et al., 2011).


Evidence suggests that a culture of social accountability, and specific mechanisms to ensure it, can directly improve the effectiveness of governance and service delivery (Acharya, 2010; Daikoku, 2010). Algeria’s 2004 Law on the Prevention of Major Risks and on Disaster Management in the Framework of Sustainable Development now guarantees citizens a right to information about the risks and vulnerabilities of their places of residence and work, and whether there are measures in place to reduce risks and manage disasters (IFRC, 2011). Likewise, Serbia’s 2009 Law on Emergency Situations and El Salvador’s 2005 Law on Civil Protection, Prevention and Mitigation of Disasters, acknowledge citizens’ right to be informed on disaster risks and oblige authorities to provide this information. However, in other countries information on disaster losses and impacts is not always made public.

Whereas such laws are important, they do not necessarily strengthen actual accountability unless they are supported by penalties and/or effective performance-based rewards. For example, provisions in legislation and the regulation of public office can specify the liabilities of politicians and government leaders, becoming more effective when linked to expenditure and budgets. Transparent contractual arrangements between government departments and between government and private service providers also contribute to increased accountability. Where rights and obligations are clearly articulated and tied to concrete performance measures, service delivery can improve dramatically (Box 7.5).



NOTE

¹  For more information, refer to www.sc.gov.cn/zt_sczt/zhcjmhxjy/cjjy/kjcj/200912/t20091217_871603.shtml and www.sc.gov.cn/zt_sczt/zhcjmhxjy/dkzy/sf/200912/t20091201_859811.shtml