The Sunday Mail
Parliament
Lincoln Towindo
TWO videos circulated on social media last week, which on face value seemed innocuous but bellied significant insights into Zimbabwe’s preparedness and approach towards management of the coronavirus pandemic.
In one of the videos, maverick Norton legislator, Temba Mliswa, is playing tout at Twin-Lakes Shopping Centre, in his constituency.
The legislator is seen attempting to enforce the one-metre social distancing rule on people queueing outside a supermarket.
“You risk contracting the disease here and taking it back home to your children,” he shouts to the people queueing, who begrudgingly reorganise themselves.
In the other video, Tatenda Mavetera, National Assembly representative for Seke-Chikomba updates a local news website on her work educating constituents on the pandemic.
Her team, she says, is going “door to door” in high population density areas in Seke and Nyatsime educating her constituents of the dangers of Covid-19.
Clearly, the irony of going “door to door” with a large entourage during a national lockdown is lost on her.
Granted, the two legislators’ actions are good-intentioned. What is apparent, though, is that they are both out of their depth, as evidence from the video clips show.
The two videos lay bare what appears to be a reactionary approach by authorities to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Here we have parliamentarians “overstepping” their mandate and playing what otherwise should be roles of experts in the fields of public health communication and enforcement.
A parliamentarian’s mandate, generally, is no rocket science. It entails three basic roles: representation, legislation and oversight.
This is not to say MPs should not be involved in community education, but this role should generally be peripheral and not central to an MP’s performance benchmarks. Information dissemination, especially of a highly technical and novel field such as the coronavirus, should naturally rest on technical experts.
Politicians should play more of a supporting role. These videos give us an insight into Zimbabwe’s underlying problems when it comes to disaster management, whether man-made or natural.
Our problems with management of disasters abound and include, but are not limited to, wide funding gaps, archaic legislation and policies, and poor information dissemination and lacklustre implementation of what on paper may be adequate policies and rules.
To put matters into perspective, for the year 2019, Treasury allocated only $2,4 million towards the Department of Civil Protection — Zimbabwe’s frontline body for disaster management.
Modern-day disaster management demands lead agencies to be equipped with high-tech equipment, including drones, helicopters, all-terrain vehicles and supercomputers, to mention a few.
All this has to be buttressed by well-trained staff, sophisticated early warning systems and a robust public awareness machinery.
It is absurd to expect the DCP to run a modern disaster management system under such stifling financial conditions.
To further illustrate our challenges, take for example our primary disaster management law, the Civil Protection Act — which was promulgated 31 years ago and has not been updated ever since.
This was during an era before the phenomenon that is climate change was a thing. The threats of earthquakes, lethal biological and radioactive hazards were peripheral then.
The law has clearly been overtaken by time.
Crucially, the Act is silent on establishment of early warning systems, emergency preparedness, disaster risk reduction, disaster risk management, resilience and post-disaster psychological support — key ingredients of any worthwhile disaster management law.
Experts contend that any good disaster management legislation or policy should embrace five key elements: preparedness, risk mitigation, risk management, rehabilitation and recovery.
Sadly, the Civil Protection Act falls short of meeting these benchmarks.
Also, the law is generally exclusionary and prescribes a Government-oriented approach to disaster management, giving little room for input from the private sector, civil society, academia, religious and traditional leaders and Parliamentarians among other key stakeholders.
While the law prescribes the establishment of a National Civil Protection Fund for “the development and promotion of civil protection”, unlike legislation in similarly disaster-prone jurisdictions, it does not explicitly state how much must go towards the fund annually.
Bizarrely, Section 20(1) of the Act prescribes that, volunteers who intend to assist during times of disaster should first “apply to the area civil protection officer for the area concerned”.
“This may be a long procedure working against efficiency, considering that some disasters are the rapid onset type,” observes researcher Ernest Dube in his 2015 paper on disaster risk reduction in Zimbabwe.
In addition, Parliament itself has also been complicit in exhibiting inertia in disaster management.
For instance, the report by the Portfolio Committee on Local Government, Public Works and National Housing on a fact-finding visit to Cyclone Idai-affected areas was only tabled before the House last month — a whole year after Cyclone Idai struck.
By then most of the recommendations from the report had been superseded by time. Should these obvious deficiencies in our procedural, funding and legal framework not be what our legislators are focusing on instead of playing tout at supermarket queues?
With the reality of climate change and the possibility of disaster in Zimbabwe every year, disaster response and preparedness at all levels of community has become a crucial development tool.
Zimbabwe’s civil defence mechanism was tested to its limits last year by Cyclone Idai and is in the throes of an even more intense test from Covid-19, emphasising the need for tempered disaster management legislation and policies now. A 2011 layman Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Bill, developed by Government, represents a clearer and modern legal framework for disaster management.
While enactment of the Bill was never actively pursued, it offers an insightful starting point on the kind of disaster management legislation Zimbabwe needs.
Among other things, the proposed law prescribes for integrated and co-ordinated disaster risk management focusing on preventing, reducing risk, mitigating the severity, emergency preparedness, rapid and effective response to disasters and post-disaster recovery.
In terms of the Bill, disaster management is escalated to Cabinet-level through a Cabinet Committee on Disaster Risk Management, which is assisted by a working party on disaster risk management committee of high-level bureaucrats.The Bill also provides for management of nuclear or radiation threats or incidents.
Further, the law proposes setting up of representative National Disaster Risk Management Platform with representation from the private sector, academia, civil society, labour unions, Research Council of Zimbabwe, Consumer Council of Zimbabwe, among other special interest groups.
It also proposes the setting up of specific sub-committees to deal with peculiar disasters including for epidemics, food, water, sanitation and hygiene. Significantly, the DRM Bill proposes the establishment of a Disaster Risk Management Fund which is financed through a minimum of 1 percent of the national budget appropriated by Parliament.
In addition, Treasury may also impose a Disaster Risk Management Levy on any person or class of persons whose activities are a potential hazard with all money from the levy being paid into the Fund. We need to update our disaster management legislation and our legislators should take the lead now.
