Financial Times

Disaster management the wrong way round
The Cabinet certifies the Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act as an urgent bill in the national interest and sends it to the Supreme Court for review. Much secrecy surrounds it till it emerges in public two days before being debated in parliament.

The Wise Old Owl understands that this legislation was developed by the previous regime and had gathered dust all this while, until the tsunami hit Sri Lanka. Even previously, the Policy Committee of the then Prime Minister had not been given a copy of the bill for review.

"Elementary dear Watson" Sherlock Holmes would have said "As in management sciences, always ask the questions first - For whom? With what purpose in mind? By whom? Employing what strategies? How best communicated to get optimum results?".

As usual the Cabinet and its advisors have got it wrong! None of the above questions has been raised in the process of putting into the legislative enactments a new law to protect the people and their resources.

Civil society, the private sector, the academia and media were not consulted nor even given a chance to challenge the bill before the Supreme Court. The bill makes no reference to a consultative process with civil society and business in planning and implementation, though it is meant for them!

The objectives of the bill is to define the framework, install an organizational structure for the creation of a state of readiness to anticipate and / or face natural and / or other man made disasters, on a national scale.

The bill envisages setting up a National Council for Disaster Management and the establishment of a Natural and Human Disaster Management Centre. These bodies are expected to prepare a national policy, a disaster management plan, national emergency operation plan and be in a state of readiness to implement following a disaster. Is this ever possible (with the provision of relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction also included within the functions) without involving the community and the private sector? The need to assess all potential risks and rate them in terms of "probability" and "severity" and focus only on those that are in the high - high quadrants, an approach common in the private sector, has no place in this bill. The bill focuses only on getting the state owned organizations to prepare disaster management plans and having them in a state of readiness and makes no similar references to the private sector.

The institutional framework proposed endows a team of ministers led by the President and the Prime Minister including provincial chief ministers, the responsibilities of implementing functions of disaster management, whilst the technocrats are only given an advisory role. "Elementary dear Watson - get the technocrats with the Chief Executive of the Disaster Management centre to take responsibility to assess, plan, mitigate and manage disasters and the ministers to take the reverse role to advice, vote required resources, empower and protect the interests of those taking responsibility for the functions".

The Wise Old Owl asks "Can you imagine getting in a quorum of one third of 16 cabinet ministers and all chief ministers together to the Disaster Council, make the objectives functional and into action? If that is not possible when a disaster is imminent, is it only the President who will decide on pushing the button to activate the proclamation and emergency plans? Does the word proclamation mean a gazette and can any order made in the absence of a duly executed gazette be questioned in a Court?"

There is no specific reference in the bill to an all hazard warning system being a focus, with an effective strategy in getting the community networked to support, to recognize risks, mitigate risks, and be prepared with regular drills to act in an emergency.

The community service organizations that can play a key role in a warning system have been ignored. They need to be networked in this key activity and not only in implementing relief and rehabilitation measures. All potential risks such as a dam-break, water poisoning, chemical explosion/leakage and even a nuclear disaster in a neighbouring country need to be included amongst the definition of a disaster.

A political owl was overheard to say " this bill may even give an edge to the party in power to proclaim that a "civil or internal strife", listed amongst the disaster definition is imminent and thus give opportunity to control, arrest and even frustrate any action by a democratic opposition party?"

In any event, the ministering angels and their agents in Parliament have set about getting the task of protecting people and their resources from risks, the wrong way round!

(The writer, a respected business leader, could be reached at - wo_owl@yahoo.co.uk).

Back to Business