abi-envi study on disaster risk management

8/14/2019 ABI-Envi Study on Disaster Risk Management

1/25

IINSTITUTIONALNSTITUTIONAL AARRANGEMENTSRRANGEMENTSFORFORDD ISASTERISASTER RR ISKISK MMANAGEMENTANAGEMENT

ININTHETHE PPHILIPPINESHILIPPINES

September 2009

Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI)

Working Towards Renewal and Reform in Governance, Economy, Living Environments and Global Relationships

Unit 304 Tempus Place, Matalino Street, Diliman, Quezon City(632) [email protected]

PREPARED BYLA L IGA POL ICY INST ITUTE


2/25

Environment Cluster

EEXECUTIVEXECUTIVE SSUMMARYUMMARY

The Philippines due to its geographic location is a disaster prone location. The highfrequency of disasters is costing the country significantly in terms of direct damages.Indirect and secondary impact further increase this cost and is even more worsened bythe accompanying social and environmental impacts. This paper hopes to contribute tothis process, by focusing on the policy framework and institutional arrangement fordisaster risk management.

The country's disaster management system started more than sixty years ago as amechanism to prepare for the outbreak of World War II. Through the years it hasundergone a number of transformations but has basically retained its civil defenseorientation and a military-like command and control structure. The current institutional

mechanism is based on a decree issued 31 years ago which created a multi-tieredsystem of disaster coordinating councils from national level down to the barangays. Thecurrent system is observed to have many weaknesses and no longer responsive to thedemand of present day disaster management challenges. It is viewed as top-down,bureaucratic and unwieldy mechanism with limited capacity to coordinate and harnessmulti stakeholder participation. The current institutional set up is also severelyhandicapped by inadequate funding. The inadequacy of resources dedicated to disastermanagement is further constrained by inappropriate rules and regulation that worsensthe situation.

The effort to improve the policy and institutional arrangement for disaster management

must be pursued in the broader context of adopting and mainstreaming disaster riskreduction approach over the post disaster relief and recovery orientation that dominateddisaster management in the past. The Philippines has started to adopt disaster riskreduction in its disaster management system and in the broader context of sustainabledevelopment through the adoption and implementation of the Hyogo Framework ofAction (HFA) following the world conference on Disaster Reduction in Japan on January2005. Assessment of the HFA implementation shows that important beginnings havebeen attained but there is still room to establish more substantial, comprehensive andinstitutional commitment to disaster risk reduction and the HFA.

In conclusion, a number of recommendations have been put forward to improve policy

and institutional arrangement for disaster risk management and in mainstreaming ofdisaster risk reduction including: 1) building political commitment and continue tomainstream Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) as a policy; 2) adopting appropriateinstitutional framework and administrative structure for DRR; 3) strengthening strategicpartnership and alliance building; 4) strengthening capacities for DRR; and, 5) providingfinancial resources for DRR.

2


3/25

TTABLEABLEOFOF CCONTENTSONTENTS

Executive Summary

I. Introduction

A. Background

B. Definition of Terms

II. Policy Framework and Institutional Set-up

A. Policy and Institutional Evolution

B. Current Policy and Institutional Arrangements

C. Funding for Disaster Risk Management

III. Status of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Adoption

A. Priority for Action 1: Governance Making disaster risk reduction a priority

B. Priority for Action 2: Risk identification, assessment and monitoring and

early warning- Improving risk reduction information and

early warning

C. Priority for Action 3: Knowledge management Building a culture of safety

and resilience

D. Priority for Action 4: Risk Management and vulnerability reduction -

Reducing the risks in key sectors

E. Priority for Action 5: Disaster preparedness for effective response -

Strengthening preparedness for response

IV. Recommendations

Notes

References

3


4/25

I.I. IINTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTION

A.A. BBACKGROUNDACKGROUND

The frequent occurrence of disasters in the Philippines has become a stumbling block tothe country's development. The country because of its geographic circumstances ishighly prone to such natural hazards as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tropicalcyclones and floods, making it as one of the most disaster prone countries in the world.

These disasters are costing the Government an average of fifteen billion pesos or morethan 0.5% of the national GDP per year in direct damages, indirect and secondaryimpacts further increases this cost. This significant economic cost is further worsened

by accompanying social and environmental impacts, according to a World bank-NDCCstudy in 2004.1

The high frequency of disasters hinder Government's effort to reduce poverty andreduce the number of people and assets vulnerable to these hazards, suggesting theclose linkage between poverty and vulnerability to national disasters, and of theirmutually reinforcing effects. The poorer communities tend to be most vulnerable. It wasfurther shown that the household level poverty is the single most important factordetermining vulnerability (World Bank-NDCC, 2004).

Disasters have not only brought losses in terms of human lives and destroyed social,economic and environmental assets, it has also detailed social and economicdevelopments as funds are taken away from on-going programs to finance relief andreconstruction efforts following their occurrence.

The enormous risk that the country and its vulnerable communities are facing due todisasters prompted disaster risk reduction and development stakeholders to try tounderstand and assess the country's existing capacity to reduce and manage disasterrisk and identify options for improvement. This paper hopes to contribute to thisprocess, with focus on the institutional arrangement for disaster risk management.

B.B. DDEFINITIONEFINITIONOFOF TERMSTERMS

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster reduction (UNISDR) definesdisaster risk reduction (DRR) as the conceptual framework of elements with possibilitiesto minimize vulnerabilities and risks throughout a society to avoid (prevention) or to limit(mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards within the broad contextof sustainable development. While disaster risk management (DRM) is considered as

4


5/25

the systemic process of using administrative decisions, organizations, operational skillsand capacities to implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of society andcommunities to lessen the impact of natural hazards and related environmental andtechnological disasters.2

In the Philippines prior to the country's participation in the World Conference on DisasterReduction (WCDR) on January 2005 in Hyogo, Kobe, Japan and its adoption of theHyogo Framework of Action (HFA) the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC)adopted the Comprehensive Emergency Management Framework (CEMF), whichconsist of pre-event actions (mitigation and preparedness) and post-event actions(response and rehabilitation). 3 Most of the NDCC documents pre-HFA are expressedin these terminologies.

II.II. PPOLICYOLICYANDAND IINSTITUTIONALNSTITUTIONAL AARRANGEMENTSRRANGEMENTSFORFOR DD ISASTERISASTER RR ISKISK MMANAGEMENTANAGEMENT

A.A. PPOLICYOLICYANDAND IINSTITUTIONALNSTITUTIONALEEVOLUTIONVOLUTION

The World Bank-NDCC Report (2004) traced thebeginnings of a disaster management system in thePhilippines in 1941 which was oriented mainly towardsthe preparation for World War II. Executive Order (EO335) was issued by then President Manuel L. Quezonwhich created the Civilian Emergency Administrationto prepare the population for the outlook of the War inthe Pacific and to adopt measures to control andcoordinate civilian participation to meet graveemergencies. The Executive Order created a NationalEmergency Commission (NEC) at the national level aswell as a provincial Emergency Committee in everyprovince, which had supervision and control overmunicipal and city emergency committees.

In 1954 Republic Act 1190 or the Civil Defense Act was passed by the PhilippineCongress creating the national Civil Defense Administration (NCDA) under the Office ofthe President as well as civil defense councils at the national and local levels.

5


6/25

To further enhance the function of the NCDA, Executive Order (EO 159) was issued inNovember 1968 by President Ferdinand E. Marcos that required the establishment ofdisaster control organization by all agencies of government including politicalsubdivisions, departments, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities and even governmentowned and controlled corporations. The NCDA was tasked to serve as the national

coordinating body to see and implement EO 159 and to report on the degree ofpreparedness of all government agencies to the Office of the President. But the NCDAwas hampered by indifference and lack of funds and was unable to perform its task well.After a series of natural hazards hit the country in 1970, including the widespreadflooding of Metro Manila and Central Luzon, President Marcos instead tasked theInterdepartmental Planning Group on Disaster and calamities to prepare a Disaster andCalamities Plan.

In 1972, Letter of Instruction (LOI) 19 created the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) tocoordinate national level activities and functions of the national government, privateinstitutions and civic organizations. OCD's task included: formulating plans and policies

to protect the general public; estimate the total material, manpower and fiscalrequirements for carrying out a civil defense and civil assistance program; allocate toprovinces, cities, municipalities and barangays such as aid in facilities, materials andfunds as may be available from the national government; to coordinate programs forinforming, educating and training the general public; and provide guidance to sub-national level on planning, organization and operations for their defense requirements.

B. CCURRENTURRENT PPOLICYOLICYANDAND IINSTITUTIONALNSTITUTIONAL AARRANGEMENTSRRANGEMENTS

The basis of the existing institutional arrangements for disaster risk management in thePhilippines is Presidential Decree PD 1566 entitled Strengthening the PhilippineDisaster Control Capability and Establishing the National Program on CommunityDisaster Preparedness, issued June 11, 1978. 4 The Presidential Decree establishesthe National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) as the highest policy making bodythat advises the President on matters pertaining to disasters. The stipulations ofPD1566 include:

a. Self reliance shall be developed by promoting and encouraging the spirit ofself-help and mutual assistance among local officials and their constituents;

b. Each political and administrative subdivision of the country shall utilize allavailable resources in the area before asking for assistance from neighboringentities of higher authority;

c. The primary responsibility rest on the government agencies in the affectedareas in coordination with the people themselves;

d. Shall be the responsibility of all government departments, bureaus, agenciesand instrumentalities to have documented plan of their emergency functions and

6


7/25

activities;

e. Planning and operation shall be done at the barangay level in an inter-agency, multi sectoral basis to optimize the utilization of resolutes;

f. On the absence of a duly constituted regional government, national

government offices at the regional level shall be led and operationally controlled bythe Regional Commissioner or by the official so designated by the President;

g. Responsibility for leadership rest on the Provincial Governors, City Mayorsand Municipal Mayors (and Barangay Chairman), each according to his area ofresponsibility;

h. When an emergency affects an area covering several towns and cities theCity mayors and their personnel and facilities shall be placed under the operationalcontrol of the Provincial Governor for the duration of the emergency;

i. The national government exists to support the local government. In time ofemergencies and according to their level of assignment, all national government

offices in the field shall support the operation of the local government; and,j. To ensure that operational activities become automatic and second nature toall concerned exercises and periodic drills shall be conducted at all levels, primarilyat the Barangays.

The member agencies of theNDCC are responsible forcarrying out respective tasks andresponsibilities, which includepreparedness, mitigation,

response and rehabilitation.NDCC does not have a regularbudget but operates throughmember agencies and their localnetworks, namely the regionaland local disaster coordinatingcouncils (DCCS).

The member of the NDCC andtheir respective responsibilitiesare as follows:

Chairman Secretary of National Defense, convenes NDCC as necessary and callson other government agencies and private sector when the need arises;

Secretary of Public Works and Highways restates destroyed public structures, suchas flood control, waterworks, roads, bridges other vertical / horizontal facilities,provides equipments for rescue, relief and recovery;

7


8/25

Secretary of Transportation and Communication restores destroyed communicationand transportation facilities such as railroads vertical structures; organizes nationaltransport services;

Secretary of Science and Technology, Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and

Astronomical Administration (PAG-ASA), continuing watch on environmentalcondition to prepare daily weather forecasts, typhoon watches and flood outlooks.Philippine Institute of Vulcanology and Seismology (PHILVOLCS)--issues advisorieson earthquakes, volcanic activities and tsunamis; identifies appropriate evacuationsites and organizes disaster control groups and reaction teams. Philippine NuclearResearch Instituteissues advisories on radio active fallout, contamination andradiation incidents; organizes disaster control groups and reaction teams.

Secretary of Social Welfare and Development, extends relief assistance and socialservices to victims and provides rehabilitation;

Secretary of Agriculture, undertakes surveys in disaster prone areas and actual

disaster areas to determine extent of damage of agricultural crops, livestock andfisheries; extends technical assistance to disaster victims;

Secretary of Education provides assistance in public education and campaignregarding disasters preparedness, prevention and mitigation through the integrationof relevant subjects in school curriculum; makes school buildings available asevacuation centers; trains education staff in disaster preparedness.

Secretary of Finance issues rules and regulations regarding funding of localgovernments of DCC requirements; with DBM issues rules and regulations onpreparation of local government budget utilization of the 2% reserve for disasteroperations;

Secretary of Labor, organizes and trains disaster control groups in factories andindustrial complexes; provides emergency employment opportunities to disastervictims and implements industrial civil defense programs and measures;

Secretary of Interior and Local Government, oversees organization of local DCCs,the establishment of Disaster Operations Centers (DOCS) of all local governmentsand the training of DCC members in coordination with OCD, DSWD and otherrelevant agencies;

Secretary of Health, provides health services during emergencies and organizesreaction teams; also issues public health warning notices;

Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, responsible for reforestationcontrol of areas prone to flood, landslide, mudflow and ground subsidence; alsotechnical assistance on environmental pollution;

Secretary Tourism, organizes and trains disaster control groups and reaction teamsin hotels, pension houses, restaurants and other tourist oriented facilities;

Secretary of Budget and Management, releases funds required by departments for

8


9/25

disaster operations;

Secretary of Philippine Information Agency, provides public information servicethough dissemination of mitigation and preparedness measure;

Secretary-General, Philippine Red Cross, conduct disaster leadership training

courses; assist in DCC training at all levels, helps in the provision of emergencyrelief;

Head of National Housing Authority, assessment of housing requirements ofdisplaced persons; provision of temporary housing and rebuilding of destroyedareas;

Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, responsible for the provision ofsecurity in disaster areas and assistance in reconstruction; provides transportationfor relief supplies and personnel;

Director General, National Economic Development Authority, responsible for the

determination and analysis of effects of disasters on socio-economic programs andthe development of damage assessment schemes; and,

Administrator, Office of Civil Defense, acts as NDCC Executive Officer; coordinateactivities and functions to implement policies and programs, advises the chairmanon disaster management matters. The OCD serves as the operating arm of theNDCC.

The NDCC is replicatedat regional and local

levels, with each tieroperating and utilizing itsown resources.

Regional DisasterCoordinating Councils(RDCCs)

Activities of the nationalgovernment agencies atthe regional level are

coordinate by theRDCCs. The President designates the Chairman of the NDCC, although under thepresent arrangement the Regional Directors of the Philippine National Police (PNP) arecommonly asigned as Chairpersons, except in the case of autonomous regions wherethe Chief Executive concurrently serves as the chairperson of the RDCCs. In metroManila, the Chairman of the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) is also thechairman of the metro Manila Disaster Coordinating Council (MMDCC).

9


10/25

Just like the NDCC, the RDCCs have no budget of their own and can operate onlythrough mutual coordination of the member agencies. The OCD regional Director actsas the Executive Officer of the RDCC. The RDCCs tasks are as follows:

Establish a Regional Disaster Operations Center (RDOC);

Implement guidelines within the regions get by the NDCC;

Advise local disaster coordinating councils (CDCCs) on disaster management;

Submit recommendation to the NDCC as necessary.

Local Disaster Coordinating Councils (LDCCs)

Local Disaster Coordinating Councils encompasses all disaster coordinating councilsbelow the regional level, this include provincial, city, municipal and barangay DisasterCoordinating Councils. Chief Executives are by law chairman of their respective LDCCs.The primary tasks of the LDCCs have been defined by the NDCC. 5 These are asfollows:

Provincial Disaster Coordinating (PDCC)

Establish a Provincial Disaster Operations Center (PDCC);

Coordinate disaster operations within the province from the PDCC;

Implement within the province guidelines set out by the RDCC;

Advise City / Municipal and Barangay DCCs regarding disaster management;

Submit recommendations tot he RDCC as necessary.

Establish a City / Municipal Disaster Operations Center and coordinate a disasteroperations from it;

Implement guidelines set by RDCC within the City / Muncipality;

Advise barangay Disaster Coordinating Council (BDCC) regarding disastermanagement.

Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council (BDCC)

Establish a Barangay Disaster Operation (enter and coordinate disaster operationsfrom it);

Implement guidelines set by the C / MDCC;

10


11/25

Advise BDCC members on disaster management.

C.C. FFUNDINGUNDING FORFOR DD ISASTERISASTER RR ISKISK MMANAGEMENTANAGEMENT

Under the present institutional framework funding for disaster related expenditurescomes from two sources, national government appropriations and the local governmentunits (World Bank-NDCC, 2004).

1.1. NNATIONALATIONAL GGOVERNMENTOVERNMENT

At National level the primary fund for disaster management is the National CalamityFund (NCF), which is directly administered by the NDCC with the approval of thePresident. The NCF is intended to supplement and complement Local Calamity Funds.Priority is however given to urgent and emergency relief operations and emergencyrepair, rehabilitation and reconstruction of public infrastructures and lifelines damagedby calamities occurring within the budget year. Second priority for the repair,rehabilitation and reconstruction of other damaged public infrastructures. Third priorityare for pre-disaster activities outside the regular budgets of line agencies and proposedcapital expenditures for pre-disaster operation.

Part of the annual appropriation is immediately, a priori, allocated to the Quick responseFund (QRF). The QRF is allotted for agencies such as DSWD, DPWH, DND and OCDas stand by fund for relief and response operations, in the immediate aftermath of adisaster. 6 The NDCC recommends the release of the NCF, including the QRF.

According to records, most application for the NCF comes from 4 th, 5th and 6th class

LGUs which have relatively little income and correspondingly small Local Calamity Fund(LCF).7 In order to apply to the NCF LGUs are required to put up counterpart fundranging from 50 percent of the total project cost for 1st class LGUs to 30 percent for the4th class LGUs. 5th class and 6th class LGUs are exempt from providing counterpartfunding but no single request can exceed PhP 3 billion a year.

Allocation of funds to the NCF comes from two (2) percent of the budgetary reserve inaccordance with presidential Decree PD477. In reality actual allocation of funds to theNCF have been far lower and moreover have gradually declined in recent years, fallingfrom as high as PhP 2.8 billion in 1996 to only PhP 800 million in 2002 and PhP 700million in 2003. The decline is reflective of the government's fiscal difficulties and lesser

occurrence of disasters in recent years. But the NDCC maintains that resources haveremained far lower than actual requirements which resulted in the backlog of claims tothe NCF (World Bank-NDCC, 2004).

The overall picture suggest that calamity funds are far less than what is needed and arebarely able to meet only a small proportion of relief and rehabilitation costs.

To meet the requirements of more severe events that are beyond the capacity of the

11


12/25

NCF, other fund have been drawn upon of have been specifically created. Theseinclude:

Special Rehabilitation Fund - Following the 1990 earthquake and the 1991 Mt.Pinatubo eruption, special relief and rehabilitation funds were established to fundreconstruction and rehabilitation operations.

Property Replacement Fund This is used to operate as a sinking fund restorationof national government buildings, equipments and transport vehicles damaged byfire and national calamities. However, its role was reduced to high risk publicproperties (primarily aircraft and ships) only in the late 1990s.

Line Agency Standby Funds - Some line agencies have separate standby fundsunder their own budget for stockpiling supplies etc.

Reserves Control Account This account comprising of 5 percent of maintenanceexpenditures and 5 percent of capital outlay of each government department, isintended to meet unforeseen requirements, in some cases arising as a consequenceof disasters. It was drawn upon for example as part of the initial governmentresponse to the Mt. Pinatubo eruptions.

Allocation of Congressmen In responding to the 1998 El Nino event, each of thecountry's 224 Congressmen allocated Php 5 Million for construction of deep waterwells, water tubes, procurement of seeds and other measures.

Presidential Social Fund This issometimes used on the DA fund topost disaster operations.

Additional rehabilitation spending isdrawn from existing operationalbudget of relevant agencies i.e.DPWH, DA, and DENR on a regularbasis. Upon declaration of a calamity,concerned national agencies andLGUs are permitted to program andreprogram funds for the repair andsafety upgrading of publicinfrastructures and facilities and

reallocations occur on an annualbasis. These re-allocation are largelyunrecorded and are difficult to followsince they occur internally, withinbudget heads although the DBM istrying to streamline this process.

Longer term rehabilitation activities for

12


13/25

specific purposes may be formally related into the annual budget process. This impliesopportunity for careful assessment of the relative assessment of the relative economicreturns to different projects and efficient allocation of resources.

Mitigation and preparedness have been devolved to LGUs but the national government

maintains responsibility for the provision of national infrastructure and provision ofservices and information in support of LGU activities. Mitigation and preparednessrelated expenditures are contained within overall budgetary allocations to relevantdepartments and total mitigation and preparedness expenditures across the differentdepartments is not reported with the exception of small level expenditures undercalamity fund. The lack of readily available data makes it difficult to assess the overalladequacy of current expenditures relative to the scale of disaster losers (World Bank NDCC, 2004).

2. LLOCALOCAL GGOVERNMENTOVERNMENT UUNITSNITS

Under R.A. 7160 of the Local Government Code of 1991 a considerable share of publicnational resources, amounting to a total of 40 percent of the internal revenue collectionsare allocated to local government to fund devolved functions.8 LGUS have also beengiven substantial revenue-raising capabilities, allowing them to levy certain taxes, feesand other charges for their own use, including business and real property taxes.

As part of the 1991 program of devolution, LGUs are mandated to set 5 percent of theirestimated revenue from regular sources aside as an annual lump sum appropriationsfor use in relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and other works and services inconnection with calamities occurring during the budget year in the LGU or other LGUs

affected by a disaster or calamity. Funds are released within 24 hours of the declarationof a disaster.9 Any resources remaining at the end of the fiscal year revert tounappropriated surplus for re appropriation the following year.

In theory, LGUs are supposed to submit a utilization report on the use of their calamityfunds to the NDCC but in actual practice this is rarely done. For this reason actual useof calamity funds can only be accessed thru individual LGUs.

An apparently substantial part, possibly as much as 50 percent of the Local CalamityFund goes unused each year. This is because when a disaster occurs the LocalCalamity Fund may not be adequate and would require additional funds. A proportion ofthe additional fund requirements are likely to be met from the National Calamity Fund(NCF). However, the NCF is used only sparingly to meet these residual demands.Often, disaster related expenses are met by reallocating resources or postponingrehabilitation expenditures or even by tapping local business to extend credit for reliefand rehabilitation needs of the LGU (Luna, 2000).

In relation to disaster preparedness and mitigation, no policy exists that requires LGUsto allocate funding for these purposes. The Local Calamity Fund cannot be used for

13


14/25

disaster preparedness and mitigation, although an amendment to allow such use hasbeen awaiting approval in Congress. LGUs have resorted to finance mitigation andpreparedness activities out of other budget items. Some of the richer LGUs have spentpart of their 20 percent development fund for disaster mitigation. In other cases,mitigation and preparedness activities have been funded from the Municipal Social

Welfare and Development (MSWD) budget (for emergency equipment); by utilizingunexpended balances from other projects; via the establishment of disasteradministrative fund for the Municipal Disaster Coordinating Council (MDCC); or from theLocal Calamity Fund itself via creative labeling of mitigation activities as rehabilitation.Some established Disaster Management Office with a dedicated budget forpreparedness, training, equipment and other expenditures, but these are the exceptionsrather than the rule. In general, there is inadequate support for mitigation andpreparedness among LGUs (World Bank-NDCC, 2004).

III.III. SSTATUSTATUSOFOF DD ISASTERISASTER RR ISKISK RREDUCTIONEDUCTION AADOPTIONDOPTION

Global discourse and practice on disaster management has in recent years shiftedemphasis from post-disaster relief and recovery to a proactive risk reduction approach.This paradigm shift is highlighted by the adoption of the Hyogo Framework of Action(HFA) by the 168 countries which participated in the World Conference in DisasterReduction (WCDR) in January, 2005 at Hyogo, Kobe, Japan. The HFA is a ten (10)

year plan for global risk reduction efforts: Its goal is to substantially reduce disasterlosses in terms of lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets ofcommunities and countries by building their resilience.

Building disasterresilientcommunities is theoutcome ofreducingvulnerability tohazard impacts

and building thecapacity to dealwith them whenthey occur.

As a party to theHFA, thePhilippines has an

14


15/25

obligation to implement this global blueprint on its own national context. The process ofimplementing HFA in the Philippine context is described in a document called aStrategic National Action Plan (SNAP) that the government is obliged to prepare. SNAPidentifies the country's disaster risk reduction priorities in line with the HFA and inaccordance with its capacities; a draft SNAP document is now being circulated for

comment on the Web.10

The SNAP provides a description of the status of disaster risk reduction adoption in thecountry by using the HFA Monitor Template to assess each of the following points: 11

Priority for Action 1: Governance-Making Disaster Risk Reduction A Priority

Priority for Action 2: Risk Identification, Assessment and Monitoring and EarlyWarning - Improving Risk Information and Early Warning

Priority for Action 3: Knowledge Management Building a Culture of Resilience

Priority for Action 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction Reducing theRisks in Key Sectors

Priority for Action 5: Disaster Preparedness for Effective Response StrengtheningPreparedness for Response

A.A. PPRIORITYRIORITYFORFOR AACTIONCTION 1: G1: GOVERNANCEOVERNANCE-M-MAKINGAKING DDISASTERISASTER RRISKISKRREDUCTIONEDUCTIONAA PPRIORITYRIORITY

Desired Output: National Policy, legislation and institutional frameworks for DRR;dedicated and adequate resources to implement DRR activities at all administrativelevels; community participation and decentralization through delegation of authority andresources to all levels; a functioning national, multi-stakeholder DRR ConsultativeMechanism.

Level of Progress: Between levels 3 and 4 (Level 3 institutional commitment attained,but achievements are neither comprehensive not substantial; Level 4 - substantialachievement attained with recognized limitation in capacities and resources.)

Current legislation is under review; 9 Senate Bills12 and 9 House Bills13 have beenfiled and are undergoing deliberation.

There is a need to ensure that coverage is comprehensive and harmonized withthose of existing law, because DRR covers cross cutting issues i.e. Land use,gender, conflict, multi-hazard approach, indigenous practices, regional differences,poverty reduction.

15


16/25

Current planning practice (i.e. Medium Term Philippine Development Plan 2004-2010) already incorporated DRR issues in chapters dealing with: environment andnatural resources; responding to the basic needs of the poor; peace and order;science and technology; defense against threats to national security but noencompassing statement about DRR prefaces the programs and investment

projects. It is essential that development plan not only acknowledge the damagefrom natural disasters but must also acknowledge how vulnerability jeopardizesdevelopment gains, inserting a statement to this effect is recommended.

The local disaster coordinating councils have not been organized over the countryand are of uneven capacity. Some administrative regions and LGUs do not havefunctional LDCCs. This is partly due to the low level recognition of hazards andvulnerability among the citizen and the politicians in government.

The DRM system is strapped of funds where they are essentially needed. TheNDCC does not have and annual budget allocation and is able to operate onlythrough its member agencies and the LDCCs. No funds are provided by law at the

national level for mitigation and preparedness, although LGUs are allowed to fundthese activities from their Local Calamity Fund (LCF). The Local Government Codeallows LGUs to allocate 5% of their internal revenue allotment as LCF after a state ofcalamity is declared. A DILG-DBM Joint Memorandum in 2003 allows the use ofLGF for preparedness and other pre-disaster activities at the discretion of the LGU.Another joint memorandum seeks to set guidelines on the use of the 5% LCF.

NDCC is unable to keep track of how the LCF are utilized by LGUs since LGUs arenot required to report them. There are estimates that most of the LCF areunderutilized each year because LGUs are not keen on using them, due toavailability of other external sources of funds to meet their needs. This dependence

on external sources of funds has played the country's DRM in different levels.

Multi-stakeholder dialogue that begun in 2007 ought to be continued in the spirit ofinclusiveness and mutual learning; which has been the mark of the previousdialogue.

B.B. PPRIORITYRIORITYFORFOR AACTIONCTION 2:2: RRISKISK IIDENTIFICATIONDENTIFICATION, A, ASSESSMENTSSESSMENT,,MMONITORINGONITORINGANDAND EEARLYARLY WWARNINGARNING SSYSTEMYSTEM - I- IMPROVINGMPROVING RRISKISK

IINFORMATIONNFORMATIONANDAND EEARLYARLY WWARNINGARNINGDesired Output: National and Local risk assessment based on hazard data andvulnerability information system to monitor, archive and disseminate data on keyhazards and vulnerabilities; early warning systems; risk assessments that takes regionaland trans-boundary risk into account.

Level of Progress: Ranging from Level 2 to 4 (Level 2--- some progress, but without

16


17/25

systematic policy and/or institutional commitment; Level 3 Institutional commitmentattained but achievements are comprehensive not substantial; Level 4- substantialachievement attained with recognized limitation capacities and resources).

A pioneering multi-agency and multi-level effort covering a total of total of 94provinces is the Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community-BasedDisaster Risk Management Project (READY) funded by a $ 1.9 M grant by theAusAid with technical assistance from the UNDP. (2006-2010)

REINA Project a Hazard mapping and Assessment of 3 Municipalities in Quezonaffected by a series of typhoon and landslides in 2004.

Surveillance system to monitor trans-boundary risk like the Avian Influenza throughtask force mechanism. The Avian Influenza Task Force monitors migratory birds andfowls and determined area that Avian Influenza would spread.

Dialogues among NGOs and international donor agencies takes place through round

table discussion of the AI/PI Network, Global Climate Change, Severe AcuteRespiratory Syndrome (SARS), acts of terrorism are trans-boundary hazards thathave emerged as priority concern.

C.C. PPRIORITYRIORITYFORFOR AACTIONCTION 3: K3: KNOWLEDGENOWLEDGEMANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT - B- BUILDINGUILDINGAACCULTUREULTUREOFOF SSAFETYAFETYANDAND RRESILIENCYESILIENCY

Desired Output: Information on disasters available at all levels, schools, curricula,

education materials and training on DRR and recovery concepts and practices; tools forvulnerability and capacity assessments, multi-task assessment and research method;nationwide public awareness strategy targeting rural and urban populace.

Level of Progress: Ranging from levels 2 to 4 (Level 2 Some progress but withoutsystematic policy and / or institutional commitment; Level 3 Institutional Commitmentattained but achievements are neither comprehensive not substantial; Level 4-Substantial achievements attained with recognized limitation in capcity and resources).

No systematically packaged collected body of knowledge on disaster / emergency

management.

DOST's National Science and Technology Plan for 2002-2020 (NSTP 2020) includesas a priority area a national Program for Basic Research, which will use social andnatural sciences to understand the people's perception of natural hazards and todevelop national and local models for good governance in disaster management tomitigate multi-hazard, industrial chemical and human epidemics.

PAG-ASA and PHILVOLCS deal with climatological and geological hazards

17


18/25

respectively, they regularly monitor hazards and apply science to ensure safecommunities

MGB in cooperation withPHILVOLCS and DA'sBureau of Soils and Watermanagement implementthe National GeohazardsMapping Project whichregularly producegeohazard maps showingareas prone to landslides,flashfloods andsubsidence and conductsinformation, educationand communicationactivities as the maps are

disseminated to LGUs.

Japan InternationalCooperation Agency (JICA) commissioned the Metro manila Erathquake ImpactReduction Study (MMEIRS). The study is an example of preparing, planning andcoping against disasters in a highly urbanized region based on earthquake scenariosgenerated from risk and vulnerability assessment.

The main Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC) in Japan established a web-based Global Unique Disaster Identifier (GUDE) to generate a common code forhazard events. The Philippines is a pilot country and the OCD partnered with the

ADRC to maintain CALAMDAT.ph, a Philippine database of natural and humaninduced disaster events.

Disasters are now being studied by elementary school children as part of SocialScience Curriculum. DepEd conducted a research on the impact of disasters to theeducation sector. DepEd in cooperation with nine partner agencies and privateorganizations is implementing five (5) year project to carry out disaster preparednessthrough Educational Multi-Media Instructional Materials for the youth, parents andcommunity.

D. PPRIORITYRIORITYFORFOR AACTIONCTION 4:4: RRISKISKMANAGEMENTMANAGEMENTANDANDVULNERABILITYVULNERABILITYREDUCTIONREDUCTION - R- REDUCINGEDUCINGTHETHERISKSRISKSININKEYKEYSECTORSSECTORS

Desired Output: DRR as an integrated objective of environment related policies andplans; social development policies and plans implemented to reduce vulnerability ofpopulation; economic and productive sectoral policies and plans planning andmanagement of human settlements with DRR elements; DRR measures integrated into

18


19/25

post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation process, procedures to assess disaster riskimpacts of major development projects.

Level of Progress: Ranging from level 1 to 4 (Level 1 Minor progress with few signs offuture action in plans of policy; Level 2-- some progress but without systematic policy

and/or institutional commitment; Level 3- Institutional commitment attained butachievements are neither comprehensive not substantial; Level 4 Substantialachievement attained with recognized limitation in capacities and resources.

The country's environmental impact assessment (EIA) system has been in placesince 1970s. DENR oversees its implementation to ensure that hazards and risksare taken into account siting development project. PHILVOLCS provides data andinformation regarding geological risks and HLURB provides inputs regarding landuse plans.

Very little has been done to protect economic activities and productive sectors.

Although some private enterprises may have business continuity plans it is doubtfulhow well this are linked with a local government's contingency plan, because DCCsrarely involved the private sector.

The national Economic Development Authority (NEDA) is actively buildingawareness and capacity to mainstream DRR in land use and physical frameworkplans. The National land Use Committee prepared the national Framework forPhysical Planning which delineated hazard prone areas for future land use andphysical plans.

A joint ADPC-NDCC incorporates risk impact assessment procedures beforeconstruction of new roads and bridges.

DPWH conducted a national workshop on DRR for the construction sector

GSIS in February 2008 called on all government agencies to insure governmentproperties and other insurable risks from natural and man made disasters.

E.E. PPRIORITYRIORITYFORFOR AACTIONCTION 5:5: DDISASTERISASTER PPREPAREDNESSREPAREDNESSFORFOREEFFECTIVEFFECTIVERESPONSERESPONSE S STRENGTHENINGTRENGTHENINGPREPAREDNESSPREPAREDNESSFORFOR

RESPONSERESPONSE

Desired Output: Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and mechanism forDRM, disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans at all administrative levels,financial reserves and contingency mechanism to support response and recovery;procedures to exchange relevant information during hazard events.

Level of Progress: Ranging from Level 2 to 3 (Level 2- Some progress but without

19


20/25

systematic policy and/or institutional commitment; Level 3 - institutional commitmentattained but achievement are neither comprehensive not substantial).

Visible signs of improvement in the four (4) areas of the NDCCs plan of action ofpreparedness are evident; the forecasting capacity of two key science serviceinstitutes advances. The capacity of PHILVOLCS in monitoring earthquakes,volcano and tsunami hazards was upgraded. The first experimental tsunamidetection system was installed to warn people living in high risk coastal areas. Fiveweather surveillance radars were rehabilitated and upgrading of the DopplerWeather Radar Network began in support of weather forecasting and typhoonwarning operations of PAGASA.

Public information campaign on disaster preparedness, synchronized BuildingEmergency Evacuation Plan (B.E.E.P) for tsunami and earthquake drills areconducted nationwide. Safe ka ba? Disaster Management school-on-air is airedwhile posters and flyers on natural hazards are produced and distributed. Local chief

executives of 791 highly vulnerable municipalities, 50 cities and 39 provinces arebeing trained to handle all phases of disaster risk management and develop aculture of prevention in their respective LGUs.

Mechanism for government and private sector partnership further strengthened,various MOAs were signed with various organizations with capabilities in relief andrehabilitation. A MOA was signed with Gawad Kalinga, an NGO pursuing bettercommunities for the vulnerable and providing livelihood opportunities for disastervictims apart from construction of 40,000 houses.

Minor progress with few signs of toward action in plans of policy in terms oflocalizing early warning systems, ensuring that warning systems are properly

developed and understood by people in various parts of the country remains achallenge.

Putting people out of harm's way involves not only hard technologies in the form ofmonitoring equipment to understand hazards, but also of influencing humanbehavior. Risk communication must be undertaken with scientific understanding ofhow Filipinos perceive hazards, warnings and other aspects related to DRR.

Capacity building for Local Chief Executives and DCCs introduces a professionalapproach to DRM, this is necessary in order to reduce and possibly eliminatepolitization that often accompanied relief and rehabilitation operations of the past.

Their constituencies also need a corresponding increase in the level of awareness inorder that citizens are empowered and not swayed by political maneuvers.

20


21/25

IV.IV. RRECOMMENDATIONSECOMMENDATIONS

A number of action points have beenput forward or already being

implemented by various Philippinestakeholders on the implementation ofHFA and in the mainstreaming of DRRapproach to disaster risk managementin the country, what is presented hereis not a complete list but these thatidentifies core areas whereimprovements are required:

1.1. BBUILDUILDPOLITICALPOLITICALCOMMITMENTSCOMMITMENTSANDAND

CONTINUECONTINUETOTOMAINSTREAMMAINSTREAMDISASTERDISASTERRISKRISKREDUCTIONREDUCTIONASASAAPOLICYPOLICYPRIORITYPRIORITY

Advocate for the enactment oflegislation to adopt disaster riskreduction as a policy.

Incorporate disaster riskreduction in the Medium TermDevelopment Plan

Establish disaster reductionstrategy on a sound legislativebasis, fully integrated into andconsistent with other naturallaws and regulation

Link disaster risk reduction to poverty reduction and sustainable policies andprograms.

Re-orient local officials regarding the local calamity fund

2. AADOPTDOPTANANAPPROPRIATEAPPROPRIATEINSTITUTIONALINSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORKFRAMEWORKANDANDADMINISTRATIVEADMINISTRATIVESTRUCTURESTRUCTUREFORFORDISASTERDISASTERRISKRISKMANAGEMENTMANAGEMENTWHICHWHICHISISCROSSCROSSSECTORALSECTORAL,, CROSSCROSS--DISCIPLINARYDISCIPLINARYANDANDFUNCTIONINGFUNCTIONINGCOORDINATIONCOORDINATIONMECHANISMMECHANISM

Ensure the bottom up links and exchange between different levels of action(local, intermediary, national)

21


22/25

Ensure a decentralized governance system for DRR with adequate resourcesand where responsibilities are clearly identified and allocated.

3.3. SSTRENGTHENTRENGTHENSTRATEGICSTRATEGICPARTNERSHIPPARTNERSHIPANDANDALLIANCEALLIANCEBUILDINGBUILDINGACROSSACROSSSECTORSSECTORSANDANDDISCIPLINESDISCIPLINES

ATATALLALLLEVELSLEVELS

Encourage community participation in DRR decision making, policy setting,planning and implementation

Improve access to Information on DRR measures

Strengthen public-private sector partnership

4.4. SSTRENGTHENTRENGTHENCAPACITIESCAPACITIESFORFOR DRRDRR

Ensure funding support for a sustained approach to DRR as well as for buildingstrategic partnership and multi-stakeholder dialogue

Improve knowledge of hazards and causes of disaster risk in all settings and

Incorporate risk and vulnerability assessment methods into developmentplanning, grant making and lending process

5.5. PPROVIDEROVIDEFINANCIALFINANCIALRESOURCESRESOURCESFORFOR DRRDRR

Allocate resources for the implementation of disaster risk management policies,programs, laws and regulation in all relevant sectors and all administrative levelsof government.

Set clear criteria for measuring the use and effectiveness of such resources;improve understanding of the cost and benefits of risk reduction.

22


23/25

EENDND NNOTESOTES

23


24/25

1 See World bank-NDCC, 2004. Natural Disaster Risk Management in the Philippines Enhancing PovertyAlleviation through Disaster Reduction

2 United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNSDR)3 See Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) 2009-

2019 (draft)4 See presidential Decree 1566 (June 11, 1978)5 Defined by the NDCC in the document Calamities and Disaster Preparedness.6 The General Appropriations Act stipulates that other line agencies not receiving QRF are instructed to

allocate 5% of their budget for emergencies.7 The DILG and DOF classifies LGUs from class 1 to 6 in descending order based on average annual total

income.8 Actual allocations are based on collections in the third year preceding the current budgetary year. Of this,

22% is allocated to provinces, 23% to cities, 34% to municipalities and 20% to barangays. Allocation toincidental LGUs are then calculated according to population (50%) and land area (25%) with the remaining25% shared equally.

9 Local Sanggunians are empowered to declare a state of calamity; and thus access Local Calamity Funds, ifat least two or more of the following conditions apply for at least four days: (a) 20% of the population areaffected and in need of assistance, or 20% of the dwelling units have been destroyed; and (b) 40% of themeans of livelihood are destroyed (e.g. Bancas, fishing boats, vehicles), major roads and bridges aredestroyed and impassable and there is widespread destruction of fishponds, crops, poultry and livestock andother agricultural products. Lifelines such as electricity, potable water system,

10 See Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) 2009-2019 Draft, 19 June 2008.

11 The HFA Monitor Template is a tool to monitor, review and report on progress and challenges in theimplementation of disaster risk reduction and recovery actions undertaken at the national level, in accordancewith the Hyogo Framework of Action priorities UNISDR's words into Action A: A Guide for Implementing theHyogo Framework

12 At the Senate, Senate Bills (Sbs) have been filed by Senators Gordon, Estrada, Santiago, Honasan, Zubiri,Revilla, trillanes and Villar, in addition the DRRNet Phils DRM Bill was accepted as an unnumbered bill. Thebills were referred to the Senate Committee on national Defense and Security chaired by Sen. Biazon.

13 At the Lower House and House Bills (HBs) have been filed by Congressmen Duavit, Pichay, Ocampo,Rodriguez,Santiago III, M. Teodato, Fernandez etc. The bills were referred to the House Committee onDefense and Security chaired by Cong. Arthur Celeste. The Committee were able to hold public hearings andcreated a technical working group for further refinement of the draft bills.

RREFERENCESEFERENCES

Luna, E.M. 2000 Bayanihan: Building Multi Sectoral Partnership for Sustainable Disaster Prevention; Mitigationand preparednessAn Impact Evaluation. Manila: Corporate Network for Disaster Response

Presidential Decree 1566 1978 Strengthening the Philippine Disaster Control, Capability and Establishing the


25/25

National Program on Community Disaster preparedness.

Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) Draft) 19 June2008.

UNISDR, 2007 Words into Action: A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework.

World Bank-NDCC, 2004. Natural Disaster Risk Management in the Philippines: Enhancing Alleviation through

Disaster Reduction.

abi-envi study on disaster risk management

Documents