CONFRONTING DISASTERS: PARADIGM SHIFTSby Undersecretary ALEXANDER P. PAMA Administrator, Office of Civil Defense and

Executive Director, National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management CouncilThe Thirteenth Jaime V. Ongpin Annual Memorial Lecture

on Public Service in Business and GovernmentAteneo de Manila University

05 November 2014_____________________________________________________________________

GREETINGS…

Introduction

I am greatly honored to be invited to speak before you today. I remember shortly before

my appointment as OCD Administrator last May of this year, Mr. Tony La Viña, Dean of

the Ateneo School of Government and Oxfam's Jed Alegado wrote in an article in

Rappler entitled “After Yolanda: The Straight Path to Recovery,” and if I may quote,

”The design of the NDRRMC, which is a coordination body with very little power and

budget, destines it to be a failure. Even a great leader like Admiral Pama will face

insurmountable obstacles for the achievement of its mission.”1 You see, for the first part

of the statement, I would partly agree, but the “great leader” part I think is highly

debatable.

But on a serious note now, inspite of these insightful comments which I took both as a

forewarning and a challenge, I had to, as we say in the Navy, go full steam ahead and

take on the job. Now, after six months and 9 storms and typhoons under my watch, I

now very well understand what they meant and that these challenges are far greater

than I thought. The challenges indeed calls for solutions that even go beyond the

current capacity and capability of the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) as the primary

institution which serves as the Executive arm and Secretariat of the National Disaster

Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC). In fact, it even goes beyond all

that the government can provide.

1http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/57405-after-yolanda-straight-road-recovery

1

The reality is that it is a challenge that all of us should jointly confront and provide

solutions. I believe that the sine qua non to succeed in confronting disasters and to be a

safe and resilient society proceeds from our individual and collective philosophy.

Philosophy is so important that it drives our actions. And actions demonstrated

repeatedly through time become part of culture. This being said puts emphasis that

disaster risk reduction and management is a “whole of society” approach and

responsibility requiring a change in our understanding of disaster. Then such philosophy

translates into doctrines and eventually becomes our way of life. The good news is that

today, even with perceived gaps and shortcomings in our laws and disaster risk

reduction management (DRRM) system, the paradigm in dealing with these challenges

has shifted, coupled with the mutual help and support of the public, I am confident that

we will succeed.

Today, I will not talk about the operational details on how to prepare for, respond to or

manage the after effects of disasters. I am taking this opportunity to bring the discussion

to a broader context, noting that the participants of this gathering represent a wealth of

expertise and a body of valuable knowledge.

But what exactly are disasters? I’m sure, if I ask one of you here, you will come up with

several answers even with your eyes closed. By law, a disaster is defined as a serious

disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human,

material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of

the affected community or society to cope using its own resources.

In today’s discussions, let us contextualize disasters with the foregoing definition in

mind and as a consequence of the occurrence of a natural hazard or human induced

phenomenon and how we prepare for and handle it. These hazards can be broadly

classified as hydro-meteorological or weather/climate related, geological, human-

induced and pandemics. Examples of human induced hazards are insurgencies and

conflicts, as demonstrated by last year’s Zamboanga siege, oil and chemical spills. And

for natural hazards, there are of course, typhoons, earthquakes, landslides, to name a

few. But hazards only become disasters when people are not prepared for its impacts

and effects.

2

The Philippines is naturally exposed to a number of hazards which have led to several

disasters because of our geographical condition. We are located in the typhoon belt and

in the Ring of Fire, and have 23 active volcanoes. The country is transected by a

number of fault zones including the 1,250-kilometer Philippine Fault Zone stretching

from Northwest Luzon to South Eastern Mindanao2 and relatedly, its archipelagic

features exposes significant areas of the country to tsunamis.

A significant but non-institutional factor however that contributes to our vulnerability to

disasters is the evident mindset and culture of most Filipinos in dealing with disasters.

As the saying goes, “Ang pinoy hindi gagalaw ‘yan hangga’t hindi napuputukan na.”

Sadly, most of us still have the “Bahala na” attitude.

Lastly, the institutional state of DRRM in the country leaves more to be desired, while

the law, framework and plans are in place, its implementation remains a challenge both

at the national and local levels.

Historical perspective

Historically, in a year, we are visited by an average of 20 typhoons. From 1970 to 2013,

there have been 856 tropical cyclones recorded that entered the Philippine Area of

Responsibility (PAR). Three hundred twenty-two of which or around 37% are

considered destructive.

In the past 20 years, tropical cyclones have claimed 17,119 lives, injured 51,068

individuals, and have caused 5,198 persons to go missing. It had affected at least 24.8

million families and caused damages to agriculture, infrastructure and private properties

worth Php 354.7 billion.

But more recently, we have noticed that the impact of disasters have been more

devastating. Three days from now, we will be marking the first year anniversary of the

landfall of one of the strongest typhoons ever recorded in history that hit the country,

super Typhoon Yolanda (“Haiyan”), which caused heavy losses in terms of human lives,

severe suffering, and massive destruction of properties. That experience gave us a lot

2Tsutsumi, H. and Perez, J.S., 2013. Large-scale active fault map of the Philippine fault based on aerial photograph and interpretation. Active Fault Research, 39, 29-37.

3

of painful experiences and valuable lessons, to say the least, in the implementation of

our Disaster Risk reduction and Management system.

The Paradigm Shift: From Reactive to Proactive

In 1970 until 2010, disaster management focused only around the hazard and the

impacts of a disaster. It assumed that disasters cannot be avoided. Most of the pre-

disaster plans if any, had been on the provision of relief goods and in terms of physical

preparations, infrastructures like dikes and flood control systems were constructed

among others. To be fair, there had been pre-disaster plans and preparations, although

they were obviously disparate and lacking and evidently there was no national

comprehensive plan and programs. The government’s response to disaster was

concentrated on provision of relief and to an extent, rehabilitation where both the

national and local governments were reactive to disasters.

Consequently, the greater challenges brought by the effects of climate change and the

increasing magnitude of the various impacts of hazards leading to disasters heightened

the need for a paradigm shift in dealing with disasters. These effects were felt not only

here in the Philippines but globally as well. Thus in 2005, the Hyogo Framework for

Action (HFA) was adopted by the international community with the end in view of

reducing vulnerabilities of the global population to natural hazards. The Philippines

became a signatory to the HFA and accordingly, translated said HFA into action

primarily to have a more comprehensive system and proactive strategy on disaster risk

reduction and management (DRRM).

In line with these, legislative bills on DRRM were proposed both in the Senate and in

the House of Representatives led by the two Biazons; Sen Rodolfo and Congressman

Ruffy. Maybe by coincidence or even a not so gentle prodding from nature, the Bill was

on its second reading in the Senate when Typhoon Ondoy struck in September 2009

which flooded and severely affected most parts of Metro Manila and the neighboring

provinces in CALABARZON. This was a turning point in the consciousness and

realization by our government and people on the need for a new paradigm in preparing

for and confronting the so called “new normal.” This accelerated the passage in May 27,

4

2010, of Republic Act 10121known as the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and

Management Act of 2010 (DRRM Act).

Republic Act 10121 transformed the Philippine disaster management system from

disaster relief and response towards Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

(DRRM). This transformation demanded enhancements in institutional mechanisms and

in the competencies of people. The law expanded the membership of the National

Disaster Coordinating Council or NDCC and renamed it to National Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) or a National Council which serves as

the highest policy-making platform for DRRM in the country. The council now has 44

members both from Government agencies and representatives from the Civil Society,

Academe and other stakeholders with the Secretary of National Defense as the Council

Chairman. The inclusion of four (4) representatives from the Civil Society Organizations

(CSOs) and one (1) representative from the private sector in the National Council

strengthened the reach of DRRM to communities as well as the private and business

sectors.

The NDRRM Framework

To complement the law, a national DRRM Framework was formulated with the end goal

of “Safer adaptive and resilient Filipino Communities towards sustainable development.”

The framework guides the country’s efforts as it establishes four (4) thematic areas,

each headed by a Council Vice-Chair, namely, (1) Prevention and Mitigation led by the

Secretary of the DOST, (2) Preparedness led by the Secretary of the DILG,

(3) Response led by the Secretary of the DSWD, and (4) Rehabilitation and Recovery,

led by the Director General of NEDA which are crucial to building national resilience.

NDRRM Plan

To achieve the desired goal of the NDRRM Framework, the National DRRM Plan for

2011-2028 was formulated and approved. The plan outlines programs, projects and

activities covering the 4 thematic areas aimed at strengthening the capacity of both

national government and local government units together with stakeholders to build

5

disaster-resilient communities and to institutionalize arrangements and measures for

reducing disaster risks.

When you see our logo now, we added the word “Proactive” as a constant reminder to

everyone that we are practicing this new DRRM mindset and implementing the new

DRRM framework and plan. We are slowly instilling in the minds of the people that it is

best to prepare than to react every time there is a disaster. Subliminally, this has

become the mantra that we inculcate to decision makers, stakeholders and

communities.

The New Paradigm

The enactment of the law paved the way for further developments characterized by the

proactive stance of local and national government units.

Now, allow me to highlight some of the significant concepts and practices we now

implement to pursue the implementation of the new paradigm in the ambit of the 4

thematic areas which I have mentioned earlier:

Thematic Area 1 refers to Prevention and Mitigation. It focuses on interventions aimed

at identifying hazards, vulnerabilities and exposure and undertaking measures meant to

reduce the impact of disasters. The government has heavily invested in this particularly

in weather forecasting by capacitating PAGASA and complemented by putting up

Project NOAH. Science-based tools for early warning and risk assessment were

developed, which include the acquisition of high-resolution datasets using LiDAR and

IFSAR technologies of the Department of Science and Technology and the Department

of Environment and Natural Resources, respectively. These are likewise augmented by

the outputs from our foreign assisted technical and capacity enhancement projects with

our partnerships with JICA and the Australian government. In these projects, we

produced data sets that are used for small and large scale hazard mapping and

subsequent risk assessments as basis for land use, development and response

planning as well as for accurate weather and climate forecasting and early warning. I

guess you will agree with me when I say that in our experiences with, to a significant

6

extent, we have seen and observed the marked improvement in our weather forecasting

and consequent preparedness actions and response.

Thematic Area 2, Disaster Preparedness, focuses on capacity building to enhance the

state of readiness to respond to or recover from disasters. As mandated, we have been

conducting information and education campaigns and assist, in a limited way, to equip

and enable local government units and communities to increase their capacity to be

prepared to confront hazards that come their way. This include conducting evacuation

drills, information, education and communication drives, prepositioning resources, and

training and equipping emergency response units and community volunteers. Inclusive

national, regional and local DRRM planning is given emphasis to prepare organizations

for a worst case likely scenario that may happen. With the DILG taking the lead in this

thematic area, they have now drawn up a new local government preparedness system.

A few days ago, the DILG has launched a Guide Book for actions to be undertaken by

the local chief executives in actual preparation for an impending hazard forecasted to hit

their respective locality. It is some sort of a DRR “playbook” for local chief executives.

The effectiveness of Thematic Area 3, Disaster Response, is greatly dependent on the

area’s state of preparedness. Response only begins during or immediately after a

disaster and emphasizes the need for a systematic and organized approach to

providing rescue, relief such as food, water, health, shelter, psycho-social support,

among others, body retrieval and identification, and early recovery. The DSWD, as the

lead government agency has for its part undertaken a number of “game changing”

systems and processes to improve and optimize the delivery of basic services required

in response operations during and post calamities. In close coordination with the two

other thematic areas, response operations are now more focused and deliberate. In

fact, to institutionalize this, the NDRRM Council, has approved the National Disaster

Response Plan which now serves as the reference for a doctrinal implementation of

national disaster response operations.

Thematic Area 4 or the Rehabilitation and Recovery phase focuses on restoring and

improving the facilities, livelihood and living conditions of affected communities. With the

recent disasters, such as Typhoons Sendong and Pablo, Zamboanga Siege, Bohol

7

Earthquake, and the most recent Super Typhoon Yolanda, we have adhered to the

Build-Back-Better Principle. This has been mentioned often, but what exactly does this

mean? First of all, this is not restricted to the field of infrastructure and buildings, rather

it is a first step to building greater resilience across the various sectors of the affected

areas, including social, economic, physical and institutional. Building Back Better

translates to outcomes such as increasing overall health and nutrition, education,

gender quality, rights of PWDs and the elderly. It focuses on improving people’s

livelihood and building financial security for the population to be more capable of

absorbing the shocks caused by hazards. In terms of infrastructure, it involves ensuring

that buildings, facilities, homes and utilities are built according to upgraded standards,

and techniques and quality materials, in safer or low risk areas and adapting to the

hazards which may be present.

These four thematic areas are all inter-related activities geared towards strengthening

our DRRM. A failure to deliver in one thematic area will have a great impact on the

others. A significant emphasis is given on prevention and mitigation as a critical key

thematic area. This can best be expressed in the words of Helen Clark, the

Administrator of the UNDP: “every dollar spent reducing people’s vulnerability to

disasters saves around seven dollars in economic losses.”3

I have extensively discussed the substantial progress in our DRRM framework and plan.

But a more crucial development is the financial support to both the LGUs and the NGAs.

In the local level, not less than 5% of the estimated revenue from regular sources shall

be set aside as the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (LDRRMF),

70 % of which is allocated for prevention, mitigation and preparedness programs; and

30% is set aside as Quick Response Fund (QRF). In the national level, the agencies in

the forefront of disasters were also given their own QRFs for immediate response, relief

and recovery programs in order that situation and living conditions of people in

communities or areas stricken by disasters, calamities, epidemics, or complex

emergencies, may be normalized as quickly as possible.

3 United Nations Development Program, Putting Resilience at the Heart of Development: Investing in Prevention and Resilient Recovery, 2012.

8

On the ground, the local governments institutionalized this paradigm shift through the

establishment of the Local DRRM Offices, formulation of DRRM Plans, strengthening of

their disaster volunteers and responders, and provision of appropriate equipment to be

used in saving lives during disasters.

Tweaking the Process

Notwithstanding the strengths of the spirit and intent of the law and the consequential

developments, there were perceived lapses in DRRM, notably in the experiences of

Typhoons Sendong, Pablo, Bohol earthquake and the most recent Super Typhoon

Yolanda.

Looking back at what could be improved and tweaked in the current DRRM system, we

first tried to do some self-diagnosis at the OCD. Conscious of our role as facilitator,

coordinator, enabler and implementer, we came to a resolution to play the role to the

hilt. We were not going to reinvent the wheel so to speak, but resolutely implement what

is already there as provided for by the law. And this time, more cognizant of the gaps

that call for new ways of doing things.

Imagine how bureaucratic our government is, layer upon layer of procedures that we

have to follow, and departments and agencies operating in silos. The real challenge in

the coordination work is how to gather the key decision makers from each agency in

one room and get them to talk. And by the end of the meeting, get a firm commitment

from each of them.

So my first order of business was, with the consent of the NDRRMC Chairman, to

personally request for a meeting with each of the Council Vice Chairs, the Secretaries

of: DOST, DILG, DSWD and NEDA to solicit their commitment and support in the

implementation of the DRRM law. Related to this I requested from all the Vice Chairs to

designate their respective permanent focal persons to ensure convergence and

continuity of all our DRRM efforts down the road.

Having acquired the support and commitment of the Vice Chairs we instituted an initial

and significant step with the introduction of the Pre-Disaster Risk Assessment (PDRA)

9

which was recently approved by the Council on June 11, 2014. This is an internationally

accepted process of evaluating a hazard’s level of risk given the degree of exposure

and vulnerability in a specific area. The objectives were to have a common

understanding, initially at the national level, of how to deal with disasters way before

they occur and subsequently formulate and implement coordinated national and local

actions to address the impending hazards. It recognizes risk as a product of hazards

whose impact on localities can be made worse by the people’s vulnerability and

exposure but which can be mitigated through the capacity of the affected communities.

The PDRA, is a tool that addresses the possible risks and impacts of impending

hazards in a manner that is “Hazard specific, Area focused, and Time bound” and

not only based on an “across the board” warning signals.

In keeping with this new process, changes in the aspects of dealing with impending

hazards were put in place and executed in a coordinated and cohesive manner. PDRA

strengthens the coordination mechanism between and among responsible agencies and

local government units. A core group composed of pre-designated focal persons from

the four thematic areas including experts from science-based agencies of the

government is convened once a weather disturbance is monitored in the Pacific Ocean

Region. The DOST provides the forecast (PAGASA, Project NOAH generated info,

MGB or PHIVOLCS in cases of volcanic activities) even if it is still far from the (PAR)

Philippine Area of Responsibility. The resultant forecast serves as basis for DILG’s

preparedness efforts in consideration of the capacity of the concerned LGU, and

prepositioning of relief goods and services by DSWD, DepEd and DOH.

The evident effectiveness of the PDRA has been observed in the aftermath of recent

typhoons. We experienced a more efficient inter-agency coordination resulting to a

more timely and effective preparedness and response operations. More telling as a

success indicator, and in line with the government’s “Zero Casualty” target, is we have

apparently seen a significant drop in the number of casualty count compared to

previous disasters of similar characteristics particularly between Tropical Storm Ondoy

in 2009 and TS Mario a few months ago. Although TS Mario was not as strong and

significant as TS Ondoy was. The point I am trying to drive at is that, more than

10

anything, we have seen the beneficial effects of implementing cohesive plans and

coordinated actions starting at the national level to efficiently and effectively manage

hazards and its accompanying risks. We now do it the PDRA way, as a major

component of the new paradigm.

The National Disaster Response Plan (NDRP) specific for hydrometeorological hazards

has already been completed while currently formulated is the plan for earthquake and

tsunami hazards. The NDRP is the country’s “multi-hazard response plan”, as it

prescribes the relevant activities on how disaster responses shall be conducted as

augmentation or assumption of response functions to the disaster-affected LGUs. It also

identifies the roles and responsibilities of organizations/institutions during

disaster/emergency phase. The Plan was crafted by OCD and DSWD with the

assistance of the JICA DRRM Capacity Enhancement Project.

There are other institutions that are providing assistance in terms of capacity building as

well as improving our coordination mechanism relative to the anticipated relief and

recovery efforts in the future. To cite a few, the Australian Government and UNDP are

providing us assistance through the Hazards Mapping and Assessment for Effective

Disaster Risk Management or the “READY Project” which covered 28 high risk

provinces of the country to natural hazard. Subsequently, it was expanded through the

project Enhancing Greater Metro Manila's Institutional Capacities for Effective

Disaster/Climate Risk Management towards Sustainable Development (GMMA-READY)

which generated enhanced multi-hazard maps for Greater Metro Manila Area including

the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, and Rizal. Information on the multi-hazard

maps were shared through massive IEC campaigns with participation of the barangay

officials, city and municipal executives and planners, for them to better prepare, plan

and execute their DRRM responsibilities. Individual LGU contingency and land use plan

in Metro Manila have been formulated and enhanced, and their own capacity to

simulate scenario of possible earthquake hazard impacts have been harnessed through

the use of GIS and Rapid Earthquake Damage Assessment System or REDAS software

developed by our PHIVOLCS scientists. Moreover, the Australian Government has also

been assisting the country to acquire high resolution maps and imageries through

11

LiDAR technology and its subsequent utilization to enhance our exposure database and

risk assessments, among others through the Greater Metro Manila (GMMA) Risk

Assessment Project (GMMA-RAP). The Canadian Government and the UNDP are also

providing capacity building assistance to key national government agencies and select

local government units to harmonize DRR/CCA policies and strategies.

Challenges

While much work has been accomplished, we recognize that there is still a lot of work to

be done. Let me point out some of the key challenges that I have observed: The most

important challenge is getting the people to understand and acknowledge that DRR

should be the new norm. People have yet to accept that first and foremost, they are

responsible for their own personal well-being in times of disasters. There is a need to

change the mindset that you, as an individual, will not be a victim of disasters. Personal

and family disaster preparedness should be promoted and practiced at a community-

based level.

DRRM is not a trend nor is it a passing interest. It should be a way of life and everyone

can and should do something. Individuals should participate in drills and trainings and

know the hazards in their community and where the evacuation areas are located.

For DRRM to be successful, individual and collective commitment is the most important

element from the different sectors in society.

Institutionally, our challenge lie with the national government agencies who mostly have

always viewed their roles based on their individual functions. Collectively, they need to

be more informed so that their responsibilities in the new paradigm of DRRM is clearly

defined, thus, enabling them to expeditiously facilitate the delivery of needed services.

Similarly, despite the passage of the law, and its provisions on roles and

responsibilities, many local government units, continuously need to step up their

understanding of both the fundamentals and nuances of the law for a clearer execution

and delivery of the DRRM services. There is still a prevalent and mistaken notion that

DRRM is a national government responsibility and that they continue to rely on the

12

national government for assistance in times of disasters. It is understandable that some

LGUs cannot do it on their own, especially for less progressive LGUs which, despite

their willingness to invest in greater DRRM initiatives, are restricted from doing so due

to the limited availability of human and budgetary resources and their reliance on their

Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA).

At times however, there are LGUs which, while more than capable of undertaking such

programs, have opted not to prioritize DRRM or merely comply with the minimum basic

requirements without implementing concrete initiatives to build resilience and secure the

economic gains they have achieved so far. Local DRRM champions who may come

from the communities, thus need to be developed so that demand for greater DRRM

services may be created regardless of who the local leaders are.

The national DRRM Plan sets the priorities for Programs, Projects, and Activities

(PPAs) for the various agencies to undertake proper investment planning. While this is

good for the first 2 thematic areas of DRRM, the need for expediency in the acquisition

of quality supplies, services and sources during the disaster response phase, is of

paramount importance.

As such emergency procurement measures should be reviewed to allow for more

efficient acquisition of resources during and immediately after a disaster based on

established baselines and information gained from the conduct of the Rapid Disaster

and Needs Assessment (DANA) within 24-48 hours of the disaster event.

When you ask most government agencies, including LGUs on the challenges they

encounter after every disaster, 80% will say that it is the government procurement

process as embodied in RA 9184. Going beyond that is the government accounting

procedures which is very restrictive. The law, which is based on a normal circumstance,

becomes a hindrance in addressing the needs of an abnormal situation. It invariably

delimits the efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness of the delivery of unforeseen and

un-programmed relief and or other emergency supplies. In fact, some LGUs do not use

their funds for fear of being imprisoned. I am confident however, that given the

13

increasing awareness and appreciation for DRR both in government and the public at-

large, we will find ways to remedy these critical issues.

As a “DRRM insider,” the OCD too is faced with a number of challenges in

implementing its functions under RA 10121.

I have always believed that the key to having an effective organization is by

strengthening it’s 3C’s: Capacity, Capability and Credibility. When I joined OCD, I

realized that we were so wanting in all three areas.

Capacity in this case refers to human resources. We have limited manpower to cover

the national, regional and local concerns, including our international commitments. Also

on the level of required competence to meet the dynamic demands of the organization.

Capability is the second challenge. This refers to the resources, financial, equipment or

materiel which OCD has access to in order for it to perform its functions more

effectively.

In both cases, I have discerned that we are operating in an environment that is no

longer aligned with the emerging demands of the NDRRM system. As a case in point,

our present capacity and capability is circa NDCC while we are performing in circa

NDRRMC. There are a host of reasons for this, mainly the existing systems within the

government, and the solution is within the powers of the government as well. All said,

what we need at OCD now is a Capacity and Capability surge and fast. This is a kind of

a surge that we will definitely welcome. We need this yesterday.

It is at this juncture that I will discuss the 3rd C, which is Credibility. It is about the people

having faith and confidence in the OCD and the NDRRMC and believing that they are

up to the demands as the focal organization in addressing challenges of disaster risk

reduction and management.

Of the 3C’s, I consider credibility as the starting point and most important. Credibility is a

matter of trust. And for trust to be regained, it is not just a matter of matching words with

actions. We are making sure that despite all the givens and our institutional limitations,

we are committed to implement credible and sustainable reforms. As we try to improve

14

OCD’s credibility, we can slowly start discussing issues of the organization’s capacity

and capability. People start to listen when you have proven that you are serious, you

mean business and you want to save as many lives as possible.

On Recovery and Rehabilitation

The biggest gap in the four thematic areas is apparently in the institutional capability for

recovery and rehabilitation. The repeated creation of tasks forces for recovery and

rehabilitation after every major disaster is a tell-tale sign of the need for us to come up

with a more responsive recovery and rehabilitation framework and plan that is integral to

our DRRM system. We need a more permanent solution rather than “ad hoc” task

forces as what we did with TS Ondoy, TY Pablo, TY Yolanda, Zamboanga Crisis and

Magnitude 7.2 Bohol earthquake and now the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation

and Recovery (PARR). In fact, if we look closely, PARR’s mandate is only to draw up a

comprehensive recovery plan for Yolanda and the subsequent monitoring of the

projects’ implementation. The line agencies still remain to be the project implementer. I

am sure there is wisdom to this set-up, but in the context of our current DRRM system,

something is amiss. This could be the result of an emerging realization that, currently,

we seem to have a square peg in a round hole in terms of the leadership and

implementation of the recovery and rehabilitation process with the NEDA as the lead

agency in this thematic area. There seems to be a huge disconnect between the core

competency of this agency vis-a-vis the compelling requirements of recovery and

rehabilitation, which is operational, or what we call the “boots on the ground” dynamics

in accomplishing the thematic area’s mandate. This, we need to address and the

sooner, the better.

The Role of Media as Catalyst of the New Paradigm

Today, I would also like to highlight the fact that from among the many DRR

stakeholders in our society, media plays a critical part in mainstreaming DRRM in the

consciousness of the public at large. Its facility to deliver information such as early

warning, disaster preparedness measures and on-the-ground real time information are

invaluable not only to the government but more importantly to the people.

15

Thus far, media has been such a tremendous help in our DRRM system and as a

partner in the dissemination of vital information to the public especially during

calamities. In some instances however, I have noticed that some of our media friends

have been fixated on the “ilan na ang patay” syndrome. I guess maybe these are the

stories that sell.

I understand that it is part of media’s role to provide the public timely information on

fatalities, but I encourage our colleagues in media to also highlight the lives saved or

survivors needing assistance as a call to action for others who are willing to help.

The NDRRMC and the media can be partners not only in the aftermath of disasters but

more importantly, before it occurs. In this regard, I would like to pose the challenge to

our media friends to join us in our new paradigm and engage in your own version of

reforms in media coverage for DRRM. After all, my friends, saving the lives of our fellow

Filipinos is more important than ratings or business bottom lines.

Our Way Forward

Despite the gaps in the implementation of the DRRM Law, the paradigm shift works.

The fact remains that ours is a landmark DRRM law. It is acknowledged worldwide as

an excellent DRRM model and, to a certain extent, we have proven this to be so despite

the current limitations in our resources to fully implement its provisions. Moving forward,

improving the system by implementing provisions that are useful, is important and

amending provisions that are no longer relevant is a must.

While we have correctly made the paradigm shift towards improved prevention and

mitigation, preparedness and response, we must not become complacent that we have

the solution. As we have seen with Typhoon Yolanda our anticipated and planned

disaster criteria can be exceeded. The climate change patterns would suggest this will

become more likely in the future. We are continuously improving on the first three

thematic areas. We must likewise ensure that we are capable of responding effectively

in Thematic Area 4 and bring affected areas back on to the growth path foreseen by the

Philippine Development Plan as quickly as possible.

16

Moving towards strengthening of the DRRM, the new paradigm now puts premium on

livelihood and business continuity in disaster affected areas if only to further improve

faster recovery and rehabilitation. The development of a menu of financing and

enterprise options to ensure expeditious recovery is likewise an imperative. We are now

engaged in more dynamic partnerships with foreign governments and financial

institutions to alleviate the economic effects of disasters.

Sunset review

As we move forward, we are presented with various opportunities. May 27, 2015 marks

the 5th year since the approval of RA 10121 and the year for the sunset review of the

law. Just as risk, hazard, vulnerability, and capacity evolve and change, so must the

Law and the systems concerned to be able to tackle these new challenges. The sunset

review will be the great opportunity for us to rectify and fill the gaps and plug the

loopholes that we have observed and experienced as a result of certain provisions of

the current DRRM law.

Likewise, we can leverage on and strengthen the good practices in the DRRM system

as mandated by this law. Between now and the time Congress starts the process for the

sunset review, we intend to heighten level of discussion with all the stakeholders in

order to further strengthen the law and its institutions by recognizing issues and

challenges and how these can be addressed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to refer back to the statement of Dean Tony La Viña and Mr.

Jed Alegado that the NDRRMC is bound to fail. I agree to this due to the following

reasons: First, it will fail if the status quo will continue and the observed and

experienced fundamental gaps of the law is not remedied and amended. Second, it will

fail if the common public perception that the NDRRMC is the national government’s

“magic wand” to wave away all disasters resulting from natural and human induced

disasters. Lastly, it will fail if, given our natural exposure and predominant vulnerability,

people will continue to have fragmented concepts and reactive approach to managing

disasters.

17

I believe that key to a successful DRRM system does not rest with the NDRRMC and

the government alone. It calls for the proactive cooperation of the entire nation. It comes

with the territory that the NDRRMC can be the “lightning rod” of deserved or undeserved

criticisms when things fail. But at the end of the day, we need to act as one. We are

your NDRRMC and together, we will prevail.

I also confidently say that what we presently have is fundamentally sound and arguably

one of the best DRRM law and system in the world in spite of the perceived and real

shortcomings of the law, the NDRRMC set up and the NDRRM system.

In light of the positive outcomes from the improvements we have introduced, our

commitment for continuous reforms, and the increasing awareness and involvement of

the public on DRR, I have high hopes that we will not fail.

I therefore urge everyone to bring that hope with you. It is hope that fuels the Filipino

resilience and our indomitable spirit. It is hope that drives us to achieve and strive

further even at times when odds seem insurmountable. And this is what separates us

from the rest.

MARAMING SALAMAT PO AT MAGANDANG ARAW SA ATING LAHAT.

18