Assessment of DRRM at the Local Level

8/10/2019 Assessment of DRRM at the Local Level

1/32

Assessment of Disaster RiskReduction and Management

(DRRM) at the Local Level

Commission on Audit

2014


2/321Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations..

..

2

Introduction.. 4

Philippine Disaster Profile.. 5

Governance Structure on Disaster Management 8

Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund

(LDRRMF).

16

Issues Identified in Previous and Recent Audit Results.. 17

Recommendations 22

Audit Results of Selected LGUs Affected by Typhoon

Yolanda................................................................................... 23

Conclusion.. 28



List of Abbreviations

AFP Armed Forces of the Philippines

CCA Climate Change AdaptationCCAC Climate Change Advisory CommitteeCDP Comprehensive Development PlanCHED Commission on Higher Education

CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan

DA Department of AgricultureDBM Department of Budget and ManagementDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DepEd Department of EducationDFA Department of Foreign Affairs

DG Director GeneralDILG Department of Interior and Local GovernmentDND Department of National Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOF Department of FinanceDOH Department of HealthDOJ Department of JusticeDOLE Department of Labor and EmploymentDOST Department of Science and TechnologyDOT Department of Tourism

DOTC Department of Transportation and CommunicationsDPWH Department of Public Works and Highways

DRRM Disaster risk reduction and managementDSWD Department of Social Welfare and DevelopmentDTI Department of Trade and Industry

EWS Early warning systemGDP Gross domestic product

GSIS Government Service and Insurance SystemIEC Instructional, education and communicationJMC Joint Memorandum CircularLDCC Local Disaster Coordinating CouncilLDRRMC Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

LDRRMF Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management FundLDRRMFIP Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund Investment PlanLDRRMO Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office

LGU Local government unitMDRRMC Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

NAPC National Anti-Poverty CommissionNDCC National Disaster Coordinating CouncilNDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

NEDA National Economic and Development AuthorityNGO Nongovernmental organization

OCD Office of the Civil Defense



PCW Philippine Commission on Women

PDRRM-2010 Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010PHIC Philippine Health Insurance Company

PNP Philippine National Police

PRC Philippine Red CrossQRF Quick Response FundRA Republic ActRD Regional DirectorRDCC Regional Disaster Coordinating CouncilRDRRMC Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

SSS Social Security SystemVC Vice Chairperson



Introduction

The recent spate of events has shown that the frequent occurrence of disastersin the country has prevented the Philippine Government to reduce the incidenceof poverty and reduce the number of people and assets vulnerable to naturaldisasters.

Disasters are serious disruptions on the functioning of a community or asociety involving widespread human, material, economic or environmentallosses and impacts, which exceed the ability of the affected community orsociety to cope using its own resources. Disasters are often described as a resultof the combination of: the exposure to a hazard; the conditions of vulnerabilitythat are present; and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce or cope withthe potential negative consequences. Disaster impacts may include loss of life,injury, disease and other negative effects on human, physical, mental and socialwell-being, together with damage to property, destruction of assets, loss of

services, social and economic disruption and environmental degradation.1

Disasters can strike anytime, anywhere. It can cause irrevocable damage to lifeand property if the right measures are not put in place to avoid the same. Thiscan also bring out the best and worst of human nature. The manner in whichaction is taken goes a long way to determine how people fair from theexperience. Hence, there is need for disaster risk reduction and management

(DRRM).

DRRM is the systematic process of using administrative directives,organizations, and operational skills and capacities to implement strategies,

policies and improved coping capacities in order to lessen the adverse impactsof hazards and the possibility of disaster. Prospective DRRM refers to riskreduction and management activities that address and seek to avoid thedevelopment of new or increased disaster risks, especially if risk reduction

policies are not put in place.2

1Section 3(h), RA No. 101212 Section 3(o), RA No.10121



Philippine Disaster Profile

The Philippines is an archipelagic nation comprised of 7,107

islands, spanning 1,850 kilometers from north to south. Its totalland area measures around 299,764 square kilometers and its

coastline is about 36,000 kilometers, the longest coastline in the

world. It is bounded by three large bodies of water: on the wes

and north by the South China Sea; on the east by the Pacific

Ocean; and on the south by the Celebes Sea and the coastal

waters of Borneo.3

A.1. Disaster Threats

to RPsGrowth

Due to the countrys location along two major tectonic plates o

the world the Eurasian and Pacific Plates it experiences a

average of 20 earthquakes per day or 100 to 200 earthquake

every year. There have been 90 destructive earthquakes in th

country in the past 400 years.

There are also 300 volcanoes in the country, 22 of these ar

active and 36,289 kilometers of its coastline is vulnerable t

tsunami.

A.2. Natural Hazards

Setting in the

Philippines

Typhoons or tropical cyclones are also perennial threats to th

country. Due to its location along the typhoon belt on the Nort

Pacific Basin in the Pacific, where 75% of typhoons originate

an average of 20 to 30 typhoons per year, five to seven o

which can be destructive, strike the country. One-fourth o

these typhoons have high wind speeds of up to 200 kilometer

per hour.

In truth, from 1970 to 2009, the annual average direct damag

to disasters ranged from P5 billion to P15 billion (US$10

million to US$300 million). Indirect and secondary impact

further increased these costs. Cost of direct damage i

equivalent to more than 0.5% of the national gross domesti

product (GDP).

Aside from its economic impact, natural disasters claim a

annual average of 1,002 casualties. And in the last five years

flooding has been the topmost disaster in the country.

3Carmelita A. Laverinto. The Philippine Disaster Management System.(2010) 3



. Disaster ImpactSuper typhoon Yolanda (international name: Haiyan) is themost powerful and devastating tropical cyclone that struck thePhilippines in recent memory. The Category 5 typhoon made itsfirst landfall over Guiuan, Eastern Samar in the early morning of

November 8, 2013 and wreaked havoc, primarily on the Visayas

region, until its exit from the Philippine area of responsibility thefollowing day.

Weather officials said Yolanda had sustained wind speedsexceeding 185 kph when it made landfall. The strong windsripped off the roofs of thousands houses and knocked downshanties, trees, power and telephone lines and cell towers. Storm

surge waves as high as 6 to 7 meters or a two-storey highbuilding, were also seen, claiming thousands of lives and

destroying property.

Yolanda left a trail of destruction in the lives of more than 3.4

million families or 16 million people, spread across 12,139barangays in 44 provinces, 591 municipalities and 57 cities ofRegions IV-A, IV-B, V, VI, VII, VIII, X and XI and CARAGA.A total of 4 million people have also been displaced by the

typhoon.

According to the National Disaster Risk Reduction andManagement Council (NDRRMC), Yolandas death toll hasreached 6,300 as of 17 April 2014, while the number of injuredstood at 28,689 and 1,061 are still missing.

In terms of economic damages, NDRRMC has pegged the totallosses at P39.8 billion, with almost P20 billion for infrastructures

and P20.2 billion for agriculture in Regions IV-A, IV-B, V, VI,VII, VIII and CARAGA.

Table 1. Impact of Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines,

November 2013 (as of 17 April 2014)

Areas Affected: Regions IV-A, IV-B, V, VI, VII, VIII, X,

XI and CARAGA

Casualties: Dead6,300; Missing1,061;

Injured28,689 persons

Severely Affected

Population:

Total of 3,424,593 families, of which

890,895 families (4,095,280individuals) were reportedly displaced

Total Estimated

Damage & Losses:

Total of P89,598,068,634.88 worth of

damages broken down into the

following sectors. (Table 2)



Sector Amount (in peso)

Infrastructure 9,584,596,305.69

Productive 21,833,622,975.09

Social 55,110,825,740.69

Cross-Sectoral 3,069,023,613.41

Total 89,598,068,634.88

565

No. of people killed 69,724

No. of people affected 185,749,697

22,971,533

Table 2Yolanda might be the strongest tropical cyclone to ever make

landfall in recorded history but many catastrophic storms and

other natural and man-made disasters have already battered the

Philippines since time immemorial. Disasters have alwaysbeen a perennial problem for the country, causing masscasualties and destruction of millions of properties as can begleaned from the following graph and table:

Fig. 1. Natural Disaster Occurrence in the Philippines from 1900 to 2014

350

300

Occurrence

314

250

200

150 136

100

50

0

828

18 30

2 325

1

Table 3

No. of events

Economic damage (000 US$)

Source: "EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International

Disaster Database www.em-dat.net Universit

Catholique de Louvain - Brussels - Belgium"
http://www.em-dat.net/http://www.em-dat.net/http://www.em-dat.net/



Governance Structure

on Disaster Management

Disaster management involves a system composed of large numbers of diverseinteracting agencies, a complex web of interlinked bi-directional power

relationships among stakeholders with widely differing characteristics. Soundgovernance is critical in ensuring effective functioning of the different

government agencies all throughout the various stages of disaster management.The NDRRMC is on top of this, being the highest policy-making body on

disaster risk reduction and management of the country. It likewise advises thePresident on the status of disaster preparedness, prevention, mitigation,response and rehabilitation undertaken at the national and local levels. Thefollowing chart shows the organization and membership of the Council:

Fig. 2



A. National Organizations

Working on DRRM Given below is the table on DRRM national institutions:

T a b l e 4 . K e y s t a k e h o l d e r s a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s o n D R R M i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s

Disaster Management CoordinationOffice of the Civil Defense (OCD)

The OCD is entrusted to ensure the protection and public

welfare during disasters or emergencies. The OCD serves as

the operating arm of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and

Management Council (NDRRMC), supporting discharge of its

functions.

NDRRMC; Regional Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Council

(RDRRMC); and Local Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Office

(LDRRMO)

The highest policy-making body on matters of disasters in the

country. NDRRMC advises the President on efforts in disaster

management undertaken by the government and the private

sector, thereby serving as the highest policy-making body on

disaster management. The NDRRMC is replicated at the

regional and local levels, and these bodies functionsubstantially like the NDRRMC, operating and utilizing

resources at their respective levels.

Sectoral Government Agencies (e.g.

Department of Public Works and

Highways (DPWH), Department of

Transportation and Communications

(DOTC), Department of Science and

Technology (DOST), Department of

Agriculture (DA),Department of Energy(DOE), Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (DENR), etc.)

Responsible for carrying out their respective tasks and

responsibilities in disaster management including

preparedness, mitigation, response and rehabilitation.

The NDRRMP outlines the roles of the national government,

the NDRRMC, OCD, the Regional Disaster Risk Reduction

and Management Council (RDRRMC), the Local Disaster

Risk Reduction and Management Offices (LDRRMOs), and

Provincial, City, Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and

Management Councils (P/C/MDRRMC or Local DRRMCs).

The national government integrates DRRM into the Philippine

Development Plan as well as the sectoral DRRM plans of

national line and government agencies along the four Priority

Areas (prevention, preparedness, response and rehabilitation).



B. National Strategies on Disaster

Management

The following diagram demonstrates

an integrated system of disaster

management reflecting the different

agencies and their specific tasks.

Fig. 4

B.1. Paradigm Shift

Fig. 3

As shown, agencies are clustered under the different phases of

Disaster Management in order to ensure a more coherent and

effective response across all key sectors or areas of activity.

National cluster leads like DENR, Department of Education

(DepEd) and DPWH are lending support to regional Disaster

Coordinating Council to institutionalize the standards and

dimensions of the cluster approach. Local government Units

still continue to play a critical role in disaster response but

capabilities at the local level and coordination between the

latter and national government agencies still face a big

challenge.

With the adoption of Hyogo Framework for Action in 2005,

the Philippine Government, (mainly members of the

NDRRMC, the countrys focal point for disaster response)

took steps to shift from the focus on relief and response to that

of DRRM. International and national non-government

organizations (NGOs) saw an ally in government as it took on

projects with a comprehensive approach to disasters. Foreign-

assisted projects provided opportunities where government

could take a proactive role in identifying hazards, assessingrisks, mapping, informing, and communicating with

community residents, working with local government units

(LGUs) and LDCCs devising early warning system (EWS),

and mainstreaming operation.



Disaster risk reduction is also being integrated in national and

local policy development and planning processes. This

commitment resulted towards the drafting of Strengthening

Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National

Action Plan 2009-2019 as well as the Strategic Plan on

Community Based Disaster Risk Management 2007-2011.

Some series of dialogues and consultations among

stakeholders, international and local NGOs, the academe and

government facilitated the planning process. The field

experience of NGOs complements the scientific knowledge of

the science and technology institutions and the academe, and

the NDCCs practical skills and knowledge on post-disaster

activities. The DRRM field has grown to be inclusive of

several other players, from development planning, housing,

environment, and disaster fields and thus broadened the work

of NDCC.

Republic Act (RA) No. 10121 otherwise known as the

Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of

2010 (PDRRM-2010) was enacted on May 27, 2010, to

strengthen the Philippine disaster risk reduction system. It

specifically provides for the development of policies and plans

and the implementation of actions and measures pertaining to

all aspects of disaster risk reduction and management,

including good governance, risk assessment and early

warning, knowledge building and awareness raising, reducing

underlying risk factors, and preparedness for effective

response and early recovery. A separate office is created that

will principally be responsible for the implementation of

disaster risk reduction and management programs.

Local and regional DRRMCs are important links in the

national-local chain. The RDRRMC takes the overall lead in

ensuring that DRRM-sensitive regional development plans

contribute to and are aligned with the NDRRM Plan.

B.2. DRRM at the Local LevelThe RDRRMC is tasked to coordinate, integrate, supervise and

evaluate the activities of the LDRRMC. It is responsible inensuring disaster sensitive regional development plans and in

case of emergencies shall convene the different regional line

agencies and concerned institutions and authorities. It is

composed of the following:



Fig. 5Table 5Chairman Regional Director

(RD),OCD

Vice

Chairperson

(VC) for

DisasterPreparedness

VC for Disaster

Response

VC for Disaster

Prevention &

Mitigation

VC for Disaster

Rehabilitation

& Recovery

RD, DILG

RD, DSWD

RD, DOST

RD, National Economic and

Development Authority

(NEDA)

Source: http://brgy9apoblacion.wordpress.comMembers Executives of regional

offices and field stations at

the regional level of

government agencies

Secretariat OCD Regional Office

The LDRRMC is chaired by the Local Chief Executive and

has 18 member agencies. It is responsible in taking the lead in

preparing for responding and recovering from the effect of any

disaster based on the following criteria:

The Barangay Disaster Council, if a barangay is

affected;

The City/Municipal DRRMC if two or more barangays

are affected; The Provincial DRRMC if two or more

cities/municipalities are affected;

The RDRRMC if two or more provinces are affected;

The NDRRMC if two or more regions are affected

The Local DRRM Plans (LDRRMPs) are developed by the

LDRRMOs at the provincial, city and municipal levels and the

Barangay Development Councils. The OCD is tasked to

evaluate and ensure that disaster risk reduction measures are

incorporated into the Comprehensive Development Plan

(CDP) and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).

The NDRRMC and intermediary LDRRMCs shall always act

as support to LGUs which have the primary responsibility as

first disaster responders. Private sector and civil society

groups shall work in accordance with the coordination

mechanism and policies set by NDRRMC and concerned

LDRRMCs.
http://brgy9apoblacion.wordpress.com/http://brgy9apoblacion.wordpress.com/



Fig. 6

Fig. 7


15/32



Level 2:

organized volunteers, innovation

Disaster preparedness - Response is a test of a local government

capability in ensuring basic survival and subsistence needs of

the affected population based on acceptable standards during a

disaster.

Minimum Criteria:

1. Search and Rescue - trained personnel, equipage,

response time, zero casualty

2. Evacuation Center Management - adequate temporary

shelter for evacuees, power, water supply, food health

and sanitation, counseling and trained center

management personnel

A local government that passes Level 1 Assessment receives a

Certificate of Recognition. On the other hand, a local

government that passes both Level 1 and Level 2 Assessments

receives the Seal and Disaster Management Fund or Disaster

Equipage.

As of this writing, no LGU has been awarded the Seal of

Disaster Preparedness. This only shows that a lot of work still

has to be done by LGUs in the aspect of Disaster

Preparedness. Also, the DILG has drafted the 2014 Seal of

Good Local Governance: Pagkilala sa Katapatan at

Kahusayan ng Pamahalaang Lokal where disaster

preparedness is one of the components.

C.2. COA Circular No. 2012-002

dated September 12, 2012COA Circular No. 2012-002 dated September 12, 2012

provides the guidelines on accounting and reporting the

allocation and utilization of the LDRRM Fund (LDRRMF), the

NDRRM Fund given to LGUs, and Receipts from Other

Sources. LGUs are already complying with these guidelines.

C.3 NDRRMC, DBM and DILG Joint

Memorandum Circular No.

2013-1dated March 25, 2013

Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 2013-1 datedMarch 25, 2013 of the NDRRMC, Department of Budget

and Management (DBM) and DILG provides the guidelines

on the allocation and utilization of the LDRRMF. It aims to

enhance transparency and accountability in the use of the

LDRRMF. The JMC also defines the projects and activities

to be undertaken by LGUs for each of the four thematic

areas of DRRM.



Local Disaster Risk Reduction

Management Fund (LDRRMF)

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

LDRRM F2011

5%

95%

LDRRM F2012

5%

95%

The LDRRMF replaced the Local Calamity Fund (LCF),

consisting of not less than 5% of the estimated revenue from

regular sources. LGUs are mandated by RA 8185 since 1996

to allocate 5% of its Internal Revenue Allotment as LCF and

can only be used upon declaration of a state of calamityby

the local legislative body. In 2003, a Joint Memorandum

Circular was issued by the DBM and the DILG, allowing the

use of the LCF for disaster preparedness and other pre-

disaster activities. This fund is set aside to support disaster

risk management activities such as, but not limited to, pre-

disaster preparedness programs including training,

purchasing life-saving rescue equipment, supplies and

medicines, for post-disaster activities, and for the payment of

premiums on calamity insurance.

In 2011, allocations to LGUs amounted to P13,257,391,000,

5% of which amounts to P662,869,550 representing the

LDRRMF for 2011.

For 2012, allocations to LGUs amount to P18,303,490,000,

5% of which amounts to P915,174,500 representing the

LDRRMF for 2012.



Issues Identified in Previous

and Recent Audit Results

Lack of Capacity and Technical

Expertise

Previous and more recent program assessments and

financial audits on DRRM implementation at the local level

reveal the following cross-cutting issues:

The mismatch between institutional responsibilities and

capacities at the local level has been identified as a major

impediment to effective DRRM implementation. This has

been determined as a major constraint even before the

enactment of RA 10121.

According to a national table assessment on LGUcompliance to RA 10121 conducted by the Bureau of

Government Supervision last year, only 23% of LGUs

located in flood-prone areas are prepared for disasters in

terms of awareness, institutional capacities and

coordination.

The data was gathered by the Municipal Government

Officers through the Seal of Disaster Preparedness Capture

form which covered 1,714 LGUs consisting of 80

provinces, 143 cities and 1,491 municipalities identified by

the Mines and Geosciences Bureau within the 18 MajorRiver Basins.

The study further showed the gaps in the following vital

aspects of DRRM implementation:

Incomplete roster of LDRRMC members and

understaffed LDRRMOs. Data show that only 42% or less

than half of the respondents have complete LDRRMC

members. Only two-thirds or 67% of organized LDRRMOs

have a complete staff in-charge of research and planning,

administration and training, and operations and warning.Moreover, mayors who serve as incident commanders may

not have the necessary skills on disaster or emergency

operations and the functionality of Disaster Emergency

Centers was not determined.



Region No. of LGUs without an

approved Investment Plan

V 11

XI 1

XII 3

ARMM 22

Total 37

Lack of preventive technical DRRM mechanisms. LGUs

which were found to have a 52% level of disaster

preparedness still lacked mechanisms on communication and

warning, search and rescue, evacuation, relief operations,

transportation and medical health services. A warning and

evacuation alert system is still not in place in most of the

respondent LGUs although only 27% of the respondents

have yet to enact an ordinance on forced or preemptive

evacuation. Moreover, most LGUs do not have stockpiles

and equipage due to lack of baseline or standards.

Lack of awareness of RA 10121 and

non-compliance to its provisions

Table 6

Lack of public awareness or the threats and impacts of

all types of hazards. Instructional, educational and

communication (IEC) materials and guides on DRRM were

found to be insufficient in substance and form.

The results of audit on the DRRM of LGUs as presented inthe 2012 Annual Financial Report reveal the following

issues, specifically on the mostly shows cross-cutting issues

in the audited agencies, as follows:

Non-preparation and submission of LDRRMF

Investment Plan (LDRRMFIP). Under COA Circular No.

2012-002 dated September 12, 2012, LGUs are required to

prepare an LDRRMFIP annually. In the validation made by

the audit teams, thirty-seven (37) LGUs in four regions were

reported to have either not been able to prepare their

LDRRMFIP or the Plan did not bear proof that it went

through the deliberation of the LDRRMC as required under

RA 10121. In one LGU, the LDRRMF was utilized without

an approved Investment Plan.

Statutory LDRRMF appropriation not observed. The

amount set up for the LDRRMF in two regions was short by

P39.240 million as compared with the required ceiling set

under Section 21 of RA 10121, which is 5% of the estimated

revenue from regular sources.

Table 7Region Amount of LDRRMF

appropriation not

observed

II no amount

V 39,240,810

Total 39,240,810



LGUs Amount

Mun. of Sta. Rita 717,725.00Calbayog City 4,238,687.00

Mun. of

Matuguinao

1,513,281.15

Table 8

Region Amount

CAR 3,145,000

V 1,503,479,219ARMM 3,871,778,289

Total 5,378,402,508

Non-implementation of LDRRMF programs, projects

and activities. LGUs in three regions, were either not able

to maximize the utilization of their LDRRMF or have not

implemented the programs/projects/activities under the

LDRRMF in the total amount of P5, 378,402,508.

Table 9

Region Amount

CAR 82,000,000

I no amount

II 76,660,167

IV-B 343,118,417

V 731,000,721

X 24,267,915

XII 24,267,915

Total 1,281,315,135

Incorrect charging and misclassified LDRRMF

expenditures. Seven regions had LGUs which charged

expenditures that were not DRRM-related activities against

the LDRRMF aggregating to P1, 281,315,135.00. Moreover,

one LGU utilized the allotted amount for QRF even without

the required declaration of a State of Calamity. There were

also disbursements amounting to P2, 723,827,087.00 in

three regions which were not properly documented or

without adequate supporting documents.

Table 10

Region Amount

II

IV-B

V

Total

3,300,000159,212,149

2,561,314,938

2,723,827,087

Table 11

In 2013, this practice has not been corrected in the case of

region 8, we observed that:

Disbursement vouchers and supporting documents for

purchases charged to the LDRRMF were incomplete or not

submitted for audit, thus, the propriety of the disbursements

could not be determined.

Non-preparation and submission of LDRRMF utilizationreport. Forty-two (42) LGUs in seven (7) regions were not

able to prepare the required utilization report on theLDRRMF in the total amount of P302.046 million.Moreover, in three of these regions, the utilization reportslacked the supporting documents for funds used in theamount of P2, 723,827,087.00.



I 4,338,600,035 as required under COA Circular No. 2012-002, or theaccount used was erroneous. One LGU (Region IV-B, Abrde Ilo Occidental Mindoro was noted to have reverted

II 2,254,273,302

IV-B 857,161,705

V 13,156,983,733 back the unexpended LDRRMF amount to theX 1,865,238,742 unappropriated surplus and another LGU (Region IINueva

XII 3,851,174,036 Vizcaya) did not have adequate disclosure in the Notes to theTotal 26,323,431,553 Financial Statements.

Table 12

Region No. of LGUs without

LDRRMF Utilization

ReportI 1

II 3

IV-B 1

V 24

IX 11

X 1

XII 1

Total 42

Table 13

Region

Amount of

LDRRMF balancenot transferred to

a Trust Fund

Non-transfer of unexpended LDRRMF balance to a

Trust Fund. The unexpended balance of the LDRRMF insix regions with a consolidated amount of P26,

323,431,553.00 was not transferred from the General Fundto the Trust Fund under the Trust Liability-DRRM account

In 2013, the same practice of non-transfer of unutilizedamount of LDRRMF to a Trust Fund has also been observed

in the following LGUs in region 8:

Table 14

LGUs Amount

Province of Samar Php19,106,925.95

Mun. of Sta. Rita 1,366,665.46

Calbayog City 114,974.365.26

Mun. of Sta. Margarita 1,424,218.65

Mun. of Sto. Nio 950,204.20

Mun. of Matuguinao 706,568.55

Lack of coordination and

communication among DRRM

stakeholders

The report on the sources and utilization of the LDRRMF

required under COA Circular No. 2012-002 dated

September 12, 2012 were not submitted.

In DILGs 2013 preparedness assessment report, it was

evident that coordination between and among LGUs,



national government agencies, civil society organizations,

volunteers and the private sector left much to be desired.

Patronage PoliticsThe governance failure observed during the onslaught of

typhoon Sendong has a cost resulting in lack of

responsiveness to the needs of the majority of the

population. Despite enactment of PDRRM-2010, the

patronage system forms the socio-cultural foundation of the

current disaster management system in the Philippines, thus

prohibiting a risk management ethos. As a result of

patronage, decisions are based on electoral considerations

rather than on evidence or technical assessments. This result

in underinvestment in vital national-level infrastructure

projects and the concurrent resourcing of micro-level

projects...4 In fact in the audit of the DILG, it was reported

that 96% of the donated funds remained unutilized as at

December 31, 2012 thereby depriving the intendedbeneficiaries of the much needed immediate assistance.

Coordination between local institutions and national and

international actors is a challenge because LGUs were given

the responsibility to lead but lacked the capacity and

technical expertise to manage disaster risks. This major

constraint has been determined even before PDRRM-2010

was enacted. The mismatch between institutional

responsibilities and capacities, particularly at the local level,

has been identified as a major impediment to effective

implementation of disaster risk reduction and management.This observed condition is likely to contribute to the non-

utilization of funds allotted to disaster response long after

the disaster is over.

4Ibid, pp. 27-28.



Recommendations

In view of the assessment results, audit findings and observations,

we are offering the following recommendations for the optimal

implementation of the countrys DRRM system in accordance with

RA 10121, especially at the local level:

Close coordination among LGU officials and other

DRRM offices. To ensure effective formulation,

implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the

LDRRM Plan and the LDRRMFIP, as well as the proper

utilization and distribution of the LDRRMF, LGU

officials must work closely with other DRRM offices. Proper formulation and mainstreaming of the

LDRRM Plan and Fund Investment Plan.

Consultations with the Local Development Council must

be an integral part of the preparation of the LDRRM Plan

and Fund Investment Plan. LGU officials must also

ensure that these plans are integrated into their Local

Development Plan.

Proper and efficient utilization of the LDRRMF.

LGUs must comply with RA 10121s statutory ceiling for

the LDRRMF and utilize the said fund strictly forcalamity-related activities, supported by the required

documents, so as to accomplish all planned projects and

activities.

Preparation and timely submission of reports on the

LDRRMF. LDRRM Officers must strictly comply with

the accounting and reporting requirements stipulated in

RA 10121 and COA Circular No. 2012-002, dated 12

September 2012, to ensure that the financial information

are appropriately taken up in the books and properly

presented in the financial statements with adequate

disclosures. These reports should be posted on the LGUs

website and conspicuous places within its premises.



Audit Results of Selected LGUs

Affected by Typhoon YolandaPresented below is a summary of the highlights of the results of

COAs assessment of the implementation of disaster prevention,

mitigation and preparedness in selected cities and municipalities in

Regions VI, VII and VIII, the three regions that were adversely

affected by supertyphoon Yolanda.

Prevention and Mitigation

Mainstreaming and integration

of DRRM and CCA into national,

sectoral, regional and local

development plans, policies and

budget

Assessment results show that DRRM and Climate Change

Adaptation (CCA) have been integrated into the local development

policies, plans and budget of the provinces of Guimaras, Iloilo and

Antique in Region VI. Guimaras, in particular, is at 100% in terms of

conducting risk assessment, vulnerability analysis and other science-

based technology and methodologies to enhance its ecologicalprofile, sectoral studies and mainstream DRRM activities/CCA in

CLUP and CDP. While the province of Antique and its

municipalities of Sibalom and San Jose de Buenavista have

implemented DRRM and CCA-related programs and activities such

as flood control projects, reforestation, nursery management, coastal

resource management and infrastructure projects like drainage

systems and dumpsites.

For its part, Negros Oriental in Region VII is still updating its

Provincial DRRM Plan to conform to the National DRRM and CCA

plans and policies, while Region VIII has yet to incorporate disaster

prevention and preparedness in its regional development policy.

As for the use of LDRRMF, the municipalities in the province of

Capiz were found to have a low rate of fund utilization, which may

tend to increase rehabilitation effort and disaster assistance instead of

lessening the impact of disaster. In Capiz, related disbursements are



classified under Other Maintenance and Operating Expenses

consisting of salaries and wages, overtime pay, etc., which are not

intended to support the LDRRM focused-Program Project Activity,

contrary to Sec. 21 of RA 10121 and Sec. 5.5 of the JMC No. 2013-

1, dated March 25, 2013 of the NDRRMC-DBM-DILG.

In Santa Barbara, Iloilo, the utilization of the approved LDRRM

Fund for calendar year 2013 was not strictly followed. Of the

municipalitys appropriated amount of P4,800,859.25 for 2013, only

P1,625,443.02, or 33.9% was used to pay for the monthly

honoraria/wages of members of the ALERTO Rescue Team and

municipal employees, charged against the Capacity Building and

Risk Reduction Rehabilitation and Environmental Management

components of the Municipal DRRM Plan. This substantial

administrative support expenditure unnecessarily diverted funds that

would have fully financed the various requirements of the municipal

plan for the year.

While honoraria for the ALERTO Rescue Team may be charged to

the program, those of the municipal employees, including their

wages, should not be charged against the MDRRMP since they are

regular employees of the municipality, even if temporarily detailed

to the program.

Enhancing Capacities of

Communities to Reduce Their

Own Risks and Cope with the

Impacts of All Hazards

In both Sibalom and San Jose de Buenavista in Antique, mapping

and risk assessment of barangays have already been undertaken. In

Sibalom, barangays are required to include hazard maps and seasonal

calendars in their plans. Vulnerability assessment, hazard mapping

and capacity building research activities have also been undertaken

in Escalante City, Negros Occidental in Region VI.

Some gadgets and EWS were in place in the province of Antique, but

the distribution and installation of a Tsunami Warning System, Flood

Level Water Monitoring System and Landslide Early DetectionSystem was still ongoing. The municipality of Sibalom, Antique has

set up a weather station and three (3) automatic rain gauge systems.

The DOST had also planned to install water level and rain gauge

system in March 2014 and advisories are disseminated through text

messaging. There is also a weather station and automatic rain gauge

system in Barangays Aningalan and San Remegio in San Jose de



Buenavista, Antique. Flood, earthquake advisory and regular weather

updates are also disseminated through text messaging.

In Escalante City, Negros Occidental, meetings have been held in

barangays and the private sector to develop, establish and train them

on community-based disaster EWS for various hazards and hazard

monitoring.

In Negros Oriental, a CCA Plan has been developed, identifying

strategies and activities consisting of, among others, the formulation

of Land Use Plan in all LGUs and issuance of co-management

agreement and increasing the communitys level of awareness about

the effects of climate change.

The province has also created a Climate Change Advisory

Committee (CCAC) to recommend legislation, policies, strategies

and programs on appropriations for climate change adaptation andmitigation, coordinate with the LGUs, national agencies and private

entities to address the vulnerability to climate change impacts and

disaster risk management of the province, among others. With the

creation of the CCAC, the enhanced monitoring, forecasting and

hazard warning may already be addressed.

In addition, the advocacy for the implementation of the building code

and use of green technology, conduct of inventory, vulnerability and

risk assessments for critical facilities and infrastructure are to be

included in the updating and revision of its Provincial Plan.

Disaster Preparedness

Increase the Communities

Awareness Level

To increase the communities level of awareness of the threats and

impacts of all hazards, risks and vulnerabilities, assessments are

continuously done in the province of Antique. In the towns of

Sibalom and San Jose de Buenavista, IEC materials, such as posters,

flyers and books, have been developed. The DRRMO staff membersin San Jose de Buenavista have also undergone trainerstraining and

barangay training. The town has also established a trainerspool and

issues a semestral newsletter.

In Negros Oriental, a Public Information Services has been put in

place, consisting of programs and activities geared towards

information dissemination to the community level through tri-media



Necessary Skills to Cope

with the Impacts of Disaster

and barangay awareness campaign programs, production of reference

materials and coordination with different agencies and sectors to

increase the understanding and application of risk reduction

measures and better prepare communities.

To equip the communities with the necessary skills to cope with the

negative impacts of disaster, regular simulation exercises on how to

deal with earthquakes, flood and fire have been conducted in the

provinces of Antique, Negros Oriental and Negros Occidental. In

Sibalom, Antique, trainings have been conducted for DRRMO staff,

schools, barangays and 4Ps beneficiaries. Search and rescue groups

have been organized, training modules for schools and communities

have been developed and risk assessments and drills and trainers

training have also been conducted in communities to increase the

capacity of local institutions.

In Escalante City, Negros Occidental, earthquake and fire drills have

been done in schools and hospitals. DRRM and CCA will also be

integrated into the citys school curricula, textbooks and teachers

guides as soon as they get the approval of DepEd officials. End-to-

end monitoring, forecasting and EWS are established and/or

improved through the conduct of meetings with barangays and

private sectors to develop, establish, train on community-based

disaster EWS for various hazards and hazard monitoring.

Increase the Capacity

of Institutions

To increase the capacities of institutions, DRRMO staff in Sibalom

and San Jose de Buenavista, Antique has undergone seminars and

trainings have also been done in communities, particularly for

teachers on how to conduct an earthquake drill.

In Negros Oriental, Red Cross and other rescue NGOs have been

accredited and the inventory, stockpiling and prepositioning of

resources, and establishment of the DRRM Operations Center have

also been implemented. Risk assessments, contingency planning,

knowledge management and training activities have also beenpartially implemented.

Develop and Implement

Comprehensive National

and Local DRRM Plans

As for the goal to develop and implement comprehensive national

and local disaster preparedness policies, plans and systems, both



Sibalom and San Jose de Buenavista in Antique have fully functional

DRRMOs. In fact, Sibalom was adjudged as the Best DRRMO,

Regional level in 2013, while San Jose de Buenavista won as 1st

runner-up, Best DRRMO. Both municipalities have created their

own Operations Manual and Protocols of Response.

Negros Oriental has enhanced its Incident Command System

coordination and communication systems as well as the standard

manual of operations for Operation Centers. Both Negros Oriental

and Negros Occidental are also conducting an inventory of their

existing resources and services.

In Region VIII, the LGUs have organized DRRMCs but the

DRRMOs have limited personnel or some staff members are in

concurrent capacity.

Strengthen PartnershipAmong All Key Players

and Stakeholders

To strengthen partnership among all key players and stakeholders,

the towns of Sibalom and San Jose de Buenavista in Antique and the

Province of Negros Oriental maintain a directory or database of key

players and stakeholders, which are disseminated in the barangays

and posted in conspicuous public places.

In Region VIII, however, the lack of coordination among national

and local government agencies was evident in the audit observations

and news reports. This is evidenced by the massive looting of

business establishments, delayed distribution of relief goods and

delayed retrieval of casualties.



Conclusion

In general, the national and some local DRRM Plans, grounded on

sound legislative framework, are already operational. But there is no

doubt that challenges still abound and there is a pressing need forgovernment offices to get their acts together, fine-tune their DRRM

plans and optimize their implementation. Given that typhoons,

floods, landslides, drought, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis

and the like will continue to strike the country, the government and

the general public have no other recourse but to intensify their

disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness. Climate change

will only bring about more, recurrent and fiercer calamities that is

why DRRM should be at the forefront of national and local

development plans and policies.

Based on the audit findings on selected regional and local

governments hardest hit by Yolanda, the following are some major

points for consideration in optimizing DRRM implementation:

Imbalance Between Budget Level

and Risk Exposure

There is a significant imbalance between the risk exposure of poor,

vulnerable LGUs and their available resources to prevent and cope

with the impact of disasters. LGUs with higher vulnerability to

disasters are also those which belong to the low-income class. While

the law encourages LGUs to invest on disaster risk management, thecurrent system, however, puts LGUs in poorer and island provinces

for example, at a disadvantage as they have lower revenues and thus,

less available resources for their calamity fund. This inequality in the

availability of resources among LGUs as a consequence of natural

disasters could impinge on the overall standard and provision of

services and infrastructure in more hazard-prone areas of the

country.

Under nominal circumstances, total disbursements of LGUs must not

exceed actual total collection plus 50% of the uncollected estimated

revenue for that year. However, disbursements can only be made for

purposes and amounts included in the approved annual budget

(disaster plan), implying little flexibility in the reallocation of

resources to reflect changes in expenditure priorities brought about

by a disaster. Furthermore, any overdraft outstanding at the end of a

fiscal year must be met from the first collections of the following

year's revenue, which is expected to fall due to loss and damage to



properties and livelihood as a consequence of a disaster. This clearly

creates a situation where disasters drastically reduce revenues but at

the same time increase expenditure for immediate disaster response

and recovery.

While it is true that LGUs have varying disaster-related expenditure

demands and revenue-raising capacities, which are both affected by

the incidence and severity of calamities that strike them, these

differences are not taken into account in the allocation of resources

for disaster management.

LGUs can access the National DRRM Funds to fill in their budget

shortage for disaster response and recovery, but this process entails

considerable time and delay. On the part of the DBM, they disclosed

that they are not getting requests for supplemental funds from some

LGUs.

Since low-income LGUs cannot rely solely on their own resources to

sustain their DRRM programs and projects, they must find a way to

source external assistance, specifically from the national

government. The next challenge then is how to smoothen and hasten

the process of sourcing DRRM funds from the national coffers

especially in the aftermath of a disaster.

Implement and Mainstream

Proactive, Sustainable

DRRM Plans

As for prevention and mitigation, foresight and proactiveness are still

the missing essential components of many DRRM Plans. The audit

results show that development programs are highly reactive, done

intermittently or only when there are disasters. Many DRRM

programs and projects are also not sustained because they are not

mainstreamed into development plans and more importantly, into

national and local policies.

Moreover, some LGUs were not able to fully utilize their LDRRMF

or have not implemented the programs/projects/activities stipulated

in their plans, as reported in the Annual Financial Report forcalendar year 2012. Some LGUs also charged expenditures against

the LDRRMF that were not related to disaster risk management.

A major factor to consider in the formulation and implementation of

DRRM is the socio-economic condition of disaster-prone and

vulnerable communities. Rapid population growth and density,



urbanization, environmental degradation and pollution not only

increase disaster risk but also aggravate its impact.

Monitor Accomplishments

and Document Community

Experiences

Monitoring and evaluation, and documentation are also areas for

improvement that can contribute to optimal DRRM implementation

at the local level. Audit results show that except for policy

development activities, many local governments have no reports on

communities, teams and managers trained on disaster preparedness

and response, and no information on the training institutions that

were established for DRRM.

Through the years, various communities have evolved their own

coping mechanisms in response to managing different disaster

situations. Local governments should document the accumulatedexperiences of communities from previous disasters. The

information that will be gathered would be truly helpful not only in

updating the LGUs contingency plan but also in developing a

sustainable disaster management system with strong community

ownership. These documented experiences are actually valuable

assets in disaster reduction and management.

Promote Better Understanding

and Use of Technical Terms

and Data

Four technical aspects that LGUs need to focus on and improve are

as follows:

Integrate and implement geo-hazard assessments into the

local CLUP

Promote a common understanding of forecasting signals and

technologies to prevent misconceptions and

misunderstanding

Better appreciation of risk factors at the community/locallevel especially those living in harms way

Rationalization of hazard maps to ensure the safety of both

public and private structures in all localities. In flood-prone

areas, for example, the inadequacy of flood control

structures must be addressed.


32/32

Areas for Improvement

on Disaster Preparedness

In the aspect of preparedness, the areas that need more effort are the

following:

Completion of Local DRRM Plans

Integration of hazards assessment into the CLUP

Institutionalization of DRRM Offices

Enhancement of coordination centers

Organization of community volunteers

Training and equipping of responders

In summary, the national and local governments must work closely

together to address the gaps in DRRM planning, implementation, as

well as monitoring, evaluation and documentation. The otherultimate challenge is how the national and local governments will

become more proactive and fortify their disaster prevention,

mitigation and preparedness programs and projects, given their

limited and inflexible budgets. Two options that they can explore are

the maximization and investment of the 20% Development Fund for

rehabilitation for DRRM infrastructure projects and the promotion of

livelihood programs related to disaster prevention, mitigation and

preparedness.

Documents

Assessment of DRRM at the Local Level