Philippines - Comprehensive DRM Framework End of Course Project

Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……

1

COMPREHENSIVE DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK END OF COURSE PROJECT

PHILIPPINES1 I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. The Philippines The Philippines is located off the southeast coast of Asia, between Taiwan in the north and Borneo inthe south, and the Philippine Sea in the east and South China Sea in the west. Stretching 1,840kilometers north to south, it has a land area of about 300,000 square kilometres and a coastline thatextends to 36,289 kilometers. The Philippines is archipelagic composed of 7,101 islands grouped into three geographical islands – Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao with Luzon as the largest islandgroup. It has a tropical climate accompanied with abundant rainfall. It is wet or rainy season fromJune to October; dry and cool from November to February; and hot or summer season from March to May. Manila City is the capital of the Philippines. It is located in the National Capital Region or Metro Manila, the seat of government and economic and financial hub of the country, which is composed of 16 cities and one municipality. The National Statistics Office projected the country’s population for 2010 at 94 million with an average annual growth rate of almost 2.36 percent. More than half of the total population are in Luzon and 65 percent in urban areas placing the Philippines as one of the most urbanizing country in the region. The country’s gross domestic product (GDP) for 2009 is US$162 billion with an average growth rate of 5.6 percent from 2006‐2009. The Philippines has a large service sector including business process outsourcing and private consumption comprising around 75 percent of the economy. The manufacturing sector is small and public and private investment is very low. While the agriculture sector only contributes almost 15 percent to the economy, it hosts more than 35 percent of the labour force. As of 2009, unemployment is 11 percent with about nine to 11 million Filipinos working overseas. Remittances account for at least 10 percent of GDP and help drive Philippines economy. About 66 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. In 2009, the proportion of the population living below US$1 a day was 23 percent and 44 percent for those living below US$2 a day. According to the United Nations Development Programme (2010), the Philippines’ human development index is 0.68 which ranks the country 97th out of 169 countries. While the Philippines was able to reduce poverty incidence from 30 percent in the early 1990s to 26.5 percent in 2009, the actual number of people living in poverty has increased over the last two decades. The global food and fuel price crises in 2007 and 2008 and the economic crisis that followed, population growth, armed conflict in Muslim Mindanao and recurring natural disasters have pushed even more people into poverty. B. Natural Disaster Profile According to the United Nations Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (2009), the Philippines is the third most disaster‐prone country in the world. From 1990‐2009, almost 30 percent of disasters in Southeast Asia occurred in the Philippines (EM‐DAT, 2009). At least 60 percent of the Philippines’ land area is exposed to multiple hazards with 74 percent of its population highly vulnerable to disastrous impacts.

1 Orquiza, Maria Anna Caraang. 2011. End of the Corse Project: Philippines. Prepared to fulfil the requirements of the Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management Framework course of the World Bank Institute from 15 August to 23 September 2011.


2

The geographical location of the Philippines in the Pacific ring of fire and circum‐Pacific belt of active volcanoes and earthquake faultlines and in the typhoon belt of the western north Pacific basin makes it susceptible to a variety of natural disasters such as earthquake, volcanic eruptions, tropical cyclones, severe wind and floods (Annex 1). These hazards are aggravated by man‐made hazards, land and environmental degradation. 1. Tropical cyclones. The Philippines is located in the typhoon belt of the western north Pacific basin where over 65 percent of tropical cyclones enter or originate. Typhoons are the most frequent and the most damaging of all disasters in the Philippines being ranked highest in the world in terms of vulnerability to tropical cyclone and third in terms of people exposed to this. From 1900‐2011, 257 tropical cyclones killed 36,490 and affected 104.6 million people and with total damage of US$ 6.6 billion (Annex 2). The tropical climate of the Philippines is strongly affected by monsoon winds, which blow from the southwest from May to October and from the northeast from November to February. According to the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), an average of 20 typhoons, five to seven of which are destructive, hits the country annually accompanied by strong winds, intense rainfall and flooding. Most storms come from the southeast, with their frequency generally increasing from south to north. Luzon has significantly higher risk where typhoons are heaviest in Samar, Leyte, eastern Quezon Province and the Batanes Islands. 2. Floods. Floods are usually triggered by typhoons, tropical depression and continuing heavy rains; and by man‐made causes such as dam and drainage failures, blockage of waterways by solid waste, improper design of structures and encroachment of natural waterways. 3. Earthquakes. The Philippines is located in the Pacific Ring of Fire belt and circum‐Pacific belt of active volcanoes and earthquake fault lines. In particular, it lies in the intersection of Eurasian, Pacific and Philippine sea plates which form part of the circum‐Pacific ring of fire. As a result, the country is bisected lengthwise by the Philippine fault, a major tectonic feature, which has several subsidiary faults. One of these is the Valley fault system which bisects Metro Manila. And capable of magnitude 6 to 7 events occurring on average every 300 years and has not ruptured in over 200 years. The United States Geological Survey lists 168 significant (6.5+ magnitude on the Richter scale) earthquakes in the Philippines since 1959, equivalent to an event every 2.5 years. The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) recorded 12 destructive earthquakes in the last 40 years the most damaging of which were the 1976 Mindanao Earthquake and the 1990 Central Luzon Earthquake. According to PHIVOLCS, the Philippines experience five to seven tremors per day. 4. Volcanic eruptions. Out of 220 volcanoes in the archipelago, 22 are classified as active. The most active are Bulusan, Canlaon, Mayon and Taal volcanoes. Mount Pinatubo eruption in June 1991 is the most recent major eruption in the country and the second largest eruption of the century. PHIVOLCS forecast of the eruption saved at least 5,000 lives and US$250 million. Historic record indicates that central and southern Luzon are likely to experience a significant eruption about once every three years, with a major eruption every few decades. 5. Land and Environmental degradation. Land and environmental degradation increases the incidence of natural disasters. Rapid population growth could potentially exceed the carrying capacity of land and other natural resources thereby putting pressure to the environment. In addition, poor enforcement of policies and weak land use policies have led to the massive depletion of natural resources and destruction of the environment. The loss of forest cover contributes to increased run‐off resulting to frequent flash floods, landslides and droughts. Poor land use planning especially in urban areas have led to encroachment of structures in natural waterways which result to more frequent urban flooding even with light and short bouts of rains.


3

6. Climate change. Equally alarming is the country’s vulnerability to climate change. The Maplecroft (2010) global risk climate change vulnerability index ranked the Philippines as sixth at extreme risk to climate change impacts. Weather‐related disasters in the Philippines are becoming more frequent with climate change. The highest rainfalls and strongest typhoons occurred in the last 10 years, including three major typhoons in 2009. Recent heavy rains have also caused massive flooding and landslides in most parts of the archipelago. The Philippines is expected to experience substantial rise in sea levels, making 70 percent of the 1,500 municipalities located along the coast. The country is also witnessing longer episodes of drought or El Niño, causing a large drop in the volume of agricultural production and sharp declines in GDP. C. Impacts of Disasters Disasters are serious threats to people and economic assets, particularly in densely populated areas. The average annual damage caused by natural disasters in the past two decades is US$ 464.5 million equivalent to an average of 0.5 percent of GDP each year. The scale and significance of disasters is illustrated by the impact on lives and livelihoods. Agricultural damage is estimated at US$ 283 million per annum with an average of 1,008 people killed annually by natural disasters. The poor are the most vulnerable to the impacts of natural disasters as they are the ones whose livelihoods are destroyed, who do not have access to resources and are located in hazard areas. Since almost one‐third of the country’s employment is based on agriculture, natural disasters have contributed to the increasing incidence of poverty, especially in the rural areas. In urban areas, those living in hazard areas such as riverbanks and along faultlines are vulnerable to natural and man‐made disasters. Those in flood‐prone areas, along the coast and on steep slopes in upland areas are also at risk. Natural disasters increase the vulnerability of poor people and perpetuate deprivation and marginalization and create new poor. Deforestation, environmental degradation and climate change impacts have also made many poor communities more vulnerable to these natural hazards exacerbating floods and landslides. II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED DISASTER EVENT A. Tropical Depression Ketsana Submerged Metro Manila On 24 September 2009, a low pressure area entered the Philippines Area of Responsibility (PAR) in east of Luzon and developed into a Tropical Depression (international name Ketsana with local name “Ondoy”). On 26 September, Tropical Depression (TD) Ketsana made a landfall at 9:00 in the morning near the boundary of Aurora and Quezon and crossed Central Luzon for 12 hours before moving out of the PAR on 27 September. TD Ketsana was a Category I storm with maximum center winds of 105 kilometers per hour (kph) and gustiness of 135 kph with 11 to 19 kph movements. While only a Category I storm, TD Ketsana dumped approximately 450 millimeters of rain, a month’s worth of rain, during the 12‐hour period starting at 8:00 in the morning on 26 September. The intense rains breached Marikina River’s capacity which resulted to extensive flooding in the Metro Manila area and the neighbouring Rizal province, including the cities of Antipolo, Makati, Malabon, Marikina, Muntinlupa, Pasig, Quezon, San Juan, Taguig, and Valenzuela. The resulting floods have been estimated to have a return period of around 40 years. B. Impacts of Tropical Depression Ketsana The enhanced southwest monsoon brought about by TD Ketsana caused widespread flooding in almost all parts of Metro Manila, Central and Southern Luzon and some parts of Visayas and Mindanao. According to the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC, 2009), a total of 993,227


4

families (4,901,234 persons) were affected in 2,018 barangays, 172 municipalities, 16 cities of 26 provinces. The waters rose so fast that people living in low lying areas were caught unaware and had to stay on the roofs of their houses to avoid being swept away by the floods. The official death toll is 464 mostly due to drowning with 529 injured and 37 missing. NDCC estimated the cost of damage to infrastructure and agriculture at US$ 259 million. In Metro Manila alone, a total of 239 barangays were flooded in the cities of Pasig, Quezon, Manila, Caloocan, Muntinlupa and Marikina City – the most heavily affected by flood waters ranging from one to five meters deep. About 80 percent of Metro Manila, home to some 12 million people, was left underwater for as long as one month. C. Emergency Response and Humanitarian Assistance Government agencies, particularly the NDCC and Metro Manila DCC, together with the private sector, local government units (LGUs), the Philippine Red Cross and non‐government organizations responded swiftly to the storm, launching extensive search and rescue operations and releasing emergency stocks. However, the extensive damage caused by the floods meant that capacities of many local and national response agencies have been exhausted and so the Government of the Philippines (GOP) declared a state of calamity over Metro Manila and other 25 provinces hit by TD Ketsana. NDCC (2009) reported that a total of US$ 8.75 million was provided by the national and local governments and non‐government organizations for food and non‐food items, cash‐for‐work and livelihood, early recovery, and shelter and relocation. On 28 September 2009, GOP through the NDCC sought the assistance of the international community through the United Nations in responding to the effects of the storm. The United Nations Disaster Assessment Committee (UNDAC) was fielded and worked with the Inter‐Agency Standing Committee (IASC) cluster leads and NDCC member agencies in undertaking rapid damage and needs assessments of affected areas on 28 and 29 September. As a result of this exercise, a Philippines’ Consolidated Flash Appeal for Typhoon Ketsana (United Nations, 2009) was filed on 3 October 2009 seeking US$ 74 million to address the immediate needs of approximately 1 million people that GOP reported have been heavily affected by the TD Ketsana and floods. In response, the international donor community provided a total of about US$23.20 million cash assistance and millions worth of food and non‐food items and humanitarian services. D. Post Disaster Needs Assessment In November 2009, GOP through the Department of Finance (DOF) requested the World Bank to undertake a Post‐Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) for Typhoons Ketsana and Parma, which struck central and northern Luzon a week after TD Ketsana. The PDNA covered damages (direct impact on assets and stocks), losses (indirect impact or flows affected such as production declines, reduced incomes, increased expenditures over a time period until the economy and assets are recovered), and economic and social impacts (macro‐economic, poverty, social, employment and livelihood). The PDNA reported damages amounting to US$4.4 billion (or 2.7 percent of GDP) with $3 billion reflecting losses in agricultural production and economic flows (World Bank, 2010). A total of US$ 942.9 million is required to meet recovery needs, and a total of US$ 3.48 billion for short and medium term reconstruction efforts including humanitarian and early recovery needs under the Philippines’ Consolidated Flash Appeal. The PDNA estimates the total cost of recovery and reconstruction at US$ 4.42 billion (which closely corresponds to the damage and loss estimates) over the next three years primarily to provide upgraded housing for up to 250,000 poor families affected and new financing to kick start economic activity. To date, the Philippines struggles to meet the reconstruction needs.


5

III. THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A. The Beginnings The Philippines’ disaster risk management (DRM) system evolved from the concept of civil protection, particularly disaster response. In 1972 through Presidential Decree Nos. 1 (1972) and 1566 (1978) created the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC). The NDCC is an inter‐agency council chaired by the Secretary of National Defense with heads of 18 departments as members. In the discharge of its functions, the NDCC utilizes the facilities and services of the Office of Civil Defense as its operating arm. It serves as the President’s adviser on disaster preparedness programs, disaster operations and rehabilitation efforts undertaken by the government and the private sector. NDCC is a policy and coordinating agency and does not implement activities related to DRM. It operates through member agencies and its local networks (i.e., the regional and local disaster coordinating councils), which are responsible for planning, implementing, funding and carrying out specific activities related to DRM. The NDCC adopted a Disaster Management Framework to address the different stages of disaster management. Presidential Decrees 1 and 1566, adopted a comprehensive framework that (a) divides disaster risk management into four phases, namely, mitigation, preparedness, response and rehabilitation; (b) call for the preparation of a National Calamity and Disaster Preparedness Plan; and (c) allow for the utilization of the Calamity Fund for activities related to disaster management. While the framework clearly articulated the four phases, the actual focus was disaster response, with calamity fund utilized for emergency response, rescue and relief distribution. A few years before the new law, the Philippines’ DRM system through the NDCC has started shifting its focus from disaster response to disaster risk reduction. The devastating impact of Typhoon Nanmadol (local name Winnie), which flooded Quezon in November 2004, provided the impetus for this shift. Recognizing the weaknesses of the disaster management system, the NDCC and Office of Civil Defense (OCD) filed a bill for strengthening of the disaster management system. The NDCC actively engaged the strong network of civil society, particularly the DRRNetwork Philippines, other national and international stakeholders in crafting and lobbying for the passage of the bill. While lobbying for a strengthened disaster management system, NDCC developed in May 2009 the Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National Action Plan 2009‐2019 (SNAP). The document basically recognized the Philippines’ commitment to the 2005 Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), and broadened the scope of work of NDCC to include disaster risk preparedness, reduction, mitigation and prevention, rehabilitation and reconstruction. B. From Disaster Response to Disaster Risk Management 1. The policy environment. The destruction that TD Ketsana brought to the Philippines provided the impetus for the passage of new laws on climate change and disaster risk management (DRM). Republic Act 10121, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act was enacted in May 2010. It strengthened the NDCC and its mechanisms and structures at the national and sub‐national levels to embrace the challenges that come with broader mandate and responsibilities on DRM. Prior to the enactment of the law, the Philippines National Physical Framework Plan (NPFP): 2001‐2030 has provided policy framework for delineating hazard areas as basis for land allocation and use. The NPFP policies were also articulated in the Medium‐Term Philippines Development Plan and Investment Program: 2004‐2010. A national land use policy that would give teeth to NPFP was also filed in Congress as early as 1995 but this was never passed into law. As mentioned, NDCC also prepared the SNAP. Sectoral line agencies like the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) also proactively incorporated DRM into their agenda, particularly in updating structural and building codes and road guidelines.


6

2. Coordination at the national level. Under RA 10121, the NDCC was renamed as the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC or the National Council). The National Council is headed by the Secretary of the Department of National Defense (DND) as Chairperson. Four committees were created with the following agency Vice‐Chairpersons:

a. Disaster Preparedness ‐ Secretary of Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)

b. Disaster Response ‐ Secretary of Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)

c. Disaster Prevention and Mitigation ‐ Secretary of Department of Science and Technology (DOST), and

d. Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery ‐ Director‐General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).

The NDRRMC is multi‐sectoral and composed of 39 members mostly from the government including five representatives from local governments, five from non‐government entities and one from the private sector (Annex 3). The NDRRMC is empowered with policy‐making, coordination, integration, supervision, monitoring and evaluation functions, with key responsibilities to:

a. Develop a national DRRM framework that would guide DRRM efforts in the country and translate this into action plans at national, regional, provincial, city, municipal and barangay levels;

b. Advise the President on the status of disaster preparedness, prevention, mitigation, response and rehabilitation operations being undertaken; recommend to the President the declaration and lifting of a state of calamity in areas extensively damaged, and allocation of calamity fund;

c. Establish a national early warning and emergency alert system; d. Develop appropriate risk transfer mechanisms; e. Manage and mobilize resources for DRRM including the National Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Fund (NDRRM Fund); f. Monitor and provide the necessary guidelines and procedures on the Local Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Fund (LDRRM Fund); g. Develop with the CCC assessment tools on the existing and potential hazards and risks

brought about by climate change to vulnerable areas and ecosystems; h. Develop vertical and horizontal coordination mechanisms for a more coherent

implementation of DRRM policies and programs by sectoral agencies and LGUs; i. Formulate a national institutional capability building program for DRRM; j. Formulate, harmonize, and translate into policies a national agenda for research and

technology development on DRRM; k. Formulate and implement with the CCC a framework for climate change adaptation and

DRRM as basis for policies, programs, and projects; l. Constitute a technical management group that shall coordinate and meet to effectively

manage and sustain national efforts on DRRM; m. Task the OCD to conduct periodic assessment and performance monitoring of the

member‐agencies of the NDRRMC and RDRRMCs; n. Coordinate or oversee the Implementation of the country's obligations with disaster

management treaties and ensure these are incorporated in its DRRM frameworks, policies, plans, programs and projects; and

o. Meet every quarter. The Chairperson of the NDRRMC may call upon other entities of the government and civil society organizations (CSOs) for assistance on use of their facilities and resources for the protection and preservation of life and properties including call on the reserve force to assist in relief and rescue during disasters.


7

OCD as the lead implementer of the Act is mandated to administer a comprehensive national civil defense and DRRM program by providing leadership in the continuous development of strategic and systematic approaches as well as measures to reduce the vulnerabilities and risks to hazards and manage the consequences of disasters. As lead agency to carry out the provisions of the Philippines DRRM system, the OCD is allocated a budget of PhP 1 billion revolving fund. The Administrator of the OCD also serves as Executive Director of the National Council and has the same duties and privileges of a department undersecretary. 3. Coordination at the regional level. The NDRRMC is replicated in all 17 regions. The Regional DCCs were renamed Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Councils (RDRRMCs) which are mandated to coordinate, integrate, supervise, and evaluate the activities of the Local DRRMCs. In particular, RDRRMCs are responsible in:

a. Ensuring disaster sensitive regional development plans and convening the different regional line agencies and concerned institutions and authorities in case of emergencies; and

b. Establishing the Regional DRRMM Operations Center (RDRRMOC). The Regional Directors of the OCD serve as chairpersons of the RDRRMCs, with the Regional Directors of DSWD, DILG, DOST, and NEDA as Vice Chairpersons. For Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and Metro Manila, the Regional Governor and Chair of the Metro Manila Development Council serve as Chair of RDRRMCs, respectively, with OCD Regional Director as Vice‐Chairs. The existing regional offices of the OCD serve as secretariat of the RDRRMCs. Members of the RDRRMCs are the executives of regional offices and field stations at the regional level of the government agencies. 4. Role of local government units and communities. All 81 provinces and 1,496 cities and municipalities also have Provincial, City and Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Councils (DRRMCs). At the barangay level, the Barangay Development Councils serves as the Local DRRMCs in all 15,000 plus barangays or communities. The Councils are headed by the corresponding local chief executives with 21 members representing 16 local offices, four non‐government organizations, one private sector and the Philippine Red Cross. The LGUs through the Local Councils are primarily responsible in the development of DRRM action plans and implementation of preparedness and mitigation activities. In particular, the Local Councils are tasked to:

a. Approve, monitor and evaluate the implementation of Local DRRM Plans and regularly review and test the plan consistent with other national and local planning programs;

b. Ensure the integration of DRR and CCA into local development plans, programs and budgets;

c. Recommend the implementation of forced or pre‐emptive evacuation of local residents; and

d. Convene the local council once every three (3) months or as necessary. In addition to the Councils, all provinces, cities and municipalities are required to establish a permanent Local DRRM Offices (LDRRMOs) and barangays to all have Barangay DRRM Committees. These offices and committees report under the office of local chief executives and are responsible for setting the direction, development, implementation and coordination of DRM programs within their territorial jurisdiction. The LDRRMOs are composed of a DRRM Officer assisted by three staff responsible for administration and training; research and planning; and operations and warning. 5. Coordination and protocols during emergencies. The Philippines DRRM Act underscores that DRRM efforts are the primary responsibility of LGUs. Thus, LDRRMCs take the lead in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from the effects of any disasters. Thus:

a. BDC takes the lead if one barangay is affected;


8

b. LDRRMC (for city/municipal) if two or more barangays are affected; c. PDRRMC if two or more cities/municipalities are affected; d. RDRRMC if two or more provinces are affected; and e. NDRRMC if two or more regions are affected.

Notwithstanding this arrangement, the NDRRMC and intermediary LDRRMCs always act as support to LGUs which have the primary responsibility as first disaster responders. Private sector and civil society groups also work in accordance with the coordination mechanism and policies set by the NDRRMC and concerned LDRRMCs. This arrangement is consistent with Republic Act 9710, the Local Government Act of 1991 which identified LGUs as first disaster responders. 6. Declaration of State of Calamity. The NDRRMC could recommend to the President the declaration and lifting of a state of calamity for a cluster of barangays, municipalities, cities, provinces, and regions. The declaration and lifting of a state of calamity may also be issued by the LGU concerned through its local sanggunian, upon the recommendation of the LDRRMC and based on the results of the damage assessment and needs analysis. 7. Mechanism for international assistance. The President's declaration of a state of calamity may warrant international humanitarian assistance, primarily through the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) and its member countries or the ASEAN Humanitarian Affairs (AHA) Center. International humanitarian assistance is managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in coordination with NDRRMC. LGUs could also directly request assistance from the international community. 8. Role of CSOs and Volunteerism. Government agencies, CSOs, private sector and LGUs can also mobilize individuals or organized volunteers to augment their respective personnel complement and logistical requirements in the delivery of DRRM programs and activities; taking full responsibility for the enhancement, welfare and protection of volunteers, and submitting the list of volunteers to OCD, through the LDRRMOs, for accreditation and inclusion in the database of community disaster volunteers. 9. Disaster Risk Management Funds. The Calamity Fund under the annual General Appropriations Act was renamed the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (NDRRM Fund) for disaster risk reduction or mitigation, prevention and preparedness activities, relief, recovery, reconstruction and other work or services in connection with natural or human induced calamities which may occur during the budget year or those that occurred in the past two years from the budget year. The amount of the NDRRM Fund and recipient agencies and LGUs is determined upon recommendation of NDRRMC and approval of the President. The Local Calamity Fund was renamed as Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (LDRRM Fund). LGUs are mandated to set aside not less than five percent of their estimated revenue from regular sources as LDRRM Fund to support DRRM activities particularly pre‐disaster preparedness, post‐disaster activities, and for payment of premiums on calamity insurance. This essentially increased the limit of the calamity fund mandated of LGUs to set aside under the LGC. Thirty percent of both NDRRM and LDRRM Funds are allocated as Quick Response Fund (QRF) or stand‐by fund for relief and recovery programs in order that situation and living conditions of people in communities or areas stricken by disasters may be normalized as quickly as possible. The unexpended LDRRMF will accrue to a special trust fund to support DRRM activities of the LDRRMCs. After five years, unexpended funds is reverted to the General Fund and available for other social services identified by the local sanggunian. In addition to these, other key sources of funding for disasters are:


9

a. DSWD Standby Fund and Stockpile – For 2011, DSWD’s standby fund is US$ 16.74 million with US$ 15.62 million allocated as QRF and US$ 1.12 million allocated as cash assistance to victims of disasters. In addition, US$ 12.34 million funds is allocated for stockpile of food and non‐food items. Both the standby fund and stockpile are allocated to all 17 regions nationwide through regional offices of DSWD.

b. Presidential Social Fund – Based on the priorities and approval of the President, this fund could be tapped to finance relief assistance and other post‐disaster activities.

c. Philippines Development Assistance Fund – This is a special allocation for members of Congress which is also referred as “pork barrel.” Senators and Representatives usually approve release of these funds for areas stricken by disasters, particularly if this is the Representatives’ congressional districts.

d. Special Relief and Rehabilitation Fund – After the 1990 Baguio earthquake and Mount Pinatubo eruption, special relief and rehabilitation committees and funds were set to support rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts.

e. Gender and Development Fund – Government agencies and LGUs are mandated to allocate five percent of their annual appropriation to gender and development activities, which they can utilize for gender‐related DRRM training, activities and projects.

10. Integration of DRRM into education, public service and community work. The NDRRMC is also mandated to establish a DRRM Institute that will provide degree, non‐degree and skills training programs on DRRM. The DepED, the CHED, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), in coordination with the OCD, National Youth Commission (NYC), DOST, DENR, DILG‐BFP, DOH, DSWD and other relevant agencies are mandated to integrate DRRM in the school curricula of primary, secondary and tertiary level of educations, including the National Service Training Program, formal and non‐formal, technical‐vocational, indigenous learning, and out‐of‐school youth courses and programs. The National, Regional and Local DRRMCs, LDRRMOs, BDRRMCs and the Sanggunian Kabataan councils will encourage community, particularly youth, participation in DRRM activities, such as organizing quick response groups, identifying disaster‐prone areas, and implementing disaster mitigation activities. The public sector employees will also be trained in emergency response and preparedness. 11. Platform for government‐international community discussions. Recently established was a Working Group on Climate Change covering Disaster Risk Management under the Philippines Development Forum (PDF). Discussions on DRM (and climate change) also happen under the PDF Working Groups on Decentralization and Local Governments, and Sustainable and Rural Development. These Working Groups provide venues for government and international development partners to discuss policies and priorities on climate change and DRM and facilitate donor harmonization and collaboration in the spirit of the Accra agreement. IV. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE NATIONAL DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM The assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the national DRM system will straddle between the old (NDCC) and new (NDRRMC) systems and structures. A. Strengths 1. Conducive policy environment. Several strengths of the Philippines system emanate from the Philippines DRRM Act and the SNAP. The DRRM Act seeks to address many of the fundamental weaknesses engendered by the response‐oriented disaster management approach of the past as identified in SNAP. It introduces a pro‐active and comprehensive approach to DRRM that emphasizes prevention, mitigation, and preparedness, reconstruction based on building back better


10

principle, over response and relief. Moreover, the DRRM Act and the Climate Change Act also facilitated the preparation of a disaster and climate sensitive Philippines Development Plan for 2011‐2016. 2. Interagency and multi‐sectoral mechanism. To be able to carry out the enhanced mandate, the DRRM Act introduces institutional and operational reforms at the national and local level. The creation of four committees, namely; response, preparedness, prevention and mitigation, and rehabilitation and reconstruction; and the appointment of Vice‐Chair to DND for each of the four components signaled equal attention on all components with clear accountable‐agencies that would drive the agenda of each component capitalizing on interagency, multi‐sectoral and coordinative mechanism. This mechanism also indicates the presence of diverse expertise from member‐agencies of NDRRMC. NDCC also adopted in 2008 the IASC cluster system which allowed for United Nations humanitarian agencies and UNDAC to work side‐by‐side with NDCC member‐agencies in emergency response and humanitarian assistance, and undertake rapid damage and needs assessment right after TD Ketsana struck. In terms of strengthening coordination, OCD is currently customizing an incident command system training package for NDRRMC and RDRRMCs for roll out in the first quarter of 2012. 3. Leadership of local governments. Te DRRM Act placed the primary responsibility on DRRM to LGUs. This is consistent with the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) which articulated the role of LGUs as first responders in line with their mandate to ensure the overall safety and security of their constituents. Furthermore, local communities and people are best placed to provide knowledge about their localities given their local understanding and experiences in the area. There are local governments in Metro Manila like Pasig, Makati and Quezon cities with strong response and rescue units which worked with NDCC and MMDA in supporting the needs of other LGUs in the metropolis. Moreover, the policy on coordination during emergencies ensure that local capacities are carefully considered before higher levels of government and other actors provide the necessary support to affected areas. This is to ensure that activities are coordinated to avoid overlapping and waste of resources. For example, in the aftermath of TD Ketsana, when Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and LGUs were overwhelmed by the extent of flooding, damages and people affected; the NDCC stepped in and worked with them on rescue and relief operations. The new law enjoins LGUs to establish permanent DRRM Offices (DRRMOs) under the office of LCEs. The local DRRMOs are responsible for administration and training, research and planning, and operations and warning. Even prior to the new DRRM Act, several cities in Metro Manila have established their disaster management offices. For example, the cities of Makati, Pasig and Quezon have strong disaster management units particularly on response and rescue. Local governments have rich experience in preparing for and managing natural disasters. The Gawad Kalasag: Search for Excellence in Disaster Management conducted annually by NDRRMC is a good way of recognizing LGUs’ outstanding performance and initiatives on DRM. The search provides a rich resource of local and indigenous practices that could be replicated and encourage other LGUs. Oxfam for example has documented and actively disseminating these practices through knowledge sharing with other LGUs. 4. Civil society participation. The DRRM Councils cascade from the national down to the city and municipal levels. The membership has been expanded to ensure adequate representation across sectors and levels of governance, as well as from the private and non‐government sectors. This wide membership of the local DRRMCs enables local governments to tap into the expertise, capacities, resources, and networks of their stakeholders in addressing the impacts of natural disasters. Under the new setup, the DRM system significantly considered the membership and representation of the non‐government sector. The participation of CSOs is very well encouraged with four seats for non‐government organizations (NGOs) and one for the private sector.


11

a. Role of non‐government organizations. There is a rich network and resource in NGOs

that mostly work closely with communities that could help the government on community‐based DRM work, particularly in knowledge and technology management and sharing. Humanitarian NGOs like Oxfam, World Vision, Child Fund, Plan International and Accion Hombre, among others went out of their way to immediately provide food and non‐food items and relief assistance to people affected by TD Ketsana. These NGOs augmented the resources of GOP and also served as a conduit for donors to deliver their assistance to flood victims. According to NDCC, combined assistance provided by NGOs reached US$ 6.6 million. During the recovery period, NGOs also implemented disaster preparedness activities for affected communities. The Partners for Resilience Project of the Red Cross movement and several NGOs are implementing community‐based DRM; including early warning, drills, contingency planning; in selected communities in Metro Manila and other highly vulnerable areas in other parts of the country.

b. Role of the private sector. The private sector is an untapped huge resource that could

generate funds and support reconstruction efforts. When TD Ketsana struck, the biggest television networks (e.g., ABS‐CBN and GMA 7 Network) ran donation campaigns for victims of typhoons and successfully generated huge sums of money that were used for relief, livelihood, shelter and relocation support for affected population. More significantly, the private sector could play a big role in disaster insurance market, which to date is not fully developed in the country.

c. Role of academic and research institutions. Academic and research institutions could

serve as DRM knowledge and technology hubs, and training centers at the national and local levels. They could work with the government on research and development agenda on DRM, and development of tools and training programs that could be rolled out to local governments and communities. For example, the University of the Philippines: • through the Institute of Civil Engineering is working with PAGASA and PHIVOLCS

in developing vulnerability curves for different building typology in the Philippines which will be used in severe wind, flood and earthquake risk models for Metro Manila;

• through the Department of Geodetic Engineering is supporting DPWH and DOST in cross section survey of Pasig‐Marikina river system; and

• through the School of Urban and Regional Planning is working with NEDA in developing training programs on integration of DRR‐CCA into development and land use planning and in training local planners.

d. Role of the Philippine Red Cross. Another important element in the Philippines DRM

system is the active involvement of the Philippine Red Cross (PRC) as an auxiliary entity to the government especially at the community level to support and work with BDRRMCs. This program can support BDRRMCs particularly in strengthening and augmenting barangay disaster response and action teams. PRC was in the middle of action and worked with the local governments on response, rescue and relief distribution using its own resources.

e. Role of Volunteers. Volunteers also played an important role. NDCC, DSWD, PRC and

television networks, among others called on volunteers for assistance on packing and distribution of relief assistance. Some volunteers were also in more specialized work such as database management, and tracking of victims and assistance provided. A key strength of PRC is its nationwide presence capitalizing on its huge network of volunteers


12

through its Red Cross 143 Program (1 leader and 43 members per barangay). PRC redirected some of its resources, provided selected Metro Manila cities with rescue equipment and training on disaster preparedness. MMDA also recently launched its disaster volunteer program in Metro Manila. Training programs on disaster management are currently being rolled out for these volunteers.

4. Mechanism for international collaboration. The new DRM system provides mechanism for government and international collaboration. The NDCC through the IASC cluster system worked with UNDAC on rapid damage and needs assessment after TD Ketsana. The Consolidated Flash Appeal for TD Ketsana covered recommendations on emergency assistance and early recovery for implementation in Metro Manila. World Bank worked with DOF and consulted government agencies for the PDNA on Typhoons Ketsana and Parma, which provided strategic and pragmatic recommendations on DRM activities to be pursued particularly in Metro Manila. The government also takes account of regional and transboundary risks, with a view to promote regional cooperation on risk reduction. The government has linked up with international agencies in monitoring and increasing alertness level on natural and biological disasters. Through ASEAN and UN support, appropriate tools and models for disaster risk reduction are being shared. Although the government does not have adequate funding for engaging in regional and transboundary risk management, it receives support and assistance from international and bilateral donor organizations (GFDRR, 2009). 5. Funding for disaster risk management activities. At the operational level, the local calamity fund has been converted into a local DRRM Fund. The five percent limit has been removed and made into a minimum level for DRRM spending. Eligible expenditures include not just response and relief, but preparedness, mitigation, and prevention, including premium for disaster insurance schemes. To ensure this, only 30 percent of the fund could be set aside as a QRF or stand‐by fund for relief and recovery programs. Furthermore, to make the fund more responsive to rehabilitation and reconstruction, LGUs can roll over the fund for a period of five years. After five years, unexpended fund is reverted to the General Fund with a caveat that it could only be used for DRRM activities. Based on the level of capacity and equipment of Makati it may have certainly used its calamity fund to strengthen its disaster management capacities2. Taguig City is planning to ramp up its response and rescue unit and has fully utilized its Local DRRM Fund for purchase of equipment3. According to NDCC, the national government provided a total of US$ 14.8 million for food and non‐food items, early recovery, and shelter. 6. Strengthening early warning system. Efficient and effective communication is vital during emergency operations. Thus, NDCC set up a coordination network, warning and alert system, and information flow in their Emergency Operations Center (EOC) that builds on individual systems of alert agencies such as PAGASA for typhoons and PHIVOLCS for earthquake and volcanic activities, among others. Respective agencies are also expected to develop their procedural information management and communication policies for relaying information to and from their respective regional agencies to the NDRRMC EOC and vice versa. Several efforts are being undertaken to improve early warning.

a. Just before TD Ketsana ravaged Luzon, the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) introduced to PAGASA the Tropical Cyclone Module technology of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to automate triangulation of international forecasting systems, forecasting and generation of alert and public warnings.

b. Right after TD Ketsana, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) gave the Philippines a US$40 billion grant to improve the country's weather monitoring and

2 Based on a meeting with Mr Hector Reyes, Makati City DRRMC Executive Director, on 07 September 2011. 3 Based on a meeting with Mayor Lani Cayetano of Taguig City on 8 September 2011.


13

information dissemination system through Doppler radar system. This resulted to forecast and public warning that includes rainfall intensity in addition to wind intensity. Without the Doppler radar system, rainfall intensity cannot be predicted and so TD Ketsana’s amount of rainfall was not predicted at all.

c. JICA also provided a grant to upgrade the forecasting capability of PHIVOLCS d. The Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) also provided rainfall gauges to

improve the MMDA Efficient Flood Control System. 7. Multi‐hazard to risk‐based approach to risk identification. In 2006, several technical agencies, which traditionally did not work together, started working together on multi‐hazard mapping of the 27 most vulnerable provinces to disasters through the READY (Hazards Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community‐Based Disaster Risk Management) Project II, supported by AusAID and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Known as the Collective Strengthening of Community Awareness on Natural Disasters (CSCAND), a technical working group under the Committee on Disaster Prevention and Mitigation of NDCC, agencies include (a) Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB); (b) National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA); (c) Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA); (d) Philippine Institute for Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS); and the (e) OCD. Under READY Project, PHIVOLCS introduced their agency‐developed Rapid Earthquake Damage Assessment System (REDAS), a risk assessment open software that LGUs could use in determining the potential impacts of earthquake to their communities and consider these in their plans and investments. In addition to this; MGB, PHIVOLCS and PAGASA are completing hazard mapping of the other 57 provinces under the National Geohazards Mapping and Assessment Program of the government. Through another AusAID‐supported initiative, the Risk Analysis Project (Enhancing Capacities of Greater Metro Manila Area (GMMA) on Earthquake, Tropical Severe Wind and Flood Risk Analysis), CSCAND are graduating from hazard characterization to risk‐based approach to mapping. Efforts have been started to develop risk models for earthquake, tropical cyclone severe wind and flooding; vulnerability curves for different building typology; and exposure database containing social, economic and physical information of an area. Furthermore, a new dataset using LiDAR (light detection and ranging) survey was recently generated for Metro Manila and its neighbouring areas. This dataset provides more accurate digital elevation models that inform the development of risk models and estimation of disaster impacts for better land use planning and decisions. NAMRIA has also embarked on a national geo‐portal project to strengthen the spatial database system of the agency so it could better perform its function as source and repository of map and information. 8. Some windows for risk sharing and transfer. The DRRM Act mandates LGUs to use the LDRRM Fund to finance disaster insurance schemes. The market for this at this stage is not yet mature. This could be because of the low appreciation of property owners on the need for insurance. This is especially true if construction standard of properties such as houses are sub‐standard. There are however government‐managed insurance systems, namely:

a. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) – Provides national government and LGUs low premium insurance for its facilities and equipment against disasters as well as low‐interest loans for its government‐employee‐members during disasters.

b. Social Security System (SSS) – Provides low‐interest insurance, and loans for its members private‐employee‐members during disasters.

c. Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC) ‐ Insurance for crops (palay and high value crops) and livestock.

Moreover, GOP and the World Bank signed in July 2011 a DRM Policy Loan with a Catastrophe Deferred Draw Down Option (CAT‐DDO) Project. This a concessional loan that could be tapped by


14

GOP upon declaration of a state of calamity to finance its rehabilitation and construction needs. The World Bank is also discussing with GOP a catastrophic pool of funds for LGUs. 9. Integration of DRR and CCA. The NDRRMC and CCC signed a Memorandum of Understanding on working together towards a harmonized framework on disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA), which will be the basis of their respective action plans and resulting investment projects. After TD Ketsana, there was a realization in Metro Manila to consider climate change impacts in preparing policies and implementing DRM activities. NEDA is currently preparing guidelines on integrating DRR and CCA into sectoral, development and land use plans to guide government agencies and LGUs in updating their planning documents. Through the Global Facility for DRR (GFDRR), World Bank and DILG are supporting selected LGUs in mainstreaming DRM into their plans and investment programs, and establishing local DRRM offices. Disasters are currently part of social studies and science, and values integration in primary and secondary public school curricula. There is also institutional commitment from the Department of Education (DepEd) to strengthen the integration of DRM into the education sector. DepEd is reviewing the primary and secondary school curricula to further enhance DRM integration, providing DRM training to teachers and promoting resilient construction of new schools. There are also tertiary educational institutions offering degree (bachelors and masters) and non‐degree programs on DRM. Disaster preparedness activities are also integrated in the National Tertiary Service Program. There are also awareness‐campaign programs and DRM‐relevant courses offered through the Program for Enhancement of Emergency Response (PEER) supported by the United States Agency for International Development, World Bank Institute, and ASEAN Disaster Preparedness Center (SNAP, 2009). 10. Informed rehabilitation and reconstruction. Following the ECLAC methodology (World Bank Institute, 2011) for identification of direct, indirect and macroeconomic impacts of disasters, the PDNA provided recommendations to design and develop mitigation policies, quantify the needed international aid, and identify the necessary rehabilitation and reconstruction measures for the affected areas. Below are some activities being implemented and in the pipeline to support reconstruction efforts:

a. Preparation of Metro Manila Flood Control and Mitigation Master Plan, GFDRR b. Metro Manila water resources study, GFDRR c. Updating of structural and building codes, DPWH d. Updating of design guidelines for national and local roads, DPWH and DILG e. 2nd Phase of the Mainstreaming DRR into the Infrastructure Sector, ADPC, DPWH f. Construction of Hazard Resilient School Buildings, DepEd g. Housing and Livelihood Support to Disaster Victims, DSWD h. Building Resilience and Awareness on the Impacts of Climate Change and Natural

Disasters (BRACE) Program, AusAID with NDRRMC, Philippine Red Cross and Taguig City Annex 4 presents a list of DRM activities implemented with reference to HFA. B. Weaknesses The Philippines has always been criticized for its weakness in implementation despite its world‐class laws and policies. As often the case, the devil is in the detail and in cascading the policies from the national level to actions on the ground, the local governments and communities, given capacity and resource constraints.


15

1. Weak institutional mechanism and capacity. While the DRRM Act strengthened, expanded the membership and shifted the priority of NDRRMC from disaster response to risk reduction, the institutional mechanism is still criticized as weak and lacking the power and resources that would allow it to better perform its mandates. The NDRRMC relies on the resources of its member‐agencies to implement DRM interventions, which could just be a repackaging of their current programs. Moreover, while OCD as lead implementer and secretariat of NDRRMC can recruit additional staffs and specialist, it has not done so given resource constraint and the long‐running “freeze hiring” in the bureaucracy. An in depth capability building effort must be undertaken for NDRRMC, particularly OCD given its critical role in driving the DRM system. The member‐agencies also need to be trained on the IASC cluster system. According to OCD, since the institutionalization of the IASC cluster system in 2008, there was no deliberate and comprehensive effort yet to train the member agencies, particularly the lead agencies. 2. Weak capacity of local governments. Existing studies (SNAP, 2009) point to the weak capacities and limited budgets as major gaps among local governments to effectively carry out their mandates under the DRRM Act. Many LGUs are ill‐prepared for their role as first responders and do not have the adequate access to the vast body of knowledge available at the national level. Systems for dissemination are weak and the information do not necessarily trickle down at the local level in a more comprehensive and systematic manner. With the compounding impacts of climate change, pervasive poverty, inadequate infrastructure, and high population, natural disasters oftentimes easily overwhelm many LGUs and render them unable to undertake effective actions and measures. LGUs also vary in their capacity for early warning systems. While some LGUs already have their own warning systems for typhoons and flooding, many still do not have the technical capacity and lack access to equipment and facilities. For these LGUs, mass media is an important source of information during disasters (GFDRR, 2009). 3. Limited engagement of CSOs. Right now, there are several NGOs which implement projects parallel to what the government is undertaking. More work needs to happen on encouraging collaboration between government agencies and CSOs, particularly on community‐based DRM activities. This would encourage complementation and save resources, and would allow government agencies to focus on their primary mandate, to generate technical tools for example. 4. Weak implementation of laws and policies. Several laws and policies related to DRM are present but enforcement is often weak. Poor enforcement of easement zone regulations contributed to the burgeoning of informal settlers along riverbanks and near coastlines. Many structures do not fully comply with the safeguards under the building code and environmental compliance certificates (ECCs). In some LGUs, appropriate building codes and standards are set aside to reduce construction costs, and in some cases zoning regulations are poorly enforced and/or violated by some building and housing developers. Poor regulation in the construction of buildings and other physical establishments in disaster‐prone areas contribute to increased risks in communities (GFDRR, 2009). 5. Reforms funded through donor projects. Most reforms introduced are through donor‐supported projects. Without the ownership of the government and stakeholders, the reforms introduced are rendered unsustainable especially if the government cannot continue the reform introduced once the project is completed. 6. Absence of insurance mechanism. Existing legal frameworks do not encourage the development of insurance schemes particularly for the poor. Furthermore, despite the availability of GSIS insurance system for properties, most local governments did not tap this facility. This could be a reflection of most local chief executives’ lack of appreciation of the need to protect their economic activities and productive sectors. Moreover, most farmers did not tap the insurance for crops and livestock available with PCIC.


16

7. Incomplete hazard and risk information. While hazard and risk mapping have been initiated, this is not yet completed. Moreover, most of the maps are at provincial‐level (1:250,000) scale and these still need to be translated to bigger scale (at least 1:50,000) for these to be useful for city, municipal and barangay planning and activities. 8. Lack of data access protocols. Even if maps are available, there are instances that these maps are not readily available for LGUs to allow them to manipulate these and generate other thematic maps. In the desire of national government agencies to protect the integrity of their data, maps are only shared in non‐digital and non‐editable formats. This is a recurring issue which needs to be addressed especially with recent availability of more sophisticated dataset, i.e., LiDAR. 9. Weak knowledge management. NDRRMC and several NGOs have been identifying and documenting good and innovative practices of LGUs and communities on DRM. There is however no systematic effort to coordinate, consolidate and establish a common or shared database on this and a mechanism by which these could be replicated and inform national policies. Furthermore, the task of monitoring, recording and documenting disasters had been taken by the NDRRMC and its member‐agencies. LGUs, NGOs and communities are constrained to contribute more substantially to the development of a database of disasters and impacts, especially as capacities are limited at this level (GFDRR, 2009). 10. Weak emergency operations center. The Emergency Operations Center of NDRRMC needs strengthening in terms of systems and procedures. NDRRMC has yet to come up with an updated National Response Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for disasters. While Subic Bay Metropolitan Area has been designated by NDRRNMC as its back‐up operations center if a disaster hits the EOC in Quezon City, there is no arrangement for back‐up or mirror of EOC system and database. Furthermore, DRM information is often available but is not widely or properly disseminated and accessed. Most of this information is available online but most people and communities, particularly in the rural areas, do not have access to computers and internet. 11. Weak capacity on search and rescue. To date, very few LGUs have capacity for search and rescue operations. This is a huge concern especially for an urban area like In Metro Manila, a natural flood plain area with a west valley fault system traversing the metropolis. The capacities of LGUs are varying. The cities of Pasig, Makati and Quezon have strong response and rescue units, which are tapped by other Metro Manila LGUs in times of disasters. Cebu (Emergency and Response Unit Foundation or ERUF) and Davao (Rescue 911) cities also have established response and rescue units with internationally‐trained personnel that conduct training for other LGUs. Despite these, the Philippines has no International Search and Rescue Accreditation Group (INSARAG) standard response and rescue unit. V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 1. Shakedown of DRRM Act. Just over a year after the enactment of DRRM Act, there are already recognition of the weaknesses of the law and a couple of bills filed in Congress to review and amend this. The law is a landmark but it is still in shake down mode that in itself creates a “gap” as roles, responsibilities and resourcing may not be allocated. Thus, it would be useful to implement a disaster simulation at both national and regional levels to assist the shake down and better inform any amendment to the law. 2. More actions on the ground. Disasters happen at the community level where its impacts are actually felt. Thus, DRM efforts should be undertaken more at community level ensuring that local people participate in vulnerability assessment, decision making and implementing DRM activities.


17

The rich network of CSOs should be mobilized to facilitate work at the local and community levels. The strength of NGOs and the Philippine Red Cross is working at the community level and they have developed a community based DRM approach that is anchored on participatory approaches to vulnerability and capacity assessment. The Philippine Red Cross in particular has a nationwide presence that could be tapped on community work. National and regional academic and training institutions could serve as centers of excellence that could help the government in developing tools and training programs that could be rolled out to LGUs and communities. The international community could facilitate this relationship by encouraging government, CSOs and communities to work together in projects they fund. 3. More work on integrating DRM in training and education. The DRRM Act tasked NDRRMC to establish a National DRRM Institute which will train public and private entities/personnel on DRRM. Establishment of an institute may take a long time and a lot of resources. For the meantime, NDRRMC may consider tapping existing academic institution and training centers which could immediately offer DRM training programs (i.e., University of the Philippines, Fire National Training Institute, Amity Public Safety Academy (APSA) and others). Moreover, DepEd also needs to give further attention on pre‐school children’s disaster preparedness in addition to primary and secondary school. 4. Capacitate local chief executives. Most local chief executives now have increased awareness of their responsibilities on DRM given the lessons of past disasters and their mandates under the DRRM Act. There is however a need for a regular program on orientation of new set of elected local chief executives and reorientation for re‐elected ones. This should eventually be taken up by the DRRM Institute once established. For the meantime the Local Government Academy of DILG or appropriate academic institutions could potentially provide the basic orientation and training. 5. Strictly enforce laws and policies. Penalties for violations of zoning regulations, building codes, regulatory mechanisms such as ECCs should be reviewed towards making these more stringent and implementable. Information drive should also be undertaken to educate LGUs on the importance and consequences of not following these. 6. Think of sustainability of reforms. Government is cash strapped that it sometimes relies on donor‐funded activities to pursue critical reforms and improvements on their systems. Given this, it would be important for donors to think about sustainability and exit strategy during design of activities. Encouraging real partnership between donors and government partners and communities and ensuring that both have a say on project decisions and resources could facilitate ownership of project outcomes and outputs by the government and beneficiaries. This in turn would pave the way for the integration of project outcomes and outputs in the business process and systems of government partners and communities. 7. Build awareness on risk sharing and transfer. Information and advocacy campaign on importance and availment of life and non‐life insurance policies by the government, private companies and people themselves should be undertaken. Availment would lessen the burden of government and the affected people in bearing the costs of disasters. 8. Risk identification at the local level. While hazard maps for all provinces are almost completed, this needs to be translated into a scale (at least 1:50,000) that would be useful to LGUs, particularly in their risk analyses and disaster management plans (UNDP, 2010). Moreover, these maps also need to be updated to factor in climate change impact to hydro‐meteorological hazards. 9. Set data access protocol. NDRRMC, particularly NAMRIA, should institute a policy on data access and protocol that would allow LGUs and other interested stakeholders to access data and


18

information, particularly in format that could be manipulated. Data and information should also be uploaded in a portal that would allow free access subject to policies. 10. Establish a mechanism for knowledge management. NDRRMC could set up a community of practice portal that would contain the documented good practices and serve as a venue for LGUs and interested parties to communicate and exchange ideas and lessons from their experiences. The Gawad Kalasag award could be complemented with an annual national conference on DRM practices. LGUs should also be supported to participate in international conferences and study tours to expose them to the international DRM arena and innovations. 11. Strengthen communication and early warning system. NDRRMC should work on updating the national response plan and SOPs and improve communication and early warning system in EOC, alert agencies and regional centers. It would also be important for NDRRMC to seriously consider about establishing a back‐up system of its EOC in Subic Bay Metropolitan Area. Moreover, dissemination of information and peoples’ access to this could be improved through a designation of nationwide emergency broadcast system and channels in radio and television. (RedR Australia, 2011). 12. Establish search and rescue teams based on international standards. As mentioned, capacities on search and rescue exist in some LGUs and training institutions as well as government agencies (Bureau of Fire Protection, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Coast Guard and others). Capacities at the local level are highly variable and depend on priorities of local chief executives. The BDRRMCs, Red Cross 143 and MMDA volunteer programs could serve as Level 1 that could be trained for basic USAR and provided with basic tools and equipment. NDRRMC also aims to establish national and “regional” urban search and rescue teams (USAR) (at least three – one per major island grouping). The regional team could build on level 1 and capacitate it to move to level 2. The national team could build on available units forming a composite team that will all be working under NDRRMC as a common entity e.g. “USAR Philippines.” NDRRMC could later on decide if it would aspire for a level 3 USAR. These teams should all be formed based on INSARAG standards so it would be easier for the government to have INSARAG accreditation if it so desires. Existing units both of the government and NGOs should train regularly on extended training drills going up to three days 24/7 to test real time capacity and self sustainability. Existing facilities could be used as training centers. For example, the Subic Bay Fire Department and National Fire Training Institute training facilities could be used for real time training activities for Luzon/Metro Manila USAR teams, while ERUF and APSA could be used for training of Visayas and Mindanao based crews (RedR Australia, 2011).


19

Annex 1. Philippines Natural Hazard Profile


20

Annex 2. Summarized Table of Natural Disasters in Philippines from 1900 to 2011

# of Events Killed Total

Affected Damage (000 US$)

Drought 8 8 6,553,207 64,453 Drought ave. per event 1 819,151 8,057

Earthquake (ground shaking) 22 9,580 2,223,269 519,575 ave. per event 436 101,058 23,617 Tsunami 1 32 ‐ ‐

Earthquake (seismic activity)

ave. per event 32 ‐ ‐ Unspecified 1 664 ‐ ave. per event 1 664 ‐ Bacterial Infectious Diseases 3 1 327 ‐ ave. per event 43 109 ‐ Parasitic Infectious Diseases 1 14 666 ‐ ave. per event 50 666 ‐ Viral Infectious Diseases 9 50 137,012 ‐

Epidemic

ave. per event 1,103 15,224 ‐ Unspecified 33 123 7,680,373 351,857 ave. per event 232,739 10,662 Flash flood 29 1,440 5,525,418 833,496 ave. per event 44 190,532 28,741 General Flood 38 1,113 4,936,633 113,223 ave. per event 38 129,911 2,980 Storm surge/coastal flood 11 488 125,931 2,617

Flood

ave. per event 13 11,448 238 Unspecified 2 149 200 925 Insect infestation

ave. per event 14 100 463 Landslide 2 ‐ ‐ ave. per event ‐ ‐ ‐ Rockfall 1 ‐ ‐ ‐

Mass movement dry

ave. per event ‐ ‐ Avalanche 1 311 1,200 ‐ ave. per event 156 1,200 ‐ Landslide 25 50 312,601 33,281 ave. per event 50 12,504 1,331 Subsidence 1 2,838 ‐

Mass movement wet

ave. per event 6 2,838 ‐ Unspecified 26 6 3,110,501 112,274 ave. per event 2,087 119,635 4,318 Local storm 4 84 24,704 5 ave. per event 287 6,176 1 Tropical cyclone 257 287 104,608,571 6,569,775

Storm

ave. per event 407,037 25,563 Volcanic eruption 24 812 1,733,592 231,961 Volcano

ave. per event 31 72,233 9,665 Forest fire 1 9 300 ‐ Wildfire

ave. per event 2 300 ‐ Created on: Sep‐22‐2011. Data version: v12.07 Source: "EM‐DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database www.em‐dat.net ‐ Université Catholique de Louvain ‐ Brussels ‐ Belgium" (website accessed on 22 September 2011)


21

Annex 3. NDRRMC Coordination Structure and Emergency Operations Center Information Flow (NDRRMC Operations Center, 2011)

Office of Civil DefenseNDRRMC OPCEN/EOC

DPWH

DA DPWH

DOH/CHD

DSWD PRC AFPDRTF

DepEd

Chairperson, RDRRMC

Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Councils (PDRRMCs and C/M DRRMCs)

Executive Director, NDRRMC

DND Secretary

DA

DOH/ HEMS

NAPOCOR/

AFP PRC

DepEd

DOTC/ PCG

PAGASA/PHIVOLCS

/

DILG/ PNP/B

DILG/ PNP/B

DOTC/ PCG

RREEGGIIOONNAALL

NNDDRRRRMMCC CCoooorrddiinnaattiioonn SSttrruuccttuurree

HYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL

TERRORISM

HUMAN EPIDEMICS

CIVIL DISTURBANCE

INFESTATION

NNAA

DOST PAGASA

AFP

DOH

PNP

DA

Executive Director, NDRRMC/

Administrator OCD

NDRRMOC/OCD

Chairperson, NDRRMC

Surveillance Agencies*

RDRRMCs/OCDRCs

LOCAL DRRMOs P/C/M/B

PAGASA/ PHIVOLCS/

MGB-DENRPresident

Chairperson, NDRRMC

NDRRMC Warning Advisories/Reverse

Situation Reports

NDRRMC SITREPs

Official Disaster Reports

RADIOLOGICAL & NUCLEAR

DOST PNRI

RDRRMC Warning Advisories/ Reverse

Situation

DSWD DROMICNDCC Alerts/

Media/ Other Stakeholders

NDRRMCs Member- Agencies

DSWD-DROMICS

DOH-HEMS

AFP COMMAND CTR

DOTC/PCG/NTC/ MARINA

DILG/BFP/PNP MARITIME GROUP

DEPED

DPWH

DA/BFAR/FARMC

PNRC

DENR/EMB

PDRRMCs

C/M DRRMCs

B DRRMCs

ULAP

LCP

LMP

LnB

ANIMAL EPIDEMICS DA BAI

PUBLIC

^Field Stations Info to

NNDDRRRRMMCC EEmmeerrggeennccyy OOppeerraattiioonnss CCeenntteerr IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn FFllooww


22

Annex 4. Key Disaster Risk Management Projects in the Philippines

Projects Funding Agency/Local and International Partners

HFA Priority #1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation ASEAN Agreement on Disaster and Emergency Response (AADMER)

ACDM‐AHA Center

Case Study on the Institutionalization of Albay Provincial Safety and Emergency Management Office

OXFAM‐GB, Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP)

and PDCC‐Albay HFA Priority #2: Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community‐Based Disaster Risk Management (READY)

AusAID, UNDP, NDRRMC‐CSCAND

Enhancing Capacities of Greater Metro Manila on Earthquake, Flood and Tropical Cyclone Severe Wind Risk Analysis (Risk Analysis Project)

AusAID, NDRRMC‐CSCAND

Improvement of Methodologies for Assessing the Socio‐economic Impact of Hydro‐meteorological Disasters

UN‐ESCAP; UN‐ECLAC ; UNDP

Emergency Response Network (ERN) IBM International Foundational (ERN Sahana Philippines)

HFA Priority # 3: Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels Web‐based Event Data Base (CALAMIDAT.PH) ADRC Simultaneous Nationwide Earthquake Drills and the Nationwide Water Search and Rescue (WASAR) Training and the Program for Enhancement of Emergency Response (PEER)

Miami Dade Fire Rescue Department; USAID, ADPC

Technical Assistance on Enhancing the Capacity of the Philippines on Emergency Response and Disaster Preparedness

AusAID, NDRRMC‐OCD, RedR Australia

Contingency Planning Manual UN High Commissioner for Refugees

Online Natural Disaster Risk Management Program World Bank Institute (WBI); Hazard Management Unit and

ProVention Consortium Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in the Education Sector

ADPC

Disaster Preparedness through Educational Multi‐Media DEPED HFA Priority #4: Reduction of the underlying risk factors National Geohazards Mapping and Assessment DENR; PHIVOLCS, PAG‐ASA Integrating DRR and CCA into Development Planning and Local Decision Making

AusAID, UNDP, NEDA, CCC, OCD

2nd Phase of the Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into the Infrastructure Sector

ADPC, DPWH

Construction of Hazard Resilient School Buildings DEPED Construction of Innovative Buildings United Architects Philippines;

Private Sector Disaster Management Network

DRM Policy Loan with a Catastrophe Deferred Draw Down Option (CAT‐DDO) Project

World Bank, DOF

HFA Priority #5: Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels Enhancing the capabilities of local chief executives and their DCCs

LGUs


23

Projects Funding Agency/Local and International Partners

Upgrading the forecasting capability of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) and the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS)

Japanese Grant Aid Program, JICA, MMDA

Housing and Livelihood Support to Disaster Victims DSWD Search for Excellence in Disaster Management (Gawad KALASAG) 2007

NDCC

Community‐based Disaster Preparedness: Development of Information and Education Campaign Materials (2nd component of the READY project)

AusAID, UNDP, CSCAND


24

REFERENCES

Australian Agency for International Development. June 2010. Road to resilience: A strategy for a future Australia‐Philippines partnership in disaster risk management and climate change action. June 2011 draft.

EM‐DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database www.em‐dat.net ‐ Université Catholique de Louvain ‐ Brussels ‐ Belgium" (website accessed on 22 September 2011)

EM‐DAT : The OFDA /CRED International Disaster Database www. embat.be – Université Catholique Louvain – Brussels – Belgium (website accessed on April 2009) as used in GFDRR Philippines DRM Note 2009.

Global Facility Disaster Risk Reduction. DRM Note on the Philippines (pages 91‐101). http://gfdrr.org/ctrydrmnotes/Philippines.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2011)

Government of the Philippines. May 2010. Republic Act 10121: Philippines Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Maplecroft. 2010. Climate Change vulnerability index. http://www.maplecroft.com/about/news/ccvi.html (accessed 18 March 2011)

National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council – Operations Center. 2011.

National Disaster Coordinating Council. May 2009. Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National Action Plan 2009‐2019.

National Disaster Coordinating Council. October 2009. Final Report on Tropical Storm “Ondoy” (Ketsana).

National Economic Development Authority. 2011. Philippines Development Plan: 2011‐2016.

National Land Use Committee. 2001. National Physical Framework Plan: 2001‐2030.

National Statistics Office website (http://www.census.gov.ph) accessed on 18 September 2011.

RedR Australia. September 2011. Preliminary Findings of Scoping Mission for AusAID Technical Assistance on Emergency Response and Disaster Preparedness for the Philippines.

United Nations Development Programme. January 2010. Mid‐Term Review Report for Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community‐Based Disaster Risk Management Project.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2009. Global Assessment Report for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2009.

United Nations Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs. October 2009. Philippines: Consolidated Flash Appeal for Typhoon Ketsana.

United Nations Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs. 2010. Philippines: Natural Hazard Profile map.

World Bank Institute. 2011. Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management Framework course (15 August to 23 September 2011): National Disaster Risk Management Systems ‐ Vulnerability reduction for sustainable development.

World Bank. 2010. Philippines Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng: Post‐Disaster Needs Assessment (www.pdf.ph/pdna)