Abi-envi Study On Disaster Risk Management

I NSTITUTIONAL A RRANGEMENTS FOR D ISASTER R ISK M ANAGEMENT IN THE P HILIPPINES

PREPARED BY LA LIGA POLICY INSTITUTE

Working Towards Renewal and Reform in Governance, Economy, Living Environments and Global Relationships  Unit 304 Tempus Place, Matalino Street, Diliman, Quezon City  (632) 433-7875  [email protected]

September 2009 Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI)

Environment Cluster

E XECUTIVE S UMMARY The Philippines due to its geographic location is a disaster prone location. The high frequency of disasters is costing the country significantly in terms of direct damages. Indirect and secondary impact further increase this cost and is even more worsened by the accompanying social and environmental impacts. This paper hopes to contribute to this process, by focusing on the policy framework and institutional arrangement for disaster risk management. The country's disaster management system started more than sixty years ago as a mechanism to prepare for the outbreak of World War II. Through the years it has undergone a number of transformations but has basically retained its civil defense orientation and a military-like command and control structure. The current institutional mechanism is based on a decree issued 31 years ago which created a multi-tiered system of disaster coordinating councils from national level down to the barangays. The current system is observed to have many weaknesses and no longer responsive to the demand of present day disaster management challenges. It is viewed as top-down, bureaucratic and unwieldy mechanism with limited capacity to coordinate and harness multi stakeholder participation. The current institutional set up is also severely handicapped by inadequate funding. The inadequacy of resources dedicated to disaster management is further constrained by inappropriate rules and regulation that worsens the situation. The effort to improve the policy and institutional arrangement for disaster management must be pursued in the broader context of adopting and mainstreaming disaster risk reduction approach over the post disaster relief and recovery orientation that dominated disaster management in the past. The Philippines has started to adopt disaster risk reduction in its disaster management system and in the broader context of sustainable development through the adoption and implementation of the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) following the world conference on Disaster Reduction in Japan on January 2005. Assessment of the HFA implementation shows that important beginnings have been attained but there is still room to establish more substantial, comprehensive and institutional commitment to disaster risk reduction and the HFA. In conclusion, a number of recommendations have been put forward to improve policy and institutional arrangement for disaster risk management and in mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction including: 1) building political commitment and continue to mainstream Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) as a policy; 2) adopting appropriate institutional framework and administrative structure for DRR; 3) strengthening strategic partnership and alliance building; 4) strengthening capacities for DRR; and, 5) providing financial resources for DRR.

2

T ABLE

OF

C ONTENTS

Executive Summary I. Introduction A. Background B. Definition of Terms II. Policy Framework and Institutional Set-up A. Policy and Institutional Evolution B. Current Policy and Institutional Arrangements C. Funding for Disaster Risk Management III. Status of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Adoption A. Priority for Action 1:

Governance – Making disaster risk reduction a priority

B. Priority for Action 2:

Risk identification, assessment and monitoring and early warning- Improving risk reduction information and early warning

C. Priority for Action 3:

Knowledge management – Building a culture of safety and resilience

D. Priority for Action 4:

Risk Management and vulnerability reduction Reducing the risks in key sectors

E. Priority for Action 5:

Disaster preparedness for effective response Strengthening preparedness for response

IV. Recommendations Notes References 3

I. I NTRODUCTION A. B ACKGROUND The frequent occurrence of disasters in the Philippines has become a stumbling block to the country's development. The country because of its geographic circumstances is highly prone to such natural hazards as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tropical cyclones and floods, making it as one of the most disaster prone countries in the world. These disasters are costing the Government an average of fifteen billion pesos or more than 0.5% of the national GDP per year in direct damages, indirect and secondary impacts further increases this cost. This significant economic cost is further worsened by accompanying social and environmental impacts, according to a World bank-NDCC study in 2004.1 The high frequency of disasters hinder Government's effort to reduce poverty and reduce the number of people and assets vulnerable to these hazards, suggesting the close linkage between poverty and vulnerability to national disasters, and of their mutually reinforcing effects. The poorer communities tend to be most vulnerable. It was further shown that the household level poverty is the single most important factor determining vulnerability (World Bank-NDCC, 2004). Disasters have not only brought losses in terms of human lives and destroyed social, economic and environmental assets, it has also detailed social and economic developments as funds are taken away from on-going programs to finance relief and reconstruction efforts following their occurrence. The enormous risk that the country and its vulnerable communities are facing due to disasters prompted disaster risk reduction and development stakeholders to try to understand and assess the country's existing capacity to reduce and manage disaster risk and identify options for improvement. This paper hopes to contribute to this process, with focus on the institutional arrangement for disaster risk management.

B. D EFINITION

OF TERMS

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster reduction (UNISDR) defines disaster risk reduction (DRR) as the conceptual framework of elements with possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and risks throughout a society to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards within the broad context of sustainable development. While disaster risk management (DRM) is considered as 4

the systemic process of using administrative decisions, organizations, operational skills and capacities to implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of society and communities to lessen the impact of natural hazards and related environmental and technological disasters.2 In the Philippines prior to the country's participation in the World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) on January 2005 in Hyogo, Kobe, Japan and its adoption of the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) adopted the Comprehensive Emergency Management Framework (CEMF), which consist of pre-event actions (mitigation and preparedness) and post-event actions (response and rehabilitation). 3 Most of the NDCC documents pre-HFA are expressed in these terminologies.

II. P OLICY AND I NSTITUTIONAL A RRANGEMENTS FOR D ISASTER R ISK M ANAGEMENT A. P OLICY E VOLUTION

AND

I NSTITUTIONAL

The World Bank-NDCC Report (2004) traced the beginnings of a disaster management system in the Philippines in 1941 which was oriented mainly towards the preparation for World War II. Executive Order (EO 335) was issued by then President Manuel L. Quezon which created the Civilian Emergency Administration to prepare the population for the outlook of the War in the Pacific and to adopt measures to control and coordinate civilian participation to meet grave emergencies. The Executive Order created a National Emergency Commission (NEC) at the national level as well as a provincial Emergency Committee in every province, which had supervision and control over municipal and city emergency committees. In 1954 Republic Act 1190 or the Civil Defense Act was passed by the Philippine Congress creating the national Civil Defense Administration (NCDA) under the Office of the President as well as civil defense councils at the national and local levels.

5

To further enhance the function of the NCDA, Executive Order (EO 159) was issued in November 1968 by President Ferdinand E. Marcos that required the establishment of disaster control organization by all agencies of government including political subdivisions, departments, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities and even government owned and controlled corporations. The NCDA was tasked to serve as the national coordinating body to see and implement EO 159 and to report on the degree of preparedness of all government agencies to the Office of the President. But the NCDA was hampered by indifference and lack of funds and was unable to perform its task well. After a series of natural hazards hit the country in 1970, including the widespread flooding of Metro Manila and Central Luzon, President Marcos instead tasked the Interdepartmental Planning Group on Disaster and calamities to prepare a Disaster and Calamities Plan. In 1972, Letter of Instruction (LOI) 19 created the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) to coordinate national level activities and functions of the national government, private institutions and civic organizations. OCD's task included: formulating plans and policies to protect the general public; estimate the total material, manpower and fiscal requirements for carrying out a civil defense and civil assistance program; allocate to provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays such as aid in facilities, materials and funds as may be available from the national government; to coordinate programs for informing, educating and training the general public; and provide guidance to subnational level on planning, organization and operations for their defense requirements.

B.

C URRENT P OLICY

AND

I NSTITUTIONAL A RRANGEMENTS

The basis of the existing institutional arrangements for disaster risk management in the Philippines is Presidential Decree PD 1566 entitled “Strengthening the Philippine Disaster Control Capability and Establishing the National Program on Community Disaster Preparedness”, issued June 11, 1978. 4 The Presidential Decree establishes the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) as the highest policy making body that advises the President on matters pertaining to disasters. The stipulations of PD1566 include: a. Self reliance shall be developed by promoting and encouraging the spirit of self-help and mutual assistance among local officials and their constituents; b. Each political and administrative subdivision of the country shall utilize all available resources in the area before asking for assistance from neighboring entities of higher authority; c. The primary responsibility rest on the government agencies in the affected areas in coordination with the people themselves; d. Shall be the responsibility of all government departments, bureaus, agencies and instrumentalities to have documented plan of their emergency functions and

6

activities; e. Planning and operation shall be done at the barangay level in an interagency, multi sectoral basis to optimize the utilization of resolutes; f. On the absence of a duly constituted regional government, national government offices at the regional level shall be led and operationally controlled by the Regional Commissioner or by the official so designated by the President; g. Responsibility for leadership rest on the Provincial Governors, City Mayors and Municipal Mayors (and Barangay Chairman), each according to his area of responsibility; h. When an emergency affects an area covering several towns and cities the City mayors and their personnel and facilities shall be placed under the operational control of the Provincial Governor for the duration of the emergency; i. The national government exists to support the local government. In time of emergencies and according to their level of assignment, all national government offices in the field shall support the operation of the local government; and, j. To ensure that operational activities become automatic and second nature to all concerned exercises and periodic drills shall be conducted at all levels, primarily at the Barangays. The member agencies of the NDCC are responsible for carrying out respective tasks and responsibilities, which include preparedness, mitigation, response and rehabilitation. NDCC does not have a regular budget but operates through member agencies and their local networks, namely the regional and local disaster coordinating councils (DCCS). The member of the NDCC and their respective responsibilities are as follows:

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

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

7

 Secretary of Transportation and Communication restores destroyed communication and transportation facilities such as railroads vertical structures; organizes national transport services;

 Secretary of Science and Technology, Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Administration (PAG-ASA), continuing watch on environmental condition to prepare daily weather forecasts, typhoon watches and flood outlooks. Philippine Institute of Vulcanology and Seismology (PHILVOLCS)--issues advisories on earthquakes, volcanic activities and tsunamis; identifies appropriate evacuation sites and organizes disaster control groups and reaction teams. Philippine Nuclear Research Institute—issues advisories on radio active fallout, contamination and radiation incidents; organizes disaster control groups and reaction teams.

 Secretary of Social Welfare and Development, extends relief assistance and social services to victims and provides rehabilitation;

 Secretary of Agriculture, undertakes surveys in disaster prone areas and actual disaster areas to determine extent of damage of agricultural crops, livestock and fisheries; extends technical assistance to disaster victims;

 Secretary of Education provides assistance in public education and campaign regarding disasters preparedness, prevention and mitigation through the integration of relevant subjects in school curriculum; makes school buildings available as evacuation centers; trains education staff in disaster preparedness.

 Secretary of Finance issues rules and regulations regarding funding of local governments of DCC requirements; with DBM issues rules and regulations on preparation of local government budget utilization of the 2% reserve for disaster operations;

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

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

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

 Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, responsible for reforestation control of areas prone to flood, landslide, mudflow and ground subsidence; also technical assistance on environmental pollution;

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

 Secretary of Budget and Management, releases funds required by departments for 8

disaster operations;

 Secretary of Philippine Information Agency, provides public information service though dissemination of mitigation and preparedness measure;

 Secretary-General, Philippine Red Cross, conduct disaster leadership training courses; assist in DCC training at all levels, helps in the provision of emergency relief;

 Head of National Housing Authority, assessment of housing requirements of displaced persons; provision of temporary housing and rebuilding of destroyed areas;

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

 Director General, National Economic Development Authority, responsible for the determination and analysis of effects of disasters on socio-economic programs and the development of damage assessment schemes; and,

 Administrator, Office of Civil Defense, acts as NDCC Executive Officer; coordinate activities and functions to implement policies and programs, advises the chairman on disaster management matters. The OCD serves as the operating arm of the NDCC. The NDCC is replicated at regional and local levels, with each tier operating and utilizing its own resources. Regional Disaster Coordinating Councils (RDCCs) Activities of the national government agencies at the regional level are coordinate by the RDCCs. The President designates the Chairman of the NDCC, although under the present arrangement the Regional Directors of the Philippine National Police (PNP) are commonly asigned as Chairpersons, except in the case of autonomous regions where the Chief Executive concurrently serves as the chairperson of the RDCCs. In metro Manila, the Chairman of the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) is also the chairman of the metro Manila Disaster Coordinating Council (MMDCC).

9

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

 Establish a Regional Disaster Operations Center (RDOC);  Implement guidelines within the regions get by the NDCC;  Advise local disaster coordinating councils (CDCCs) on disaster management;  Submit recommendation to the NDCC as necessary. Local Disaster Coordinating Councils (LDCCs) Local Disaster Coordinating Councils encompasses all disaster coordinating councils below the regional level, this include provincial, city, municipal and barangay Disaster Coordinating Councils. Chief Executives are by law chairman of their respective LDCCs. The primary tasks of the LDCCs have been defined by the NDCC.5 These are as follows: Provincial Disaster Coordinating (PDCC)

 Establish a Provincial Disaster Operations Center (PDCC);  Coordinate disaster operations within the province from the PDCC;  Implement within the province guidelines set out by the RDCC;  Advise City / Municipal and Barangay DCCs regarding disaster management;  Submit recommendations tot he RDCC as necessary.  Establish a City / Municipal Disaster Operations Center and coordinate a disaster operations from it;

 Implement guidelines set by RDCC within the City / Muncipality;  Advise barangay Disaster Coordinating Council (BDCC) regarding disaster management. Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council (BDCC)

 Establish a Barangay Disaster Operation (enter and coordinate disaster operations from it);

 Implement guidelines set by the C / MDCC;

10

 Advise BDCC members on disaster management.

C. F UNDING

FOR

D ISASTER R ISK M ANAGEMENT

Under the present institutional framework funding for disaster related expenditures comes from two sources, national government appropriations and the local government units (World Bank-NDCC, 2004). 1. N A T I O N A L G O V E R N M E N T At National level the primary fund for disaster management is the National Calamity Fund (NCF), which is directly administered by the NDCC with the approval of the President. The NCF is intended to supplement and complement Local Calamity Funds. Priority is however given to urgent and emergency relief operations and emergency repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction of public infrastructures and lifelines damaged by calamities occurring within the budget year. Second priority for the repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction of other damaged public infrastructures. Third priority are for pre-disaster activities outside the regular budgets of line agencies and proposed capital expenditures for pre-disaster operation. Part of the annual appropriation is immediately, a priori, allocated to the Quick response Fund (QRF). The QRF is allotted for agencies such as DSWD, DPWH, DND and OCD as stand by fund for relief and response operations, in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. 6 The NDCC recommends the release of the NCF, including the QRF. According to records, most application for the NCF comes from 4th, 5th and 6th class LGUs which have relatively little income and correspondingly small Local Calamity Fund (LCF).7 In order to apply to the NCF LGUs are required to put up counterpart fund ranging from 50 percent of the total project cost for 1st class LGUs to 30 percent for the 4th class LGUs. 5th class and 6th class LGUs are exempt from providing counterpart funding but no single request can exceed PhP 3 billion a year. Allocation of funds to the NCF comes from two (2) percent of the budgetary reserve in accordance with presidential Decree PD477. In reality actual allocation of funds to the NCF have been far lower and moreover have gradually declined in recent years, falling from as high as PhP 2.8 billion in 1996 to only PhP 800 million in 2002 and PhP 700 million in 2003. The decline is reflective of the government's fiscal difficulties and lesser occurrence of disasters in recent years. But the NDCC maintains that resources have remained far lower than actual requirements which resulted in the backlog of claims to the NCF (World Bank-NDCC, 2004). The overall picture suggest that calamity funds are far less than what is needed and are barely able to meet only a small proportion of relief and rehabilitation costs. To meet the requirements of more severe events that are beyond the capacity of the 11

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

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

 Property Replacement Fund – This is used to operate as a sinking fund restoration of national government buildings, equipments and transport vehicles damaged by fire and national calamities. However, its role was reduced to high risk public properties (primarily aircraft and ships) only in the late 1990s.

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

 Reserves Control Account – This account comprising of 5 percent of maintenance expenditures and 5 percent of capital outlay of each government department, is intended to meet unforeseen requirements, in some cases arising as a consequence of disasters. It was drawn upon for example as part of the initial government response to the Mt. Pinatubo eruptions.

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

 Presidential Social Fund – This is sometimes used on the DA fund to post disaster operations. Additional rehabilitation spending is drawn from existing operational budget of relevant agencies i.e. DPWH, DA, and DENR on a regular basis. Upon declaration of a calamity, concerned national agencies and LGUs are permitted to program and reprogram funds for the repair and safety upgrading of public infrastructures and facilities and reallocations occur on an annual basis. These re-allocation are largely unrecorded and are difficult to follow since they occur internally, within budget heads although the DBM is trying to streamline this process. Longer term rehabilitation activities for

12

specific purposes may be formally related into the annual budget process. This implies opportunity for careful assessment of the relative assessment of the relative economic returns to different projects and efficient allocation of resources. Mitigation and preparedness have been devolved to LGUs but the national government maintains responsibility for the provision of national infrastructure and provision of services and information in support of LGU activities. Mitigation and preparedness related expenditures are contained within overall budgetary allocations to relevant departments and total mitigation and preparedness expenditures across the different departments is not reported with the exception of small level expenditures under calamity fund. The lack of readily available data makes it difficult to assess the overall adequacy of current expenditures relative to the scale of disaster losers (World Bank – NDCC, 2004). 2. L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T U N I T S Under R.A. 7160 of the Local Government Code of 1991 a considerable share of public national resources, amounting to a total of 40 percent of the internal revenue collections are allocated to local government to fund devolved functions.8 LGUS have also been given substantial revenue-raising capabilities, allowing them to levy certain taxes, fees and other charges for their own use, including business and real property taxes. As part of the 1991 program of devolution, LGUs are mandated to set 5 percent of their estimated revenue from regular sources aside as an annual lump sum appropriations for use in relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and other works and services in connection with calamities occurring during the budget year in the LGU or other LGUs affected by a disaster or calamity. Funds are released within 24 hours of the declaration of a disaster.9 Any resources remaining at the end of the fiscal year revert to unappropriated surplus for re appropriation the following year. In theory, LGUs are supposed to submit a utilization report on the use of their calamity funds to the NDCC but in actual practice this is rarely done. For this reason actual use of calamity funds can only be accessed thru individual LGUs. An apparently substantial part, possibly as much as 50 percent of the Local Calamity Fund goes unused each year. This is because when a disaster occurs the Local Calamity Fund may not be adequate and would require additional funds. A proportion of the additional fund requirements are likely to be met from the National Calamity Fund (NCF). However, the NCF is used only sparingly to meet these residual demands. Often, disaster related expenses are met by reallocating resources or postponing rehabilitation expenditures or even by tapping local business to extend credit for relief and rehabilitation needs of the LGU (Luna, 2000). In relation to disaster preparedness and mitigation, no policy exists that requires LGUs to allocate funding for these purposes. The Local Calamity Fund cannot be used for

13

disaster preparedness and mitigation, although an amendment to allow such use has been awaiting approval in Congress. LGUs have resorted to finance mitigation and preparedness activities out of other budget items. Some of the richer LGUs have spent part of their 20 percent development fund for disaster mitigation. In other cases, mitigation and preparedness activities have been funded from the Municipal Social Welfare and Development (MSWD) budget (for emergency equipment); by utilizing unexpended balances from other projects; via the establishment of disaster administrative fund for the Municipal Disaster Coordinating Council (MDCC); or from the Local Calamity Fund itself via creative labeling of mitigation activities as rehabilitation. Some established Disaster Management Office with a dedicated budget for preparedness, training, equipment and other expenditures, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. In general, there is inadequate support for mitigation and preparedness among LGUs (World Bank-NDCC, 2004).

III. S TATUS OF D ISASTER R ISK R EDUCTION A DOPTION Global discourse and practice on disaster management has in recent years shifted emphasis from post-disaster relief and recovery to a proactive risk reduction approach. This paradigm shift is highlighted by the adoption of the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) by the 168 countries which participated in the World Conference in Disaster Reduction (WCDR) in January, 2005 at Hyogo, Kobe, Japan. The HFA is a ten (10) year plan for global risk reduction efforts: Its goal is to substantially reduce disaster losses in terms of lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets of communities and countries by building their resilience. Building disaster resilient communities is the outcome of reducing vulnerability to hazard impacts and building the capacity to deal with them when they occur. As a party to the HFA, the Philippines has an 14

obligation to implement this global blueprint on its own national context. The process of implementing HFA in the Philippine context is described in a document called a Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) that the government is obliged to prepare. SNAP identifies the country's disaster risk reduction priorities in line with the HFA and in accordance with its capacities; a draft SNAP document is now being circulated for comment on the Web.10 The SNAP provides a description of the status of disaster risk reduction adoption in the country by using the HFA Monitor Template to assess each of the following points:11

 Priority for Action 1: Governance-Making Disaster Risk Reduction A Priority  Priority for Action 2: Risk Identification, Assessment and Monitoring and Early Warning - Improving Risk Information and Early Warning

 Priority for Action 3: Knowledge Management – Building a Culture of Resilience  Priority for Action 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction – Reducing the Risks in Key Sectors

 Priority for Action 5: Disaster Preparedness for Effective Response – Strengthening Preparedness for Response

A. PRIORITY FOR ACTION 1: GOVERNANCE-MAKING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION A PRIORITY Desired Output: National Policy, legislation and institutional frameworks for DRR; dedicated and adequate resources to implement DRR activities at all administrative levels; community participation and decentralization through delegation of authority and resources to all levels; a functioning national, multi-stakeholder DRR Consultative Mechanism. Level of Progress: Between levels 3 and 4 (Level 3 – institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive not substantial; Level 4 - substantial achievement attained with recognized limitation in capacities and resources.)

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

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

15

 Current planning practice (i.e. Medium Term Philippine Development Plan 20042010) already incorporated DRR issues in chapters dealing with: environment and natural resources; responding to the basic needs of the poor; peace and order; science and technology; defense against threats to national security but no encompassing statement about DRR prefaces the programs and investment projects. It is essential that development plan not only acknowledge the damage from natural disasters but must also acknowledge how vulnerability jeopardizes development gains, inserting a statement to this effect is recommended.

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

 The DRM system is strapped of funds where they are essentially needed. The NDCC does not have and annual budget allocation and is able to operate only through its member agencies and the LDCCs. No funds are provided by law at the national level for mitigation and preparedness, although LGUs are allowed to fund these activities from their Local Calamity Fund (LCF). The Local Government Code allows LGUs to allocate 5% of their internal revenue allotment as LCF after a state of calamity is declared. A DILG-DBM Joint Memorandum in 2003 allows the use of LGF for preparedness and other pre-disaster activities at the discretion of the LGU. Another joint memorandum seeks to set guidelines on the use of the 5% LCF.

 NDCC is unable to keep track of how the LCF are utilized by LGUs since LGUs are not required to report them. There are estimates that most of the LCF are underutilized each year because LGUs are not keen on using them, due to availability of other external sources of funds to meet their needs. This dependence on external sources of funds has played the country's DRM in different levels.

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

B. PRIORITY FOR ACTION 2: RISK IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, MONITORING AND EARLY WARNING SYSTEM - IMPROVING RISK INFORMATION AND EARLY WARNING Desired Output: National and Local risk assessment based on hazard data and vulnerability information system to monitor, archive and disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities; early warning systems; risk assessments that takes regional and trans-boundary risk into account. Level of Progress: Ranging from Level 2 to 4 (Level 2--- some progress, but without 16

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

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

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

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

 Dialogues among NGOs and international donor agencies takes place through round table discussion of the AI/PI Network, Global Climate Change, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), acts of terrorism are trans-boundary hazards that have emerged as priority concern.

C. PRIORITY FOR ACTION 3: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT - BUILDING A CULTURE OF SAFETY AND RESILIENCY Desired Output: Information on disasters available at all levels, schools, curricula, education materials and training on DRR and recovery concepts and practices; tools for vulnerability and capacity assessments, multi-task assessment and research method; nationwide public awareness strategy targeting rural and urban populace. Level of Progress: Ranging from levels 2 to 4 (Level 2 – Some progress but without systematic policy and / or institutional commitment; Level 3 – Institutional Commitment attained but achievements are neither comprehensive not substantial; Level 4Substantial achievements attained with recognized limitation in capcity and resources).

 No systematically packaged collected body of knowledge on disaster / emergency management.

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

 PAG-ASA and PHILVOLCS deal with climatological and geological hazards 17

respectively, they regularly monitor hazards and apply science to ensure safe communities

 MGB in cooperation with PHILVOLCS and DA's Bureau of Soils and Water management implement the National Geohazards Mapping Project which regularly produce geohazard maps showing areas prone to landslides, flashfloods and subsidence and conducts information, education and communication activities as the maps are disseminated to LGUs.

 Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) commissioned the Metro manila Erathquake Impact Reduction Study (MMEIRS). The study is an example of preparing, planning and coping against disasters in a highly urbanized region based on earthquake scenarios generated from risk and vulnerability assessment.

 The main Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC) in Japan established a webbased Global Unique Disaster Identifier (GUDE) to generate a common code for hazard events. The Philippines is a pilot country and the OCD partnered with the ADRC to maintain CALAMDAT.ph, a Philippine database of natural and human induced disaster events.

 Disasters are now being studied by elementary school children as part of Social Science Curriculum. DepEd conducted a research on the impact of disasters to the education sector. DepEd in cooperation with nine partner agencies and private organizations is implementing five (5) year project to carry out disaster preparedness through Educational Multi-Media Instructional Materials for the youth, parents and community.

D.

PRIORITY FOR ACTION 4: RISK MANAGEMENT AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION - REDUCING THE RISKS IN KEY SECTORS

Desired Output: DRR as an integrated objective of environment related policies and plans; social development policies and plans implemented to reduce vulnerability of population; economic and productive sectoral policies and plans planning and management of human settlements with DRR elements; DRR measures integrated into 18

post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation process, procedures to assess disaster risk impacts of major development projects. Level of Progress: Ranging from level 1 to 4 (Level 1 – Minor progress with few signs of future action in plans of policy; Level 2-- some progress but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment; Level 3- Institutional commitment attained but achievements are neither comprehensive not substantial; Level 4 – Substantial achievement attained with recognized limitation in capacities and resources.

 The country's environmental impact assessment (EIA) system has been in place since 1970s. DENR oversees its implementation to ensure that hazards and risks are taken into account siting development project. PHILVOLCS provides data and information regarding geological risks and HLURB provides inputs regarding land use plans.

 Very little has been done to protect economic activities and productive sectors. Although some private enterprises may have business continuity plans it is doubtful how well this are linked with a local government's contingency plan, because DCCs rarely involved the private sector.

 The national Economic Development Authority (NEDA) is actively building awareness and capacity to mainstream DRR in land use and physical framework plans. The National land Use Committee prepared the national Framework for Physical Planning which delineated hazard prone areas for future land use and physical plans.

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

 DPWH conducted a national workshop on DRR for the construction sector  GSIS in February 2008 called on all government agencies to insure government properties and other insurable risks from natural and man made disasters.

E. PRIORITY FOR ACTION 5: DISASTER PREPAREDNESS FOR EFFECTIVE RESPONSE – STRENGTHENING PREPAREDNESS FOR RESPONSE

Desired Output: Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and mechanism for DRM, disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans at all administrative levels, financial reserves and contingency mechanism to support response and recovery; procedures to exchange relevant information during hazard events. Level of Progress: Ranging from Level 2 to 3 (Level 2- Some progress but without 19

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

 Visible signs of improvement in the four (4) areas of the NDCCs plan of action of preparedness are evident; the forecasting capacity of two key science service institutes advances. The capacity of PHILVOLCS in monitoring earthquakes, volcano and tsunami hazards was upgraded. The first experimental tsunami detection system was installed to warn people living in high risk coastal areas. Five weather surveillance radars were rehabilitated and upgrading of the Doppler Weather Radar Network began in support of weather forecasting and typhoon warning operations of PAGASA.

 Public information campaign on disaster preparedness, synchronized Building Emergency Evacuation Plan (B.E.E.P) for tsunami and earthquake drills are conducted nationwide. “Safe ka ba?” Disaster Management school-on-air is aired while posters and flyers on natural hazards are produced and distributed. Local chief executives of 791 highly vulnerable municipalities, 50 cities and 39 provinces are being trained to handle all phases of disaster risk management and develop a culture of prevention in their respective LGUs.

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

 Minor progress with few signs of toward action in plans of policy in terms of localizing early warning systems, ensuring that warning systems are properly developed and understood by people in various parts of the country remains a challenge.

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

 Capacity building for Local Chief Executives and DCCs introduces a professional approach to DRM, this is necessary in order to reduce and possibly eliminate politization that often accompanied relief and rehabilitation operations of the past. Their constituencies also need a corresponding increase in the level of awareness in order that citizens are empowered and not swayed by political maneuvers.

20

IV. R ECOMMENDATIONS A number of action points have been put forward or already being implemented by various Philippine stakeholders on the implementation of HFA and in the mainstreaming of DRR approach to disaster risk management in the country, what is presented here is not a complete list but these that identifies core areas where improvements are required: 1. BUILD POLITICAL COMMITMENTS AND CONTINUE TO MAINSTREAM DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AS A POLICY PRIORITY

 Advocate for the enactment of legislation to adopt disaster risk reduction as a policy.

 Incorporate disaster risk reduction in the Medium Term Development Plan

 Establish disaster reduction strategy on a sound legislative basis, fully integrated into and consistent with other natural laws and regulation

 Link disaster risk reduction to poverty reduction and sustainable policies and programs.

 Re-orient local officials regarding the local calamity fund 2. ADOPT AN APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE FOR DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT WHICH IS CROSS SECTORAL, CROSS-DISCIPLINARY AND FUNCTIONING COORDINATION MECHANISM

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

21

 Ensure a decentralized governance system for DRR with adequate resources and where responsibilities are clearly identified and allocated. 3. STRENGTHEN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AND ALLIANCE BUILDING ACROSS SECTORS AND DISCIPLINES AT ALL LEVELS

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

 Improve access to Information on DRR measures  Strengthen public-private sector partnership 4. STRENGTHEN CAPACITIES FOR DRR

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

 Improve knowledge of hazards and causes of disaster risk in all settings and  Incorporate risk and vulnerability assessment methods into development planning, grant making and lending process 5. PROVIDE FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR DRR

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

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

22

E ND N OTES

23

1

2 3

4 5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

See World bank-NDCC, 2004. Natural Disaster Risk Management in the Philippines Enhancing Poverty Alleviation through Disaster Reduction United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNSDR) See Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) 20092019 (draft) See presidential Decree 1566 (June 11, 1978) Defined by the NDCC in the document “Calamities and Disaster Preparedness”. The General Appropriations Act stipulates that other line agencies not receiving QRF are instructed to allocate 5% of their budget for emergencies. The DILG and DOF classifies LGUs from class 1 to 6 in descending order based on average annual total income. Actual allocations are based on collections in the third year preceding the current budgetary year. Of this, 22% is allocated to provinces, 23% to cities, 34% to municipalities and 20% to barangays. Allocation to incidental LGUs are then calculated according to population (50%) and land area (25%) with the remaining 25% shared equally. Local Sanggunians are empowered to declare a state of calamity; and thus access Local Calamity Funds, if at least two or more of the following conditions apply for at least four days: (a) 20% of the population are affected and in need of assistance, or 20% of the dwelling units have been destroyed; and (b) 40% of the means of livelihood are destroyed (e.g. Bancas, fishing boats, vehicles), major roads and bridges are destroyed and impassable and there is widespread destruction of fishponds, crops, poultry and livestock and other agricultural products. Lifelines such as electricity, potable water system, See Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) 20092019 Draft, 19 June 2008. The HFA Monitor Template is a tool to monitor, review and report on progress and challenges in the implementation of disaster risk reduction and recovery actions undertaken at the national level, in accordance with the Hyogo Framework of Action priorities – UNISDR's words into Action A: A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework At the Senate, Senate Bills (Sbs) have been filed by Senators Gordon, Estrada, Santiago, Honasan, Zubiri, Revilla, trillanes and Villar, in addition the DRRNet Phils DRM Bill was accepted as an unnumbered bill. The bills were referred to the Senate Committee on national Defense and Security chaired by Sen. Biazon. At the Lower House and House Bills (HBs) have been filed by Congressmen Duavit, Pichay, Ocampo, Rodriguez,Santiago III, M. Teodato, Fernandez etc. The bills were referred to the House Committee on Defense and Security chaired by Cong. Arthur Celeste. The Committee were able to hold public hearings and created a technical working group for further refinement of the draft bills.

R EFERENCES Luna, E.M. 2000 “Bayanihan”: Building Multi Sectoral Partnership for Sustainable Disaster Prevention; Mitigation and preparedness—An Impact Evaluation. Manila: Corporate Network for Disaster Response Presidential Decree 1566 1978 “Strengthening the Philippine Disaster Control, Capability and Establishing the

National Program on Community Disaster preparedness. Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) Draft) 19 June 2008. UNISDR, 2007 Words into Action: A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework. World Bank-NDCC, 2004. Natural Disaster Risk Management in the Philippines: Enhancing Alleviation through Disaster Reduction.