Philippines - Comprehensive DRM Framework End of Course Project
1. 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 in
the south, and the Philippine Sea in the east and South China Sea in the west. Stretching 1,840
kilometers north to south, it has a land area of about 300,000 square kilometres and a coastline that
extends 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 island
group. It has a tropical climate accompanied with abundant rainfall. It is wet or rainy season from
June 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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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. Orquiza, Anne – CDRMF: End of Course Project ‐ Philippines………………………………………………………..……
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).
