Position paper of the Climate Reality Project Philippines on the proposed Department of Disaster Resilience
THE creation of the Department of Disaster Resilience (DDR) is one of the most urgent pieces of legislation being pushed by the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte. Currently, two bills are being discussed in the House of Representatives: a consolidated bill led by Representative Joey Salceda, and an administration-backed bill sponsored by Representative Yedda Romualdez.
Strengthening the country's response to disasters caused by extreme natural hazards is a must, as the Philippines is one of the most vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change. However, both bills as currently constructed show problematic aspects in terms of the department's operationalization and reorganization of government agencies.
For instance, under the bill introduced by Romualdez, "hail" is included as an effect associated with tropical cyclones, while "solar radiation" is listed under natural hazards linked with climate variability. But neither of these is scientifically sound.
The most concerning of these is the absorption of the Climate Change Commission (CCC) into the DDR. The intention behind this is the recognition on how climate change intensifies natural hazards that leads to more severe disasters.
Given the link between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction management (DRRM), its inclusion would supposedly strengthen national and local coordination to respond to extreme events such as typhoons and droughts.
Integrating these two fields to be operationalized under a single department is never an easy task, considering the country's vulnerability. Yet the DDR as it is constructed under either of the bills would not effectively address certain issues, especially those under climate change. The most disconcerting of this is the lack of focus on climate change mitigation under the proposed legislation.
While climate change and DRRM may be related, some terms used in both fields are completely different from one another. An example of this is mitigation. "Disaster mitigation" refers to reducing the impacts and risks of hazards through preventive measures. On the other hand, "climate change mitigation" focuses on reducing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere through either phasing out fossil fuels or enhancing areas that can absorb these gases.
It is important for the Philippines to remain committed to reducing its carbon emissions not only as a face of the climate crisis, but also as a party to the Paris climate agreement. While the country's focus on adaptation as its strategy to address climate change is justifiable, the Philippines is still one of the top 40 emitters worldwide. This makes climate change mitigation on the domestic front not simply an issue of sustainable development, but also a matter of maintaining its role as an international voice for climate action.
However, Duterte remains in favor of building more coal-fired power plants to support national economic development. With nearly 30 coal plant projects on the pipeline, the country's emissions are projected to increase in the next few decades without interventions.
This makes the lack of attention on climate change mitigation in the proposed inclusion of CCC into the new department perplexing. This is further compounded by the fact that the CCC was created under RA 9729 or the Climate Change Act of 2009, a "legacy" law of then-President Gloria Arroyo who may be now advocating for its abolishment as House Speaker.
Meanwhile, disaster mitigation itself is not highlighted in the proposed bills. It is one of the four thematic pillars under the current DRRM framework, yet only the other three aspects are specifically included in the pending legislation: preparedness, response, and recovery and rehabilitation.
What this demonstrates is the continuing ailment that has been prevalent in the national government for decades: the lack of a proactive attitude to disasters. Instead of taking a strong stance on preventing disasters by directly addressing the immediate and long-term causes of extreme natural hazards, the proposed new framework is focused on actions to be taken after disasters already happened.
There is no question that there is a need for a stronger DRRM framework in the Philippines. Not only would the country remain highly exposed to tropical cyclones, droughts, and monsoonal rainfall in the future; these hazards would become more extreme due to climate change. A strong inclusive and collaborative framework needs to be established by the government to empower all sectors to effectively deal with disasters.
However, that is only half of the story. Creating the DDR is simply not enough of a solution. Increasing our resilience and adaptive capacity is not enough. Disasters brought by typhoons Ondoy and Yolanda occurred not only because institutions and communities were not prepared to deal with the impacts.
They happened because residents lived in areas at high risk to flash floods and storm surges. They happened because communities were unfamiliar with how to avoid calamities from taking place, let alone cope with losses of property and resources.
Ultimately, no restructuring of the current DRRM framework in the Philippines is as effective as the one solution this country needs: effective leadership. Public officials at the national and local level must enact policies that empower communities to not simply anticipate disasters, but rather use all means to avoid them altogether.
It is imperative that a proposed DDR would strengthen the capacity of LGUs to respond to potential and eventual disasters, considering they are at the forefront of natural hazards. Allocation of sufficient funding and manpower should be oriented towards mitigating disasters just as much as responding to them.
Proper land use should also be a priority at the local level. This would not only strengthen natural ecosystems necessary to mitigate impacts of hazards, but also reduce the exposure of communities by being positioned away from high-risk areas. The passage of the National Land Use Act can complement the proposed DDR, although changes must be made with the latter.
Furthermore, not recognizing our obligation to lower carbon emissions paints the country in a negative, two-faced light. Considering other developing yet vulnerable nations have committed to cleaner energy sources as part of increasing their resilience, ignoring mitigation on the climate change side is simply inexcusable.
As such, the Climate Reality Project Philippines believes that it is vital for the CCC to remain as an independent, coordinating body. Dealing with climate change is more than just about preventing disasters; it is also about securing adequate food and water supply, stabilizing natural and anthropogenic ecosystems, and making industries, services, and energy sources more sustainable, among others.
Disasters only happen when we fail to fully understand and prepare for the impacts of extreme events. As it stands today, the proposed Department of Disaster Resilience suggests we have not completely learned from previous mistakes. (John Leo C. Algo, Science Policy Associate (The Climate Reality Project Philippines)