A new way of solving the disaster problem

WHAT the Philippines experienced with Typhoon Ompong was a painful reminder of disasters brought by storms such as Ondoy and Yolanda over the past decade. It also served as a foretaste of things to come, as the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (Pagasa) recently announced that Filipinos should brace themselves for more super typhoons before the year ends.

While there has been an observed increase in awareness among the general public in preparing for incoming hazards, progress can still be made. Reports of slow responses to disasters and rehabilitation projects being unfinished in areas hit years ago signify the need to also improve efficiency and success in these areas.

Hence, there is a need to further strengthen the disaster risk reduction management (DRRM) framework in the Philippines. Of utmost concern is improving disaster prevention and mitigation, the proper implementation of which will save the nation considerable financial, environmental, and human losses.

The onslaught of Yolanda triggered and informed the process of Sunset Review of Republic Act 10121, otherwise known as the Philippine DRRMAct of 2010. The outcome of the process has produced several bills proposing the creation of a separate Department of Disaster Resilience (DDR).

Currently in the House of Representatives is House Bill 8165, which establishes the DDR. It is a consolidation of several related bills that went through reviews by House committees and the Cabinet Cluster, and was recently approved on second reading. A "substitute bill," which did not undergo the legislative process, was rejected in a recent session.

Strengthening resilience

The DDR will be leading the organization and management of national efforts for disaster and climate resilience. Specifically, it will oversee measures for reducing risks related to natural and human-induced hazards, preparing and responding to disasters, and rehabilitating and recovering from adverse impacts for affected areas.

To improve efficiency in policy implementation, DRRM will be integrated with climate change adaptation (CCA) measures. This will be mainly reflected in the formulation of a Climate-Disaster Resilience Framework and Plan, which will require LGUs a more holistic disaster risk assessment and planning to reduce vulnerabilities in prone areas. It will also enhance the national policies to be based from the National Disaster Resilience Framework and Plan and the National Continuity Plan.

Under this bill, the National Disaster Resilience Council will replace the NDRRMC, but it will increase representation from other non-government actors. The DDR secretary will serve as its chairman. Five clusters dealing with each aspect of DRRM will be led by a specific government agency: DOST (prevention and mitigation), DILG (preparedness), DSWD (response), DND (logistics), and Neda (recovery and sustainable development). Local DRCs will have a smaller yet similar structure in member-agencies and roles.

To further involve non-government sectors in the revised DRRM framework, a Multi-Stakeholder Convergence Unit (MSCU) will be established to further strengthen collaborations between government agencies and other stakeholders. It places an emphasis on businesses and enterprises to continue their production of goods and services during disasters.

HB 8165 also proposes the establishment of the Climate and Disaster Research, Education, and Training Institute, which will serve as a learning and research facility for DRRM and CCA. In collaboration with other academic institutions, functions of the Institute will include developing DRRM-CCA learning materials, forging partnerships with local communities for community-based action, and capacity-building for practitioners and experts throughout the country.

The super-agency will also issue guidelines for the use of the National and Local Disaster Resilience Funds. No less than seven percent of local revenues must be allocated to the LDRF to support relevant activities. This will then be divided into the Quick Response Fund (20 percent) and longer-term DRRM and CCA measures (80 percent). Furthermore, the Disaster Resilience Support Fund (DRSF) will be reserved for third and sixth class provinces and municipalities that need urgent assistance in improving their DRRM policies and programs.

The DDR will also oversee initiatives related to risk-sharing and risk transfer, including a mandatory insurance by LGUs for assets, properties, and livelihood of vulnerable and marginalized groups for potential loss and damage due to natural hazards.

Avoiding disaster

However, the terms of HB 8165 leave issues that need to be addressed in the coming weeks. Firstly, the creation of the DDR requires a massive government reorganization where functions of government agencies such as the Climate Change Commission (CCC), Office of Civil Defense (OCD), and the Bureau of Fire Protection will be transferred to the super-agency.

In relation, Pagasa and Phivolcs will become attached to DDR in the strengthening of the national early-warning and emergency alert system. This proposal is highly contentious as personnel from these agencies would rather have these scientific bureaus remain with the Department of Science and Technology.

In a news briefing last August, Pagasa Deputy Administrator Landrico Dalida opposed this move, stating that "the modernization of Pagasa has been done under DOST... we can help and form part of the DDR, but we don't want to be under the DDR."

Furthermore, the proposed department seems to place more attention on preparing for and responding to disasters caused by natural hazards. While the DDR's Climate Change Service will have climate change mitigation as one of its mandates, there is barely any mention of it in the bill.

As the expected disasters in the future will be caused by extreme weather events intensified by increased greenhouse gas emissions, the key role of climate change mitigation in enhancing the country's disaster-related efforts is undisputable. As one of the most vocal countries in the international arena, the Philippines has the obligation to live up to its commitments under the Paris climate agreement and the moral responsibility to fully implement these mitigation measures for the sake of its citizens. Resiliency will eventually run out if the hazards become too strong to be dealt with.

Another issue is that the formulation of new plans under the proposed legislation does not clarify how they will build on the existing thematic national plans on disaster risk reduction, preparedness, and response. They must also promote the needed coherence in development planning as mandated by Philippines' Rationalized Planning System. This needs to be immediately addressed to prevent inefficiencies in the planning, implementation, and assessment phases of DRRM.

Lastly, while the bill institutionalizes pre-emptive and forced evacuation specific to instances when there is imminent danger of loss of lives and/or damage to property, ensuring justice in the process must be a major consideration.

Will all these changes enable the Philippines to survive projected catastrophic events? This is one of the many questions that needs to be answered as HB 8165 moves through the next stages of the legislative process.