The Philippines as an archipelago is eminently exposed to natural hazards because of its geographic and climatological location. It is positioned along the Pacific Typhoon Belt and is within the Pacific Ring of Fire. As such, the country is affected by multiple recurrence of natural hazards such as typhoons and storm surges, earthquakes, floods and landslides. In fact, the country ranks third among 173 countries in terms of disaster risk (World Risk Index 2018). This situation is compounded by the uncontrolled human settlement in hazard-prone and marginal areas, high poverty rate, failure to implement building codes and construction standards, and degradation of forests and coastal resources, among others.

 

For the period 1970 to 2009, the country’s annual average direct cost of damages associated to disasters ranged from P5 billion to P15 billion. This is commensurate to more than 0.5% of the national gross domestic product which did not even include other indirect damages and secondary impacts due to disasters (Commission on Audit, 2014).

 

The brunt of this natural hazards, notably flooding occurrences, is felt the most by 27.6 million Filipinos who are among the poorest and marginalized (UNICEF Philippines, 2014). They are generally trapped in a seemingly never-ending cycle of disaster, displacement and rebuilding. Aside from being destructive to properties and livelihood activities, causing grave economic impacts especially to the poor, natural hazard occurrences are also among the major causes of casualties in the country. Annually, it was estimated that natural calamities claim about 1,002 lives (FFTC-AP, 2015).

 

For a country like the Philippines, an aggressive disaster risk management approach is imperative with the end view of increasing people’s resilience and decreasing their vulnerabilities to natural disasters.

 

Republic Act 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act changed the policy environment and the way the country deals with disasters from mere response to preparedness. It brought a comprehensive, all-hazard, multi-sectoral, inter-agency, and #community-based approach to DRRM through the formulation of the National Disaster Risk Management Framework.

 

RA 10121 codified, developed, and implemented a National Disaster Risk Management Plan as a master plan that provided the strategies, organization, tasks of concerned agencies and local government units, and other guidelines in dealing with disasters or emergencies. Through the NDRM Plan, the law hoped to achieve a comprehensible, integrated, efficient, and responsive disaster risk management at all levels.

 

The law also advocates the development of capacities in disaster management at the individual, organizational, and institutional levels. A significant feature of this law is its call for the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction in physical and land-use planning, budget, infrastructure, education, health, environment, housing, and other sectors.

 

RA 10121 further recognizes local risk patterns and trends and decentralization of resources and responsibilities and thus encourages the participation of NGOs, private sectors, community-based organizations, and community members in disaster management.

 

Furthermore, RA 10121 mandated the establishment of a Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office in every province, city and municipality, and Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committee in every barangay.

 

At the mandatory sunset review of RA 10121, talks emerged about the need for the creation of an independent DRRM organization with sufficient powers to fulfill its mandate. As a result, a bill was filed in the House of Representatives to create a new disaster management department, which will be called the Department of Disaster Resilience. According to the bill, it would oversee and coordinate the preparation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of disaster and climate resilience plans, programs, and activities.

 

The Citizens’ Disaster Response Center Foundation, Inc., being one of the NGOs instrumental in the passage of RA 10121, is against the creation of this new department. Provisions in the bill clearly overturn successes achieved in the passing of the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act.

 

The bill contains provisions and mechanisms that go against the sunset review recommendations like the localization agenda and participatory practices, international treaties and framework obligations, and core humanitarian principles. This supra-department will be built with top-heavy bureaucracy. Its conception will not automatically translate to effectiveness and efficiency, considering the history of disharmony, lack of coordination and overlapping of jurisdictions and mandates of various agencies.

 

The DDR’s role should be inter-agency coordination.

 

Only a number of sections attribute to the local organizational setup, missing out on the very essence of enhancing the capacities and capabilities of LGUs, grassroots communities, and constituents of the very foundation of local governance, the barangays. There was no clear-cut composition for LDRC, and BDRC was only mentioned in emergencies.

 

The four thematic pillars were not carried through by the bill — only three pillars: risk reduction, response, and rehabilitation. Practically ignoring suggestions and best practices highlighted in the sunset review, it shifts back to reactive approach. Focusing on response, local mechanisms will only be set up to respond in times of disasters, according to the bill.

 

Abolishing mitigation will have negative knock-off effects on communities. The DDR takes in CCA yet does not include climate change in its functions —another manifestation of policy incoherence.

 

It is critical to retain and include the four thematic pillars: prevention and mitigation; preparedness; response; recovery and rehabilitation under the banner of disaster risk reduction and management.

 

The bill’s provision on the prevention or suspension of “lawless violence” is too broad and can be subject to abuse without clearly defining what it is all about. It would be good to reflect on the Marawi experience in relation to this.

 

As President Rodrigo Duterte opens the 18th Congress with his State of the Nation Address on July 22, we call on our newly-elected lawmakers: Instead of creating a new DRRM authority, strengthen the current DRRM system. Ensure an integrated and holistic implementation of disaster risk reduction and management interventions by harmonizing DRRM policies and programs with climate change adaptation and mitigation.

 

Give the power back to the people: only through meaningful and skillful participation of the people, not the comeback of the obsolete top-down approach, can we guarantee a community-based approach in DRRM.