cmujournalofscience journalhomepage: …js.cmu.edu.ph/dev/uploads/managing_local_disasters... ·...

Toledo-Bruno, A., Mendoza, E., & Tandog, M. - CMUJS Vol.21: (2017) :51-66

CMU Journal of ScienceJournal homepage: www.cmujs.cmu.edu.ph

Research Paper

Managing Local Disasters: Capacity Needs for Disaster Risk ReductionManagement (DRRM) in Bukidnon, Philippines

Angela Grace I. Toledo - Bruno1*, Eva N. Mendoza2, & Jedilyn M. Tandog11College of Forestry and Environmental Science, Central Mindanao University Musuan, Bukidnon, Philippines

2Department of Behavioral Science, College of Arts and Sciences, Central Mindanao University Musuan,Bukidnon, Philippines

ABSTRACT

Disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) has become a national and global concern due to theimpacts of climate change that increase exposure to disaster risks. The Philippines anchored its DRRMactions on RA 10121 enacted in 2010. This study looks into the capacities, needs, and constraintsof local DRRM Councils (DRRMC) in Bukidnon, with priority to four municipalities, one city andeleven barangays with high vulnerability to climate change impacts. The data were then evaluated interms of compliance with Hyogo and Sendai frameworks of action. Findings of this study revealed thatDRRMCs have “moderate” to “high” need for institutional capacity for DRRM; “moderate” for IEC/advocacy capacity and “moderate” to “low” for financial capacity. DRRMCs have effective and func-tional resources and programs for DRRM. However, barangay DRRMC has no or lacking emergency/rescue equipment and facilities and less access to basic services. Compliance with Hyogo and Sendaiframeworks are constrained due to budget, technical capacity, tasks of DRRMC members and politicalsupport. The findings of this study are crucial entry points and inputs to extension programs of agenciesand scientific/technical communities needed to build resilience to disaster risks.

Keywords: DRRM capacity, Hyogo Framework, Philippine DRRM Act of 2010

INTRODUCTION

The Philippines is one of the hotspots interms of climate change impact, particularly fornatural disasters such as flooding that could trig-ger landslides. Impact of disasters can damagelives and properties as well as disrupt the eco-nomic activities, especially those that are highlydependent on natural resources. For instance, theProvince of Bukidnon is dominantly agriculturalwith an economy that is dependent on crop andlivestock production. The agro-industrializationand urbanization continue to sprawl on its land-scape endangering the capacity of its ecosystemsand natural resources which are essential in re-

ducing impact of climate change such as waterscarcity, drought, flooding, erosion, runoff, theprevalence of diseases, among others. Indeed, it isa challenge for Local Government Units (LGUs)to address localized impact of natural disasters.

Literature shows a number of approach-es to disaster risk reduction and management(DRRM). First, there is an emphasis on the roleof local governments in coming up with the need-ed guidelines and clear-cut procedures for an ef-fective response to emergencies (Henstra, 2010).Somers and Svara (2009) also argued that in man-aging disasters or handling emergencies, leadersneed to have a “blend of traditional managementskills and improvisation.” (p.1). Along with

51*Corresponding author: Angela Grace Toledo-Bruno; E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.cmujs.cmu.edu.phmailto:[email protected]

Toledo-Bruno, A. et al. - CMUJS Vol.21: (2017) :51-66

52

with this, a major problem in disaster manage-ment relates to local government’s role withinboth the “intergovernmental system and the localpower structure” (Wolensky & Wolensky, 2005,p.1). More so, it is contended that a holistic ap-proach to disaster response is employed, par-ticularly in disaster management planning whichincludes “locally-led” response (Perry, 2007).

Responding to natural disasters is embeddedin RA 10121, known as the Philippine Disasterand Risk Reduction Management Act of 2010.RA 10121 highlights the role of LGUs in DRRM“which has the primary responsibility as first di-saster responders” (p. 21). In fact, RA 10121 isa “tort mechanism which could compel publicofficials to do their DRRM functions” (Pantiño,2015). As such, LGUs are empowered to imple-ment and institutionalize DRRM in its develop-ment plans and programs, particularly its criti-cal role in developing resilience of communitiesto disasters. RA 10121 also guides governmentagencies, including LGUs, to craft their respec-tive DRRM plans focused on: disaster prepared-ness; disaster response; disaster prevention andmitigation; and disaster rehabilitation and re-covery. Furthermore, RA 10121 mandates theinstitutionalization of DRRM Council/Commit-tee (DRRMC) at the provincial, municipal, city,and barangay levels respectively. DRRMC con-sists of members representing the various units/divisions in the LGU such as Health, Education,Environment, Social Welfare, and Development,etc. The Chief Executive such as the Mayor actsas the Chairperson of the Council. The DRRMCshall be “responsible for setting the direction,development, implementation, and coordinationof disaster risk management programs withintheir territorial jurisdiction” (p.15). However,the implementation of DRRM initiatives and ac-tions are subject to the capacity of the councils toimplement DRRM programs in their respectiveareas of jurisdiction. In a study of Mendoza, To-ledo-Bruno, and Olpenda, (2016), the “interplayof socio-political issues and geophysical condi-tions hamper the implementation of DRRM poli-cies and programs” (p. 155) LGUs whose areasare not constantly exposed to risks and disasterslack the need to respond to their DRRM plansproactively.

In 2013, NEDA Region 10 assisted theBukidnon LGU in the preparation of its Vulner-ability Assessment report under the IntegratingDisaster Risk Reduction- Climate Change Ad-

aptation (DRR-CCA) in Local Developmentand Decision-Making Processes program. Thereport presented the vulnerabilities of the prov-ince to disasters using Cabrido et al methodol-ogy for Vulnerability Assessment (2012, citedin Bukidnon LGU, 2013) under MillenniumDevelopment Goal Fund (MDGF) Project. Thevulnerabilities per municipality to flooding, ero-sion, and drought were rated as high, moderate,or low. However, the identified natural disastersare themselves localized in specific areas suchas at the barangay, sitio or purok (village) level.Consequently, response to such vulnerabilitiesor disasters has to be contextualized at the locallevel. Thus, it is important to assess the capacityof local DRRMCs to respond to disasters.

At the global level, the Hyogo and SendaiFrameworks of action laid down the foundationfor countries and global cooperation for disastermanagement.All these national and global initia-tives dovetail to a common concern for actionson risk assessments and capacity building of allactors to undertake a holistic approach toDRRM.However, it is interesting to know what aspectsof capacity are deemed needed by DRRMCmembers. The basic questions then would be:First, how capacitated are municipal/city and ba-rangay in responding to DRRM concerns?; sec-ond, what are their perceived needs to implementDRRM?; third, what capacities are needed toimplement the DRRM at the municipal/city andbarangay levels? and lastly, what are the chal-lenges of local DRRMCs to conform to Hyogoand Sendai Frameworks of Action?

RA 10121 emphasized that DRRMCs, par-ticularly at the local levels, have to be capaci-tated to implement DRRM in their respectiveareas effectively. Section 3 of the RA 10121 de-fines capacity as: “a combination of all strengthsand resources available to a community, soci-ety or organization that can reduce the level ofrisk, or effects of a disaster. Capacity may in-clude infrastructure and physical means, institu-tions, societal coping abilities, as well as humanknowledge, skills and collective attributes suchas social relationships, leadership, and manage-ment” (p. 3).

As such, DRRMCs are exposed to variousforms of capacity building such as seminars andworkshops including hands-on rescue operationsand disaster drills.

At the global level, the Hyogo and SendaiFrameworks become the agenda of action for di-


53

sasters management. In January 2005, WorldConference on Disaster Reduction adopted theHyogo Framework for Action: 2005-2015. Theconference is a "strategic and systematic ap-proach to reducing vulnerabilities and risks tohazards… building the resilience of nations andcommunities to disasters.” In the next 10 years,the expected outcome is “the substantial reduc-tion of disaster losses, in lives and the social,economic and environmental assets of commu-nities and countries” (pp. 1 & 3). Thus, this re-quires the “full commitment and involvement”of governments, organizations, civil societies,private sectors and scientific community. Keyactivities in the identification, assessment, andmonitoring of disasters include: national and lo-cal risk assessments; early warning; capacity; re-gional; and emerging risks.

The Sendai Framework succeeds the HyogoFramework, which already expires in 2015. TheSendai Framework ensures continuity of theHyogo Framework, and at the same time, en-compasses a broader understanding of disasterrisk, with emphasis on “build back better.” Thus,disaster risk has to be dealt with multi-manage-ment across all levels and sectors in a “condu-cive and enabling environment.” Actions to un-dertake Priority 2 (Strengthening disaster riskgovernance to manage disaster risk) is “To carryout an assessment of the technical, financial andadministrative disaster risk management capac-ity to deal with the identified risks at the localand national levels.”

This study sought to assess the capacityof municipal LGUs to respond to an identifiednatural disaster. This will then be related to thecapacity needs at the barangay levels to be ableto assess the gaps in the DRRM initiatives at thecity/municipal to the barangay levels. Specifi-cally, this study sought to address the followingobjectives. First, to assess the capacity needs ofBukidnon LGUS in terms of institutional, data-base management, IEC/advocacy, financial andresources needs. Second, to analyze the con-straints and limitations on the capacity of LGUsin the implementation of DRRM, and lastly,identify the challenges of local DRRMCs to con-form to the Hyogo Framework for form with theHyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015/SendaiFramework of Action 2015-2030.

The findings of this study are valuable inputsto assess, and hopefully, enhance the DRRM ini-tiatives of the LGUs in Bukidnon. The outputs of

this study were disseminated to the local DRRMcouncils of the study sites as a basis for discus-sion for possible extension activities.

METHODOLOGY

Study SitesThis study was conducted in four munici-

palities and one city in the province of Bukid-non as shown in Figure 1. These sites were pur-posely selected based on their high vulnerabilityto flooding, landslide, drought, and forest fire asindicated in the Vulnerability Assessment (VA)Report of Bukidnon LGU in 2013. This studyfocused on natural disasters only as mentionedbased on the said Vulnerability Assessment Re-port (2013) Peace and order, fire, disease preva-lence, and other human-caused disasters are ex-cluded.

Although the VA report specifically indicatesvulnerability to climate change impacts, this re-search uses such impacts as bases for the identifi-cation of disasters per municipality/city. Howev-er, these were validated through discussions withDRRMC heads of respective municipalities/city.The selection of sites was then based on the re-sults of the VA, specifically on where these im-pacts will significantly occur:

Flooding (agriculture sector) – Valencia City;Landslide (forestry sector) – Cabanglasan (VAreport provides no assessment of landslide in theagriculture sector);Drought (agriculture sector) - Maramag;Forest fire (forestry sector) – Quezon; andPests and diseases (biodiversity sector) - Kitao-tao.

The municipality of Kitaotao is identifiedas highly vulnerable to pests and diseases as re-flected in the VA report but based on discussionswith local DRRM officials; erosion is more prev-alent in the area. Consequently, the identified di-saster for this area was changed from pests anddiseases to erosion. From the city/municipality,the study was downscaled to the barangay lev-els, where the identified natural disaster actuallyoccurred. In this way, a realistic assessment canbe drawn out. Table 1 indicates the selected sitesand LGUs.


54

Google Earth

Figure 1. Location of Municipalities/City with High VulnerabilityIndex for IdentifiedNatural Disaster

Table 1

Selected Sites and Respondents

Disaster LGU No. of Respondents TotalMunicipal/City Barangay Municipal/

CityBarangay

Landslide Cabanglasan JasaanFreedomLambagan

5 3 1222

Flooding Valencia City BatanganSugodPoblacion

6 2 1662

Drought Maramag DologonDanggawan

7 2 123

Forest Fire Quezon No specific site;areas prone to fireinclude grasslandand sugarcanefarms

10 Interviews were limited toMDRRMC since accordingly,all farm and grasslands areprone to flooding. There wasno mention of forest fire in thearea

Kitaotao Erosion MetebagaoBalocbocanKitubo

4 4 13

Total 32 32


55

FREQ

UEN

CYn=64

(Municipal/city

DRRM

C=32;B

arangayDRRM

C=

32)

The selection of barangays is solicited fromthe Municipal/City DRRM Council (DRRMC),particularly its head. This is based on the experi-enced disaster and response that the Council hasextended. From the Municipal/City DRRMC,the Barangay DRRMC provided information onthe specific sites, i.e., at the sitio or purok (vil-lage) where disasters occurred.

For erosion, landslide, and flooding, actualsites of disasters at the barangays were geo-tagged using handheld GPS. Geo-tagging wasdone with the help of BDRRMC members andresidents who are either affected or has experi-enced the disaster. GPS points were convertedinto shapefiles and overlaid in a base map ac-cessed from PhilGIS using ArcGIS 10.1

This study employed both qualitative andquantitative approaches. Survey questionnaireswere developed and pre-tested to respondentswho are not members of local DRRMC. Ques-tionnaires were then revised to ensure that re-spondents understood the questions. Surveysusing the revised questionnaires were conductedamong members of the Municipal/City DRRMCand Barangay DRRMC of the selected LGUs.Quantitative data gathered from questionnaireswere analyzed using basic statistical tools (e.g.,frequency, percentage, means). Qualitative datagenerated from interviews were transcribed andanalyzed thematically to form part of the discus-sion.

Respondents of this study are local DRRMCmembers who are dominantly male with age of

45 years old and below. Highest educational at-tainment of Municipal/City DRRMC is collegegraduate, understandably because they occupypositions in the government. Contrastingly, Ba-rangay DRRMC members are elementary level/graduates although considerable number attainedcollege level or degrees. Municipal/city DRRMCmembers occupied their respective positions inthe LGU from one to two years while Baran-gay DRRMC members have been in the servicefor eight (8) years. These data established theirknowledge on the matters pertaining to the iden-tified disasters in their respective areas.

RESULTSAND DISCUSSION

Overview of disastersTable 1 shows that the identified disasters

have high to medium frequency of occurrence,i.e., 1-2 to 3-5 years, respectively. The perceivedintensity is based on the extent of damage topeople, livelihood, infrastructure, and environ-ment. Low intensity means that the damagecan be recovered in weeks while high intensitymeans recovery may take a year. Interestingly,the perceived intensity of negative impacts ofnatural disasters differs at the municipal/city andbarangay DRRMC members as shown in Figure2. Generally, the intensity of negative impacts isonly moderate for municipal/city DRRMC butfor barangay DRRMC, the impacts are moder-ate to high, especially for people and livelihood.

PeopleLivelihood Community Infrastructure Environment

LowMediumHigh

Figure 2. Intensity of Negative Impacts of Natural Disasters


56

FREQ

UEN

CYn=64

(Municipal/city

DRRM

C=32;B

arangayDRRM

C=

32)

This is understandable since the latter are theones exposed and have experienced the disasters,which commonly occur in farms, riverbanks, andresidential areas. Farms are mostly affected byany disaster, i.e., flooding, drought or erosion. Assuch, the people and crops are correspondinglythose affected by disasters.

In both the municipal/city and barangayDRRMCs, common concerns in the implementa-tion of DRRM are financial, technical skills, lo-cal support and the availability of data/informa-tion on disasters as presented in Figure 3. Thismeans that DRRMCs see the need for the big-ger budget through financial support, the tech-nical skills to implement the DRRM programs,the support of local leaders, organizations andgroups, and the lack or limited data. In addition,barangay DRRMC emphasized capacity needswith regards to DRRM. Barangay DRRMCmembers and even officials expressed that, ingeneral, they lack the capacity to take on the roleto manage the disaster since this is usually doneby the municipal/city DRRMC.

The Local DRRM Fund (LDRRMF) man-dated in RA 10121 ensures that LGUs have thebudget for DRRM. But, results of surveys indi-cate that financial resource is still a priority con-cern at both municipal/city and barangay levels.Although 5% of the Internal Revenue Allotment(IRA) is the mandated budget for DRRM, baran-gays with less IRAhas a meager amount of funds

for DRRM. Financial constraint is a serious con-cern for barangays with low revenue allotment,particularly those located in upland barangays.For instance, barangay DRRMCs admitted theydo not know how to utilize DRRM fund becauseit is not even sufficient for affected households.In some cases, the budget is already allocated,but the release of the money takes some time dueto accounting protocols and procedures.

Disaster responseLGUs at the province, municipal and baran-

gay levels are those who immediately respondto disasters. Membership in the province andmunicipal/city DRRMC is multi-sectoral in ac-cordance with the provisions of RA 10121. Atthe barangay level, the council is composed ofofficials, health workers, and sitio/purok lead-ers. However, the barangay DRRMC sees othergovernment agencies and private sectors as theirpartners in DRRM. Meetings are the basic meansof collaboration and communication amongDRRMC members, which are commonly done“as the needs arises."

Figure 4 shows that tree planting and the in-stallation of early warning devices are the com-mon strategies for local DRRMC.

M/C DRRMC

Financial Capacity Technical Skills Time Local Support Data/InformationB DRRMC

Figure 3. Common Concerns of DRRMC


57

M/C DRRMC

B DRRMC

Figure 4. Existing Strategies to Reduce the Impacts of Disaster

Initiatives for early warning and disasterresponse are commonly done through training,seminars, posting of signages, as well as the or-ganization of respective DRRMCs. BarangayDRRMC highlighted on the mapping of disaster-prone areas and the profiling of affected house-holds.

In the event of disasters, the immediate re-sponse of municipal and barangay DRRMCs isthe provision of basic services such as food, wa-ter, medicines and agricultural inputs. The latterare considered basic considering that disastersdamage farms affecting crops and livelihood asalready stated. Municipal LGUs provide agricul-tural inputs, such as seeds and fertilizers. Evacu-ation and rescue operations are provided whenneeded. In the aftermath of the recent droughtdue to El Niño, households received sacks of riceas aid from the Provincial LGU.

CapacityNeeds ofBukidnonLGUs forDRRMSection 2 of RA 10121 stipulates the poli-

cy of the state to “… strengthen the capacitiesof LGUs and communities in mitigating andpreparing for, responding to, and recoveringfrom the impact of disasters" (p. 2). It is forthis very reason that the government intensi-fies efforts in capacity building activities ofDRRMCs. However, it is equally important tounderstand that capacities are needed at the lo-cal DRRMCs considering that they are the firstresponders of disasters. This study categorizes

capacity needs in terms of institutional, databasemanagement, IEC/advocacy, financial and re-sources needs. The data are collated in a formthat facilitates easy reference to the perceivedneeds to match with the needed DRRM interven-tions to enhance capacity for disaster response ofDRRMCs.

Respondents assessed the capacity needsas listed in the questionnaire. Generally, M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC have the same needfor knowledge, skills, and application per iden-tified capacity, except in few instances whereknowledge and application have a higher needas compared to skills. Respondents admitted thatthey still lack the knowledge, particularly onrapid assessment and disaster-responsive land-use zoning and infrastructure design. There arealso cases wherein respondents already know theconcept, e.g., land use zoning and networking,but they lack the capacity to apply it in the con-text of DRRM. Table 2 summarizes the resultsof the survey for institutional capacity needs oflocal DRRMCs.

Data revealed that barangay DRRMCs(BDRRMC) have a high need for institutionalcapacity as compared to municipal/city DRRMC(M/CDRRMC). This is true to M/CDRRMCwhere training, seminars, and workshops wereconducted by national and regional agencies forDRRM. For both M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC,the establishment of the early warning system


58

Table 2

Institutional Capacity Needs of M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC (based on the highest frequency)

Capacity High Moderate LowM/CDRRMC BDRRMC M/CDRRMC BDRRMC M /

CDRRMCBDRRMC

Community organiz-ing

/ /

DRRM plan formu-lation

/ /

Strategic planning / /Conduct of trainingand seminars onDRRM

/ /

Rapid assessment / (Knowledge) / /EIA of post-disaster / /Establishment ofearly warning sys-tem and devices

/ (Knowledge) /

Disaster responsiveinfrastructure design

/ (Knowledge) / /

Disaster responsiveland use zoning

/ (Knowledge) / / (Application)

Climate changeready-plans, pro-grams and policies

/ /

Natural resourcesmanagement

/ /

Maintenance ofearly warningdevices

/ /

Networking / (Application) / (Applica-tion)

/ / /

Monitoring andevaluation

/ /

and devices, disaster-responsive infrastructure,and land use zoning and the application of net-working for disaster-related concerns are ratedhigh. Installation and monitoring of automaticweather stations (AWS) is the primary task ofPAGASA, but DRRMCs do not access such data.Weather data are usually accessed from radio ortelevision programs. On the other hand, it is nor-mally the M/CDRRMCs who do training andseminars, infrastructure design and land use zon-ing. Thus, BDRRMCs perceived these as theirneed for disaster response.

The availability and management of data areimportant because these provide the bases in re-sponding to disasters, i.e., how many householdsin which areas should assistance be directed to.At the same time, these data are important in thecalculation of damage, assistance (money, ma-terials or inputs), and in planning for rehabilita-tion/restoration efforts.

Interviews with BDRRMC members re-vealed that municipal/city and provincial LGUsnormally gather data such as the number ofhouseholds, extent of damage area, etc. These


59

are the basis for the assistance extended as partof DRRM. However, BDRRMC has no copy ofthe data. At the M/CDRRMC levels, these dataare used in reports. Information on disasters isusually accessed via television, internet or radio.Collaboration with national and regional agen-cies on DRRM seems to be lacking at the M/CDRRMC levels. In the same way, BDRRMCaccessed information from television, radio orfrom city/municipal and provincial LGU offices.It is not clear how such information is utilized forDRRM plans and strategies.

The above situation explains why capac-ity needs for database management are gener-ally rated high as shown in Table 3. As such,interventions for database management capacityshould be able to encourage collaboration, col-lection, processing, and presentation of DRRM

data to be effectively utilized for DRRM plansand strategies.

Advocacy is an important component ofDRRM not only to make people aware and beprepared for disasters but also to understandmore about disasters. Disasters should not createpanic or fear but develop resiliency, which comesonly if people do understand more about a disas-ter. In the various DRRMC offices visited, mostof the advocacy comes in the form of posters andsignage, which are distributed by national andregional DRRM offices. M/CDRRMC sharedthat they also conduct training and seminars aswell as drills as mandated under DRRM. DRRMplans are formulated at the city/municipal levels,which become the basis for the crafting of baran-gay DRRM plan.

Table 3

Database Management Capacity Needs of M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC

Capacity High Moderate LowM/CDRRMC BDRRMC M/CDRRMC BDRRMC M/CDRRMC BDRRMC

Data collection / /Database establishment / /Data access / /

Data storage / /Map interpretation / /Management informa-tion system (MIS)

/ /

Geographic informationsystem (GIS)

/ /

Use of statistical soft-ware for data analysis

/ /

Data presentation / / /Community mapping / /Integrating data into lo-cal policy formulation

/ /

Information sharing / (Application) / / /Networking / /


60

Table 4

Advocacy Capacity Needs of M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC

Capacity High Moderate Low

M/CDRRMC BDRRMC M/CDRRMC BDRRMC M/CDRRMC BDRRMC

DRRM plantdissemination

/ /

Integration ofDRRm in schoolcurricula

/ /

Formulation ofIEC materials

/ /

Production ofculture-sensitiveIEC materials

/ /

Early warningsystem

/(knowledge) /

Documentation / /

Table 4 reveals that capacity for advocacyin DRRM is only perceived as a moderate needfor M/CDRRMC but high and moderate forBDRRMC. The reason for “low” need for IECmaterials is because these are available at themunicipal levels. However, their preference isthe “culture-sensitive” materials. BDRRMC rec-ognizes the relevance of this capacity since theyare the ones who experience disaster. In fact, theaftermath of disasters, which includes damageand loss of livelihood or personal belongingscould be felt even weeks after disasters. In suchcase, culturally-sensitive advocacy campaignsare more meaningful rather than the generic IECmaterial.

The financial resource is a common concernfor both M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC. However,capacity needs on this aspect is only rated as“moderate” or “low” as shown in Table 5. This isbecause members of DRRMC are also personnelof other offices, who compose the DRRM Coun-cil in respective municipality/city and barangay.This is in accordance with the provisions underSections 11 and 12 of RA 10121 on the composi-tion of local DRRMC. Financial operations arealready performed and experienced by members

of DRRMC. Thus the “moderate” or “low” ca-pacity need.

Constraints and limitations of DRRMC toimplement DRRM

Based on interviews with DRRMC heads,DRRM plan encompasses disaster preparedness;disaster response; disaster prevention and miti-gation; and disaster rehabilitation and recovery.As such, the budget for DRRM as mandated un-der RA 10121 has to be allocated in the abovecategories. In any DRRM initiatives, the capac-ity of DRRM actors or implementers has to bematched with the available resources. These re-sources include people, programs, facilities andequipment to respond to disasters. The availabil-ity of these resources should also be assessed interms of sufficiency, functionality, and effective-ness. Sufficiency assess means whether the num-ber of these resources are available and can meetthe demands; functional means these resourcesare working and utilized; and effectivenessmeans that these resources serve its purpose, i.e.,for DRRM.


61

Table 5

Financial Capacity Needs of M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC

Capacity High Moderate LowM/CDRRMC BDRRMC M/CDRRMC BDRRMC M/CDRRMC BDRRMC

Budgetary allocation / /

Formulation ofmechanisms for contin-gencymeasures

/ / /

Financial monitoring / /Fund sourcing / /

Table 6 shows a summary of the DRRM re-sources that are sufficient, functional, effectiveor lacking/none. Note that for clarity purposes,the data are based on a highest frequency only.For instance, some BDRRMCs have effective,functional, and sufficient DRRM resources butthe majority of the BDRRMCs have none. Forinstance, the majority of the BDRRMCs have noearly warning system, but some shared these areeffective and sufficient in their respective baran-gays. Similarly, the majority of the M/CDRRMCrevealed they have no rubber boats, but a con-siderable number expressed they have sufficient,functional and effective rubber boats. However,for barangays not exposed to flooding, rubberboat is not a need.

Both the M/CDRRMC and BDRRMCshared that most of the DRRM data, plans andmaps are effective. However, both also see thelack of local experts on the disaster that couldprovide them with technical and advisory onDRRM concerns. Both also have functional pro-grams for vulnerable groups as these are man-dated and utilized during disasters. However,respondents agreed these could be enhanced forspecific needs of vulnerable groups.

A striking contrast is observed in the emer-gency/rescue equipment and facilities for M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC. Majority of the M/CDRRMCs admit that the equipment and fa-cilities are sufficient. In contrast, most of theBDRRMCs shared they have no or lack equip-ment and facilities for DRRM. This is consistentwith what BDRRMC members revealed that

DRRM is normally initiated at the municipal/city levels because the latter have the resourc-es. Barangays located in Poblacion or urbancenters with higher internal revenue allotment(IRA) have correspondingly higher DRRM fund,thus their ability to provide themselves withthe equipment and facilities. These barangaysalso have access to potable water, hospitals, firetrucks, ambulance and other basic services pro-vided by municipal/city LGUs.

Although M/CDRRMCs are equipped withemergency/rescue equipment and facilities, theseequipment and facilities are not necessarily usedduring disasters. M/C DRRMC members ad-mitted that emergency and rescue equipment ismostly used to respond to vehicular accidentscommon along national highways. Some evenrevealed that rescue vehicles and ambulances areutilized for health-related emergency concerns.Consequently, funds are utilized for Quick Re-sponse but allocations for disaster preparedness,disaster prevention and mitigation, and disasterrehabilitation and recovery are not optimized.Section 21 of RA 10121 stipulates that:“Unexpended LDRRMF shall accrue to a specialtrust fund solely for the purpose of supportingdisaster risk reduction andmanagement activitiesof the LDRRMCs within the next five (5) years.Any such amount still not fully utilized after five(5) years shall revert back to the general fundand will be available for other social services tobe identified by the local Sanggunian”(p. 25)


62

Table 6

Needs of M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC for DRRM Implementation (based on Highest Frequency for Suf-ficient, Functional, Effective or none)

NEEDS Sufficient Functional Effective NoneM/CDRRMC

BDRRMC M/CDRRMC

BDRRMC M/CDRRMC

BDRRMC M/CDRRMC

BDRRMC

DRRM resoucesData ondisaster

/ / /

Geohazardmaps

/ /

Land use maps / /

Local DRRMcouncil

/ / /

Local advisorycouncil

/ /

Local expertson DRRM

/ /

DRRM plan / /

Programs for vulnerable groups

Children / /

Elderly / /

Persons withdisabilities(PWD)

/ /

Pregnantwomen

/ / /

Sick /DRRM programs

Disasterresponse andrescue

/ /

Compliance of Local DRRMCs with theHyogo and Sendai Frameworks

Table 7 shows the highlights of the globalactions for DRRM which are anchored on theHyogo and Sendai Framework of Actions. Thesebecome the bases for international actions andcooperation in response to disasters. HyogoFramework shares similarities with the provi-sions of RA 10121. As such, these are partlyaccomplished at the local DRRMCs. As a fol-low-up on of the Hyogo Framework, the SendaiFramework built its foundation and enhancedactions of the former. Highlights of the Sendai-

Framework are the concepts of building resil-ience and “Build Back Better” approach.

Although Hyogo Framework and RA 10121share similarities for DRRM actions, it is a realitythat these suggested actions meet difficulties andchallenges for local DRRMCs, particularly withlower IRA and correspondingly meager fundfor DRRM. The meager fund limits DRRMCsto purchase equipment and install facilities fordisaster response operations. Some DRRMCspersonnel admitted having difficulties in access-ing fund due to some bureaucratic proceduresand protocols that cause a delay in their response


63

Table 6 continued . . .

Needs Sufficient Functional Effective NoneM/

CDRRMCBDRRMC M/

CDRRMCBDRRMC M/

CDRRMCBDRRMC M/

CDRRMCBDRRMC

Disasterrecovery

/ /

Disasterrehabilitation

/ /

Volunteerfor disasterresponse

/ /

Emergency/rescue equipment and facilitiesRubber boats / /Life jackets / / /Hauling truck / /

Fire truck / /Ambulance / /Standbypowergenerator

/ /

Portablewater supply

/ /

Medicalsupplies

/ /

Food supplies / /

Communica-tion devices(radio)

/ /

Alarmsystem

/ /

Early warningsystem

/ / /

Evacuationcenter

/ /

Temporaryshelter

/ /

Reliefdistributioncenter

/ /

Hospitalclinic

/ /

Firedepartment

/ /

Weathermonitoringsystem

/ /

Internetaccess

/ /

Mobilephones

/ /

Computerfacilities

/ / /


64

Table 7

Priority Actions under the Hyogo and Sendai Framework

Hyogo Framework of Action Sendai Framework of Action (National and lo-cal level)

1) Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a nationaland a local priority with a strong institutional basisfor implementation

Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk

2) Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and en-hance early warning

Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk gover-nance to manage disaster risk

3) Use knowledge, innovation and education tobuild a culture of safety and resilience at all levels

Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reductionfor resilience

4) Reduce the underlying risk factors Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness foreffective response and to “Build Back Better”in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction

actions. On the other hand, the access to dataand information on disasters, including weatherand climate information, are constrained by noor intermittent internet connection and signal.DRRMC personnel also revealed that aside fromtheir responsibility to DRRM, they are also as-signed to other offices. This divides their timeto focus on DRRM. In addition, the members ofDRRMC are equally holding critical positions asalso heads in their respective offices, e.g., unitheads of health, social welfare, agriculture, bud-get, etc. as stipulated in Section of RA 10121.Some are coming from other offices such asPNP, DepED, Red Cross, NGO, etc. This situ-ation makes difficult to find a common schedulefor DRRMC to meet and discuss DRRM initia-tives in their respective areas. This is the reasonwhy DRRMC members only meet “as the needarises.”

Based on interviews with DRRMC heads,constraints, and limitations in the implementa-tion of RA 10121, including the Hyogo and Sen-dai Framework all boil down to budget, lack oftechnical capacity, the “other” tasks assigned toDRRMC members and strong political support.

CONCLUSIONS

DRRM is a crucial concern from the local tointernational levels. Beyond the legal basis for

DRRM, the people are already aware of the af-termath and impact of disasters at the variousspatial scales. On the other hand, local officialsare pressured to take concrete and immediateactions being the first responders of disasters.Thus, they are more accountable at the local lev-el where disasters occur. However, the mandatedlocal bodies for DRRM at the city/municipal andbarangay lack the capacity and resources to per-form their expected functions. The lack of capac-ity and resources are the challenges to implementthe local DRRM, particularly in barangays thathave less access to facilities and information aswell as the insufficient budget for DRRM due toless IRA. This is crucial since barangays are thefirst responders when local disasters occur. Assuch barangay DRRMCs are dependent on mu-nicipal/city DRRMCs.

RA 10121 shares similarities with the priori-ty actions of the Hyogo and Sendai Frameworks.However, the implementation is constrained bydifficulties and challenges due to a limited bud-get, technical capacity, and political support.With the perceived needs of local DRRMCs, theinitiatives, programs, and activities have to bere-assessed to effectively manage the impacts ofdisasters.

The assessment on the capacity and resourc-es needs of the local DRRMCs as presented inthis study can be the basis for prioritizing capac-ity building programs for DRRM. The output


65

DRRM office personnel and staff, who pro-vided secondary data and assisted during thefieldwork.

REFERENCES

Andres, C.K., & Smith, R.C. (2000).Principles and practices of heavy construc-tion (5th Ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jer-sey, Prentice Hall

BukidnonLocalGovernmentUnit. (2013). Sec-toral climate change vulnerability assess-ment report. Province of Bukidnon. North-ern Mindanao (Region X).

Henstra,D.(2010).Evaluatinglocalgovernmentemergency management programs: whatframework should public managers adopt?Public Administration Review, 70, 236-246.

Mendoza,E.N.,Toledo-Bruno,A.G.,&Olpenda,A.S. (2016). Local government unit capac-ity for disaster risk reduction and manage-ment: from disaster to resilience. Advancesin Environmental Sciences- InternationalJournal of the Bioflux Society, 6(2),148-156.

Implementing Rules and Regulation of RANo.10121. NDCC (2010)

Pantino, J.L. (2015).May the torts be with you:using RA 10121 as a tort mechanism in com-pelling public officials to fulfill their DRRMfunction. (Unpublished paper in PoliticalScience 199). University of the Philippines-Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.

Perry, M. (2007). Natural disaster managementplanning: a study of logistics managers re-sponding to tsunami. International Journalof Physical Distribution & Logistics Man-agement, 37, (5), 409-433.

Somers, S. & Svara, J.H. (2009).Assessing and

of this study can be used as extension servicesprograms of scientific and research communitiesin the academe and government agencies. Priori-ties of needs for capacity and resources are entrypoints of interventions for a collaborative andmeaningful extension programs for DRRM.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of the study are crucial en-try points to enhance DRRM plans, policiesand programs on DRRM for M/CDRRMC andBDRRMC. Specifically, DRRM can focus on thefollowing recommended interventions:1) Validate the findings of the study per M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC to build on the basesfor area and disaster-specific DRRM interven-tions;2) Focus on the “high” to “moderate” ca-pacity needs of DRRMC and contextualizeDRRM design specific to disaster risk, commu-nity and available resources for DRRM;3) Strengthen linkage and collaboration ofDRRMC with agencies involved in data collec-tion, access, and management pertaining to di-sasters such as PAGASA DOST, Department ofAgriculture, DENR, among others;4) Initiate collaboration between M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC in the collection, anal-ysis, access, and management of data related toDRRM such as area of disaster exposure, num-ber of affected households, weather and climatemonitoring and mapping;5) Strengthen collaboration of M/CDRRMC and BDRRMC as partners in DRRM,creating a venue for learning on disaster pre-paredness; disaster response; disaster preventionand mitigation; and disaster rehabilitation andrecovery.6) Work out disaster-specific DRRM initia-tives on preparedness; response; prevention andmitigation; and rehabilitation and recovery.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study is funded by Central MindanaoUniversity under research fund code R-0109.Forester Joseph C. Paquit and Jessie T. Bucarprovided technical assistance for geo-taggingand map generation. The study also recogniz-es the local DRRMC members including the


66

gency management. Public AdministrationReview, 69, (2), 181-193.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduc-tion. International Strategy for Disaster Re-duction (UNISDR). 2015. Sendai frame-work for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030.Geneva, Switzerland.

Wolensky,R.P.&Wolensky,K.C. (2005). Localgovernment’s problem with disaster man-agement: a literature review and structuralanalysis. Review of Policy Research, 9, 703-725

Received: October 6, 2017Revision Received: January 11, 2018Accepted: January 23, 2018

cmujournalofscience journalhomepage: …js.cmu.edu.ph/dev/uploads/managing_local_disasters... ·...

Documents