While I advocate a stronger national agency for disaster risk reduction and management, much of the fieldwork in all phases of DRRM—preparation/mitigation, response, and rehabilitation/recovery—will be borne on the shoulders of local government units. A strong national agency will be necessary for LGUs to lean on, not just when help is needed during and after a disaster, but more importantly before said disaster strikes. Yet the end result of DRRM reform should not just be a strong national DRRM agency, but LGUs with strong DRRM capabilities as well, as the latter are the first line of defense against and response to disasters, natural and man-made.
There was a time that the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council’s predecessor, the National Disaster Coordinating Council, could command “the resources of the Filipino nation in meeting major disasters,” to quote its enacting Presidential Decree 1566. But that was during the Marcos regime, when centralized command was the rule no one could proverbially refuse. NDCC thus became inadequate following EDSA I, with a governance emphasis on decentralization and empowering LGUs—part of the reason of the transformation of NDCC to NDRRMC, localized replication through Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Offices, and citizen and civil society participation.
Yet this move, prudent as it is, is not without its challenges, primarily placing a lot of the pressure of DRRM on LGUs. As with national agencies, local governments face competing pressures. Citing once again a paper co-authored with Ateneo School of Government colleagues, it’s distressing that LGUs would push Congress to repeal certain sections of Republic Act 10121 which mandates saved local DRRM funds strictly for DRRM use only. Granted, these LGUs feel they could use the otherwise frozen money for what they perceive as more immediate needs, but at the cost of investments in disaster-proofing. Further, many LGUs have yet to properly integrate DRRM into their development plans and policy-making.
Even with the right intentions, LGUs still face difficulties in efficiently and effectively accessing DRRM funds. In light of this, stakeholders are working on draft implementing rules for RA 10174, the People’s Survival Fund Law, to avoid these difficulties for yet another source of LGU funding for DRRM implementation (this one from the climate change adaptation perspective). It all points to a need for effective management of DRRM budget disbursements, proper guidance and effective monitoring and accounting.
As it stands, multiple departments and agencies bear the responsibilities of the national DRRM plan, (with Finance in charge of disaster risk financing, and the Office of Civil Defense for LGU DRRM planning), which is natural given disaster risk reduction’s multidisciplinary nature, but without strong monitoring and coordination, the total effort, effects, and accountability are equally diffused—as is the political and public support for effective DRRM implementation. I am certainly not advocating a return to centralized, authoritarian control a la Marcosian NDCC; neither political nor disaster management realities will support such “solution”. Our appeal for a stronger agency with accountability responsibilities, though, would create a coherent advocacy within government for effective DRRM, help communicate to the people its importance, provide an easy channel of guidance and certainty for LGU officials, and secure accountabilities—leveraging democracy for disaster preparedness.
Apart from strong appreciation and accountability, it remains imperative to properly capacitate specific LGUs within the means and bounds made available to them. Consistent with the aims of RA 10121, local governments will have to develop their own disaster risk reduction and management plans, integrate them with their respective local development plans, implement DRRM projects and programs; while building up local capacities to respond to and recover from disasters (using local or outside resources) when they strike. This requires, above all, knowledge and expertise in the panoply of disaster risks: climactic, geological, health, industrial, rural, urban, and so forth; and a professional corps of DRRM personnel at national and local levels.
The expertise is often delivered to LGUs from outside, but this professional DRRM corps must be local (or locally deployable). As noted above, LGU preparation responsibilities, including personnel training, fall to several Cabinet departments and government agencies, each catering to different “customers” (e.g., LGU officials, health care workers). As the front lines and first responders to cases of calamity, these people deserve support, preparation, but most of all continuity and stability. This is especially crucial at the local level, considering that LGU electoral cycles (like this May) might be disruptive to the work flows, resourcing, and personnel allocated to DRRM. The important task is to ensure the integrity of such work flows, resources, and personnel at the local level, ready for a “when-not-if” disaster.
In the end, our hopes for a disaster-ready Philippines lie in resilient LGUs and communities. Evaluating our country’s DRRM plans, proposals for and the direction of reform, and the setting of targets to meet must hew to this primary criterion. Beefing up the national-level DRRM management and monitoring infrastructure will also provide a good foundation for LGUs to gird themselves against flood and fire, storm and drought. RA 10121 and the DRRM framework have given our towns, cities, and provinces a good start to their race; we have an obligation to see their journey through to a successful end. –Dean Tony La Viña, Manila Standard Today
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
