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