Disaster Risk Management Needs of Metro Manila: A Scoping Report

SCOPING MISSION REPORT

DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF METRO MANILA December 2009

Photo taken along Ortigas Avenue in Pasig City Philippines a day after Tropical Storm Ketsana hit Metro Manila on 26 September 2009 (Photo courtesy of Nonie Reyes).

This report was prepared by the Scoping Mission Team: John Schneider and Greg Scott, Geoscience Australia; and Anne Orquiza, AusAID

Page 2 | S c o p i n g M i s s i o n R e p o r t : D R M R e q u i r e m e n t s o f M e t r o M a n i l a

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

BOM Bureau of Meteorology

CCA Climate Change Adaptation

CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan

CSCAND Collective Strengthening of Community Awareness for Natural Disasters

DEM Digital Elevation Map

DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

GA Geoscience Australia

GOP Government of the Philippines

LDCC Local Disaster Coordinating Council

LGU Local Government Unit

LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging

MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau

MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority

MMEIRS Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction Study

NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information Agency

NDCC National Disaster Coordinating Council

NEDA National Economic Development Authority

NEXIS National Exposure Information System

OCD Office of Civil Defense

PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services

PHIVOLCS Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology

PNRC Philippine National Red Cross

PROJECT 143 Strengthening the Disaster Management Capacities of Communities

READY Project Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community and Disaster Risk Management

REDAS Rapid Earthquake Damage Assessment System

SDI Spatial Data Infrastructure

UNDP United Nations Development Bank

UP University of the Philippines

WB World Bank


Table of Contents

Contents Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………. 2

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Summary……………….…………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

I Background………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

II The Scoping Mission…………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

III Potential Opportunities for Engagement………………………………………………………….. 11

IV Recommendations and Next Steps…………………………………………………………………… 16

Annexes

1 Scoping Mission Summary of Program…………..…………………………………………………. 20

2 Highlights of Discussions with Agencies……………………………………………………………. 21

3 List of People Consulted.………………………………………………………………………………….. 27


SUMMARY Tropical Storm Ketsana hit the Philippines on 26 September 2009 and flooded Metro Manila and neighboring provinces. In response, the Australian Government provided a total of AUD3.10 million for emergency assistance to communities and families in Metro Manila and Southern Tagalog. AusAID and Geoscience Australia also undertook a scoping mission to understand the context of the flooding and scope out the disaster risk reduction and management requirements of Metro Manila. Since the flooding affected Metro Manila and the provinces of Laguna and Rizal, the National Disaster Coordinating Council ‐ Collective Strengthening of Community Awareness for Natural Disaster agencies were in consensus that this conurbation, referred here as Greater Manila Area, should be the coverage of future risk reduction initiatives. The following disaster risk reduction and management needs and options were identified. 1. Collect inundation and damage data from Ketsana to improve understanding of flood

forecasting and risk. 2. Undertake hazard mapping for all relevant natural hazards (e.g. flood, storm surge,

severe wind, earthquake, tsunami, landslide, liquefaction and volcanic eruption). 3. Develop an urban flood modeling capability to capture the combined effects of riverine

and flash flooding in the urban environment. 4. Assess earthquake and flood risk to Greater Manila Area through a robust understanding

of the hazard and the potential impacts (damage, loss of life, social disruption and economic cost).

5. Develop a national exposure information system which is an essential information platform for extending natural hazard mapping to risk assessment.

6. Improve flood monitoring through better monitoring of rainfall and stream flow. 7. Improve early warning to better prepare people and communities to disasters and avoid

or minimize losses. 8. Integrate disaster risk management into the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan and

Comprehensive Land Use Plans of local government units. 9. Prepare contingency plans focusing on search and rescue, evacuation, and relief at the

community or barangay level. 10. Formulate disaster risk management plan for the metropolitan area to tackle disasters of

huge magnitude and better coordinate efforts of local governments. Given these risk reduction and management needs and options, a comprehensive program of hazard and risk assessment to improve the scientific and technical foundations of disaster risk management is recommended. 1. Immediate to short‐term (3‐6 months)

a. Provide inputs to Post‐Disaster Needs Assessment. b. Build data and analytical tool through lessons learned and high resolution

topographic information. c. Design Metro Manila recovery and reconstruction program and prepare action plan

for Metro Manila urban planning.


2. Medium to long‐term (1‐4 years)

a. Undertake low resolution mapping of relevant natural hazards in Greater Manila Area (1st to 12th month).

b. Gather and develop datasets and tools required for higher resolution natural hazard impact analysis (12th to 18th month).

c. Undertake natural hazard impact analyses, including climate change scenarios, in high priority areas (1st to 24th month).

d. Formulate the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan (25th to 30th month). e. Mainstream disaster risk management and climate change adaptation into

development planning (31st to 42nd month). f. Strengthen early warning system capacity of technical agencies on impact modeling

and forecasting (12th to 24th month). g. Strengthen the capacity of communities to prepare for and manage disasters (12th to

30th month).


I. BACKGROUND PHILIPPINES IN THE RING OF FIRE

The 7101 islands of the Philippines archipelago is situated in the Pacific ring of fire, earthquake belt and typhoon path placing the country second in Asia1 most at risk to natural hazards such volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and typhoons including associated risks. In Southeast Asia, the Philippines accounts for 30 percent of disasters that occurred from 1990‐2009. At least 60 percent of the total land area of the Philippines is exposed to multiple hazards, with 74 percent of its population vulnerable to disasters, ranking the country eighth most vulnerable worldwide to natural disasters2. In economic terms, the country ranks ninth with 80 percent of its GDP at risk to natural hazards. It is even more disturbing in human terms ‐ mortality risk is high with the country’s 92 million population vulnerable to natural hazards. If the same typhoon were to hit Japan and the Philippines, mortality is estimated to be 17 times higher in the Philippines.3 More alarmingly, this disaster profile of the Philippines is also strongly influenced by the pressures of climate change, population growth and urbanization making the country more vulnerable to both current and future risks. METROPOLITAN MANILA

Metropolitan Manila or Metro Manila corresponds to the National Capital Region. It has a land area of 636 square kilometers or 0.21 percent of the Philippines’ aggregate land area which is connected by an isthmus that is bound on the east by Laguna Lake and on the west by Manila Bay. Metro Manila lies along the flat fluvial and deltaic lands in the west; and the rugged lands of Marikina Valley and the Sierra Madre mountains in the east; by the Manila Bay in the west, the larger and fertile plains of Central Luzon in the north, and Laguna de Bay in the south. Metro Manila is a member of the Central Luzon Basin composed mainly of recent alluvial deposits. The slope of the land descends generally to the west, southwest or south direction. A network of natural waterways and rivers of various sizes and importance traverses the landscape to Laguna Lake to the south and Manila Bay to the west. Metro Manila is regarded as the Philippines premier urban center, the seat of government and power, and considered as the 18th largest

1 United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 2009. Global Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. 2 World Bank. 2005. Natural Disaster Hot Spots: A Global Risk Analysis. 3 United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 2009. 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Risk and poverty in a changing climate.


metropolitan area in the world. It has a population of 11.55 million (National Statistics Office, 2007) making it highly dense at almost 18,100 people per square kilometer. The mega city’s contiguous area is composed of 16 cities, one municipality and 1,695 barangays each independently managed; is host to 90 percent of the country’s business and financial activities; cultural, medical, educational and research institutions; as well international organizations. Local government units like cities and municipalities have the responsibility to provide basic social services to their constituency and the authority to manage their natural resources and generate additional revenues. The administrative management of Metro Manila however is undertaken by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA). The services under the jurisdiction of MMDA are those services which have metro-wide impact and transcend legal political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided by the individual local government units (LGUs) comprising Metro Manila. These services include: (1) development planning: (2) transportation and traffic management: (3) solid waste disposal and management: (4) flood control and sewerage management: (5) urban renewal, zoning, land use planning and shelter services; and (6) health sanitation, urban protection and pollution control and public safety. Despite the mandate of MMDA, the development of LGUs in Metro Manila however has been undertaken in isolation of the bigger Metro Manila wide perspective, reflected by the desire of each local government to implement its own rules and regulations, i.e., traffic management. Often, Metro Manila administration is also made more complicated by political affiliations of local chief executives making it hard for MMDA to implement inter‐local government initiatives and regulations. A MEGA‐CITY AT RISK

Metro Manila is built on and around active faults, and thus has a very high potential for damaging earthquakes. In the Asia Pacific region, Metro Manila is the megacity most at risk to earthquakes with the active West Valley fault system that cuts through the northeastern part of the metropolis. 4 Studies indicate that magnitude 6 earthquakes occur every 37 years and magnitude 7 earthquakes every 200 to 400 years. The high population density coupled with this active fault system could have a devastating impact on Metro Manila. A recent study of earthquake risk to Metro Manila indicates that a magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the West Valley fault could result in 33,000 deaths and 38 percent damage to residential structures 5. Tsunamis triggered from offshore earthquakes also pose a risk to Metro Manila. The Philippines has the greatest number of people exposed to very high volcanic hazards with volcanic disasters affecting more than 100,000 people once every

4 Geoscience Australia. June 2008. AUSGEO News. Assessing natural disaster risk in the Asia Pacific region. 5 Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Study, MMDA, 2004?


few decades.6 Metro Manila in particular is located near two active volcanoes, namely Mount Pinatubo to the north and Taal Volcano to the south, making it highly exposed to volcanic hazards. As a low‐lying area, Metro Manila is highly vulnerable to riverine flooding, storm surge and severe wind, particularly given the frequency of cyclonic activity – an average of 20 typhoons hit the Philippines in a year, at least five of which are destructive. Moreover, the eastern portion of Metro Manila is traversed by Marikina River, a major river system that stretches from Rizal Province to eastern Metro Manila, connects to Laguna Lake and passes through heavily populated residential areas and important commercial and industrial districts at its middle and downstream portions. Historically, approximately half of Metro Manila is subject to flooding at a return period of 100 years or less7. The river regularly overflows its banks, and floods the surrounding basin during periods of heavy rains as experienced on 26 September 2009 when Tropical Storm Ketsana (Ondoy) poured down on Metro Manila. METRO MANILA IN THE EYE OF KETSANA

Tropical Storm Ketsana caught Metro Manila and its surrounding environment (the Greater Manila Area, Laguna and Rizal in particular) by surprise and highlighted the vulnerability of the mega‐city to disaster risks. Ketsana was not strong in terms of wind intensity but it brought 420 millimeter (mm) of rainwater in a matter of 24 hours, submerging major parts of the metropolitan area totaling to 21,710 hectares. Total damage to properties amounted to PhP3 billion and total deaths of 241. The devastation was greatly exacerbated by uncontrolled and rapid urbanization – poor urban planning, insufficient spillways and floodways, drainage clogged with solid wastes, infrastructure and settlement encroaching on natural water ways and bodies, and informal settlers on riverbanks and hazard‐prone areas. Most significantly, Ketsana underscored the vulnerability of the metropolis to natural hazards and weak contingency planning – a fatal combination, which beckons urgent measures to strengthen disaster preparedness and early warning systems in Metro Manila. AUSTRALIA WORKING ON DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

The Australian Government, through the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), has been working closely with the Government of the Philippines (GOP) on disaster risk management (DRM) initiatives since 2006. It has been supporting government agencies to map 27 provinces vulnerable to natural hazards, establish community‐based early warning systems, organize disaster response teams, and integrate disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) strategies into local development and regulatory processes. Australia has also commenced work with government agencies on enhancing the tropical cyclone early warning system, and assessing risks and impacts from natural hazards. All these initiatives have been focused in rural areas, particularly in the eastern seaboard provinces of the Philippines.

6 Geoscience Australia. June 2008. AUSGEO News. Assessing natural disaster risk in the Asia Pacific region. 7 Metro Manila Flood Susceptibility Map, Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2009.


II. THE SCOPING MISSION OBJECTIVES

The aftermath of Tropical Storm Ketsana provides an opportunity for the Australian Government to expand its DRM initiatives to an urban area like Metro Manila. To look into this, AusAID with Geoscience Australia (GA) conducted a scoping mission from 29 October to 06 November (Annex 1 – Scoping Mission Summary of Program). The scoping mission was three‐pronged. Primarily, it provided an opportunity for AusAID and GA to understand the context of the recent flooding in Metro Manila and scope out the DRM needs of Metro Manila. It also provided a venue for the team to validate the priorities identified under the Options Paper. And lastly, it allowed GA to follow‐up on activities under the project Strengthening Natural Hazard Risk Assessment Capacity in the Philippines with NDCC‐CSCAND agencies. The mission also provided an opportunity for the Australian Government to provide inputs to the Post‐Ketsana Disaster Needs Assessment8, particularly to the chapter on Disaster Risk Management, and to the newly created Special Private‐Public Reconstruction Commission.9 THE TEAM

The scoping mission team is composed of the following: • Dr John Schneider, Assistant Director‐General, Risk and Impact Analysis Group,

Geoscience Australia • Mr Greg Scott, Assistant Director‐General, National Mapping and Information Group,

Geoscience Australia • Ms Anne Orquiza, Senior Program Officer, Disaster Management, AusAID

APPROACH

The mission built on the DRM initiatives of AusAID in the Philippines implemented with the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC), particularly the Technical Working Group on Collective Strengthening of Community Awareness on Natural Disasters (CSCAND) and other government and international development partners, and the Options Paper on Natural Hazard Risk Assessment prepared by GA, NDCC‐CSCAND agencies. The mission involved individual discussions with the following agencies: 1. NDCC‐CSCAND agencies, namely:

8 Led by the World Bank (with United Nations and European Commission) and Government of the Philippines after Tropical Storm Ketsana and before Typhoon Parma to help government undertake damage assessment and recommend long‐term reconstruction needs; complements the United Nations Disaster Assessment Committee which focused on rescue and relief. 9 Created by virtue of EO XXX to coordinate reconstruction projects to address impacts of Ketsana, and generate and manage (national and international) funds for these.


a. Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB): Responsible for landslide and flood susceptibility maps based on geologic and physiographic data, as well as historic information.

b. National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA): Responsible for base maps and compilation of hazard/risk map layers from other CSCAND agencies.

c. Office of Civil Defense (OCD): Responsible for coordinating disaster risk management, including emergency and humanitarian response, at the national and local levels.

d. Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA): Responsible for weather forecasting and flood hazard mapping.

e. Philippine Institute for Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS): Responsible for earthquake and volcano hazard monitoring and mapping and leadership of the Rapid Earthquake Detection and Simulation (REDAS) project which simulates damages to earthquake scenarios.

2. City of Taguig: One of the 16 Metro Manila cities and one of the most heavily impacted

by Ketsana flooding, particularly along its border with Lake Laguna.

3. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) ‐ Major Flood Control Project Office: Responsible for design implementation of major flood control measures.

4. Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA): Responsible for coordinating metro‐wide development policies and activities in Metro Manila, including flood management.

5. National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA): Responsible for developing economic and land use policies and coordinating national and regional development planning and programming, and census information through the National Statistical Office.

6. University of the Philippines (UP): Premier state university, the Department of Geodetic Engineering hosts the Applied Geodesy and Applied Photogrammetric Training Center which was funded by the Australian International Development Assistance Board (AIDAB), the predecessor of AusAID:

7. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): Administrator of the Partner of NDCC‐CSCAND agencies in the implementation of the Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community and Disaster Risk Management (READY Project) being funded by AusAID.

8. World Bank (WB): Led with GOP the conduct of Post Disaster Needs Assessment to help the government undertake damage assessment and recommend long‐term reconstruction needs

A meeting that brought together CSCAND agencies and NEDA was also organized to agree on priorities and next steps.


Annex 2 provides the Highlights of Discussions with Agencies, and Annex 3 lists the people met during the scoping mission. III. POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENGAGEMENT The scoping mission team found a wide array of DRM activities, particularly on natural hazard impact analysis, which could be pursued in Metro Manila. The timing is also opportune given that the impacts of Tropical Storm Ketsana have generated huge public interest and placed DRM high in the political agenda – a long overdue attention given the high exposure of the Philippines to natural hazards and high vulnerability of its population to disasters. The flooding brought about by Tropical Storm Ketsana was not limited to Metro Manila but also affected neighboring provinces, particularly Laguna and Rizal. As a result, the general consensus of the NDCC‐CSCAND agencies is that this larger area is the more appropriate conurbation for future risk reduction initiatives. Thus, this report will refer to the conurbation of Metro Manila together with the neighboring Laguna and Rizal provinces as the Greater Manila Area. The following summarizes possible areas for intervention. 11. COLLECT INUNDATION AND DAMAGE DATA FROM KETSANA. Knowledge of the extent, timing and

depth of flooding in Greater Manila Area, together with a spatial distribution of associated damage is of critical importance to improving understanding of flood forecasting and risk. Data collected by several government agencies and non‐government organizations (NGOs) need to be consolidated and integrated to generate a more accurate depiction of the impact of this event. This information is vital in the short term for input to reconstruction planning and improved early warning, as well as in the longer term for improved risk assessment to inform disaster risk reduction and management.

12. UNDERTAKE HAZARD MAPPING. Natural hazard mapping in the Greater Manila Area should

be undertaken for all relevant natural hazards (eg. flood, storm surge, severe wind, earthquake, tsunami, landslide, liquefaction and volcanic eruption) using the current READY Project10 mapping process. This study will also build on other metro‐scale studies undertaken in Metro Manila such as the Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction Study (MMEIRS) and Drainage Study in Metro Manila. The low resolution mapping will provide urgent information necessary for relief and recovery efforts (e.g. resettlement of displaced peoples). This process will also identify high‐priority areas for more detailed analysis, such as areas potentially and seriously affected by multiple hazards and areas that may be susceptible to climate change impacts.

10 Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community and Disaster Risk Management Project, funded by AusAID and being implemented by UNDP and NDCC‐CSCAND agencies in 28 provinces along the eastern seaboard. Components include hazard mapping, community‐based early warning system, and information and education campaign.


13. DEVELOP AN URBAN FLOOD MODELING CAPABILITY. The magnitude and extent of flooding from Ketsana was not foreseen by existing flood forecasting tools or previous flood hazard mapping. Flood mapping to date has been based on historical information on previous floods and on limited riverine flood modeling. There is a need to improve the modeling capability to fully capture the combined effects of riverine and flash flooding in the urban environment. This capability will need to incorporate flow as defined by streets and urban drainage, including various flood control measures such as dikes, spillways, tunnels, pumping stations and tidal influences. It will also need to capture issues with lack of maintenance including drainage barriers from trash and other debris, informal settlements, cemented storm drains, fish pens, and water lilies. This work will require investment in a detailed digital elevation model (DEM) for Greater Manila Area, which can be obtained from an aerial LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) survey or an appropriate alternative technology. This will also require the customization of a flood modeling tool to capture the specific attributes of the natural and man‐made water flow process in the Greater Manila Area. Once developed, the model would provide the basis for testing different flood management options as well as support early warning systems.

14. ASSESS EARTHQUAKE AND FLOOD RISK TO GREATER MANILA AREA. Flood and earthquake are the natural hazards that present the biggest risks to the Greater Manila Area. The assessment of risk requires a robust understanding of the underlying natural phenomena (i.e., the hazard), as well as the potential impact in terms of damage, loss of life, social disruption and economic cost. The MMEIRS Project provided an excellent assessment of earthquake risk to Metro Manila, which lies to the west of the West Valley fault. This study needs to be updated and expanded to investigate the risk to the eastern side of the fault (in the Rizal and Laguna provinces) which is also heavily populated and equally at risk. Similarly, a study of flood risk requires additional information on the vulnerability of population, buildings and infrastructure, but can utilize the same exposure information that is developed for earthquake. Therefore, a combined study of earthquake and flood risks could be undertaken.

15. DEVELOP A NATIONAL EXPOSURE INFORMATION SYSTEM. A national exposure information system (NEXIS) would provide the essential information platform for extending natural hazard mapping to risk assessment. The current REDAS program being developed and rolled out by PHIVOLCS is an important contribution to this effort. This effort however needs to be significantly expanded to meet the broader needs for input to DRM as well as economic development planning. NEDA has the mandate to develop and manage this data as part of its role in collecting and managing census data, through the National Statistics Office, as well as in its role in coordinating socio‐economic and land use planning at the national and regional levels. It is currently in the process of developing geo‐referenced databases through its 15 regional offices which can be the starting point for a more comprehensive exposure data system.

Under the current engagement between GA and PHIVOLCS, the development of an exposure information system will be pilot‐tested in Iloilo City with the intention of eventually replicating this to other localities, and then eventually nationwide. An


exposure system could also be developed for the Greater Manila Area building on the Iloilo pilot testing and lessons learned. NAMRIA has also identified the need for a national spatial data infrastructure (SDI). The development of the SDI is a long‐term process which will need to be addressed at many levels of government. NEDA is also interested in this capability, so there is a natural affinity for this development in the combined interests of NAMRIA from a spatial perspective and NEDA from a socio‐economic one.

16. IMPROVE FLOOD MONITORING. Improved monitoring of rainfall and stream flow is essential to improving flood forecasting and early warning. A major issue for flood forecasting and flood modeling is generally the lack of rainfall monitoring and stream flow data throughout the water catchment for the Greater Manila Area. PAGASA prepared a framework for strengthening early warning system capacity in this area. Under this framework, PAGASA is in the process of installing rain, water‐level and automated weather stations, with funding from the Korean Government, which will provide much‐needed input to model the flooding either in real time or for hazard mapping in the long term. A specific need has been identified for two additional Doppler radar instrument for the Greater Manila Area which will greatly enhance the forecasting capability for this area. Under the framework, PAGASA identified AusAID and UNDP as potential sources of support for these. Three ground‐based Doppler radar instruments are also being installed in Aparri (Cagayan), Virac (Catanduanes), and Guian (Samar) with funding from the Japanese Government. These are expected to markedly improve the forecasting ability of PAGASA in northern Luzon.

17. IMPROVE EARLY WARNING. It is a challenge to disseminate the right information to communities exposed to disasters; multiple channels of communications are necessary but difficult to coordinate. The existing community‐based early warning system should be improved so that people and communities are better prepared to avoid or minimize their losses. Such early warning systems should exist for well‐defined geographical areas, covering all significant hazards that can affect the communities, follow both scientific and indigenous approaches and form an integral part of community‐based contingency planning exercises. Institutional arrangements could be strengthened through radio, television, and print media at the national and regional level to improve the flow of information and early warnings to the people likely to be affected.

18. INTEGRATE DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT INTO PHYSICAL AND LAND USE PLANS. Several factors that converged to produce the shocking impacts of Ketsana were man‐made: impermeable concrete surfaces covered the soil and prevented the absorption of rainwater; indiscriminate garbage disposal clogged drainages; structures along waterways impeded the flow of water unto rivers and eventually to the sea; and buildings and entire villages were built along river beds and flood plains. These impacts provide an opportunity to re‐examine how Metro Manila and its fringes have been haphazardly developed, and how effective land use and urban planning could significantly reduce the vulnerability of the Greater Manila Area to natural hazards.


Land use planning provides a platform in mainstreaming DRM in the urban development process, and a framework within which risk mapping, building resilient communities and building back better may be undertaken. It can also address concerns brought about by climate change‐induced hazards by redesigning the spatial structure and functioning of urban areas. As such, the preparation of comprehensive land use plans (CLUPs) of local government units in Metro Manila should commence based on a physical framework plan that builds on the potentials and limits of the natural and physical environment, provides development options, describes the trajectory of metropolitan development, and defines the policy environment. NEDA recently coordinated the updating of Regional Physical Framework Plans through the NEDA Regional Offices. The Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan however was not included in the update (note that MMDA is not part of the NEDA organizational structure). The document was last prepared in 1999 and MMDA plans to update this by June 2010 for presentation to the new President and MMDA administration. The scoping mission team, however, advised MMDA that the formulation process would take at least two years if the document is to build on sound scientific and technical datasets and tools (i.e., hazard risk and vulnerability assessment) as bases for development options and policy environment. Within the six months timeframe, an action plan for the formulation of the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan could be prepared, including data generation, for presentation to the next administration.

19. PREPARE CONTINGENCY PLANS. In the Philippines, response to a disaster is organized largely through local resources, with the national resources supplementing the local response. A number of LGUs have prepared contingency plans to respond to disasters. However, these plans have not been updated or tested for their operational value. There is a need to adopt a much stronger policy on contingency planning, one which focuses on search and rescue, evacuation, and relief to the people. It needs to be a broad‐based exercise, which includes local government, NGOs, the business sector, and other humanitarian organizations, and needs to be updated every year. These plans should also be supported with basic emergency facilities, training, and regular testing through the team of responders.

20. FORMULATE DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN. While contingency planning at the local level is

important, it is also necessary to have an integrated and unified DRM action plan for Metro Manila, a task that goes beyond the territorial boundaries of each LGU which tackles disasters within their areas of jurisdictions with mixed results. Given the magnitude of recent disasters brought about by Ketsana (and aggravated by typhoons Parma and Mirinae), very few local governments with enough resources will be able to address the problem adequately, even among more progressive and developed LGUs in Metro Manila. There is therefore a need to coordinate the efforts of all local governments, particularly within a metropolitan area. To undertake this, MMDA should be provided with sufficient authority to coordinate LGUs within the metropolis for disaster risk management. This authority should enable the MMDA to direct resources and actions without being over‐ridden by local governments’ autonomy.


As part of DRM and contingency planning, provincial and metropolitan/regional databases for emergency response assets should be developed to immediately determine the available resources and how these could be shared and deployed to respond to an emergency. A national stockpile or repository for rescue equipment, relief goods, medical and health supplies should also be established to immediately supplement and re‐supply local supplies of these items in the event of a major natural disaster. This stockpile would provide for the request, receipt, staging, storage, repackaging, distribution, dispensing, retrieval and return of any unused assets of the stockpile or any pandemic countermeasures.

10. PROPOSED DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECTS FOR METRO MANILA

a. Metro Manila reconstruction and rehabilitation program. During the scoping mission, AusAID Manila developed a concept note on proposed reconstruction and rehabilitation of Metro Manila. The concept note intends to expand current DRM support of AusAID implemented in 27 eastern‐seaboard provinces to Metro Manila. Components include socialized housing and livelihood support with Gawad Kalinga11; classroom rehabilitation with Department of Education; community‐based disaster risk management with the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) building on Project 14312; and urban planning with Taguig City. The objective is to implement a comprehensive recovery and reconstruction package of assistance based on a “building back better” approach with a local government unit, and to showcase this as a model that other LGUs and donors could replicate in other localities. Hazard risk and vulnerability mapping will also be undertaken with GA and NDCC‐CSCAND agencies for the whole of Metro Manila including its surrounding provinces (i.e., Laguna and Rizal). The leadership of Taguig City is very open to working with AusAID on the proposal, particularly on in‐city relocation and resettlement of informal settlers, and integration of DRM and CCA into a comprehensive land use plan. On the socialized housing component, a major consideration that should be further looked into is the suitability of proposed relocation and resettlement sites and the structural design of the socialized housing units to be constructed. GA could provide AusAID with technical evaluation/advice on the appropriateness of the relocation and resettlement sites and structural design. It might also be worth exploring other resettlement models such as the low‐equity socialized housing being implemented by the Habitat for Humanity with the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. b. Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management and Strengthening Early Warning System Capacity in Metro Manila. UNDP submitted to AusAID a concept note on strengthening DRM capacity in Metro Manila. The concept note has the following components: hazard risk and vulnerability mapping, integration of DRM into development planning process,

11 a Philippine‐based poverty reduction and nation‐building movement launched by Couples for Christ, a Catholic lay community, to care for worse‐off Filipinos and survivors of natural disasters. Gawad Kalinga implements integrated, holistic and sustainable community development programs in depressed areas addressing shelter, livelihood, education and health issues. 12 Strengthening the Disaster Management Capacities of Communities Project, funded by AusAID and implemented by PNRC in 16 LGUs. Focus is on establishing and capacitating barangay disaster response teams.


community‐based early warning system, contingency planning, and strengthening of disaster management agencies like OCD, PAGASA and PHIVOLCS. The concept note is comprehensive in scope, builds on and brings together learning and experiences from other AusAID‐supported DRM initiatives13. UNDP acknowledges the technical expertise of Australian government agencies like GA and the Bureau of Meteorology and their current engagement with CSCAND agencies. Thus, the proposal provides opportunity for GA to further engage and work with NDCC‐CSCAND agencies and share Australian expertise. Building on hazard risk and vulnerability mapping for Greater Manila Area, the proposal could be a platform for the formulation of the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan, and updating of the CLUPs for Metro Manila LGUs. While targeting Metro Manila, the concept note did not include MMDA as potential project partner but instead identified NEDA and OCD as project partners and implementers. This needs to be revisited given the critical role that MMDA plays in metropolitan and urban planning, including DRM and contingency planning. Per consultation with NEDA, MMDA should lead this initiative with NEDA providing technical advice, sharing tools and sitting in the project board.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS As articulated in the original Terms of Reference for this scoping mission, key datasets, tools and information are required to understand the impacts of natural hazards. These datasets, tools and information include:

• High resolution topographic information; • Information on the characteristics, frequency and potential extent of different

natural hazards, and how the weather‐related hazards are affected by climate change;

• Exposure information includes location and attributes of community elements exposed to natural hazards, i.e., data on people, residential structures, critical facilities and infrastructure (i.e., schools, hospitals, roads and bridges), and attributes associated with these elements (i.e., type of construction, number of residents, cost of construction); and

• Vulnerability information includes physical, social, environmental or economic elements. An improved understanding of the characteristics and impacts of natural hazards, including the effects of climate change, on Metro Manila will support a broad range of activities to reduce and manage risks to vulnerable communities. These activities could include emergency drills, evacuation and contingency planning, early warning system, construction of resilient buildings, retrofitting of critical infrastructure, land use planning, and education and awareness.

13 READY Project and Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning and Regulatory Processes implemented by UNDP and NEDA.


Given the abovementioned risk reduction and management needs and options, a comprehensive program of hazard and risk assessment to improve the scientific and technical foundations of disaster risk management is recommended by the team. This approach should take into account “low hanging fruit” (i.e., identifying barriers, solving the flooding problem and undertaking LIDAR survey, among others) with a view to improving the knowledge base for a reasonable timeframe of three (3) to four (4) years. In the immediate and short term (3‐6 months), the following activities are recommended: 1. IMMEDIATE TO SHORT‐TERM (3‐6 MONTHS)

a. Provide inputs to Post‐Disaster Needs Assessment. At the time of the scoping, a Post‐Disaster Needs Assessment for Ketsana was being undertaken by the World Bank and GOP with the European Commission, the United Nations and the Asian Development Bank. World Bank requested AusAID and GA to contribute to the process. The findings and recommendations from this scoping mission could feed into the PDNA chapter on DRM.

b. Build data and analytical tool

i. Develop lessons learned document for the Metro Manila flooding. This would involve gathering and organizing existing data and lessons learned from the Ketsana flooding.

ii. Identify options (i.e., aerial photography, RADAR or LIDAR survey) for the generation of high resolution topographic information (including assessment of Asiametrex proposal on LIDAR survey in Greater Manila Area (approximately AUD 600,000 to cover 2,000 square kilometers).

c. Design the Metro Manila reconstruction and rehabilitation program and prepare an

action plan for Metro Manila urban planning i. Design hazard risk and vulnerability assessment project for Greater Manila Area

with NDCC‐CSCAND agencies and GA. ii. Design community‐based DRM project with Taguig City and PNRC. iii. Provide inputs to socialized housing and urban planning components of the

Metro Manila reconstruction and recovery program, i.e., assess physical (geological and hydrological) suitability of proposed relocation and resettlement sites, and structural design of proposed socialized housing.

iv. Prepare an action plan for the formulation of the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan with MMDA, taking note of the need for the process to benefit from hazard and vulnerability assessment and mapping.

v. Explore options on providing Metro Manila with Doppler radar instruments to improve flood monitoring and forecasting of PAGASA and strengthen early warning system in Metro Manila.

vi. Discuss with UNDP the implementation of the project proposal on Mainstreaming DRM and Strengthening Early Warning System Capacity in Metro Manila with the Metro Manila reconstruction and recovery program.


Most activities identified and designed would take at least one year to implement and some would be building blocks that would provide inputs to succeeding activities. Thus, timing and phasing of activities would be important considerations. 2. MEDIUM TO LONG‐TERM (1‐4 YEARS)

a. Undertake low resolution mapping of relevant natural hazards in Greater Manila Area (1st to 12th month). This activity will build on other studies undertaken in Metro Manila and provide urgent information for recovery and relief efforts (e.g. resettlement of displaced peoples). Furthermore, this process will identify high‐priority areas for more detailed analysis (i.e., potentially seriously affected by multiple hazards, and susceptible to climate change impacts).

b. Gather and develop datasets and tools required for higher resolution natural hazard

impact analysis (12th to 18th month). Datasets fundamental to multiple natural hazards include: i. Historical data (i.e., peak flood levels, streamflow, rainfall) i. High‐resolution DEM; ii. Moderate‐high resolution bathymetric data; iii. Climate change scenario data (i.e., sea level rise, rainfall and wind intensity); iv. Land use information; v. Exposure information; and vi. Vulnerability information.

c. Undertake natural hazard impact analyses, including climate change scenarios, in

high priority areas (1st to 24th month). Impact analysis will provide information on which communities are most vulnerable to specific natural hazards; how many people would be left homeless, injured or killed by different probability events; and how much economic losses and damage to properties the hazards would bring if these would turn into disasters. The following analytical work could be undertaken in order of priority, with the primary focus on flood and earthquake in the first 24 months of the study: i. Flood hydrodynamic analysis; ii. Earthquake impact analysis; iii. Cyclone severe wind impact analysis; iv. Tsunami impact analysis; v. Volcanic ash impact analysis; and vi. Landslide susceptibility.

d. Formulate the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan (25th to 30th month). This

indicative physical and land use plan with policy recommendations will cover all cities and municipalities in Metro Manila, and will be prepared and led by MMDA in close consultation with LGUs. It will utilize the hazard maps and impact analysis undertaken for Metro Manila and guided by the guidelines on the formulation and updating of Regional Physical Framework Plans prepared by NEDA.


e. Mainstream disaster risk management and climate change adaptation into development planning in Metro Manila (31st to 42nd month). This activity will guide the revision and updating of CLUPs of cities and municipality in Metro Manila. It will take off from the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan, utilize the hazard maps prepared and impact analysis undertaken. The preparation of CLUPs will be guided by the planning guidelines prepared by NEDA through the project Mainstreaming DRR and CCA into local development plans and decision‐making processes being supported by AusAID. A DRM plan for the whole of Metro Manila could also be prepared through this activity.

f. Strengthen early warning system capacity in Metro Manila (12th to 24th month). This

activity will capacitate technical agencies such as PAGASA and PHIVOLCS on impact modeling and forecasting, and the National and Local Disaster Coordinating Councils and MMDA on contingency planning and response. It will build on the hazard maps and impact analysis, early warning equipment (i.e., Doppler radar instruments, rain gauges, weather stations, etc) provided to Metro Manila.

g. Strengthen the capacity of communities to prepare for and manage disasters (12th to

30th month). This activity will establish barangay disaster response teams and capacitate these teams to set up and monitor local early warning systems; produce information, education and communication materials; develop community evacuation plans; provide voluntary labor for physical protection measures; and form skilled community‐based teams to support rescue and recovery operations. This will build on the lessons from Project 143 and the contingency planning of city and municipality disaster coordinating councils, and will utilize hazard maps and vulnerability assessment. Activities will be coordinated with and mainstreamed into the local disaster coordinating councils and local government units to facilitate ownership and sustainability of activities and project gains.


ANNEX 1 SCOPING MISSION SUMMARY OF PROGRAM

29 October, Thursday Meeting in AusAID with Titon Mitra, Minister Counsellor Courtesy call with Ambassador Rod Smith Meeting with UNDP and World Bank 30 October, Friday Launch of PAGASA’s Enhanced Tropical Cyclone Early Warning System Meeting with Bureau of Meteorology 02 November, Monday Telecon with GA Meeting with ADB 03 November, Tuesday Meeting with NEDA Meeting with MGB Meeting with PAGASA Meeting with UP Department of Geodetic Engineering 04 November, Wednesday Meeting with NAMRIA Meeting with PHIVOLCS 05 November, Thursday Meeting with Taguig City Meeting with MMDA Debriefing with AusAID Meeting with DPWH 06 November, Friday Meeting with CSCAND Agencies and NEDA Meeting with UNDP


ANNEX 2 HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSIONS WITH AGENCIES

1. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND WORLD BANK (29 October 2009, Thursday,

6:30‐8:30 pm, UNDP Office, Makati City; Mr. Sanny Jegillos, Mr. Krishna Vatsa and Dr. Michael Ernst of UNDP; and Ms. Mukami Karauki, Dr. Hyoung Gun Wang and Ms. Kathy Vidar of World Bank) Discussion. PDNA damage and loss assessment currently being undertaken with needs assessment to commence the following week. Sectoral teams were created to undertake PDNA. DRR is captured in building back better, e.g., different locations require different policies. Draft PRNA report is due on 13 November, with final report by 27 November for recommendation to the Reconstruction Commission. The current constraint of the PDNA is the lack of map on actual area flooded due to Ketsana. LANDSAT data was not used because of noise in the radar data. Google Campaign can fly and cover 1000 km (at estimated cost of US$200,000). Due to the high cost of data acquisition, there is a need to prioritize areas to be covered (i.e., WB and UN agencies requested information for different areas). WB inquired if AusAID would be able to support/fund data acquisition. Agreements. (1) GA can provide advisory services to the PDNA in the short‐term (i.e., next two weeks). (2) AusAID and GA could contribute in the long‐term through natural hazard impact analysis, for further discussion. (2) Will explore possibility for AusAID to support data acquisition.

2. AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY (30 October 2009, Friday, 2:30‐3:30 pm, AusAID

Office, Makati City; Mr. Andrew Donaldson, Mr. Todd Smith) Discussion. This was an opportunity to share information about interests of BOM and GA in meteorological hazards. Discussed was the complementary nature of the forecasting work of BOM with hazard and risk assessment work of GA. BOM identified rainfall associated with monsoons as a big issue, bearing in mind that rainfall attributed to Ketsana was probably exacerbated by a monsoon system. Agreements. GA and BOM to look into opportunities to collaborate in work with PAGASA. The main opportunity would be in hazard modelling, particularly developing the historical catalogue of typhoon tracks, and in developing better forecasting of rainfall together with improved inundation modelling of the urban environment.

3. ASIA DEVELOPMENT BANK (Friday, 4:00 PM‐6:30 PM, Renaissance Hotel, Makati City; Mr.

Neil Britton, Regional Disaster Management Coordinator) Discussion. The focus of ADB in the Philippines is on infrastructure development, while World Bank places more emphasis on health and social issues. The ADB has contributed about US$1B to the Government of the Philippines over the past 5 years, mainly for infrastructure programs. ADB was very complimentary of the AusAID approach to capacity building, which is aimed at reducing the dependency on aid in the long term. In terms of regional initiatives, ADB thinks the Global Earthquake Model has potential, and noted that any participation/funding from ADB would need to come from the regional offices, which would be the South East Asia and South West Pacific. Agreements. Given mutual interests in development activities, it would be useful to explore potential for collaboration between AusAID and the ADB.


4. NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (03 November, Tuesday, 8:30‐10:00 am,

NEDA Office, Pasig City; Director Susan Jose, Ms. Medy Endencia and Ms. Thelma Manuel) Discussion. NEDA has previous experiences on PDNA and involvement to corresponding reconstruction bodies (i.e., 1990 Luzon earthquake and 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption) and should have initiated the assessment not the World Bank. As an end‐user for policy and planning, NEDA is very interested on having a National Exposure System (NEXIS) in the Philippines and this is one reason why NEDA requested the study tour to Australia. The establishment of NEXIS could be a combination of a pilot (i.e., Iloilo) for nationwide coverage later on. Within the context of the inter‐agency and multi‐sectoral National Land Use Committee, NEDA sees itself as the coordinating body for the establishment of a NEXIS. It however needs to think about actually housing the system. The national database could be housed in NEDA Central Office and the regional database at the NEDA Regional Officers. The mechanism at the local government level is the question. In terms of using the Reduced Earthquake Damage Assessment System (REDAS) as a platform for other hazards, NEDA was advised that REDAS has limitations and would not be able to perform the required algorithm and manipulation if other hazard information and requirements are plugged in. Agreements. NEDA keen on establishing a NEXIS and sees itself as the coordinating body. Needs however to think about actual housing the system.

5. Mines and Geosciences (03 November 2009, Tuesday, 11:00 am ‐ 1:00 pm, MGB Office,

Quezon City; Director Horacio Ramos, Assistant Director Edwin Domingo, Dr. Bill David, Engr. Antonio Apostol, Engr. Evelyn Rollon) Discussion. MGB has a key role in assessing natural hazards in the Philippines. In general, it provides geologic data to PAGASA and PHIVOLCS who have the prime carriage for meteorological and geological hazard assessment, respectively, at the national scale. However, MGB is also currently developing landslide and flood susceptibility maps throughout the Philippines at 1:50,000 scale. These maps are based on historic information of past floods as well as physiographic and geologic mapping. MGB expressed interest in developing a capability to do dynamic modeling of these hazards. In the case of flood modeling, however, there appears to be overlap with PAGASA’s role in flood hazard assessment. With regard to landslides, the differentiation of roles between PHIVOLCS and MGB is clearer, with MGB generally responsible for instability mapping and failures induced by rainfall, while PHIVOLCS is responsible for mapping earthquake‐induced soil failures including landslides and liquefaction. Discussed was GA’s landslide interoperability project which links disparate databases across Australia. MGB is interested in this concept as there is no uniform database being developed by the regional offices. Agreements. Given the disparate nature of landslide and flood mapping at the regional level, the development of interoperable databases would be useful in the long term.

6. PAGASA (03 November 2009, Tuesday, 2:00 – 4:00 pm, PAGASA Office, Quezon City;

Director Prisco Nilo, Dr. Cynthia Celebre, Ms. Susan Espinueva, Ms. Thelma Cinco, Ms. Charmie Monteverde, Ms. Lourdes Sulapat) Discussion. Initial discussion focused on the draft MOU prepared by GA for consideration of PAGASA as a basis for developing a detailed work program. Several issues were noted, particularly with regard to roles and expectations from each party. Inquiry on the operational budget was also made on the


sidelines. Severe wind modeling is still a priority, particularly in regional areas. PAGASA has been focusing on severe weather forecasting and collecting some flood inundation information from Ketsana. PAGASA states without reservation that it has the mandate for flood hazard mapping at the national level. However, its capability to model floods, particularly in an urban environment is limited. PAGASA needs assistance to develop a capability that would incorporate riverine and flash flooding in an urban setting. A major issue for flood forecasting and flood modeling generally is the lack of rainfall monitoring and stream flow data throughout the water catchment surrounding Manila. Three ground‐based Doppler radar instruments are being installed in Aparri (Cagayan), Virac (Catanduanes), and Guian (Samar) with funding from Japan, which will markedly improve the forecasting ability. However, additional Doppler radars are greatly needed for Metro Manila. PAGASA is also in the process of installing rain, water‐level and automated weather stations with funding from Korea, which will provide much‐needed input to model the flooding either in real time or for hazard mapping in the long term. PAGASA has also been working to capture climate change information into long‐term weather forecasting. This issue was not explored at any length in the meeting. It was understood, however, that PAGASA has been working with the Millennium Development Goal Fund Project on Strengthening Institutional Capacity on Climate Change Adaptation, a grant from Spain, to develop an understanding of some of the broad‐scale climate implications for the Philippines in terms of rainfall and temperature in particular. There is a longer‐term need to better understand the implications for the distribution and frequency of severe storms, including wind, rainfall and storm surge. Agreements. General agreement on the nature of the collaboration was reached, but some outstanding details, particularly on operational budget, need to be discussed with GA (Alanna Simpson). The lack of a comprehensive flood‐modeling and forecasting capability is the outstanding gap which needs to be addressed in any potential expansion of the program.

7. NAMRIA (04 November 2009, Wednesday, 9:00 am – 12:00 nn, NAMRIA Office, Taguig

City; Deputy Administrator Linda Papa and Director Jose Galo Isada) Discussion. The present collaboration with GA is exploring the underlying data acquisition, processing and validation processes of NAMRIA’s mapping operations, which need to be updated as a matter of priority. NAMRIA is keen to develop a national spatial data infrastructure (SDI) but will need to update its internal operational systems before it will be able to move in this direction. In any case, an SDI will require investment over the long term and a commitment across government to make it happen. Meanwhile, the recognized need for exposure data to support disaster risk management is a good vehicle to get things going. NAMRIA is the only agency to have actually prepared a flood inundation map from Ketsana. They made it clear that this was not done as part of their mandate as a mapping agency, rather as an offer of assistance in a crisis. Some 700 data points were collected, which focused on areas of heaviest flooding along the Marikina River. This valuable dataset has been contributed to NDCC and the PDNA, but it needs to be consolidated and integrated with the data collected by other agencies. NAMRIA also has before and after ALOS satellite imagery from Ketsana, which provides a reasonable overview of the extent of flooding, but no detail. The existing base map of Metro Manila is outdated. The current map was developed from aerial photography at 1:5,000 scale, which provides 1‐2 meter accuracy. However, this is insufficient for detailed flood


modeling. There is a priority need to conduct a LIDAR survey over Metro Manila plus as well as the Greater Manila area to capture both ground‐level and building footprint information. Climate change is an emerging issue. One of the issues regarding assessing coastal impact is the lack of a detailed map of the Philippine coastline. This is problematic given the 7100 islands that make up the archipelago. Sources of funding to redress this include: a loan of $100M loan to the GOP for an Integrated National Resources and Environment Program; and a $5M grant from the World Bank’s Global Disaster Relief Fund. These projects also complement the funding from Spain for the Millennium Goal Development Framework, which is supporting down‐scaling of global climate models (through PAGASA). Agreements. GA will continue to provide support from the National Mapping and Information Group to assist NAMRIA with updating its map production processes. The development of a detailed LIDAR‐based DEM for Greater Manila is a priority, as is the development of a national digital elevation model to replace existing paper‐based maps.

8. PHIVOLCS (04 November 2009, Wednesday, 2:30 – 6:30 pm, PHIVOLCS Office, Quezon

City; Director Rene Solidum, Mr. Ishmael Narag, Ms. Mylene Villegas) Discussion. Reviewed the current GA‐PHIVOLCS work program, which is focusing on vulnerability modeling and a case study risk assessment for Iloilo. Iloilo has a well‐developed database of residential structures which will provide a good basis for extracting building types. A framework for this will be developed further at the GA‐PHIVOLCS workshop on 13‐14 November. This workshop will focus on earthquakes, and will include engineers from the University of Philippines and the private sector. Vulnerability to volcano and wind hazard will be incorporated in the next stage. Reviewed the status of READY, which incorporates community‐preparedness and training using the REDAS program. This is being rolled out over 27 provinces, 11 of which have been completed. The program covers earthquake (rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, tsunami), flood, landslide and volcanic hazards at 1:50,000 scale. The program provides hazard scenarios and local governments generate exposure information as an overlay. The workshops target disaster and land managers for local government capacity building. It was noted that PHIVOLCS is waiting for national household survey data from the NSO to provide additional information for REDAS at the barangay level. For the current program, PHIVOLCS is happy to continue to incorporate exposure information into REDAS, but in the longer term it is recognized that this is not its role. Meanwhile, REDAS is an excellent tool for community‐level education and data input, but it does not presently capture vulnerability information and therefore is limited in its ability to model risk. The MMEIRS study was a detailed earthquake scenario risk study of Metro Manila. The study, covering 14 cities and 3 municipalities in an area of 636 square km, was funded by JICA and was completed in 2004. The study developed earthquake scenarios, the most salient of which was a 7.2 magnitude event on the West Valley Fault in eastern Metro Manila. This event was assessed to have a return period of 200‐400 years, with an estimated 33,000 deaths and 38 percent damage to residential structures. The MMEIRS study represents a reasonably comprehensive study of earthquake risk of Metro Manila. The main limitations are in the focus on residential structures only and on a scenario‐based approach rather than a fully probabilistic one. The biggest limitation, however, is that the study did not address the risk to the eastern side of the fault, which comprises Greater Manila outside Metro Manila proper. Since this area is heavily populated and is


part of the water catchment for the Marikina River, it would be appropriate to extend the earthquake risk study at the same time as a broader flood risk study of Greater Manila. Also discussed were the Global Earthquake Model development and the potential benefits to the Philippines. PHIVOLCS acknowledged that the international collaboration and development of models and tools could be useful. On the other hand, the REDAS approach to community preparedness and bottom‐up approach to assessing vulnerability should be considered by GEM as an exemplar in the developing world. PHIVOLCS has not had a specific role in the study of Ketsana. However, they did access remotely sensed satellite data for post‐disaster impact assessment through their participation in Sentinel Asia. PHIVOLCS requested post‐event flood data for Ketsana which was provided to NAMRIA and PAGASA. PHIVOLCS also noted that Glen Tabios of the National Hydraulics Training Center at the University of Philippines had done some flood modeling of Ketsana. Agreements. The current work program on risk assessment and the case study for Iloilo is on track. The MMEIRS study should be expanded to the Greater Manila Area as a matter of priority.

9. TAGUIG CITY (05 November 2009, Thursday, 8:30 – 11:00 am, Taguig City Hall, Taguig

City; Administrator Wilfredo Villar, Architect Joey Mastrili, Mr. George Sumabat) Discussion. Taguig City had big plans to develop the lakeshore into a major tourism area like Darling Harbor in Sydney. The recent flooding however provided a reality check. The road dike traversing Bicutan to Tatay was built based on a 100‐year flood level. Although it saved Taguig City from major flooding, its integrity is still in question given the possible increased likelihood of another flood of this magnitude. It was not only the informal settlers who were vulnerable to the flooding. An executive village was also submerged since it is situated on a natural wetland outside the dike. Suggested was the possibility of using the pipe constructed by the National Irrigation Administration from Laguna Lake to irrigate farmlands in Bacoor Cavite. This is not being utilized now given the subdivision boom in Cavite. There are 30,000 informal settlers‐families in Taguig City. Thus, the city has partnered with NGOs on resettlement, using the following models, namely: (a) Gawad Kalinga – sweat equity using conventional method, PhP120000 for 17 square meters under a usufruct agreement; (b) Habitat for Humanity – with equity using smart masonry blocks, PhP250000 for 26 square meters at PhP900 per month for 25 years, target to build 70 buildings, with 8 buildings completed to date; (c) New Zealand – prefabricated steel. The city is due to update its CLUP with the vision of surpassing Makati in 10 years. The city has an established an early warning system and designated evacuation centers. The team conducted an ocular survey of the road dike and potential relocation site for AusAID. The area seems to be still part of a natural floodplain. While the road dike protected the area from flooding, there might be a need to re‐think the safety of the relocation site. The team also visited a sample relocation site of Habitat for Humanity community in FTI Taguig City.

10. MMDA (05 November 2009, Thursday, 11:30 – 1:00 pm, MMDA Office, Makati City;

Assistant General Manager Corazon Bautista‐Cruz, Director Josefina Faulan, Mr. Michael Gison, Mr. Reynaldo Lunas) Discussion. MMDA presented their internally developed damage and needs assessment for Metro Manila as a result of Ketsana. Damage to flood control amounted to PhP32.62M. Total number of informal settlers in Metro Manila is about 544,609 households/families. The current government policy is in‐city


resettlement. MMDA mentioned that AusAID is the first donor agency that talked to them about disaster risk management for Metro Manila, and articulated their keen interest to work with the agency. MMDA requested assistance in the preparation of the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan. They initially intend to have the document ready for the new President after May 2010. This however is not possible since the document needs to be informed by impact modeling and risk assessment. Agreements. Recommend to AusAID the provision of assistance to MMDA on the formulation of Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan. Instead of handing over the plan to the next President, an action agenda will be drawn up informing the President of the immediate actions and next steps.

11. DPWH (05 November 2009, Thursday, 5:30 – 6:30 pm, DPWH Office, Manila; Engr. Sofia

Santiago, Engr. Leonila Mercado, Engr. Leonardo Sanchez) Discussion. Provided historical perspective on eFCOS and plans of DPWH to improve flood control operations and monitoring. Clarified that the operation and management of the Efficient Flood Control Operation System (eFCOS) turned over to MMDA in 2002 from DPWH. The design and construction of this was managed by DPWH including initial operation.

12. CSCAND AGENCIES AND NEDA (06 November 2009, Friday, 9:10 am – 12:00 nn, PAGASA

Office, Quezon City; Deputy Administrator Linda Papa, Director Prisco Nilo, Director Rene Solidum, Assistant Director Edwin Domingo, Engr. Tony Apostol, Ms. Charmie Moneverde, Ms. Penny Abat, Ms. Kristine Villarino) Discussions. The meeting provided a venue for CSCAND agencies to identify their priorities and confirm DRM priorities for Metro Manila. The following are the key points: b. Identify the entire watershed or river basin as the target coverage of a proposed

project on hazard mapping and vulnerability assessment for Metro Manila. Expand the coverage of previous studies undertaken for Metro Manila, i.e., MMEIRS, to cover neighboring provinces, particularly Laguna and Rizal.

b. Conduct an inventory of existing information for Greater Manila Area, acquire new datasets and update elevation models.

c. Build exposure information on floods and earthquakes. d. Include the impact of climate change on hazard and vulnerability assessment project. e. Support strengthening of early warning system for Metro Manila, i.e., provision of

Doppler radar instrument and capacity building. f. Identify appropriate relocation sites for socialized housing projects. g. Metro Manila as a case study to improve flood data and monitoring methodology

and this can be expanded to other areas. h. Develop a national disaster data infrastructure housed in OCD based initially on

READY Project/REDAS. i. At the national level, improve the national mapping program, and, in particular,

develop a national spatial data infrastructure. j. Convene stakeholders and bring together lessons learned from the flooding. k. Identify MMDA to lead a Metro Manila wide project given their mandate. NEDA will

share tools and guidelines and will support MMDA as part of the oversight body.


ANNEX 3 LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED

Asian Development Bank 1 Mr Neil Britton, Regional Disaster Management Coordinator Australian Agency for International Development 2 Mr Titon Mitra, Minister Counsellor 3 Mr Peter Jensen, Counsellor Australian Bureau of Meteorology 4 Mr Andrew Donaldson, Manager 5 Mr Todd Smith, Manager City of Taguig 6 Mr Wilfredo Villar, Administrator 7 Architect Joey Mastrili, OIC City Planning and Development Office 8 Mr George Sumabat, Socialized Housing Specialist Department of Public Works and Highways 9 Engr Sofia Santiago, Program Manager of Major Flood Control Project 10 Engr Leonila Mercado, Supervising Engineer 11 Engr Leonardo Sanchez, Engineer II Metro Manila Development Authority 12 Dr Corazon Bautista‐Cruz, Assistant General Manager 13 Ms Josefina Faulan, Director for Policy and Planning Services 14 Mr Michael Gison, Chief of Planning Division 15 Mr Reynaldo Lunas Mines and Geosciences Bureau 16 Mr Horacio Ramos, Director 17 Mr Edwin Domingo, Assistant Director 1 Dr Bill David, Chief of Planning Division 19 Engr Antonio Apostol, OIC Land Survey Division 20 Engr Evelyn Rollon, Supervising Engineer National Economic Development Authority ‐ Regional Development Coordination Staff 21 Engr Susan Jose, Director 22 Ms Medy Endencia, Assistant Director 23 Ms Thelma Manuel, Chief of Land Use and Physical Planning Coordination Division National Mapping and Resource Information Authority 24 Ms Linda Papa, Deputy Administrator 25 Mr Jose Galo Isada, Director of Mapping Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration 26 Dr Prisco Nilo, Administrator 27 Dr Cynthia Celebre 28 Ms Susan Espinueva 29 Ms Thelma Cinco 30 Ms Charmie Monteverde 31 Ms Lourdes Sulapat


Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology 32 Dr Rene Solidum, Director 33 Mr Ishmael Narag, OIC of Volcanology and Seismology Monitoring Division 34 Ms Mylene Villegas, OIC of Information and Education Division United Nations Development Programme 35 Mr Sanny Jegillos, Regional Programme Coordinator (Bangkok) 36 Mr Krishna Vatsa, Early Recovery Specialist 37 Dr Michael Ernst, Consultant for Early Recovery University of the Philippnes – Department of Geodetic Engineering 38 Dr Enrico Pariquit, Department Chairman World Bank 39 Ms Mukami Karauki, Senior Operations Officer 40 Dr Hyoung Gun Wang, Geographic Information System Specialist 41 Ms Cathy Vidar

For inquiries, contact:

Australian Agency for International Development Ms Anne Orquiza, Phone +63 2 7578294, Email [email protected]

Level 24 Australian Embassy Tower II RCBC Plaza 6819 Ayala Avenue Makati City 1200 Philippines

Geoscience Australia Dr John Schneider, Phone +61 2 62499667, Email [email protected] Cnr Jerrabomberra Ave and Hindmarsh Drive, Symonston ACT 2609 Australia

Disaster Risk Management Needs of Metro Manila: A Scoping Report

Education

undertake

relevant natural

greater manila

contingency

metro manila

storm surge

lessons learned

greatermanila