This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Mainstreaming Integrated Risk Management
Mainstreaming Integrated Risk
AND
CARE Philippines 26 Timog Avenue, Unit 512, Quezon City,
Philippines http://care-philippines.org
WRITER: Celso B. Dulce, Jr.
EDITORIAL BOARD: Erica Chester A. Bucog, Ma. Stella A. Dulce,
Jennifer N. Furigay, Sindhy B. Obias, Ansherina Grace
Talavera
COPY EDITOR: Grace Sucgang
LAYOUT: Justine V. Santiago
ISBN NUMBER:
This document covers humanitarian aid activities implemented with
the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed
herein should not be taken, in any way, to reflect the official
opinion of the European Union, and the European Commission is not
responsible for any use that may be made of the information it
contains.
SUPPORTED BY:
This companion guide to mainstreaming disaster risk reduction
(DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA) and ecosystem management and
restoration (EMR) in an integrated way is a product of many years
of practice, reflection and learning. In 2012, ACCORD and CARE
Nederland published a 3-volume Training on Disaster Preparedness
and Contingency Planning manual. One session, on risk reduction
planning, briefly touched on mainstreaming DRR, CCA and EMR in
development plans. Today, we are transforming our accumulated
knowledge on mainstreaming into this companion guide or handbook,
with optimism that others will find value in, and learn from our
experience.
CARE Nederland introduced to us the project cycle management
approach to mainstreaming. The Bureau of Local Government
Development of the Department of Interior and Local Government
trained us on mainstreaming DRR and CCA in the Rationalized
Planning System. For both, their support was crucial in the
development of our mainstreaming practice.
The local government units (LGUs) that have worked with us in the
mainstreaming process are too numerous to acknowledge individually,
but Saint Bernard, a municipality of Southern Leyte, and Calabanga
in Camarines Sur deserve special mention. Led respectively by
mayors Rico Rentuza and Evelyn Yu, Saint Bernard and Calabanga
enthusiastically collaborated with us in our earliest attempt at
mainstreaming. Equally valuable was our collaboration with the
municipalities of Maragusan, Davao de Oro and La Paz, Leyte; the
Metro Manila cities of Malabon and Navotas;
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
and the Malabon-Navotas-Tullahan-Tinajeros River System Water
Quality Management Area and the Environmental Management Bureau of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
ACCORD and CARE staff who have conducted countless trainings,
facilitated planning workshops and post-activity reviews were
instrumental in the evolution of this companion guide. Substantive
editing of this companion guide was contributed by Ma. Stella
Dulce, drawing knowledge from numerous mainstreaming training and
planning workshops she facilitated. Erica Chester Bucog was
responsible for coordinating the various tasks entailed in coming
up with this publication. Special appreciation also goes to Marije
Broekhuijsen and Marieta Alcid, who made the first steps in coming
up with a mainstreaming manual in 2011 and in 2018.
Most important was involvement of communities and vulnerable
groups. Their participation and ownership of the process, and the
resulting resilience benefits, are the foremost standards by which
we measure the success of mainstreaming DRR, CCA and EMR.
Last but not least, the support for the past 10 years of The
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Partners for Resilience,
and of the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid
Operations (ECHO) to CARE and ACCORD’s humanitarian and disaster
risk reduction programming has provided vast opportunities for
practice, reflection and learning on mainstreaming DRR, CCA and
EMR.
CONTENTS
REFERENCES
...........................................................................................34
Linking IRM with local government planning processes .... 19 Why
Rationalized Planning System? ................................ 20
Why mainstream in the planning system? ........................ 20
Process of integrating IRM in the development plans of local
government units ................................................
22 Alignment and coherence of LDRRMP and LCCAP with CDP
..................................................... 31
MAINSTREAMING IN GOVERNMENT PLANS AND PROGRAMS
How to mainstream IRM?
................................................. 9 MANATUTI WQMA:
A case study on mainstreaming IRM in development plans
.............................................. 12 REACH: a case
study on mainstreaming IRM in emergency response
........................................... 16
PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO MAINSTREAMING
Introduction to this handbook
........................................... 4 What is
mainstreaming? What is IRM mainstreaming? ....... 5 Combining DRR,
CCA, and EMR into one mainstreaming approach
.................................................. 6 Why
mainstreaming?
........................................................ 6
INTRODUCTION TO IRM MAINSTREAMING
21
AIP Annual Investment Plan
BBS Building Back Safer
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CDP Comprehensive Development Plan
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
COVID-19 Corona Virus Disease - 2019
CSO Civil Society Organization
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DENR-EMB Department of Environment and Natural Resources -
Environmental Management Bureau
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DILG-BLGD Department of Interior and Local Government - Bureau of
Local Government Development
DOF Department of Finance
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid
Operations
ELA Executive-Legislative Agenda
HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
IDP Internally-Displaced Persons
IRM Integrated Risk Management
JMC Joint Memorandum Circular
LDC Local Development Council
LDRRMF Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund
LDRRMO Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office
LDRRMP Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan
LGU Local Government Unit
MANATUTI Malabon-Navotas-Tullahan-Tinajeros River System
(MANATUTI)
MC Memorandum Circular
MOVE UP Moving Urban Poor Communities Toward Resilience
Project
MTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
MTPIP Medium-Term Philippine Investment Plan
NEDA National Economic Development Authority
NGO Non-Government Organization
PCM Project Cycle Management
PO People's Organization
PPA Plans, Programs, and Activities
REACH Response to the Unmet Humanitarian Needs of the Most
Vulnerable Conflict-Affected Populations in Mindanao Project
RPS Rationalized Planning System
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WQMA Water Quality Management Area
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
4
It has already been a decade since CARE and ACCORD have begun
mainstreaming Integrated Risk Management (IRM) in humanitarian and
development projects in the Philippines. Both organizations have
worked with local government units (LGUs) and national government
agencies mandated with mainstreaming disaster risk reduction (DRR)
and climate change adaptation (CCA) development plans and
budgets.
This handbook is the result of this extensive experience. By
documenting and sharing accumulated learnings, IRM mainstreaming
work can be sustained and further improved.
IRM is the integration of DRR, CCA and ecosystem management
restoration (EMR) as an approach to reducing natural disaster,
climate and environmental risks, and strengthening resilience. The
approach was developed through the Partners for Resilience (PfR).
IRM builds resilience through a systematic process of “reducing
risks through anticipative, absorptive, adaptive, and
transformative actions, taking into account the effects of climate
change and the role of ecosystems. It addresses the drivers of
risk, and the capacities and assets of communities and individuals
in their enabling environment.” 1
ACCORD, with support from CARE, has already applied the approach
beyond the PfR programme. In the true spirit of mainstreaming, the
approach has also been applied to all humanitarian and development
project designs and implementation for almost 10 years now.
The purpose and scope of this handbook is: • To document and share
the experiences of CARE and ACCORD with regards to their IRM
mainstreaming work; • Provide guidance on how to implement
mainstreaming, assuming that there is already sufficient experience
in IRM but needs to further understand the mainstreaming process
better.
The handbook is tailored to three different mainstreaming
processes: 1. Development projects 2. Humanitarian actions 3. Local
government planning process
INTRODUCTION TO IRM MAINSTREAMING
Introduction to this handbook
65
The handbook is tailored to the Philippine context, and uses the
project cycle as a ‘mainstreaming tool.’
However, these guidelines are not: • Instructions on how to do DRR
and CCA; • Mainstreaming instructions for specific contexts or
projects, and only cover the general scope of the mainstreaming
process.
The handbook consists of three parts. The first part explains the
rationale behind mainstreaming and describes in general terms the
process of mainstreaming. The second part introduces the Project
Cycle Management (PCM) approach to mainstreaming. This part
includes case samples on mainstreaming in a humanitarian/emergency
action and in development programs. The third and final part
discusses IRM mainstreaming in the planning system of LGUs in the
Philippines.
Mainstreaming, from the root word “mainstream,” derives its meaning
from the metaphor of a small, isolated flow of water being drawn
into the larger river where it will expand to flow smoothly without
loss or diversion.
IRM mainstreaming therefore means expanding and enhancing IRM so
that it becomes normal practice and becomes institutionalized
within an agency’s humanitarian and development agenda.2 The IRM
mainstreaming process requires that DRR, CCA and EMR are
systematically incorporated in policies, processes, programs,
projects, activities, plans, and budgets. IRM will be treated as
integral in both humanitarian and development processes, rather
than an end.
This will be achieved by two complementary and inextricably linked
approaches, both of which contribute to the goal of risk reduction
and resilience building: (a) by implementing explicit IRM projects
and programs; and (b) by integrating disaster risk reduction,
climate change adaptation, and ecosystem management and restoration
(or IRM) in humanitarian and development programs. Mainstreaming in
humanitarian and development programming follows the project cycle,
ensuring that IRM is incorporated in each phase of the cycle:
assessment and analysis, project design (including budget
preparation), implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. It
involves the assessment
What is mainstreaming? What is IRM mainstreaming?
2 Tearfund, Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: a tool for
development organizations (2005)
and analysis of how identified hazard events could affect the
target groups and expected outcomes of a project. After the
analysis of assessment results, the next step is to adopt risk
reduction measures in the project design. The measures are also
carefully examined to ensure that they do not unintentionally
create new risks or exacerbate existing ones. Adequate financing
for risk reduction measures is likewise ensured. In the course of
implementing a project, changes in the risks on the community and
project would be continuously monitored so that appropriate and
timely adjustments can be introduced to the project design if
needed, while evaluation gives insight for improving mainstreaming
practices in new projects.
Disasters are becoming more frequent with increasing magnitude,
with extreme weather events being the most destructive. Scientific
studies, as well as the experience of affected communities, have
provided incontrovertible evidence of the link between natural
hazards and climate change. The unabated destruction of ecosystems
meanwhile limits the capacity to provide services that will help
regulate hazards, and increase the ability of vulnerable
communities to effectively manage risks and respond to
disasters.
The interaction of natural hazards, climate change, and ecosystem
degradation, often with devastating consequences, require an
integrated approach to be more effective. Disaster risk reduction,
climate change adaptation, and ecosystem management and restoration
have unique approaches that contribute to reducing overall risks.
The combination of these approaches, also referred to as Integrated
Risk Management (IRM), prove effective in reducing risks and
strengthening resilience in countries such as the Philippines,
where numerous natural hazards are becoming more destructive as a
result of climate change and the unabated destruction of the
environment.
Development projects do not always lead to reduced vulnerability of
communities, nor spare the environment from natural hazard and
climate change impacts, and ecosystem degradation. There are
numerous examples of development interventions exacerbating
existing risks or creating new ones. It is important to ensure that
development interventions do not result in these
Combining DRR, CCA, and EMR into one mainstreaming approach
Why mainstreaming?
87
adverse effects. The pressure and release model of Wisner, et. al.
(2003) is a very helpful tool in analyzing and understanding the
underlying and root causes of vulnerabilities, and their cause and
effect relationships. This tool can help identify appropriate
options to ensure that development policies and practices do not
intensify risks.
There is also the risk of ‘losing’ development investments, and
development actually being set back. If appropriate risk reduction
measures are not included in development policy and practice,
natural hazards might damage or destroy development resources to
the extent of setting back development gains. Mainstreaming IRM can
help to protect these investments from natural hazards and
disasters. Moreover, mainstreaming IRM in development programming
can effectively reduce vulnerabilities and contribute to more
sustainable development.
Mainstreaming IRM likewise aims to ensure that humanitarian
interventions do not create new risks or exacerbate existing ones.
It does not always follow that a response to a specific disaster
eliminates the possibility of new disasters from happening.
Likewise, it does not always follow that humanitarian response will
lead to development. Humanitarian action that does not specifically
take into account the links to development can leave communities
more vulnerable to disasters, more dependent on relief, and unable
or unwilling to comply with requirements for further development.3
IRM mainstreaming bridges the gap between humanitarian action and
development.4
3 CARE Nederland, Strategy plan DRR (draft, May 2010) 4 See for
example the experiences of ACCORD in mainstreaming IRM and
resilience in humanitarian actions. https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=6iCxkaAXTRw 5 UNISDR, Hyogo Framework for Action
(2005): 3
In short, mainstreaming IRM makes the community, as well as
humanitarian and development processes, more resilient to
disasters. As early as 2005, the need for mainstreaming IRM has
been globally recognized, where it was already included in the
Hyogo Framework for Action as one of the principal strategic goals.
There it is stated that “the more effective integration of disaster
risk reduction considerations into sustainable development
policies, planning and programming at all levels, with a special
emphasis on disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and
vulnerability reduction.” 5
PHOTO CREDIT ACCORD
109
As introduced earlier, the mainstreaming process follows the
project cycle management approach to guarantee effective
integration of risk reduction and resilience actions. It is
important that appropriate IRM factors are included in every step
of the project cycle.
The project cycle is a useful tool because it is a simple but
inclusive way of looking at the whole life-cycle of a project or
program. It helps visualize actions according to the phases of a
project’s life cycle, and how these phases relate to each other.
The phases are dependent on each other, and comprise a process of
planning, action, and reflection that facilitate learning. There
are many variations of the project cycle. For purposes of the
mainstreaming handbook, the following will be used:
The initial planning stage of the cycle which include assessment,
analysis, and project design, is the key entry point where IRM can
be factored into projects. An excellent assessment and analysis of
natural disaster, climate, environmental risks, and other shocks
and stresses provide the solid foundation upon which a project can
be designed or developed. If no risk assessment is done as a first
step, or the risk assessment is incomplete or poorly done, then IRM
interventions in the succeeding phases may not be able to
adequately deliver risk reduction, risk-proofing and
resilience-strengthening which are the goals of
mainstreaming.
From the risk assessment and analysis, appropriate IRM measures can
be identified for integration in the project design. Objectives,
outcomes, indicators,
How to mainstream IRM?
Figure 1.1 The project cycle
Assessment & Analysis
n
and strategies of the project will incorporate IRM as appropriate.
Adequate financing is also provided for the identified
measures.
In the implementation phase, it is important that the input
incorporated in the design will be correctly implemented.
Monitoring and evaluation is part of a project’s design. A
monitoring and evaluation plan should be formulated to follow the
progress of implementation, including implementation of IRM
activities incorporated into the project. Monitoring and evaluation
activities will start during the implementation phase, and will
follow closely any changes in the project. Changes in the risks
need to be continuously monitored throughout the life of the
project. Monitored changes based on the assessment and analysis can
be factors that could lead to timely adjustments or a redesign of
the project.
Evaluation, or reflecting on the project’s actions and results in
general, including IRM mainstreaming, will give insights for
improving mainstreaming practices for new projects.
Monitoring & Evaluation
Figure 1.2 General overview of the different mainstreaming steps in
the project cycle
Assessment & Analysis
• Natural disaster, climate, environmental risk assessment and
analysis
• Implementing activities that reduce disaster risk
• Regular monitoring of risks
• Decision of role of DDR in the project, and planning of
action
• Ensure the project doesn’t increase risk in society
The following flowchart explains in detail the different steps,
which taken together, will ensure the systematic integration of IRM
in the project cycle phases. This flow chart can be used as a
check-list for easy reference.
1211
I. Risk assessment and analysis
Relevant information should be disaggregated by age, sex, and
vulnerability factors (e.g. disability, chronic illness, ethnicity,
religion, etc.) • Natural hazards, climate and environmental risks,
conflict,and other shocks and stresses are identified and
characterized. • Vulnerabilities and capacities of men and women in
relation to hazards, climate and environmental risks, conflict, and
other shocks and stresses are determined in communities and
community groups. • Knowledge, attitude, practice, roles and
responsibilities of men and women with regard to the hazards,
climate and environmental risks, conflict, and other shocks and
stresses are determined. • Potential stakeholders are identified
with analysis of their interests and influence. • Vulnerable or
most at-risk groups are identified. • Scenarios are developed based
on the likelihood and severity of impact on men and women. •
Dynamic pressures and root causes of vulnerabilities are
identified. • Activities that create safe conditions, reduce
dynamic pressures, and address root causes are identified.
Applicable risk assessment and analysis tools including hazard
assessment table, capacities and vulnerabilities assessment,
stakeholder analysis, risk ranking and progression of
vulnerability/progression of safety are made available.
http://bit.ly/PFR-ITB
II. Participatory planning, designing and redesigning the project
Based on results from the risk assessment and analysis, decide on
what course to take to address risks and ensure participation from
diverse marginalized groups. • Define goals, outcomes, activities
and strategies that will be incorporated into the project to
address identified risks, reduce vulnerabilities, and increase
capacities. • Develop a monitoring and evaluation approach that
incorporates tracking of changes in disaster risks. • Ensure
adequate financing for risk reduction measures. Regular monitoring
can lead to possible redesign within the project’s life cycle to
make room for adjustments and/or improvements.
Assessment & Analysis
Participatory action planning
III. Ensure that project does not increase risk in the project and
society • Identify elements linked to the project that may increase
risks in the community or cause negative effects in society. •
Design an approach to minimize negative effects. • Come up with a
strategy to deal with residual risks.
IV. Implementing activities that reduce disaster risk
In the implementation phase, it is necessary that all participants
are involved in decision-making, and that special needs of
vulnerable groups are addressed.
V. Regular review of disaster risk
Ensure gender balance within the monitoring team. Engage the
community and other stakeholders to participate in monitoring
activities. • Monitor regularly changes in disaster risk and the
different impacts of the project on different groups: men and
women, boys and girls, older persons, persons with disabilities,
etc. • If required, adapt the project and its activities to
measured changes.
VI. Evaluation process
Evaluation looks at both the process and impact of the project on
disaster risks. Factors to evaluate include effectiveness, the
unintended impacts of the project, efficiency, coverage, relevance
to local needs and priorities, sustainability, and policy
coherence. Information should likewise be disaggregated by age,
sex, and vulnerability factors (e.g. disability, chronic illness,
ethnicity, religion, etc.).
Implementation
Evaluation
Figure 1.3 DRR mainstreaming in the project cycle SOURCE CARE
Nederland
The Malabon-Navotas-Tullahan-Tinajeros River System (MANATUTI) was
designated by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) as a Water Quality Management Area (WQMA) in July 2018. The
Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 required the creation of WQMAs
to effectively enforce the tenets of the Act to improve water
quality of bodies of water. The WQMAs are required by law to
prepare Action Plans consisting of interventions or actions that
are designed to address specific water quality issues present in
the areas.
A ten-year Action Plan was drafted by the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) to
be reviewed by a governing board which served as the planning,
monitoring, and coordinating body of the said WQMA. The governing
board is composed of representatives from LGUs located in the river
system, relevant national government agencies, duly registered
non-government organizations, water utility sector, and business
sector. The Action Plan was formulated according to four clusters
and corresponding outcomes related to water pollution, solid waste,
informal settlements, and habitat.
In addition to the WQMA, a similar collaborative platform exists in
MANATUTI, as part of the Operational Plan for the Manila Bay
Coastal Strategy (OPMBCS). The OPMBCS was borne out of a Supreme
Court continuing mandamus, which required government agencies to
clean up, rehabilitate, preserve, and restore the water quality of
the bay.
MANATUTI WQMA: A case study on mainstreaming IRM in development
plans
Whereas the underlying legal mandates were different, the
geographic location, program goals, duty-bearers, and stakeholders
were the same. Hence, as an example of rationalization and
streamlining, it was decided that a single MANATUTI Action Plan
will serve both purposes of the Clean Water Act and the Supreme
Court continuing mandamus. The WQMA will serve as the single
platform for implementation and coordination.
The MANATUTI River System WQMA governing board and stakeholders
decided to “form a more cohesive and integrated action plan with
Disaster Risk Reduction-Climate Change Adaptation lens based on the
current situational analysis of the MANATUTI River System.” 6
DENR-EMB and the WQMA governing board subsequently collaborated
with ACCORD and CARE, through the Partnership for Resilience, in
facilitating the process of mainstreaming IRM in the Action
Plan.
6 Resolution Number 01, Series of 2019 “A Resolution Approving and
Adopting the Action Plan of the Malabon-Navotas-Tullahan- Tinajeros
River System Water Quality Management Area (MANATUTI River System
WQMA), signed 24 July 2019.
PHOTO CREDIT Detsy Uy | ACCORD
PHOTO CREDIT ACCORD
1615
The following steps were undertaken: 1. ACCORD, CARE and two other
CSOs were engaged in WQMA activities. 2. EMB and the governing
board were convinced to expand membership to include city DRRM
offices. 3. WQMA members were required to participate in a two-day
training on
IRM and mainstreaming. 4. A risk assessment workshop was conducted
with the crucial participation of the city DRRMOs. Risk assessment
reports from various
sources were gathered and used as references during the workshops.
5. Planning workshops were conducted. For each cluster, i.e., solid
waste, liquid waste, informal settlements and habitat, hazards and
vulnerabilities were identified with the following guide questions:
• What measures can the cluster undertake to reduce the
identified
natural hazards, climate, and environments risks? • How will the
identified natural hazards, climate, and environmental risks
negatively impact the cluster? What measures will be introduced to
mitigate the impacts? • Will the proposed activities planned for
the cluster create new vulnerabilities or exacerbate existing
risks? What measures will be undertaken to ensure that programs,
projects and activities will “do no harm,” and ensure that no new
vulnerabilities are created nor exacerbate existing ones? 6. The
planning workshop outputs were presented in plenary for validation,
appropriate risk reduction measures identified, as well as points
for collaboration. Some risk reduction measures required
collaboration among several outcome areas. It was also necessary to
see that measures implemented in one outcome area did not
negatively affect other areas. 7. The Action Plan with IRM
integrated in the situation analysis, in the outcomes, programs,
projects and activities was submitted to the governing board for
review. The governing board subsequently approved the Action
Plan.
A reflection meeting among the EMB, CARE and ACCORD has established
the effectiveness of the mainstreaming process. Process replication
in the San Juan River System WQMA was started. EMB also committed
to replicate the mainstreaming process in all 33 WQMAs in the
Philippines. As a preparatory step, some WQMA and EMB staff will
undergo special training for IRM trainers. While these activities
were overtaken by the COVID-19 pandemic, the group is exploring the
use of virtual trainings, risk assessments, and meeting planning to
realize the replication of IRM mainstreaming by all WQMAs in the
country.
The REACH: Response to the Unmet Humanitarian Needs of the Most
Vulnerable Conflict-Affected Populations in Mindanao Project is a
humanitarian action that delivers life-saving emergency assistance
to communities displaced by the chronic conflict in Mindanao. REACH
also has a rapid response mechanism that allows it to respond to
new cases of displacement. The direct beneficiaries of the action
are displaced Moro and Lumad (indigenous people of Mindanao)
households whose places of origin are geographically isolated. They
also have very limited access to services.
A needs assessment was conducted as a first step in designing the
project. Gender-balanced teams were deployed to look at the
situation of the IDPs, as well as the urgent needs across
humanitarian sectors, responses and capacities of government,
humanitarian actors and the IDPs, and gaps in the response.
Analysis of gathered information established that there were urgent
humanitarian needs and gaps in food security and livelihoods,
shelter, WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene), health and
psychosocial services, and protection. Aside from the chronic
conflict, assessments revealed there were other risks likely to
affect the IDPs such as seasonal flooding, drought, and occasional
typhoons.
REACH: a case study on mainstreaming IRM in emergency
response
PHOTO CREDIT ACCORD
1817
The needs assessment results served as the basis for the decision
to develop a project that will address the IDPs’ needs for food
security and livelihoods, shelter, WASH, health and psychosocial
services, and protection. It was further decided that IRM will be
integrated in appropriate sectors.
Following are examples of the IRM measures that would be
incorporated in the sectors: • Aside from cash or in-kind
assistance to support short-term livelihoods, beneficiaries will be
introduced to resilient livelihood strategies of diversification,
protection, and strengthening. • For shelter, applicable building
back safer (BBS) key messages will be introduced. BBS will also be
demonstrated in the construction of WASH facilities. Alternative
temporary shelter systems designed by the MOVE UP urban resilience
project will be introduced for adaptation. • For WASH,
disability-inclusive facilities will be constructed in safe
locations and provided with adequate lighting and other security
features. Durable materials will be used. Pipes will be protected
or buried. Where applicable, IDPs will carry out watershed
rehabilitation
activities to protect their water source. • Risk communication will
be incorporated in various activities such as community
consultations, food or cash distribution, hygiene promotion and
hygiene kit distribution, and training on resilient
livelihoods.
In the course of implementation, the COVID-19 pandemic erupted. It
was quickly determined that living in cramped evacuation camps and
in generally poor living conditions, would expose the IDPs to
high-risk COVID-19 infection. After quick consultation with the
donor, the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid
Operations (ECHO), it was decided that some funds allocated for
REACH will be redirected to COVID-19 response. The redirected funds
allowed delivery of in-kind food or cash assistance, personal
protective equipment, and sanitation supplies. Touch-free,
inclusive portable handwashing stations were also fabricated and
distributed to local government units. Risk communication
activities were also extensively carried out.
Regular project activities were also refined. Food security and
livelihood assistance were sped up to help address food shortage
which arose from the nationwide lockdown. Shelter assistance became
all the more urgent due to the need for physical distancing as an
infection prevention and control (IPC) measure. The ATS systems
were also introduced for possible adaptation into community
quarantine facilities. WASH facilities and services became more
important while hygiene promotion activities were incorporated in
COVID-19 IPC messaging. The pandemic was also expected to increase
mental health
concerns as well as primary healthcare needs among IDPs. In
response, service delivery arrangements were strengthened. The
protection service delivery mechanism was also strengthened with
the expected increase of protection issues arising from the
pandemic and lockdown.
Aside from displacement due to conflict amidst the COVID-19
pandemic, the IDPs are also vulnerable to the onset of the
typhoons, monsoon rains, and floods. In this complex situation the
REACH project has collaborated with MOVE UP, Partners for
Resilience, and the Resilience and Innovation Learning Hub to
organize a knowledge exchange activity on contingency planning in
the time of the pandemic. Partner local government units in the
REACH areas of implementation, humanitarian organizations, and
national government agencies were invited to the learning
event.
REACH will be implemented until April 2021. Regular monitoring
activities will continue to check on the progress of implementation
and introduce adjustments as required by changes in the situation.
As standard practice, an evaluation, that would also include a
community audit and lessons learned workshop with stakeholders as
inputs to the evaluation, will be conducted at the end of the REACH
project.
PHOTO CREDIT ACCORD
2019
There is a favorable policy environment for IRM mainstreaming in
the Philippines. In 2009, the Climate Change law (Republic Act
9729) was passed, followed a year later by the Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management law (Republic Act 10121). Both laws
mandate mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation in the national, sectoral, and local development plans
within the government. In addition, there are numerous legislations
related to ecosystem management and restoration that can be
harmonized with DRR and CCA for a truly integrated risk management
approach.
The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) which is
responsible for strengthening local government capacity towards the
effective delivery of basic services to the citizenry released in
2015 Memorandum Circular (MC) 2015-77 which provided guidelines on
mainstreaming climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction
in local development planning. In 2016, the DILG issued another
memorandum circular, MC 2016-102, providing additional guidelines
on the preparation of local plans, specifically on mainstreaming
thematic and sectoral concerns in the comprehensive development
planning process, and the coherence and alignment of various plans.
The relationship between the Comprehensive Development Plan and
sectoral plans (including the Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Plans, and the Local Climate Change Action Plans); the
alignment between provincial and city/municipal plans; and the
coherence between a local government unit’s CDP and Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP) were clarified.
The requisite of mainstreaming in long-term development, sectoral,
and thematic plans can be realized by integrating DRR and CCA in
the Rationalized Planning System (RPS) of local government units
(LGUs), consistent with the Local Government Code. A Joint
Memorandum Circular (JMC No. 001) issued by DILG and the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on 19 October 2009 elaborates
how mainstreaming in the RPS should take place. The circular
instructs that both the result and process of preparing the CLUP
and CDP must be harmonized. Mainstreaming can be achieved through
integration of DRR and CCA in the process and result of the LGUs’
preparation of their comprehensive development plans. DILG further
clarifies that mainstreaming DRR and CCA must be carried out
through a process that is ecosystem-based, such as the
ridge-to-reef approach.
Linking IRM with local government planning processes
MAINSTREAMING IN GOVERNMENT PLANS AND PROGRAMS
The rationalization of the planning system of LGUs was driven by
the need “to put order to the present chaos that characterizes
local planning in the Philippines. The chaotic condition owes in
part to the persistence of pre- devolution practices and also the
failure to implement to their full implications the Local
Government Code (of 1991) provisions on local planning.” 7
Rationalization also aims to address the problem created by the 33
plans LGUs must formulate, as prescribed by national government
agencies. By introducing the RPS, the number of plans LGUs must
prepare will be reduced to the two comprehensive plans, the CDP and
the CLUP. The sectoral and thematic plans required by national
government agencies must be integrated into either the CLUP or CDP
as appropriate, according to the local planning structure and
structure featured by the RPS.
Another important feature of the RPS is that it aims to move
planning away from the traditional technocratic form that assigns
planning to the exclusive domain of experts and consultants. RPS
promotes multi-stakeholder participation and consultation. Planning
is no longer the responsibility of one office or a few individuals,
but of a policy and problem-solving activity involving various
departments and offices of the LGU, as well as other stakeholders
that includes communities, people’s organizations, civil society
organizations, academe, and the private sector. This change is
reflected in the composition of the Local Development Council
(LDC), sectoral committees, and other local committees. Processes
are also simplified so that they can easily be understood by
community members with no training nor experience in
planning.
Why Rationalized Planning System?
7 DILG. Rationalizing the Planning System, A Source Book (First
edition, 2008).
The planning process is given equal importance as having the actual
plan or document. Important considerations include who will be
involved in the planning and how the plan will be implemented.
Implementation of the plan is expected to be easier if the proper
process is followed. Planning is viewed from a system
perspective.
LGU plans result in the combination of various parts of the local
government planning system. The planning system has four
components: (a) the planning structure, (b) mandated plans, (c) the
planning process, and (d) the authority levers necessary for the
LGUs to implement the plan. These parts of the planning system will
be discussed further in the next sections of this handbook.
Why mainstream in the planning system?
2221
Planning in the municipal and component city level is the
responsibility of the LGU. The planning system is therefore
accordingly designed to the dual status of LGUs: as a political
unit and as a corporate entity.
As a political unit, a “subdivision” of the national government,
the LGU has powers to manage its territorial jurisdiction,
including management and maintenance of ecological balance. As a
corporate entity, the LGU is endowed with powers and resources
necessary for its efficient and effective governance so that it can
deliver basic services and facilities to enable its inhabitants to
develop fully into self-reliant communities. Being a corporate
body, every LGU is mandated to promote the general welfare of its
inhabitants within its territorial jurisdiction.8
The DILG has noted challenges in the practice of mainstreaming in
the RPS. These challenges need to be addressed in order to
strengthen LGU planning, mainstream IRM (or ecosystem based DRR and
CCA) in planning, and successfully implement the plan that will be
formulated.
In the planning structure, it is noted that many LGUs have their
respective Local Development Councils but there are no sectoral
committees. These structures are also not inclusive, with
membership not open to community representation. Most LGUs have
their CLUPs, CDPs, Executive-Legislative Agenda (ELA), but without
consideration of DRR and CCA. The Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management structure is not permanent, and organized only based on
project requirements.
In terms of capacities, reorientation towards the requirements of
the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act is
needed. LGUs lack manpower as well as financial resources to
support DRR and CCA. There are dissimilarities in the appreciation
and understanding of DRR and CCA, and the use of the Local Disaster
Risk Reduction and Management Fund (LDRRMF). Application of
knowledge on DRR and CCA in policies, practice and investments
(budgets) is weak, and that knowledge on the range of applicable
solutions to reduce disaster risk and increase resilience is
limited.
Like LGUs, communities also have limited knowledge on DRR and CCA.
Linkages and relationships between LGUs and communities are also
weak.
8 DILG. Rationalizing the Planning System, A Source Book (First
edition, 2008): ii.
The framework to guide LGUs as they mainstream thematic concerns,
including DRR, CCA, gender, and disability inclusion to mention a
few of the 33 themes, is provided by the DILG-Bureau of Local
Government Development (DILG-BLGD). The framework identifies the
entry points for mainstreaming as shown in Figure 2.1.9
The mainstreaming framework and the four components of the
rationalized planning system closely resemble each other, albeit
with an added emphasis on integrating DRR and CCA into existing
databases. This emphasis on mainstreaming DRR and CCA in databases
is no different from the project cycle management approach to
mainstreaming, where premium is placed on the assessments and
analyses that provide the sturdy foundation of the whole planning
process and output.
The remaining entry points identified are the components of RPS:
planning structure and process, documents (mandated plans), and
authority levers. The entry points for mainstreaming in local
planning is through integration of DRR and CCA into existing
databases; incorporation in the current structure and planning
process; translation into reviewable mandated documents, in
particular the CLUP and the CDP; and in the provision of necessary
authority levers.
Process of integrating IRM in the development plans of local
government units
9 DILG-BLGD, Local Planning Illustrative Guide: Preparing and
Updating the Comprehensive Development Plan (no date)
Figure 2.1 Mainstreaming Matrix of Thematic Concerns into the Local
Planning Process SOURCE DILG-BLGD
Mainstreaming Matrix of Thematic Concerns into the Local Planning
Process
Integrate into existing
Mainstreaming IRM in the local planning structure
The local planning structure consists of two components: the
political and technical.
The political component comprises mainly of the Local Sanggunian
(legislature) and the Local Development Council (LDC). These two
bodies lay down policy guidelines and make decisions with regard to
direction, character, and objectives of local development. They do
these in their capacity as elected representatives of the people.
The technical component, on the other hand, consists of
non-elective officials of the LGU, heads of national agencies
operating in the area, and non-government sectors. The Local
Planning and Development Coordinator (LPDC) serves as the technical
arm and head of the LDC Secretariat. In that capacity, the LPDC
“coordinates” the different programs of the LGU departments and the
national agencies operating locally. The LPDC also coordinates the
different sectoral/functional committees that provide detailed
inputs to the comprehensive multi-sectoral development plan and
investment program.10
10 DILG, Rationalizing the Planning System, A Source Book (First
edition, 2008): 2.
Political Component Technical Component
Composition:
• Local Planning and Development Office • Heads of LGU departments
• Local Special Bodies • LDC Sectoral/Functional Committees •
National Government Agency Office Chiefs in the locality • Private
sector representatives
Functions:
Functions:
• Provides detailed information required by plans • Ensures that
the correct planning process is followed • Members of the technical
group are non-elective officials of the LGU, heads of national
government agencies with offices in the LGU, and NGO
representatives • The head of the Local Planning and Development
Coordinator functions as Secretariat and coordinator of various
committees
The IRM mainstreaming points in the planning structure are: •
Sectoral committees that advocate DRR and CCA (LDRRMO,
MENRO, CSOs/POs) and for the concerns of vulnerable groups such as
persons with disabilities, children, older people, women (DSWD,
OSCA, GFPS, etc.), and indigenous peoples, among others, are
properly represented in the planning structure.
• A disaster risk reduction and management office is functioning,
with full-time staff that possess adequate DRR and CCA technical
knowledge and skills.
• Members of both political and technical groups possess knowledge
and adequate appreciation of DRR and CCA. Orientation on DRR and
CCA and on mainstreaming can help increase knowledge on the
subjects.
• Members of both political and technical groups understand their
planning functions, and are capable and willing to help in
preparing the plans.
Each LGU must create five sectoral committees: social, economic,
physical/land use, environmental management, and institutional.
Sectoral committees must be organized, and membership expanded to
include community members coming from different sectors of society
(government, private sector, academe, faith-based organizations,
professionals, CBO representatives, etc.). This creates space for
meaningful participation of the various sectors of society.
The functions of the sectoral committees include: • Collect data
needed for the formulation of plans, programs, and
activities (PPAs); • Conduct studies and analyze collected data; •
Articulate the objectives of the sector to establish targets and
define
PPAs; • Conduct public consultations on the proposed PPAs; •
Monitor programs and projects as well as conduct evaluation.
The DRR and CCA elements should be integrated in the various
functions of the sector, from data/information collection and
analysis, to formulation of objectives, targets and PPAs and
monitoring, and implementation. This is the project cycle
management approach to mainstreaming described in the earlier part
of the handbook.
SOURCE Integrated Risk Management Training Manual, Module 4: Risk
Reduction Planning
2625
The planning process of LGUs consist of: • Setting/Re-visiting the
LGU vision • Analyzing the LGU situation • Determining the
vision-reality gap • Setting sectoral goals, objectives and targets
• Identifying PPAs and Legitimization • Investment Programming •
Budgeting • Implementing the Plan • Monitoring and Evaluation
The whole planning process according to DILG is consultative,
participatory, and inclusive. This ensures that vulnerable sectors
are engaged in the process. The process, which is consistent with
the budgeting calendar, ensures communities are able to take
advantage of numerous opportunities for their participation in the
planning.
In describing the LGU vision, the first step in formulating the
plan, elements related to IRM can be incorporated. For example,
descriptors such “ecologically balanced environment” and “resilient
communities” can be included in describing how the future of a
municipality or component city is envisioned. The current situation
is compared with the vision. The aspiration to achieve the vision
becomes policy.
The analysis of a municipality or city’s situation is contained in
the ecological profile. This is the situation analysis that comes
out of the assessments of problems, needs, and risks. All data from
the five development sectors are consolidated and put in the LGU’s
database, which also includes maps of existing and potential
hazards. The Climate and Disaster Risk Assessment is the set of
tools developed to assist LGUs undertake risk assessments that will
be included in the ecological profile.11
The risk assessment facilitates the evaluation of disaster risks
that pose threats to the municipality or component city’s
population and environment. The situation analysis will be the
basis of the disaster risk objectives that will form part of the
plan.
From the situation analysis and the objectives set in the LGU
vision, the vision- reality gap is determined. Policies will be
formulated based on the identified
11 CARE and ACCORD are using a set of participatory risk assessment
and analysis tools called the Integrated Toolbox (ITB). Climate
change and ecosystem management elements are incorporated in the
classical participatory tools used to assess and analyze natural
hazards. The ITB is introduced to LGUs not to replace but to
complement CDRA by providing options that will result to quality
situation analysis and ecological profile.
gaps. The policies will be implemented through respective plans,
programs and activities. Each of the five development sectors will
make respective PPAs that will contribute to the attainment of set
policies. It is essential that in the development of the PPAs, each
sector will address the following questions:
• What measures can the sector undertake to reduce the identified
risks? • How will the identified natural hazards, climate, and
environmental risks
negatively impact the sector? What measures will be introduced to
mitigate the impacts?
• Will the proposed PPAs create new vulnerabilities or exacerbate
existing ones? What measures will be undertaken to ensure that PPAs
“do no harm,” and ensure that no new vulnerabilities are made or
existing ones are not exacerbated?
The final steps in the planning process include the formulation of
the Local Development Investment Plan, preparing the budget,
implementation, plus the monitoring and evaluation of the process
to determine whether objectives were met through the implementation
of the PPAs.
It must be emphasized that ecosystem-based DRR and CCA must be
incorporated in every step of the planning process. Preparing an
excellent ecological profile or situation analysis is the most
important step. This will help ensure that succeeding situation
analyses, formulated goals, policies, and PPAs will be relevant and
appropriate to the situation and needs of the communities that
comprise the municipality or component city. To guarantee that
results from each step of the planning process are appropriate to
the situation and needs of communities, participation in all steps
of the process by vulnerable groups that include women, children,
older people, persons with disabilities, is important.
Note the very strong similarity of the steps in preparing plans
under RPS with the project cycle management approach to
mainstreaming as presented in the first part of this handbook. The
same steps are also followed in preparing contingency plans.
Mainstreaming IRM in the mandated plans
As outlined earlier, the RPS has reduced the number of plans LGUs
must prepare to two plans: the CLUP and the CDP. Therefore, the 33
sectoral and thematic plans required by national government
agencies must be integrated into either the CLUP or CDP as
appropriate.
The CLUP and the CDP have bases in the Constitution as seen in
Article XIII, Section 1 that states “…the State shall regulate
acquisition, ownership, use
2827
and disposition of property, and its increments.” In relation to
use of property, Article XII, Section 6 states that “property bears
a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the
common good. Individuals and private groups, including
corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations,
shall have the right to own, establish and operate economic
enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote
distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so
demands.”
The legal mandate of LGUs to prepare their respective CLUPs enacted
through zoning ordinances is defined under Section 20 of the Local
Government Code. The CLUP shall be the primary and dominant basis
for the future of land resources, provided that the requirements
for food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion
shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of such
plans.
The CLUP has three identified functions: (a) it is the policy guide
for the regulation of land use within the territory of the LGU; (b)
it is the skeletal- circulatory framework for the physical
development of the territory; and (c) it is the plan for the
long-term management of the local territory.12
Policies on land use emanate from the CLUP such as policy on
establishment of human settlements; policies on the protection and
management of natural resources; policy on the type of production
according to land classification; and policy on infrastructure that
will be constructed within the territory.
As the skeletal-circulatory framework of the territory’s physical
development, the CLUP identifies areas where development can and
cannot be located to direct public and private investments
accordingly.13
The CLUP designates areas that will remain protected, like rivers,
forests, and mountains so that these can continue to provide
ecosystem services needed by those inhabiting the area. It defines
the areas assigned for human habitation, areas that are safe and
fit for human settlements, areas where people can produce food and
engage in economic activities and can further develop into
industries and investments. The CLUP also includes planning for the
infrastructure that would support the need to maintain the
equitable allocation of the territory and its resources.
12 Kristine Follosco-Aspiras, The CLUP and the CDP: Nature and
Functions (handout), Planning for Local Executives (School of Urban
and Regional Planning, 17-21 September 2018). 13 DILG-BLGD, Local
Planning Illustrative Guide, 1. 14 DILG-BLGD, 1.
SOURCE DILG-BLGD
CLUP CDP
“Comprehensive” embracing all development sectors and sub-sectors
and concerns of each
Defines the policy direction for the use of land resources within
territorial jurisdiction
Outlines specific application of the available land resources
Accounts for available supply of land resources Demand for land
resources based on sectoral development goals
Has four (4) policy areas: production settlements, protection, and
infrastructure
Covers five (5) development sectors: social, economic, physical,
environmental, institutional
Diagrams the desired physical pattern of growth of the
locality
Provide convergence mechanism to integrate NGA’s plans with local
plans
Invariably takes a long time to carry out Short timeframe and
should be used as a medium to implement the CLUP
Local equivalent or counterpart of the N/R/ PPFP
Must coincide with the MTPDP/MTPIP
The CDP, on the other hand, is the action plan utilized by every
local administration to develop and implement priority sectoral and
cross-sectoral programs and projects in the proper locations.
Figuratively, it puts flesh on the skeleton gradually and
incrementally, until the desired shape or form of development is
attained over the long term. This is consistent with the definition
of planning as “public control of the pattern of
development”.14
The CDP likewise derives its legal mandate from the Local
Government Code, which requires each LGU to have a comprehensive
development plan to be initiated by its development council and
approved by its Sanggunian (Sec 106).
The CDP functions as a guide to policies, programs, and other forms
of intervention to promote the general welfare of all inhabitants
in the LGU’s territory. The LGU needs to ensure and support the
promotion of health and safety; enhancement of the right of the
people to a balanced ecology; development of appropriate and
self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities; enhancement
of economic prosperity and social justice; and promotion of full
employment among residents, among others.
As a policy statement, the CDP demands involvement of public
officials to facilitate multi-stakeholder participation. It also
demands understanding of
3029
the planning process, and offers a consistent and stable guide for
legislators, administrators, and courts. It provides guidance to
the decision-making concerning investment funds in the annual
budget, priority projects to implement, outcomes and impacts to
monitor, and how the private sector can respond to interventions
and policies from the local government.15
The CDP is comprehensive in the sense that it is multi-sectoral and
embraces all development concerns of all sectors and subsectors, as
well as all possible subject areas related to development within
the LGU’s territorial jurisdiction.16 All possible matters
pertaining to development planning are covered in specific sectors
or a combination of sectors. This implies that all national
government agencies that have plans requiring implementation by
LGUs need to go through the LGU’s planning system, and incorporate
said plans in the appropriate sector or sectors. In this instance,
harmonization and rationalization is essential in order not to
overburden LGUs in the implementation.
The CLUP Guidebook summarizes the benefits of mainstreaming
ecosystem- based DRR and CCA in the long-term development plan, and
as such “the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is an effective disaster
risk reduction instrument which may at the same time result in
climate change adaptation. It seeks to rationalize the allocation
of land uses to reduce exposure of people, assets and economic
activities; address vulnerabilities by providing safer places to
live, sustain livelihood and ensure optimum productivity of natural
resources through ecosystem-based management. Also, land use
planning is a cost-effective and proactive approach in managing
current and future risks considering the high costs of structural
measures to address unplanned spatial development. Land use
planning can also reduce hazard magnitudes by including ecosystem
management approaches, such as rehabilitation of watersheds to
minimize lowland flooding. Lastly, it serves as a framework to
guide in the preparation of local level plans (CDP, LDIP, LDRRMP)
to implement its DRR and CCA development agenda.”17
By integrating IRM in the CLUP, and closely following the process
of mainstreaming in RPS, the subsequent task of mainstreaming in
the CDP and other local level plans will already be half completed.
The prescribed planning process, if adhered to, will result in
plans that are aligned and harmonized. Integrating IRM in all five
development sectors of the CDP completes the task of mainstreaming
IRM in the mandated long-term development plans. It must be
emphasized that integration of IRM in all development sectors must
take place.
15 Follosco-Aspiras, The CLUP and the CDP. 16 Follosco-Aspiras, The
CLUP and the CDP. 17 Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
CLUP Guidebook: Supplemental Guidelines on Mainstreaming Climate
Change and Disaster Risks in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
(HLURB, Climate Change Commission, United Nations Development
Programme and Australian Government, 2015)
Incorporating the DRRMP and/or the LCCAP in only some sectors falls
short of mainstreaming objectives. IRM must be integrated in all
development sectors, implying the need for all sectors to work
together to attain the risk reduction and resilience objectives as
reflected in the LGU’s vision.
Figure 2.2: Relationship of the CLUP, CDP, Executive-Legislative
Agenda and other implementation instruments. SOURCE DILG-BLGD
Multi-year, Multi-sectoral
Team Based Agenda Executive-Legislative Agenda (ELA)
Outcome • Change in Economic and Social Well-Being of constituents
• Change in the configuration and quality of the physical
environment • Change in local institutional capacities
Output • Improved Public Services • New or Improved Public
Facilities or Infrastructure • Increased Public Awareness and
Participation
• Increased Private sector investment in local, social and economic
development
Implementation Instruments
Long-Term Framework Plan
Settlement Policies
Protection Policies
Production Policies
Infrastructure Policies
3231
The Rationalized Planning System prescribes that the Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Plan and the Local Climate Change Action
Plan, along with other sectoral and thematic plans, must be
integrated into either the CLUP or CDP. More often they are
integrated into the relatively shorter, six-year
Alignment and coherence of LDRRMP and LCCAP with CDP
CDP. Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation measures are integrated ideally into the CDP’s five
development sectors.
The actual practice of mainstreaming, that at the same time ensures
the alignment and coherence of the DRRMP and the LCCAP with the
long term development plan, however, is often attended with
difficulties. This despite DILG guidance that the DRRMP and the
LCCAP must be “derivatives” of the CLUP and the CDP. In part, the
difficulties are occasioned by the unsynchronized planning
schedules. In other cases, the long-term development plans from
where the LCCAP or the DRRMP will be derived are either
non-existent or outdated. The DILG advises the reversal of the
process in these instances. The DRRMPs and LCCAPs will become
important inputs when the long-term development plans are finally
formulated.
Fig 2.3 illustrates the linkages and alignments of key plans and
planning activities, based on the mainstreaming practice of some
local government units working with CARE and ACCORD. The Community
Risk Assessment provides information inputs to the Contingency
Plan, DRRM Plan and LCCAP. The same CRA becomes part of the
Ecological Profile upon which long-term development plans are
based.
Figure 2.3 Linkages of plans and key planning activities in the
RPS
Ecological Profile Community Risk Assessment Contingency Plan
Social
Economic
Mainstreaming IRM in authority levers and tools for plan
implementation
The fourth and final component of the RPS is focused on the
measures the LGU will undertake to implement the plan. Examples of
these measures are regulations, zoning ordinances, taxation, the
LDIP, laws to protect and manage the environment and natural
resources, programs being implemented by national government
agencies, public and private incentives and investments, etc.
The integration of IRM in the authority levers or the means of
implementation is especially important in reducing risks that
threaten communities. A sample key result of the CLUP is a zoning
ordinance. Mainstreaming IRM in zoning is important because it is
long-term, and defines the measures for protecting the resource
base that will support livelihoods within the territory. Zoning
should also identify the areas safe for habitation, especially in
the event where there is a need to expand areas for human
settlement. High-risk areas will be identified as no-build zones,
and appropriate measures will be strictly enforced.
Another means for supporting the implementation of plans is through
taxation. For example, activities that result in the destruction of
ecosystems or the environment can be penalized, which include
levied fines, to strongly discourage further destructive
activities. The collected payments can be used to support risk
reduction actions. Implementation will not be limited to simple
adherence to regulations. Implementation should be a recognized
obligation by community members and other stakeholders, as well as
the main duty-bearer (LGU) to support the attainment of plans with
intended outcomes. A plan that has gone through the correct process
with the full participation and engagement of the community and
other stakeholders, will not be difficult to implement.
It is essential to closely study the measures for implementation so
that it would not be contradictory to the set goals. With the
correct means of implementation, compliance and acceptance of the
obligations arising from a plan, as well as community ownership of
the plan will not be difficult to achieve.
3433
The Contingency Plan is aligned with the DRRM Plan, in particular
the plan’s response pillar. It is also harmonized with the LCCAP.
Alignment and harmonization improves the effectiveness of the
plans. Resource requirements of the Contingency Plan are also more
assured by their incorporation into the term-based DRRMP and LCCAP.
The duration of the DRRMPs and LCCAPs often coincide with the term
of local public officials.
While originating from separate mandates, there is in fact an
extensive overlap in the respective scopes of the DRRMP and the
LCCAP. Thus, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Act invariably refers DRR and CCA mainstreaming inseparably. This
intersection between DRR and CCA creates the need for LGUs to
ensure the harmony of the two thematic plans.
Finally, these two thematic plans are either derived from the CLUP
or the CDP. In the absence of the CLUP or the CDP, the DRRMP and
LCCAP become important inputs when the long term development plans
are finally formulated.
REFERENCES
Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development
(ACCORD) and CARE Nederland. From Disaster to Resilience: Building
Back Better Communities through Humanitarian Actions (2018).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iCxkaAXTRw
Department of Interior and Local Government-Bureau of Local
Government Development (DILG- BLGD). Local Planning Illustrative
Guide: Preparing and Updating the Comprehensive Development Plan
(no date)
https://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/reports_resources/dilg-reports-resources-
2017110_298b91787e.pdf
CARE Nederland. Integrated Risk Management Explained (August 2017).
https://www.
carenederland.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CARE_Integrated-Risk-Management-explained.pdf
Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development
(ACCORD) and CARE. Training Manual para sa Pagbabawas ng Risk at
Pagpapalakas ng Resilience ng mga Komunidad, Vol. 1-4. (October
2020)
CARE Nederland. Strategy plan DRR CARE Nederland (May 2010)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Rationalizing
the Planning System, A Source Book (First edition, 2008)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Memorandum
Circular 2015-77 Guidelines on Mainstreaming Climate Change
Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in Local Development
Planning (21 July 2015)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Memorandum
Circular 2016-102 Guidelines on the Preparation or Updating of
Local Plans (8 August 2016)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Assessment of
Comprehensive Development Plans for Component Cities and
Municipalities (8 October 2018)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Guidelines on
Updating of Land Use and Development Plans and Investment Programs
(undated)
Follosco-Aspiras, Kristine. The CLUP and the CDP: Nature and
Functions (handout). Planning for Local Executives (School of Urban
and Regional Planning, 17-21 September 2018).
Hyogo Framework for Action. (UN/ISDR, 2005)
Department of Interior and Local Government, National Economic
Development Authority (NEDA), Department of Budget and Management
(DBM), and Department of Finance (DOF). Joint Memorandum Circular
No. 1, Series 2007. Guidelines on Harmonization of Local Planning,
Investment Programming, Revenue Administration, Budgeting and
Expenditure Management (8 March 2007)
Partners for Resilience The Philippines. Achieving Disaster Risk
Reduction by Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Ecosystem
Management and Restoration - INTEGRATED TOOL BOX: Tools for
Community Risk Assessments (Summary). (2015)
Tearfund. Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: a tool for
development organizations (2005)
http://www.unisdr.org/HFdialogue/download/tp2-Tearfund-Mainstreaming-drr.pdf
Wisner, Ben, Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon, and Ian Davis. At Risk:
natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Second
edition (2003)
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/670_72351.pdf