Disaster Preparedness

Disaster preparedness and response requires a sound understanding of preparedness, response, and
recovery needs and approaches. At the same time, these critical activities and approaches are heavily
influenced by factors that are impacted by many contextual factors that determine both the scope and
nature of preparedness and response. Several of these factors are explored. These factors are both
particular to and overlapping with both emergency management (EM) and behavioral health (BH)
professions. As a result, both professions must be aware of and be prepared to, understand and
accommodate to these factors as integration is pursued. The evolution of today’s disaster legislation,
intent, and status is described. Comparable information regarding disaster and emergency health and BH
is provided. Additional factors explored include legislative and policy definitions of what types of events
activate what programs and approaches, legal and ethical issues to be considered such as confidentiality,
licensure, and others.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/disaster-preparedness

Natural disasters like typhoons and earthquakes are now frequently occurring in the country. The
Philippine government had increased its efforts to implement the disaster risk reduction management
(DRRM) program as its answer to the frequent occurrence. This paper gives an overview of the Awareness
and Disaster Preparedness of the Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committees
(BDRRMCs) of Laur, Nueva Ecija, Philippines. It focused on the flood and landslide-prone barangays of
Laur, Nueva Ecija. The study used the Goal Model of Organizational Theory to measure the awareness of
BDRRMCs. The awareness of BDRRMCs was measured against the goals and objectives of Republic Act
10121 also known as Philippines Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act. The study used as
a research tool the Checklist of Disaster Preparedness divided into four thematic areas namely; a) Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation, b) Disaster Preparedness, c) Disaster Response, and d) Disaster Rehabilitation
and Recovery. The study showed the need for periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of Barangay
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committees (DRRMCs) and to set the standard of performance
not only for the purpose of policy evaluation but also for measuring community involvement in disaster
risk reduction. Results showed that BDRRMCs will be most effective if they are performing their functions
and as prescribed by law, they should give priorities to all thematic areas, especially prevention and
mitigation, and disaster preparedness to achieve the goals and objectives of RA 10121.

https://www.journalijar.com/article/21136/awareness-and-disaster-preparedness-of-barangay-disaster-
risk-reduction-and-management-committees-(bdrrmcs)-of-laur,-nueva-ecija,-philippines/

The Philippines’ first institutionalized governmental response to disaster response and preparedness
came during the Marcos era. Through Presidential Decree 1566, the National Disaster Coordinating
Council under the president’s office was established as the highest policymaking body in responding to
natural disasters. Fast forward two decades and decentralization movements had taken over the country.
In 1991, the duties of disaster management and preparedness fell on the autonomous Local Governance
Units, the lowest level of government in the Philippines. Though the National Disaster Coordinating
Council was still an office under the president, its powers were severely diminished in the years following
the decentralization movement. It wasn’t until 2009, almost four decades after the Marcos-era decree,
that the National Disaster Coordinating Council was finally updated and replaced by Republic Act 10121,
or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act. And through a consortium of disaster
management plans, the NDRRMC mentioned above was born.

There is a growing political consensus that the NDRRMC is ineffective due to its mandate to act through
cooperation. To take an example of the bureaucratic entanglement of the NDRRMC, RA 10121 establishes
four thematic pillars in disaster risk reduction: disaster prevention and mitigation, disaster preparedness,
disaster response, and disaster rehabilitation and recovery. The NDRRMC in turn would coordinate
departmental responses according to the pillars assigned. For disaster prevention and mitigation, the
DOST would coordinate members from the OCD, DENR and DPWH; for Disaster Preparedness, the DILG
would coordinate and be advised by the PIA and OCD; for disaster response, the main task is performed
by the DSWD along with members from OCD, DRRMC, DOH, DILG, DND and LGUs; and for disaster
rehabilitation and recovery the effort would have to be spearheaded by the NEDA along with NHA, OCD,
DPWH, DOH and DSWD.

To any casual observer, the wide array of acronyms looks like it was taken from a never-ending scrabble
game. However the acronyms mask a stringent bureaucratic turf-war. Staffing the NDRRMC is often
challenged by overlapping roles that take away from the day-to-day functions of the departments. The
bureaucratic turf-war also finds an echo in resource allocation and the political prestige of the
bureaucracy’s political masters.

Furthermore, responding to disasters is also a political minefield, and the failure to provide an adequate
response would inherently lead to public and even international scrutiny. Take the then-mayor of Cagayan
de Oro, Vincente Emano, whose failure to respond to Tropical Storm Sendong (Tropical Storm Washi) not
only cost him his two-decade long mayoral seat, but also dethroned his political legacy in the region.

On the other hand, disaster preparedness measures are also gateways for pork-barrel politics. The
winning of favors for local constituents — in this case, resources allocated for disaster response through
the holding of political positions within the NDRRMC — helps to solidify votes and garner local support.
The combination of political incentives, bureaucratic entanglement, and governance challenges have led
to a brewing storm that had swept away thousands of lives and caused millions in damages.

Though there are no shortages of studies on lessons learned from the various responses to Typhoon
Yolanda, the predominant issues point to governance challenges. Direct aid in food, infrastructure
reconstruction, the relocation of citizens displaced by disasters, healthcare, and education are all funneled
through governmental bodies. However, given the confusing situation on the ground in the immediate
aftermath of a disaster, local bureaucrats from the Local Governance Units and provincial and national
departmental officers lack a sense of the responsibilities they are tasked to perform through the NDRRMC.

Moving Forward

In terms of disaster preparedness in the Philippines, the raison du jour is localized, decentralized
contingency planning stemming from local governments. While there are many positive aspects to this,
such as tailor-made contingency planning, it also separates low-income communities from other local
governments. And as Typhoon Yolanda and other experiences have demonstrated, those most affected
are from low-income communities with poor infrastructure and living near flood-zones.

Politically, there are also calls from the executive branch for updating, revising, and forming of a new
department to address disaster prevention and management issues. There are currently eight related bills
being discussed in the Philippine Congress. These bills range from the replacement of the current
NDRMMC with a new cabinet department, the updating of the mandate of the NDRMMC to give the
council more roles and functions, and the replacement of the current NDRMMC with an agency under the
office of the president. While there is an ongoing effort and political interest to merge the bills, so far,
none of these eight bills attest to the challenge of bureaucratic contestation and political patronization.

To move forward, it is imperative to ensure that the governance challenge is being adequately addressed.
The coordination of departments and bureaucracies can only go so far. And at the moment, the only
response to the various challenges addressed above is to centralize the coordinating council of the
NDRRMC into an independent department with its own budget and staffing. The benefit of an
independent department is to fast-track programs under one office, limit the number of political
appointed positions and the various bureaucratic competitions, and provide a centralized policy directive
for disaster prevention and response policies.

This being said however, given the political climate in the Philippines at the moment, a newly founded
department is also a fresh breeding ground for political competition and the creation of “just-another-
department.” The path forward is to build upon the experience in responding to Typhoon Yolanda and
other major disasters and to create a department led by political actors with an entrepreneurial spirit.
Such an individual can spread the lessons learned to all levels of government, including a newly formed
department responsible for disaster response. Only then can the Philippines truly begin to consolidate
and to build resilience toward disasters caused by rapidly changing climate systems.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/preparing-for-disaster-in-the-philippines/