DISASTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES: AN … · 2014-09-05 · 5 DISASTER MANAGEMENT...

DISASTER MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES IN THE

PHILIPPINES: AN ASSESSMENT

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

1 DISASTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES: AN ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations

Executive Summary

2

4

History of DRRM in the Philippines

Current State of Disaster Management

Assessment of Existing Governance Framework

The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan

Financial Resources for DRRM

Calamity Fund

Quick Response Fund

Overall Assessment of Budget Allocation/Utilization

Department of National Defense(DND) and Office of Civil Defense

(OCD)

Department of Social Welfare and Development(DSWD)

Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)

Department of Education (DepEd)

Department of Health (DoH)

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)

Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery

(OPARR)

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)

Department of Science and Technology (DOST)

6

8

10

11

12

16

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

27

28

29

Financial Constraints and Other Operational Limitations

Inadequate but Underutilized Calamity Funds of LGUs

Assessment of Preparedness

Coordination and Collaboration among Stakeholders

Gaps in Accountability

Low Compliance to Reporting Requirement

Inability to Track Down Donations to and from Private Sources

Disaster Information and Management

Insufficient Information on the Governance Aspect of DRRM

Lack of a Comprehensive Analysis on Public Spending for DRRM

Challenges and Recommendations

30

32

33

34

35

36

37

37

38

38

39


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CCA Climate Change Adaptation

CCAC Climate Change Advisory Committee

CF Calamity Fund

CSO Civil society organizations

CY Calendar year

DA Department of Agriculture

DBM Department of Budget and Management

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DepEd Department of Education

DILG Department of Interior and Local Government

DND Department of National Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOH Department of Health

DOST Department of Science and Technology

DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways

DRRM Disaster risk reduction and management

DRRMC Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

DRRMO Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office

DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development

EO Executive Order

FFP Family food pack

FY Fiscal year

GAA General Appropriations Act

LCF Local Calamity Fund

LDRRMC Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

LDRRMF Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund

LDRRMFIP Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund Investment Plan

LDRRMO Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office

LGU Local government unit

MMDCC Metro Manila Disaster Coordinating Council

MMDA Metropolitan Manila Development Authority

MOOE Maintenance and other Operating Expenses

NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information Authority

NCDA National Civil Defense Administration

NCR National Capital Region

NDCC National Disaster Coordinating Council

NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

NDRRMF National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework

NDRRMP National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan

NEDA National Economic and Development Authority

NGO Nongovernmental organization

NIA National Irrigation Authority


NOAH National Operational Assessment Hazards

OCD Office of Civil Defense

OPARR Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery

OSEC Office of the Secretary

PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration

PD Presidential Decree

PDP Philippine Development Plan

PDRRMC Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

PDRRM Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010

Phivolcs Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology

PIDS Philippine Institute for Development Studies

PS Personal Services

QRF Quick Response Fund

RA Republic Act

RDRRMC Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council


Executive Summary

Super typhoon “Yolanda” (international name: Haiyan) is the most powerful and devastating

tropical cyclone that struck the Philippines in recent memory. The Category 5 typhoon made its

first landfall over Guiuan, Eastern Samar in the early morning of November 8, 2013 and wreaked

havoc, primarily on the Visayas region, until its exit from the Philippine area of responsibility the

following day.

Weather officials said Yolanda had sustained wind speeds exceeding 185 kph when it made

landfall. The strong winds ripped off the roofs of thousands of homes and knocked down

shanties, trees, power and telephone lines and cell towers. Storm surge waves as high as 6 to 7

meters or a two-storey high building, were also seen, claiming thousands of lives and destroying

millions worth of properties.

The Philippines has been battered by many catastrophic storms and other natural and man-made

disasters since time immemorial due to its geographic location both at the typhoon belt and the

Ring of Fire. The country is prone to multiple recurring hazards such as cyclones, floods,

earthquakes and landslides.1 In truth, the 2012 World Risk Report ranked the Philippines third

out of 173 countries in terms of disaster risk.2

But in the wake of Yolanda’s catastrophic destruction, the weaknesses and significant gaps in the

country’s disaster response and management system were exposed once more. Despite a solid

and functioning disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) structure, the government’s

response still came across as reactive and not proactive, insufficient, inefficient and for the most

part, too slow.

This report will attempt to paint an analysis of the country’s disaster management system in the

context of the Yolanda devastation. This is intended to help guide national agencies and local

government units (LGUs) in the allocation and utilization of precious and scarce resources to

adequately mitigate risks for calamities that regularly strike the country’s most vulnerable

communities with such ferocity and enormity, year in and year out.

In this report, the effectiveness of the government’s efforts on disaster management are assessed

based on the following themes:

1. Existing disaster governance framework

2. Resource Allocation, Timeliness and Quality of Spending

3. Preparedness/Coordination/Collaboration among Stakeholders

4. Accountability

5. Disaster Information Management

1Disaster-induced internal displacement in the Philippines: The case of Tropical Storm Washi/Sendong (Internal

Displacement Monitoring Centre, 2013), p. 3. 2 Ibid


History of DRRM in the Philippines

The Philippine government, from its pre-Commonwealth days up to the present, has evolved a

scheme to counteract the effects of disasters, both natural and human-induced. Our disaster

management system traces back its origin to 1941 when President Manuel L. Quezon created

Executive Order (EO) No. 335 establishing the National Emergency Commission and

implementing measures to control and coordinate civilian participation to meet serious crises.

Consequently, the Provincial Emergency Committee was created, in charge of the supervision

and control over the Municipal Emergency Committees and City Emergency Committees. In

1954, the National Civil Defense Administration (NCDA) was established through Republic Act

(RA) 1190, which also created national and local civil defense councils. Thereafter, in 1968, the

NCDA was designated as the national coordinator to oversee and implement EO 159 that

required the establishment of a disaster control organization by all government offices including

departments, bureaus, offices, agencies, instrumentalities and political subdivisions of

government, including all corporations owned and/or controlled by government. The NCDA is

tasked to report on the degree of preparedness of all government offices to the Office of the

President.

In 1970, President Ferdinand Marcos saw the need to establish a Disaster and Calamities Plan

prepared by an Inter-Departmental Planning Group on Disasters and Calamities. Then in 1972,

the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) was established by Letter of Instruction 19. OCD was

mandated to coordinate national level activities and functions of the national government, private

institutions and civic organizations. Finally in 1978, through Presidential Decree (PD) 1566, the

National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) was established as the highest policy-making

body and the focal organization for disaster management in the country. The law also provided

for the establishment of regional, provincial, city, municipal, and barangay disaster coordinating

councils.

In 2009, the Congress enacted the Climate Change Act of 2009 and in 2010, RA 10121 or the

Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (PDRRM) Act. These twin laws on DRRM

have common goals and objectives: 1) to increase the resilience of vulnerable communities and

the country against natural disasters and 2) to reduce damage and loss of lives and properties due

to disasters. In particular, RA 10121 provides for the development of policies and plans and the

implementation of actions and measures pertaining to all aspects of DRRM, including good

governance, risk assessment and early warning, knowledge building and awareness raising,

reducing underlying risk factors, and preparedness for effective response and early recovery. The

law acknowledges that there is a need to “adopt a disaster risk reduction and management

approach that is holistic, comprehensive, integrated, and proactive in lessening the

socioeconomic and environmental impacts of disasters including climate change, and promote the

involvement and participation of all sectors and all stakeholders concerned, at all levels,

especially the local community.”3

3 RA 10121 of 2010, Sec. 2 (d)


Through the years, the Philippines has adopted various approaches from disaster preparedness

and response in the 1970s, to disaster management in the 1980s, to disaster risk management in

the 1990s and eventually disaster risk reduction in the years 2005 and beyond.

Current State of Disaster Management

The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) is a body

empowered to perform policy-making, coordination, integration and supervisory functions, as

well as monitor the preparation, implementation and evaluation of the National DRRM Plan

(NDRRMP) to ensure the protection and welfare of the people in times of disaster.

RA 10121 or the PDRRM Act of 2010 has

expanded the membership of the previous

NDCC from 19 to 44 members (Fig. 1). The

former NDCC, as chaired by the Secretary of

National Defense, was composed of Cabinet

Secretaries and Heads of Agencies with major

contributions to disaster response. The new law

transformed the NDCC to the NDRRMC, which

is still headed by the Department of National

Defense (DND) but with four Vice-

Chairpersons, namely: the Secretary of the


for disaster prevention and mitigation; the

Secretary of the Department of the Interior and

Local Government (DILG) for disaster

preparedness; the Secretary of the Department

of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)

for disaster response; and the Director General

of the National Economic and Development

Authority (NEDA) for disaster rehabilitation

and recovery.

Aside from government agencies, the Council’s

membership now includes financial institutions,

local government leagues, the private sector and

civil society organizations (CSOs) which

reflects the “Whole of Society” approach on

disaster risk reduction.

Fig. 1. Expanded Membership of the

NDRRMC under RA 10121

Fig. 2. DRRMC Networks


The NDRRMC is supported by the DRRM Council (DRRMC) Networks (Fig. 2).

The council is replicated in the regional down to the barangay level, thus linking all disaster-

related offices and LGUs which have specific roles to play in disaster management.

The RDRRMC3 is tasked to coordinate, integrate, supervise and evaluate the activities of the

Local DRRM Council (LDRRMC). It is responsible in ensuring disaster-sensitive regional

development plans and, in case of emergencies, shall convene the different regional line agencies

and concerned institutions and authorities.

The LDRRMC is primarily tasked to take the lead in preparing for response and recovery from

any disaster and its effects based on the following criteria:

The Barangay Disaster Council, if a barangay is affected;

The City/Municipal DRRMC, if two or more barangays are affected;

The Provincial DRRMC, if two or more municipalities are affected;

The Regional DRRMC, if two or more provinces are affected;

The NDRRMC, if two or more regions are affected.

The NDRRMC and intermediary LDRRMCs support the LGUs who are in the frontline and have

the primary responsibility of responding to disaster. The NDRRMC and LDRRMCs set the

coordination mechanisms and policies for the private sector and civil society groups.

The present structure under a cluster approach is a National Coordinating Council, headed by the

DND Secretary, where heads of the various DRRM agencies sit as board members. Our recent

experience with typhoon Yolanda led us to take a serious look at the limitations of the ad hoc

NDRRMC, its networks and secretariat, the OCD, in dealing with the vast and critical issues

brought about by disasters.


Basic institutional and

legislative framework in

place, existing policies

support effective disaster

management

Assessment of Existing Governance Framework

The PDRRM Act of 2010 seeks the reduction and better management

of disaster risk. It is shaped by two key assumptions: 1) that disaster

risk is something that is endemic rather than a concern only when a

cyclone, flood, drought, or earthquake occurs; and 2) that it is within

the power of the state to reduce disaster risk even though it is unable

to prevent cyclones, earthquakes or other natural hazards.

Under this Act, the NDRRMC’s functions include the

development of a national disaster risk reduction and

management framework, “which shall provide for a

comprehensive, multi-sectoral, inter-agency and

community-based approach to disaster risk reduction and

management”.4

The National DRRM Framework (NDRRMF)

emphasizes that in time, resources invested in disaster

prevention, mitigation, preparedness and climate change

adaptation will be more effective in attaining the goal of

adaptive, disaster-resilient communities and sustainable

development. The Framework shows that mitigating the

potential impacts of existing disaster and climate risks,

preventing hazards and small emergencies from becoming disasters, and being prepared for

disasters, will substantially reduce loss of life and damage to social, economic and environmental

assets. It also highlights the need for effective and coordinated humanitarian assistance and

disaster response to save lives and protect the more vulnerable groups during and immediately

after a disaster. This Framework serves as the principal guide to DRRM efforts in the country.

4Ibid, sec 6 (a)

A basic institutional and legislative framework is in place and there are existing policies that support an effective disaster risk management. There is a marked improvement in terms of developing a regulatory framework that promotes and supports dialogue, exchange of information and coordination. However, the complexity of large scale disasters usually undermines existing policies and structures. An organizational structure with a multi-sectoral, multi-agency and multi-level approach renders it difficult to come up with an appropriate and immediate response, thus delaying critical disaster response and recovery. RA 10121 and other laws passed by the government have provided solid plans, but there have been significant question marks about its implementation, both in terms of the funding made available to support implementation and the consistency in approach throughout all levels of government.

Fig. 3. NDRRM Framework


The NDRRMF was approved on June 16, 2011 by the executive committee of the National

Council and based on this Framework, the OCD prepared the National DRRM Plan (NDRRMP).

The plan is cognizant of the development context of disasters and seeks to leverage on the

Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011-2016 which is the national development roadmap of

the country. The PDP has identified DRRM and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) as major

crosscutting concerns.

The NDRRMP covers four thematic areas, namely: 1) Disaster

Prevention and Mitigation; 2) Disaster Preparedness; 3)

Disaster Response; and 4) Disaster Rehabilitation and

Recovery. It contains the priority projects of NDRRMP and

sets down the expected outcomes, outputs, key activities,

indicators, lead agencies, implementing partners and timelines

under each of the four areas.

The present setup is a multi-sectoral, multi-agency council

assisted by a secretariat with multi-level approach. While RA

10121 provides for vertical coordination between the regional,

national and local levels, it is difficult to ensure smooth

coordination among these government agencies given the complexity of large scale disasters

when following regular disaster response procedures do not always work. Maintaining effective

interaction with various government officials within and outside of the council (national and

local) and ensuring uniform goals and strategies given an extremely limited communication

system and damaged infrastructures, are indeed huge challenges.

The ability to carry out specific tasks under particular

conditions with desired results is built upon the

appropriate combination of people, skills, processes and

assets. Disasters of wide impact such as typhoon Yolanda

place a wide ranging demand for the government’s

emergency response capabilities. Whenever several

agencies are expected to deliver a desired goal, it is

important that these agencies collaborate, coordinate and

communicate significant information to decision makers,

in order to achieve a common goal.

The degree of collaboration and decision making both

depend on the extent of damage of a disaster. Given the

complexity and magnitude of a large scale disaster, it will

be difficult to achieve the degree of collaboration and level

of decision making needed in a multi-sectoral, multi-

organizational structure.

Fig. 4. The NDRRM Plan

There are mechanisms for

coordination within the existing

disaster governance structure;

however, the complexity of

large-scale disasters usually

undermines these existing

policies and structures.

The multi-sectoral, multi-agency

organizational structure with

multi-level approach renders it

difficult to come up with

appropriate and immediate

response, thus delaying critical

disaster response and recovery.


The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan The NDRRMP for 2011-2028, approved on February 7, 2012, is a roadmap on how DRRM shall

contribute to sustainable development (Fig. 4). It fulfills the requirement of the PDRRM Act of

2010 and provides details on programs and projects to be pursued, timelines to be met, the

responsible lead agencies and groups, as well as the resources needed for implementation.

Likewise, it stipulates the DRRM approaches and

strategies to be applied to manage identified hazards and

risks. It also identifies the roles of agencies, their

responsibilities and lines of authority at all government

levels.

The Plan provides the vertical and horizontal coordination

mechanism in pre-disaster and post-disaster activities.

Significantly, it includes a system for monitoring and

evaluation of programs implementing the plan and tasked

the OCD to do the same but this is hardly done. DRRM

Plans have been formulated and targets have been set but

actual accomplishments have yet to be monitored. Except

for policy development activities, many LGUs have no reports on communities, teams and

managers trained on disaster preparedness and response and no information on the training

institutions that were established for DRRM.

While it is true that RA 10121 requires the preparation of a Disaster Management Plan, many

LGUs have not complied with this simple requirement. On the other hand, the LGUs that prepare

a Disaster Management Plan do so not to give an account on local practices but to simply comply

with government rules because if they fail to submit such plan they will not be able to access their

disaster funds. In the validation made by the audit teams, LGUs in four regions were reported to

have either not been able to prepare their Local DRRM Fund Investment Plan (LDRRMFIP) or

the Plan did not bear proof that it went through the deliberation of the LDRRMC as required

under RA 10121. In one LGU, the LDRRMF was utilized without an approved Fund Investment

Plan.

In terms of strengthening disaster preparedness for effective

response, the collection, compilation and dissemination of

relevant knowledge and information on hazards,

vulnerabilities, actual losses and capacities is a must. This

can hardly be found in the majority of LGUs, especially in the

case of low-income class LGUs, where the human resources

and technical complement of disaster preparedness are still

wanting in terms of a systematic approach.

Even in the case of a national agency such as OCD, not much

The NDRRM Plan outlines the

activities aimed at

strengthening the capacity of

the national government and

the LGUs together with

partner stakeholders, to build

disaster-resilient communities,

institutionalize disaster risk

reduction and enhance disaster

preparedness and response

capabilities at all levels.

“RA 10121 and other laws

passed by the government

have provided solid plans,

but there have been

significant question marks

about its implementation, in

terms of funding and

consistency in approach”.

(Preparedness Issues in Typhoon Haiyan

recovery, Global Disaster Preparedness

Center)


has been accomplished with regard to the projects under Disaster Preparedness of which it is the

lead agency. There were no reported accomplishments in the calendar year (CY) 2012

Performance Review and Assessment of the NDRRMP. This may be attributed to the frequent

disasters (natural and man-made) which took place in previous years which kept the agency and

other members of the National Council preoccupied, attending to these various emergencies.

Financial Resources for DRRM

The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is responsible for the formulation and

implementation of the national budget with the goal of attaining the national socio-economic

plans and objectives. It is likewise responsible for the efficient and sound utilization of

government funds and revenues to effectively achieve our country's development objectives. Its

general function includes the preparation of the national budget, issuance of budget authority and

maintenance of accounting systems, essential to the budgetary process, promotion of greater

economy and efficiency in the management of government operations, assessment of

organizational effectiveness, and review and evaluation of executive proposals having budgetary

and organizational implications.

To bolster the resilience of communities to climate change, the proposed budget in 2013 included

the following projects implemented by various government agencies:

Table 1

Programs/Projects Implementing Agency Amount

(Php)

Output

1 National Greening Program Department of Environment

and Natural Resources

(DENR)

5.9 billion 300,000 hectares planted with forest trees

and fruit trees

2 Forest Protection DENR 1 billion 4.7 million untenured forest protected

3 Geohazard Assessment

and Mapping Program

Mines and Geosciences

Bureau (MGB)

299.7 million Coastal Geohazard and Climate Change

impact (548 municipalities assessed)

4 Unified Mapping National Mapping and

Resource Information

Authority (NAMRIA)

1.5 billion 5.4 hectares covered by aerial

photography and satellite images

5 National Operational

Assessment Hazards

(NOAH)

DOST

500 million

6 Rehabilitation and

Development of Esteros

Pasig River Rehabilitation

Commission (PRRC)

360 million 3 esteros rehabilitated and developed

7 Flood Control Systems Metropolitan Manila

Development Authority

(MMDA)

554 million 1 pumping station constructed

8 Market Transformation

through the Introduction of

Energy Efficient E-Trike

Department of Energy (DOE)

3.1 billion

20,000 e-trikes


Calamity Fund

The national government’s approved budget for fiscal year (FY) 2013 included a Calamity Fund

(CF), a special purpose fund intended for aid relief and rehabilitation services to

communities/areas affected by man-made and natural calamities, and repair and reconstruction of

permanent structures, including capital expenditures for disaster operation, and rehabilitation

activities. For CY 2013, the appropriated amount for the Calamity Fund was P7.5 billion, broken

down as follows:

Table 2

Purpose Personal

Services

Maintenance and

Other Operating

Expenses

(MOOE)

Capital Outlay TOTAL

1. Aid relief and Rehabilitation Services

to Communities/Areas Affected by

Calamities, including Training of

Personnel, and other Pre-disaster

Activities

0.00 P2,650,000,000 0.00 P2,650,000,000

2. Repair and reconstruction of

permanent structures including,

expenditures for pre-disaster

operations, rehabilitation and other

related activities

0.00 P800,000,000 4,050,000,000 P4,850,000,000

TOTAL 0.00 P3,450,000,000 P4,050,000,000 P7,500,000,000

The Special Provisions of the 2013 General Appropriations Act (GAA) provide the following

guide in the release of the Calamity Fund:

1. Use and Release of Fund. The amounts appropriated herein may be made available for

the relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and other works or services, including pre-

disaster activities in connection with natural calamities, epidemics as declared by the

Department of Health (DOH), crises resulting from conflicts, insurgency, terrorism, and

other catastrophes, which may occur during the budget year or those that occurred in the

immediately preceding year: PROVIDED, That the beneficiaries of relief, rehabilitation,

reconstruction and other works or services in connection with the occurrence of

calamities, epidemics, crises, and catastrophes already covered by donations or grants

received by all agencies of the government shall not be entitled to support or assistance

from this Fund until the donation or grant has been fully expended or used. The

NDRRMC shall be responsible for consolidating the donations and grants given to

agencies of the government in support of calamities.

2. Releases from this Fund shall be made by the DBM directly to the implementing agencies

in accordance with the approval of the President of the Philippines, which shall consider

the recommendation of the NDRRMC for local disasters or the appropriate agency for


international crises: PROVIDED, That the NDRRMC shall take note of the donations or

grants received by agencies of the government in support of calamities in making the

foregoing recommendation to the President of the Philippines.

3. The NDRRMC shall submit, either in printed form or by way of electronic document, to

the DBM, the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance

a consolidated quarterly accountability report on the utilization of the donations or grants

given to government agencies. The Chairperson of the NDRRMC and the Council's web

administrator or his/her equivalent shall be responsible for ensuring that said reports are

posted on the official website of NDRRMC.

The detailed processes and the requirements in the release of Calamity Fund are as follows:

1. National government agencies/

government-owned or -controlled

corporations (GOCCs) submit their

request to NDRRMC through the OCD.

The required documents are as follows:

1.1 Complete description/justification of

the project

1.2 Work and Financial Plan/Plan of the

Agency

1.3 Endorsement of the head of the

agency requesting for assistance

1.4 Pertinent documents may be

required on a case to case basis

2. OCD evaluates and makes

recommendation to NDRRMC

3. The Chairman of the NDRRMC

recommends to the President

4. The Office of the President advises the

DBM to release Funds

Note that the request has to pass through the NDRRMC and OCD before it is submitted to DBM

where another series of steps still has to take place.

Data gathered from the DBM show the comparative amounts appropriated for Calamity Fund

from year 2009 to 2013 as follows:

Fig. 5. Calamity Fund Process Flow


Table 3. Calamity and Quick Response Funds (in pesos)

FUND FY 2013 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2009

Calamity Fund 7,500,000,000 7,500,000,0000 6,000,000,000 3,750,000,000 4,303,516,293

Original Appropriation 7,500,000,000 7,500,000,000 5,000,000,000 2,000,000,000 2,000,000,000

Augmentation - - 1,000,000,000 1,750,000,000 2,303,516,293

Less: Releases 7,450,424,702 6,538,450,000 5,920,906,910 2,989,709,460 4,303,516,293

Less: Earmarked Amount 49,575,298

Less: Amount with release

document under preparation

Fund Balance - 961,550,000 79,093,090 760,290,540 -

Quick Response Fund

Release

2,645,000,000 1,787,986,466 645,000,000 597,500,000

An analysis of the data shows that in the past five years, from 2009 to 2013, the original

appropriations for the Calamity Fund have increased by 275% or P5.5 billion. The increasing trend

proves that the government has shifted its fiscal priority in response to the immediate need brought

about by man-made and natural calamities that hit the country.

Fig. 6 shows a decline in the amount appropriated for the

year 2010 as compared to year 2009. However, Table 4

shows that a total of P2 billion was originally appropriated

for each year. The difference is due to a larger calamity fund

augmentation given for year 2009 to provide assistance and

defray the costs incurred when typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng

struck the country.

DRRM budget allocation expanded by 37.5% percent in 2011

as compared to the preceding year, showing a tremendous

increase in both allocation and releases.

Fig. 6. Historical Trend:

Calamity Fund (2009-2013)


Table 4. Calamity Fund Releases Distribution for 2009 to 2013

YEAR

AGENCIES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

DND 285,970,000.00 557,900,000.00 825,486,466.00 - 8,000,000.00

% share of CF 6.65% 18.66% 13.94% 0.00% 0.11%

DOTC 2,171,003.00 - - - -

% share of CF 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

DSWD 387,500,000.00 1,247,500,000.00 1,611,800,000.00 876,971,739.00 3,466,166169.00

% share of CF 9.00% 41.73% 27.22% 13.41% 46.52%

DOH 243,500,000.00 - - - 500,000,000.00

% share of CF 5.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.71%

DA 8,000,000.00 - 1,610,911,000.00 - -

% share of CF 0.19% 0.00% 27.21% 0.00% 0.00%

DPWH 1,004,300,000.00 716,060,990.00 1,361,357,139.00 4,715,500,651.00 2,976,576,027.00

% share of CF 23.34% 23.95% 22.99% 72.12% 39.95%

DILG 1,706,793,900.00 - - - 467,732,486.00

% share of CF 39.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.28%

SUCs 20,800,000.00 - - - -

% share of CF 0.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

LGU 644,481,390.00 272,408,470.00 144,352,305.00 649,826,990.00 31,950,000.00

% share of CF 14.98% 9.11% 2.44% 9.94% 0.43%

GOCC - 195,840,000.00 - - -

% share of CF 0.00% 6.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

DepEd - - 217,000,000.00 296,150,620.00 -

% share of CF 0.00% 0.00% 3.66% 4.53% 0.00%

DOST - - 150,000,000.00 - -

% share of CF 0.00% 0.00% 2.53% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL 4,303,516,293.21 2,989,709,460.00 5,920,906,910.00 6,538,450,000.00

7,450,424,702.00

% increase/

decrease from 2009

Source: www.dbm.gov.ph

-30.53%

37.58%

51.93%

73.12%

The figures above show noticeable increases and decreases in Calamity Fund releases from year

2009 onwards.

In 2009, the DILG received 39.66%, the largest share of the total Calamity Fund released. The

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) received the next biggest share at 23.34%.

DILG and DPWH are lead agencies for disaster preparedness and disaster recovery and

rehabilitation, respectively. It should also be noted that in 2009, two of the most destructive

typhoons, Ondoy and Pepeng, struck the country.

Using the year 2009 as the baseline, it can be observed that there has been a 30.53% decrease in

Calamity Fund releases for the following year, from P4,303,516,293 in 2009 to only

P2,989,709,460 in 2010. In that year, there was a change in the distribution of released CF, with

the DSWD getting the largest share of 41.73%, followed by DPWH with 23.95%. DSWD and


DPWH are lead agencies for disaster response and disaster recovery and rehabilitation,

respectively. It can be noted that one destructive typhoon (Juan) had hit the country in 2010, thus

the flow of Calamity Funds toward response and rehabilitation.

In 2011, a 37.58% increase in the total Calamity Fund releases was seen. Again, DSWD got the

largest share with 27.22%, followed by the DPWH with 27.21%. The 2011 budget basically

addressed the requirements for response and rehabilitation/reconstruction as a result of the major

typhoons that hit the country, two in 2010 and typhoon Pedring in 2011.

In 2012, there had been a significant 51.93% increase, amounting to P6,538,450,000, in the

annual total CF releases. In that year, the DPWH got the bulk of CF releases with 72.12%,

followed by DSWD with only a 13.41% share. The strong and destructive typhoon Pablo also hit

the country in 2012.

An even more significant increase of 73.12% in CF releases was observed in 2013. The DSWD

received a significant share (46.52%) of the released funds, followed by DPWH with 39.95%. It

was in 2013 when typhoon Yolanda, one of the most destructive typhoons in recorded history not

only in the Philippines but in the world, struck the country.

It should be noted that for the succeeding years after 2009, there has been no Calamity Fund

released to DILG, a department responsible for disaster preparedness, and the government has

shifted its priority in its distribution by giving the largest share to DSWD, an agency responsible

for disaster response.

In the distribution of the Calamity Fund, it is indispensable to consider the role of DILG because

of its close coordination with LGUs for disaster preparedness. While the government has been

giving too much priority to disaster response, recovery and rehabilitation, it would even be more

effective to distribute a bulk of the funds for disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness.

Quick Response Fund

Aside from the Calamity Fund, the national budget also includes a Quick Response Fund (QRF)

which is defined in Section 21, paragraph 2 of RA 10121:

Of the amount appropriated for LDRRMF, thirty percent (30%) shall be allocated as

Quick Response Fund (QRF) or stand-by fund for relief and recovery programs in

order that situation and living conditions of people in communities or areas stricken

by disasters, calamities, epidemics, or complex emergencies, may be normalized as

quickly as possible.


The QRF allocation is lodged under the budgets of the agencies enumerated below:

Table 5

Agency Amount

1. DSWD-Office of the Secretary (OSEC) P 662,500,000.00

2 DND - OCD 530,000,000.00

3 DND - OSEC 352,500,000.00

4. DPWH - OSEC 600,000,000.00

5. Department of Education (DepEd) - OSEC 550,000,000.00

6. Department of Agriculture (DA)- OSEC 500,000,000.00

7. DA - National Irrigation Administration (NIA) 500,000,000.00

TOTAL P3,695,000,000.00

It was observed, however, that the QRF provision in RA 10121 has not been consistently

followed as shown in the following tables:

Table 6

Table 7

The tables above show that for the years 2009-2011, there were deviations in the allocation of the

QRF, resulting to an under allocation of P693,554,887.90, P480,000,000 and P12,013,534,

respectively.

We also noted that while the purpose of the QRF is to normalize the living conditions of the

affected communities as quickly as possible, the process involved in its release is also marked by

delays. In fact, during the early days after Yolanda, DSWD, the agency in charge of disaster

FY 2013 FY 2012 FY 2011

Calamity Fund

(CF)

P7,500,000,000.00 P7,500,000,000.00 P6,000,000,000.00

QRF releases P3,695,000,000.00 P2,645,000,000.00 P1,787,986,466.00

30% of CF P2,250,000,000.00 P2,250,000,000.00 P1,800,000,000.00

Difference P1,445,000,000.00 P395,000,000.00 P(12,013,534.00)

FY 2010 FY 2009

Calamity Fund (CF) P3,750,000,000.00 P4,303,516,293.00

QRF releases P645,000,000.00 P597,500,000.00

30% of CF P1,125,000,000.00 P1,291,054,887.90

Difference P(480,000,000.00) P(693,554,887.90)


response, had to tap its unutilized disaster funds intended for the victims of typhoon Pablo instead

of waiting for the QRF’s release.

Although it can be noted that QRF allocations increased in

the past five years (see Fig. 7), by 518% or P3,097,000,000

(2009 as the baseline), the requirement of the law was not

followed for the years 2009-2011. It was only starting in

2012 when the government had started releasing more than

30%, realizing the need for a standby emergency fund,

given the frequency of typhoons that struck the country in

the last few years.

An analysis of the QRF distribution for the same years

would show that the biggest share of QRF went consistently

to DSWD and DND, the lead agency for disaster response and the head of DRRMC, respectively.

DPWH, the lead agency for rehabilitation, got a small percentage of 20.79% in 2012 or P550

million, the highest in five years. (DPWH did not receive QRF for two years within that five-year

period.) The share of DPWH was even reduced to 16.24% in 2013 although it amounted to P600

million.

Table 8 shows the QRF releases for the years 2009 to 2013 and how it was distributed to their

respective implementing agencies.

Table 8. Quick Response Fund Distribution for 2009 To 2013

YEAR

AGENCIES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

DPWH 80,000,000.00 - - 550,000,000.00 600,000,000.00

% share of QRF 13.39% 0.00% 0.00% 20.79% 16.24%

DSWD 287,500,000.00 287,500,000.00 962,500,000.00 662,500,000.00 662,500,000.00

% share of QRF 48.12% 44.57% 53.83% 25.05% 17.93%

DND 230,000,000.00 357,500,000.00 825,486,466.00 882,500,000.00 882,500,000.00

% share of QRF 38.49% 55.43% 46.17% 33.36% 23.88%

DepEd - - - 550,000,000.00 550,000,000.00

% share of QRF 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.79% 14.88%

DA - - - - 1,000,000,000.00

% share of QRF 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 27.06%

TOTAL 597,500,000.00 645,000,000.00 1,787,986,466.00 2,645,000,000.00 3,695,000,000.00

% Increase/

Decrease from

2009

7.95%

199.24%

342.68%

518.41%

Source:

www.dbm.gov.ph

Fig. 7


DND has a total QRF appropriation of P352.5 million for CY 2013. However, only 1.89% or

P6,650,000 were actually utilized out of this fund for the relief goods that were distributed to the

Yolanda calamity victims. DND has transferred a total of P294,212,571.82 or 83.46% of the fund

to its major services and bureaus for the following projects:

The QRF was also used in the installation, testing and commissioning of Internet Protocol (IP)

radios, switch and transceivers for Defense Situation Monitoring Center (DSMC) in the amount of

P600,257.23 which do not directly benefit the community/victims of calamities as provided for in

the GAA while the repairs and improvement done on the facilities of the Philippine Army totaling

P63,604,139.50 is not a disaster-related project and should not have been charged against this

fund. Although a huge portion of the QRF was also spent for disaster-related projects, these were

not completed within the year and thus have not been used for the benefit of calamity victims.

In the case of OCD, only 17% or ₱121,182,550.00 of its total available QRF of ₱692,766,612.00

for CY 2013 went to typhoon Yolanda victims. Prior to Yolanda, the OCD’s QRF had an

available balance of ₱538,559,913.27, the utilization of which is shown in the following table:

Table 10

CA for operational requirements of NDRRM Operation

Center

P1,600,000.00

CA for Operational Req. of Reg. VIII Operation Center P200,000.00

Office Supplies P56,445.00

FT to AFP for POL reserve for disaster operations P118,645,912.00

Various groceries/medicines for daily subsistence of duty

personnel at Command Center and Regional Operation

Center, Reg. VIII

P680,193.00

Total P121,182,550.00

It can be observed from Table 8, that the DA only received its QRF share in 2013 while DepEd

started receiving its share only in 2012. Given the extent of damages that both the education and

agricultural sectors suffer after every calamity, both should receive a significant portion of the

QRF. Our audit, however, showed that out of the P41,268,120 QRF received by the DA Regional

Field Office in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) for assistance to typhoon, flood or

drought victims in the CAR, P9 million or 21.80% was not used immediately, hence, withdrawn

by DBM.

Table 9

Purpose of Transfers Transferee Amount

Acquisition of Equipment Philippine Air Force (PAF), Philippine

Army (PA), Philippine Navy (PN)

P153,768,193.00

Petroleum, oil and lubricant (POL) AFP-Finance Center 17,258,805.25

Training PAF, PA, PN 16,167,160.00

Construction/Repairs, Improvement PA, AFP-Finance Center, OCD 107,018,413.57

Total

P294,212,571.82


Tracking of public expenditures on DRRM will influence better understanding and behavior

toward a more comprehensive strategy to address the impacts of disasters. The following

discussion is an initial attempt towards this objective.

Overall Assessment of Budget Allocation/Utilization

The Phillipine public spending on disaster management is characterized as largely reactive as

shown by the huge balances of calamity funds before the occurence of a disaster and the

corresponding increase in expenditures during disaster response. Below is an indicative

distribution of calamity fund resources over the different phases of disaster management using

data on fund utilization and obligations for 2013.

*National Greening Mapping Program,National Geohazards Assessment and Mapping Program,Unified Mapping Program,Phil.

Climate Change Adaptation Project,Rehabilitation of Esteros and Waterways

**P4,996,422,299.24 of which was obligated for typhoon Yolanda relief operations

Table 11. DRRM Fund Utilization, 2013

Agency Preparedness Mitigation Recovery and

Rehabilitation

Response

DSWD - - - 10,081,684,000**

MMDA - - 5,283,393.01 -

DOST 14,565,356.00 1,967,416,447.97 - 13,231,757.00

DND/OCD 294,212,571.82 - 127,832,550

DILG 33,071,955.88 - - -

BFAR - - 475,867,280.00 -

DENR 6,827,992,470.34*

- - -

OPARR - - 1,953,000.00 -

DOH - - - 232,591,416.39

TOTAL 7,169,842,354.04 1,967,416,447.97 483,103,673.01 10,455,339,723.39

An analysis of the 2013 Budget shows that 54% or more than half of the utilized fund for disaster risk

management went to response and rehabilitation, a post-event, while 46% of the fund utilized were

allocated for mitigation and preparedness, a pre-event.

Although there are significant achievements in DRRM, a complete paradigm shift from disaster as an

immediate product of hazards to disaster as a function of people’s vulnerability has not fully happened

yet as spending is still largely in the area of response. The reactive type of disaster spending leaves the

country more vulnerable and less prepared to handle disasters.


As disasters occur more frequently, the cost of disaster

response and mitigation also increases. We must start

keeping a precise tally of disaster spending, track the

sources and monitor utilization of DRRM funds as well as

analyze public spending or else, we may be treading a

future with more costly disaster-relief and recovery

spending.

Review of DRRM Agencies’ Allocation and Spending for 2013

Department of National Defense(DND) and Office of Civil Defense (OCD)

The DND is mandated to maximize its effectiveness in guarding

against external and internal threats to national peace and security,

promote the welfare of soldiers and veterans, and provide support for

social and economic development.

For its part, the OCD, as the implementing arm of the NDRRMC,

has the primary mission of administering a comprehensive national

civil defense and DRRM program by providing leadership in the

continuous development of strategic and systematic approaches as

well as measures to reduce the vulnerabilities and risks to hazards

and manage the consequences of disasters.

In addition to the functions enumerated above, OCD’s main responsibility is ensuring the implementation

and monitoring of the NDRRMP. One of the common audit observations among DRRM agencies is the

inadequate monitoring of the implementation of DRRM activities that would have allowed timely

adjustments as necessary, replication of good DRRM practices or fast-tracking of project implementation

in areas where they are most needed. We noted a decline in OCD budget for 2013 from 1 billion to 650

million due to the deletion of the usual yearly allocation for DRRM operations. Although the QRF was

retained, it must be noted that relief and rehabilitation activities where QRF are supposedly spent, are not

included among the functions of OCD.

Fig. 8

Fig. 9


Fig. 10

Based on our limited assessment, OCD does not have an

approved staffing pattern and could barely monitor the

implementation of the NDRRMP.

The DND and OCD have a combined total of P1,045,266,612

QRF appropriations for 2013. Of this amount only 12.23% or

P127,832,550 have been disbursed. In addition,

P294,212,571.82 from the DND’s general fund has been

utilized for a total of P422,045,121.82 disbursement as shown

below:

APPROPRIATIONS/

(A)

DISBURSEMENT

(B)

BALANCE

(A-B)

1,045,266,612 127,832,550* 917,434,062

*In addition,P294, 212,571.82 were utilized by DND coming from the general fund of the department.

Of the total disbursement, 30.29% or P127,832,550.00 came from the QRF of both agencies. This amount

was fully utilized for disaster response, while the DND utilized 69.71% or P294,212,571.82 of the total

disbursement for disaster preparedness. The said amount came from the DND’s general fund.

Department of Social Welfare and

Development(DSWD)

The DSWD is mandated to provide a comprehensive program of

social welfare services designed to ameliorate the living conditions

of distressed Filipinos, particularly those who are handicapped by

reason of poverty, youth, physical and mental disability, illness and

old age, or who are victims of natural calamities including

assistance to members of the cultural minorities.

The DSWD’s total allotment for DRRM fund for CY 2013 is

P13,747,671,000. Of this amount, P5,404,510,106.25 were allotted

for Yolanda relief operations, P10,081,684,000 were obligated and

P4,996,422,299.24 of the total obligations was for Yolanda relief operations.

Table 13

APPROPRIATIONS

(A)

OBLIGATED (B) UNUTILIZED BALANCE

(A-B)

13,747,671,000 10,081,684,000 3,665,987,000.00

Table 12

Fig. 11


As a department mandated to improve the living conditions of

victims of natural calamities, it allocated 100% of the total

obligations for disaster response as graphically illustrated at the

left. Our assessment, however, has shown that due to the

urgency of need, the DSWD resorted to the utilization of other

available funds amounting to P116,352,088.04 and

P373,187,252.42 to purchase supplies for the Yolanda relief

operations in the National Capital Region and Region VI,

respectively.

The Department has experienced long delays in the actual

releases of Calamity Funds or QRFs from past disasters even if

it made an immediate request for budget releases. Thus, it had to

source from available allotments (budget) to enable it to respond and carry out its mandated tasks with

dispatch. The amounts utilized were replaced upon receipt of the Special Allotment Release Order

(SARO) for typhoon Yolanda.

Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)

The DILG, in coordination with the OCD and other DRRM agencies, is tasked to do the following:

Develop information, education and communication

(IEC) materials, conduct campaigns and develop

awareness of target population

Train communities, teams, DRRM managers and key

decision makers on disaster preparedness and

response

Establish training institutions at various levels

Develop DRRM and CCA materials for formal

education and training programs

Ensure operational and self-reliant local DRRM

councils and fully functioning local DRRM offices

Develop and implement comprehensive national and

local preparedness and response policies, plans and systems

Strengthen partnership and coordination among all key players and stakeholders.

The Department has a total fund allocation for DRRM activities amounting to P76 million. Of this

Fig. 12

Fig. 13


amount, only P37,590,130.30 were released to different Regional Offices as training expenses for

disaster preparedness. Of the released funds, P33,071,955.88 were utilized, thereby affecting the

implementation of the project on “Building capacities of the local government units in addressing the

impacts of disasters using tools in multi-hazard and vulnerability”.

Table 14

APPROPRIATIONS

(A)

OBLIGATIONS

(B)

BALANCE

(A-B)

76,000,000.00 33,071,955.88 42,928,044.12

In addition to the P76 million, a SARO dated December 10, 2013 in

the amount of P51 million was released to the DILG for clearing

typhoon debris in Region XI.

The Department has been mandated to develop and implement a

comprehensive national and local preparedness and response

policies, plans and systems. As illustrated above, it has allocated

100% of the total disbursement for preparedness. However, it

should also consider allocating part of the unutilized portion of the

appropriations to other phases of disaster risk management.

The span and nature of coordination, complementation and interoperability of work in DRRM operations

is that complex that resource allocation cannot be confined to a single phase of disaster management

system.

Department of Education (DepEd)

RA 10121 mandates all national government agencies to

institutionalize policies, structures, coordination mechanisms and

programs with continuing budget appropriation on DRRM from

national to local levels. In line with this Act, the DepEd

constituted the DepEd DRRM Core Group to provide a venue to

discuss issues on DRRM and Education in Emergencies (EiE), to

recommend policy actions, and propose programs/projects which

will mitigate and reduce the impact of disasters to DepEd

teaching/non-teaching personnel/staff, learners and properties.

The DepEd created the DRRM Office (DRRMO) to institutionalize the culture of safety at all levels, to

systematize the protection of education investments and to ensure continued delivery of quality education

services. It shall serve as the focal and coordinative unit for DRRM-related activities. The DRRMO shall

Fig. 14

Fig. 15


perform the following specific functions:

1. Act as the focal point for DepEd in planning, implementing, coordinating and monitoring of

activities related to DRRM, EiE and CCA.

2. Develop and recommend policy standards and actions to DepEd management on

DRRM/EiE/CCA matters.

3. Initiate and coordinate cooperation and collaborative activities with the national government

agencies, NGO and CSO.

During the year, the department’s total QRF allotment, including the release for SPF-CF of DepEd-

OSEC, amounted to P2,123,704,288.92. This includes balance forwarded of continuing allotment from

prior year in the amount of P303,477,668.92. Out of the total allotment, P1,141,116,913.27 were sub-

allotted to different division offices purposely to be used for the repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction

and/or replacement of school building and facilities which were affected by calamities.

Table 15

SUB-ALLOTMENT TO REGIONAL OFFICES

PREPAREDNESS

MITIGATION RECOVERY AND

REHABILITATION

RESPONSE

- 1,141,116,913.27

As observed, the department has allocated 100% of the sub-allotment to regional offices for rehabilitation

and recovery. DepEd should take into consideration that it has been mandated to recommend policy

actions, and propose programs/projects, which will mitigate and reduce the impact of disasters to DepEd

teaching/non/teaching personnel/staff, learners and properties.

Department of Health( DOH)

The DOH, as the principal health agency in the Philippines

responsible for ensuring access to basic public health services for

all Filipinos through the provision of quality health care and

regulation of providers of health goods and services, was directed

to temporarily assume direct supervision and control over health

and sanitation operations of LGUs affected by typhoon Yolanda

(Memorandum Order No. 61 dated November 18, 2013).

Some 55% or P232,591,416.39 of the total appropriations were

disbursed resulting in only 45% or P193,049,033.89 of the total

appropriations unutilized.

Fig. 16


Table 16

APPROPRIATIONS

(A)(A)

DISBURSEMENT

(B)

BALANCE (A-B)

425,640,450.28 232,591,416.39 193,049,033.89

Of the total disbursement of P232,591,416.39, 100% were utilized for

disaster response. Since the DOH has been mandated both for disaster

response and disaster recovery and rehabilitation, the agency should

also take into consideration allocating part of the unutilized

appropriations to other phases to effectively distribute its disaster

fund.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

The DENR is the primary government agency responsible for the

conservation, management, development, and proper use of the

country’s environment and natural resources, specifically forest

and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in

reservations and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain.

As the lead agency under Outcome II in implementing NDRRMP,

the DENR is also tasked to ensure DRRM and CCA-sensitive and

environmental management by formulating and implementing

policies and plans, including for land use and natural resource

management.

A total of P7,929,995,683.48 were appropriated for the agency. Of

this amount 86% or P6,827,992,470.34 were utilized and 14% or

P1,102,003,213.14 were unutilized. The total amount utilized was

used entirely for preparedness such as National Greening Program,

National Geohazard Assessment and Mapping Program, Unified

Mapping Program, Philippine Climate Change Adaptation Project

and Rehabilitation of Esteros and Waterways.

Table 17

APPROPRIATIONS

(A)

UTILIZATION

(B)

BALANCE

(A-B)

7,929,995,683.48 6,827,992,470.34 1,102,003,213.14

Fig. 17

Fig. 18

Fig. 19


Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery

(OPARR)

The OPARR acts as the overall manager and coordinator of the rehabilitation, recovery and

reconstruction efforts of government departments, agencies and instrumentalities in the affected

areas, to the extent allowed by law.

This Office did not receive an appropriation for CY 2013 as it was only created in December

2013. Since it had no appropriation yet for 2013, the Office of the President shouldered its initial

operating expenses in the amount of P249,000. For CY 2014, the Office has not yet received

appropriations from the GAA. The total agency budget was provided by the Office of the

President in the amount of P40.286 million. The latest fund utilization for CY 2014 amounted to

P1.704 million, as shown in Fig. 22.

The OPARR has indeed allocated 100% of its disbursement for recovery and rehabilitation.

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)

BFAR is an agency under the DA, responsible for the development,

improvement, management and conservations of the country’s

aquatic resource

The bureau, in fulfilling its mandate of management, conservation

and development of country’s aquatic resources, has allocated 100%

of the total amount disbursed for recovery and rehabilitation.

A total of P1,705,720,000 was appropriated for the rehabilitation plan

for typhoon Yolanda affected fisherfolks. Of this amount, a total of

P475,867,280 or 28% of the total appropriations was disbursed as of

April 4, 2014, resulting in a total of P1,229,852,720 or 72% of the total

appropriations unutilized.

Table 18

APPROPRIATIONS

(A)

DISBURSEMENT

(B)

UNUTILIZED BALANCE

(A-B)

1,705,720,000.00 475,867,280.00 1,229,852,720.00

Fig. 20

Fig. 21


Both the PIA and the Climate Change Commission (CCC)

are under the umbrella of the Office of the President. They

are mandated to assist the NDRRMC in providing accurate

and timely advice to national or local emergency response

organizations and to the general public through diverse mass

media, including digital and analog broadcast, cable,

satellite television and radio, wireless communications and

landline communications. They also assist the NDRRMC in

developing assessment tools on the existing and potential

hazards and risks brought about by climate change to

vulnerable areas and ecosystems and in formulating and

implementing a framework for CCA and DRRM from

which all policies, programs and projects shall be based. However, they have not quantified the

amount of appropriations made for typhoon Yolanda. Appropriations were part of the regular

agency budget but there was no specific budget for the subject activity.

Table 19

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)

The scope of services of the authority of MMDA covers those

which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political

boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be

viable for said services to be provided by the individual LGUs

comprising Metropolitan Manila.

The MMDA, as mandated by its charter, acts as the

government’s arm in coordinating disaster management

activities in Metro Manila. It is the lead agency of the

Metropolitan Manila Disaster Coordinating Council (MMDCC)

as embodied in PD 1566 which was promulgated on June 11,

1978. The MMDCC, which is composed of representatives from various national government

agencies and some of the private organizations operating in the NCR, serves as the conduit

between the NDCC and Metro Manila LGUs insofar as management is concerned. This is in line

with the principles of: 1) self-reliance, 2) mutual assistance, 3) resource complementation, and 4)

multi-disciplinary approach.

APPROPRIATIONS

(A)

DISBURSEMENT

(B)

BALANCE

(A-B)

P40,286,000.00

P1,953,000.00

P38,333,000.00

Fig. 22

Fig. 23


Fig. 24

The disaster management thrusts of MMDA and MMDCC are:

1. Emergency Preparedness and Response Capacity -

Building,

2. Safety Advocacy and Accident Prevention,

3. Disaster Consciousness and Education, and

4. Disaster Mitigation

For 2013, MMDA did not receive appropriations to address its

Disaster Risk Reduction Capacity Building Program. However, an

aggregate amount of P6 million was received for the search and

rescue operations for the victims of typhoon Yolanda. Of this P6-

million fund, P5.5 million came from MMDA’s P8.5 million Calamity Fund as allocated under

MMDA Resolution No. 13-05 series of 2013 and P500,000 came from the Metro Manila Film

Festival in December 2013. Of the aggregate funds, 88% or P5,283,393.01 were disbursed

leaving a balance of 12% or P716,606.99 of the total funds unutilized.

Although part of its mandate is to formulate and implement programs, policies, and procedures to

achieve public safety especially preparedness for preventive or rescue operations during times of

calamities and disasters, it fully utilized its resources for recovery and rehabilitation as shown in

Fig. 23. But as mandated, it should have allocated part of its funds for mitigation and

preparedness to lessen the impact of disaster and risk of casualties.

Table 20


By virtue of EO 128, the DOST is mandated to “provide central direction, leadership and

coordination of scientific and technological efforts and ensure that the results therefrom are

geared and utilized in areas of maximum economic and social benefits for the people”.

As the overall responsible agency in implementing the Prevention and Mitigation aspects of

NDRRMP, DOST’s objectives are to reduce vulnerability and exposure of communities of all

hazards and enhance capacities of communities to reduce their own risks and cope with the

impacts of all hazards.

Through Project NOAH, DOST’s Flagship DRRM Program, the Department has created a

technological approach to disaster prevention, mitigation and resilience.

APPROPRIATIONS/

(A)

DISBURSEMENT

(B)

UNUTILIZED BALANCE

(A-B)

P6,000,000.00 P5,283,393.01 P716,606.99


A total of P1,995,213,560.97 was appropriated for

the Department in 2013 and this amount was fully

disbursed.

Fig. 26 illustrates the distribution of the

Department’s disbursement. The bulk of 98.61% or

P1,967,416,447.97 went to mitigation, while 0.73%

or P14,565,356.00 was spent for preparedness,

0.66% or P13,231,757.00 was spent for response

and none was spent for recovery and rehabilitation.

As observed, the Department has fully utilized its resources to fulfill its Flagship DRRM

Program through Project NOAH.

Table 21

Based on the trends on the occurrences of disasters, it is evident that Calamity Funds and QRF

were not sufficient, thus it is necessary that these resources be applied where they can create the

biggest impact. Because in the final analysis, it is the quality of public spending and the

timeliness by which interventions are carried out that matter.

Financial Constraints and Other Operational Limitations

As disasters strike more frequently, the cost of disaster response and mitigation also increases.

But the national budget continues to lag behind, still unable to meet the country’s many

competing needs. The composition of government expenditures, particularly the share of non-

mandatory expenses, leaves little room for flexibility to allow a bigger impact on disaster

spending. In the case of LGUs, they have varying disaster-related expenditure demands and

revenue-raising capacities which are both affected by the incidence and severity of calamities that

strike them. However, these differences are not taken into account in the allocation of resources

for disaster management, thus creating an imbalance between available resources and risk

exposure.

Under nominal circumstances, total disbursements must not exceed actual total collection plus

50% of the uncollected estimated revenue for that year. However, disbursements can only be

made for purposes and amounts included in the approved annual budget (disaster plan), implying

little flexibility in the reallocation of resources to reflect changes in expenditure priorities brought

about by the disaster. Furthermore, any overdraft outstanding at the end of a fiscal year must be

met from the first collections of the following year's revenues, which are expected to fall due to

APPROPRIATIONS

(A)

DISBURSEMENT

(B)

UNUTILIZED BALANCE

(A-B)

P1,995,213,560.97 P1,995,213,560.97 -

Fig. 25


loss and damage to properties and

livelihood as a consequence of a disaster.

This clearly creates a situation where the

impact of disaster drastically reduces

revenues but at the same time expands

expenditure due to response and recovery

efforts.

To a certain extent, an effective response

and recovery is dependent on the

availability of financial reserves and

contingency mechanisms, which are hardly

available to majority of LGUs.

Section 21 of RA 10121 states that not less

than 5% of the estimated revenue from

regular sources shall be set aside as the

LDRRM Fund to support disaster risk

management activities such as, but not

limited to, pre-disaster preparedness

programs including training, purchasing

life-saving rescue equipment, supplies and

medicines, for post-disaster activities, and

for the payment of premiums on calamity

insurance.

However, what is actually happening in the

field is starkly different from this

provision. Some LGUs, specially the low-

income class municipalities, can hardly

realize the estimated revenues as their

actual collection is always lower than the

estimated revenue. Therefore, even if

LGUs comply with the mandatory

provision for Calamity Funds, they do not

usually back it up with actual cash.

All local governments are not equally prone to disasters. Some local governments are in areas

highly prone to disasters, which have a serious impact on their finances. However, the national

policy for devolution of finances does not recognize these differential vulnerabilities.

It is true that LGUs can access DRRM funds but the delays involved in accessing the funds must

be resolved. According to a recent study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies

(PIDS), “the usual programming practice for regular accounts is not appropriate for QRF where

Fig. 26


the timing and magnitude of disaster/emergency occurrence cannot be ascertained.”5 Thus, the

study is proposing a simpler process flow for QRF availment and a two-year window for the use

of QRF and other DRRM funds so that government agencies and local governments will have

“enough room for resource maneuvering and fiscal adjustments to better address requirements in

the field before, during, and after times of disaster.”6

Inadequate but Underutilized Calamity Funds of LGUs

A 2004 World Bank-NDCC study reports that an estimated 50% of the Local Calamity Fund go

unused each year. This is even confirmed by our collection of reports on the utilization of

DRRM funds at the local government level as shown below:

Fig. 27

Fig. 28

It is interesting to note that despite the inadequate resources of some LGUs due to their small

budget, LDRRMFs are usually unutilized or underutilized. This affirmed our earlier observation

5 Quick Response Funds and DRRM Resources in the Department of National Defense OSEC and OCD) and Various

Departments (DSWD, DPWH, DA and DepEd) (Philippine Institute for Development Studies, 2013) 6 Ibid


regarding reactive type of disaster spending. We also noted that some LGUs cut back on

spending the LDRRMF for they are too afraid that such expense may not be allowed by DBM or

disallowed by COA. This makes it imperative to revisit the existing laws, rules and regulations on

fund utilization to better adapt to the LGUs’ needs given their different experiences in disaster

response and mitigation. Thus the challenge to find ways to increase investment in disaster

preparedness and risk mitigation remains.

Assessment of Preparedness

In times of disaster, impacts and losses can be substantially reduced if authorities, individuals and

communities in hazard-prone areas are well prepared, ready to act and equipped with the

knowledge and capacities for effective disaster management.

Disaster preparedness is described as the knowledge and capacities developed by governments,

professional response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively

anticipate, respond to, and recover from the impacts of likely, imminent or current hazard events

or conditions.

The overall vision is “safer, adaptive, and disaster resilient Filipino communities toward

sustainable development.” It conveys a paradigm shift from reactive to proactive DRRM wherein

men and women have increased their awareness and understanding on DRRM with the intention

to increase people’s resilience and decrease their vulnerabilities as contained in the national

framework.

While it cannot be denied that there have been significant innovations in the area of disaster

preparedness and considerable amount of funds spent for the said phase, its various elements are

continuously being challenged. We noted that roles and responsibilities have been decentralized

without resolving existing limitations in financial resources and operational capacities.

Community participation and decentralization is ensured through the delegation of authority and

resources to local levels, but existing financial constraints continue to affect the capacity of

certain LGUs for effective disaster preparedness and response. While the law encourages LGUs’

investment in disaster risk management, the current system, however, puts LGUs in poorer and

island provinces (usually hazard-prone) at a disadvantage as they have lower revenues and thus,

have fewer funds available. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that since the calamity

fund is based on estimated revenues, there is no actual cash backup to fund the 5% budget for

calamity funds as poor LGUs cannot fully collect the estimated revenues which is the basis of the

budget.

To strengthen the LGUs’ disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels, relevant

knowledge and information on hazards, vulnerabilities, actual losses and capacities must be

collected, compiled and disseminated. Unfortunately, this is hardly implemented in the majority

of LGUs, especially among low-income class municipalities. Majority of the LGUs have no

capacity to establish database/databank which is useful in both disaster preparedness and


response. The political will to implement existing laws on DRRM such as the Building Code and

land use and zoning ordinances is another factor to consider. Mainstreaming disaster mitigation

and preparedness in the LGU development plan still remains a huge challenge. The human

resource and technical complement of disaster preparedness is still wanting in terms of a

systematic approach.

Typhoon Yolanda will likely serve as a new benchmark for planning, but LGUs need to do a

better job in risk identification and scenario planning.

Even at the level of the national government agencies, we also observed some lapses in the area

of disaster preparedness. Consider the following:

OCD We noted that not much have been accomplished by OCD with regard to Disaster Preparedness

under the NDRRMP of which it is the lead agency. No accomplishments were reported per the

CY 2012 Performance Review and Assessment of the NDRRMP as the agency still do not have a

relevant, DBM-approved staffing pattern as required under Rule 7, Section 4 of the Implementing

Rules and Regulations of RA 10121. The frequent disasters (natural and man-made) which took

place in previous years have kept the agency and other members of the National Council

preoccupied attending to various emergencies.

DILG We noted that the DILG integrated disaster preparedness in delivering basic services and

strengthened capacities of communities to anticipate, cope and recover from the negative impacts

of calamities through “Enhancing LGU Capacity on Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster

Risk Reduction Management.” However, the results of LGU Disaster Preparedness Profiles

assessment showed that LGUs are only 23% prepared to counter the effects of calamities.

Despite its scaled up Seal of Good Local Governance campaign that recognizes good

performance, the DILG has not successfully achieved full preparedness of LGUs, with only 23%

of LGUs in flood-prone areas prepared in terms of awareness, institutional capacities and

coordination based on the agency’s own assessment.

Developing the capabilities needed to counteract large-scale disasters should be part of an overall

national preparedness effort that should integrate and define what needs to be done, where it

needs to be done, based on what standards, how it should be done and how well it should be done.

Personnel training on disaster preparedness as well as equipment buildup should also be a

continuous process and appropriate and flexible funding should be allotted for this as

recommended in a recent PIDS study.


Coordination and Collaboration Among Stakeholders The ability to carry out specific tasks under particular conditions with desired results is built upon

the appropriate combination of people, skills, processes and assets. Disasters of wide impact such

as Yolanda place a wide ranging demand on emergency response capabilities. Whenever there are

several agencies expected to deliver a desired goal, it is important that these agencies collaborate,

coordinate and communicate significant information to decision-makers, in order to achieve a

common goal.

Coordination is influenced by several factors including governance structure, local capacity,

availability of resources, stakeholder partnership and information management system. The

NDRRMC serves as the backbone of disaster management in the Philippines, as supported by

national agencies and LGUs down to the barangay level, but based on our experience,

emergency management, command and control can hardly operate expediently in such a structure

where the authority is shared, responsibility is dispersed and resources are scattered.

The degree of collaboration and decision making required both depend on the extent of the

damage wrought by a disaster. A catastrophic disaster like Yolanda makes it difficult to achieve

the degree of collaboration and level of decision making needed in a multi-sectoral, multi-

organizational structure.

There are however some recurring issues that affect coordination and collaboration among

DRRM agencies in the country and some of these are:

Lack of emergency management system to cope with a catastrophic disaster such as

typhoon Yolanda

Limited capacity in terms of staff, equipment and other logistics such as warehouses,

delivery vehicles

Lack of a systematic distribution system

Inadequately trained and equipped response team

The aftermath of typhoon Yolanda led us to search for the most appropriate and effective

organizational framework for disaster response.

Gaps in Accountability

Even in times of catastrophic disaster, one cannot discount the significance of controls and other

accountability mechanisms for they ensure the proper use of much needed resources. However,

decision makers often find themselves trapped in a struggle between implementing controls and

accountability mechanisms and the demand for rapid response and recovery assistance. On one

hand, our audit documented many examples wherein quick action was not possible due to


longstanding policies/procedures that required extensive, time-consuming processes, delaying the

delivery of vital supplies and other assistance. Like the case of DA where agency officials still

waited for the auditor to conduct an inspection before the seeds and fertilizers were distributed to

Yolanda-affected farmers. On the other hand, we also found examples where processes under

procurement and distribution of relief goods to disaster victims left the government to possible

abuse of expedited transactions. In the case of DOH, the correctness of recorded issuances of

goods and equipment in the amount of P36,912,764.06 or 39% of the total distributions/issuances

of P93,620,188.54 could not be substantiated because this was not confirmed to have been

received by the concerned auditors of the DOH Regional Offices. We observed that procurement

contracts were not conducted through public bidding due to the urgency of need and yet,

significant amount of items procured remained undistributed even months after they were

purchased.

In the case of DSWD Field Office (FO) VI the system they adopted in relief distribution

operations did not provide daily and periodic reporting on the results/status of its operations as

well as accounting of funds received and its utilization.

Lapses were noted in the documentation and recording of donated cash/relief goods and supplies

were sometimes moved from warehouses without the accompanying approved supporting

documents. There are also discrepancies between the accounting and reporting of family food

packs (FFPs) between warehouse personnel and DSWD employees. It is very difficult to

establish actual inventories given the following circumstances:

Drop-off points of shipment not indicated in the tally out sheet for FFPs’ releases

to DSWD FO VIII, hence port of entry cannot be verified;

Requisition and Issue Slip (RIS) not attached to some tally out sheet;

Standard DSWD forms not used to document movement of goods for proper

monitoring.

It should be noted that a reliable inventory is crucial in the determination of the volume of relief

goods to be ordered as well as timeliness in placing orders. An accurate inventory also contributes

to a sound analysis of distribution of relief assistance which can eventually guide critical decision

making during disaster response.

Low Compliance to Reporting Requirement An indispensable precondition to improve aid effectiveness is greater transparency and better

information dissemination. While there is a law that enables the sourcing and utilization of

disaster funds, compliance to the said provision is low.


Under COA Circular No. 2012-002 dated September 12, 2012, specifically paragraph 5.1.5, the

Accountant and the LDRRM Officer are required to prepare a report on the sources and

utilization of the DRRM Fund and submit it on or before the 15th day of the end of each month to

COA, copy furnished to the OCD.

During this study, we found out that this provision is not being implemented and the auditors

hardly ever receive such reports. This makes it difficult to conduct a thorough analysis of disaster

management funds. Even tracking the flow of disaster funds is challenging due to the lack of

information on what has been delivered to whom and the lack of a feedback loop that enables the

people affected by crises to say what they have received and when they received it. It is therefore

difficult to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of government response to disasters. The lack

of a system that tracks what commodities and services have been delivered to the people also

makes it hard to draw the lines of accountability.

Inability to Track Donations to and from Private Sources

While COA can access information on disaster funds channeled through government agencies, it

is completely unaware of the amount of private funds channeled through private institutions.

It must be emphasized that agencies which received extensive funding from international and

local donors must be asked to account for monies received for the rehabilitation of disaster

victims/survivors. They should be required to maintain stand-alone accounts for disaster-related

donations to ensure transparency and ease of audit. It is in this area that a guide on voluntary

reporting is needed.

In the absence of a guideline on voluntary reporting of private companies receiving donations, it

is difficult to assess the accountability of the flow of disaster-related aid to private agencies. The

flow of aid from donors to private institutions cannot be tracked and these payments are often

reflected differently in the financial reports of recipient organizations.

Disaster Information and Management

Our experience with Yolanda also invites us to focus on the need to improve risk communication

to promote better understanding of the threats of disasters. As we have seen, not enough public

understanding of storm surges led to increased casualties. The mayor of Tacloban City said more

lives could have been spared if the nature of storm surges was described as similar to a tsunami.

The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA)

fell short in the messaging aspect of its risk projection about the possible severe impact of storm

surges generated by typhoon Yolanda that may have contributed to the thousands of lives lost in

Eastern Visayas. An official from the DOST-PAGASA admitted they were not “able to explain”

the magnitude of storm surges in their press briefings and information materials.


Management of information is critical to any disaster management system. The information need

of disaster managers can be categorized into pre-disaster and post-disaster, which are both crucial

in guiding decision-makers. The need for information, however, is not only limited to baseline

and real-time data on the nature, effect and impact of disasters but also includes financial

information. The ability of leaders and administrators to make sound decisions on disaster

management, to analyze and strategize the appropriate response or disaster risk mitigation

techniques also depends, to a large extent, on the availability, reliability and quality of financial

information.

Insufficient Information on the Governance Aspect of DRRM While there are considerable efforts geared at improving the country’s disaster risk management

system, significant gaps remain.

The post-disaster environment is not conducive to collecting information as this takes a backseat

to providing aid or relief. Establishing a financial information management system is critical at

the post-disaster stage but validating information is also another challenge. This is also a prime

consideration in the timing of an audit. While it is ideal to immediately conduct a post-disaster

audit given the nature of aid and the state of goods being donated, the auditing process will

simply compete for the limited time and attention of disaster managers. Accessing financial

information or even the database on disasters will be definitely arduous because their priority is

improving the condition of the affected communities.

A solid financial information management system at all levels of disaster management is badly

needed. It is essential that information be collected before, during and after the disaster. This

collected data must be integrated into the financial information management system of the entire

DRRM.

Lack of a Comprehensive Analysis on Public Spending for DRRM Another precondition for effective disaster management is the allocation of sufficient funds for

necessary activities. By mapping the distribution of disaster management funds and how those

funds have been spent, it is possible to estimate the risk of insufficient resources or inefficiencies.

This, however, is not being done due to the absence of a comprehensive report on the sources and

utilization of funds. It may be worthy to emphasize that mapping the distribution of disaster

management funds could serve as a tool in the planning and coordination of disaster response and

recovery activities.


Challenges and Recommendations

According to a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) publication, there are “three basic

elements in preparing for, responding to and recovering from any catastrophic disaster: 1)

leadership; 2) capabilities; and 3) accountability.”7

“Leadership in the form of legal authorities, roles and responsibilities, and lines of authority at all

levels of government must be clearly defined, effectively communicated, and well understood in

order to facilitate rapid and effective decision making.”8 In this context, DRRM leadership is

clearly defined in RA 10121, the regulatory framework that promotes and supports dialogue,

exchange of information and coordination among all government agencies. In other words, the

institutional framework for DRRM as embodied in RA 10121 is already in place and operational.

The NDRRMC is the backbone of disaster management, with functional networks from the

national level down to the barangay level, backstopped by national agencies clustered under the

different phases of disaster risk management to ensure a more coherent and effective response

across all key sectors or areas of activity. The existing DRRM governance structure has grown to

include several other players, including the academe and CSOs. The field experience of NGOs

complements the scientific knowledge of the science and technology institutions and the

academe, as well as the practical skills and knowledge on post-disaster activities of the

NDRRMC. National cluster lead agencies like the DENR, DepEd and DPWH lend support to

Regional DRRM Councils to institutionalize the standards and dimensions of the cluster

approach.

But the government’s response and recovery efforts in Yolanda-ravaged areas clearly showed that

its implementation of RA 10121 still leaves a lot to be desired. Given the multi-sectoral, multi-

organizational structure of the NDRRMC and the complexity and magnitude of the disaster, the

Council’s key players and stakeholders had difficulty coordinating, collaborating and making

timely decisions, which came across as unreadiness and ineptitude to respond to a host of

emergencies and crippling crisis. It is evident that whenever authority is shared, responsibility is

dispersed and resources are scattered, emergency management, command and control can hardly

operate in an expedient manner.

The Yolanda disaster also exposed the low level of disaster preparedness and response

capabilities of many LGUs. Despite the DILG’s campaign to recognize and incentivize local

government performance in institutionalizing disaster preparedness, many LGUs have yet to

integrate DRRM policies into their own development plans. And although the national

government and some LGUs have operational DRRM programs, made ample preparations and

braced themselves for the worst, they were simply crushed and overwhelmed by the scope and

enormity of Yolanda’s destruction.

7 Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities and Accountability Controls Will Improve the

Effectiveness of the Nation’s Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System (GAO-06-618, United States

Government Accountability Office, 2006). 8 Ibid


As for developing capabilities, the same U.S. GAO publication said that “it should be part of an

overall national effort designed to integrate and define what needs to be done, where, by whom,

and how well.”9 Our public spending on disaster management is still largely reactive as shown by

the huge balances of calamity funds before the occurence of a disaster and the corresponding

increase in expenditures during disaster response and recovery. This kind of spending is not in

line with a culture of preparedness that is needed if we are to suceed in disaster risk management.

The government has progressed in raising the people’s awareness on the adverse impact of

disasters on the population and the economy by integrating natural hazard risks in its plans,

strengthening institutions, and implementing projects like early warning systems, improving

weather forecasting and strengthening disaster response. Little has been done, however, in

determining if there are sufficient levels of disaster risk financing, considering that disaster

damage and losses continue to be significantly high, and recovery and rehabilitation in affected

areas move quite slow. Tracking public expenditures for DRRM might lead to a better

understanding and behavior toward a more comprehensive strategy to address the impacts of

disasters. This has not yet been done and to date there is still no comprehensive analysis of public

spending on DRRM.

With regard to accountability, greater transparency and better information dissemination are

needed for a more effective disaster aid. Government agencies are mandated to report on the

sourcing and utilization of disaster funds, but the majority hardly comply with this rule. This

makes it difficult to conduct a thorough analysis of disaster management funds. Even tracking the

flow of disaster funds is challenging due to the lack of information on what has been delivered to

whom and the lack of a feedback loop for people affected by crises to report whatever they have

received and when they received it.

In this regard, COA has issued a new accounting guide that requires government agencies to

submit a report to the OCD and the OCD auditor to consolidate the same. These reports, however,

only cover funds and relief goods channeled through government agencies. At present, COA has

no means to capture the aggregate amount of funds and resources donated, allocated and utilized

for disaster management.

It must be emphasized that private entities which received extensive funding from international

and local donors must be asked to account for monies received for the rehabilitation of disaster

victims/survivors. They should be required to maintain stand-alone accounts for disaster-related

donations to ensure transparency and ease of audit. It is therefore imperative to develop a guide

for voluntary reporting on disaster-related aid channeled through private companies or

organizations.

All in all, the government as led by the NDRRMC must plug the holes and bridge the gaps in its

DRRM plan and implementation to address the many critical issues and problems that were

9 Ibid


highlighted and magnified in the aftermath of the Yolanda disaster. We need to look into the

problematic areas and aspects where the government came up short or had no response at all,

especially in the fundamental elements of leadership, capabilities and accountability. We need to

learn from the small victories, the bright spots as well as the fatal mistakes and everything in

between that were made not only from the Yolanda perspective but also from the many natural

and man-made disasters that have struck our country in the last two decades. Otherwise,

calamities will continue to exact a heavy toll not only on our economy but also on our population.

DISASTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES: AN … · 2014-09-05 · 5 DISASTER MANAGEMENT...

Documents

Transcript of DISASTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES: AN … · 2014-09-05 · 5 DISASTER MANAGEMENT...