Conceptual Framework
This Governance Innovation Report gave attention to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters in the Municipality of Cainta. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis” released
its scientific knowledge on climate change and concluded that extreme weather events are increasing and regional climate patterns are changing. Heat waves and other weather extremes, as well as changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, storm tracks and precipitation, can now be traced back to climate change caused by human activities. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007) It was in this context that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted as basis for a global response to the evident effects of climate change. The UNFCCC is an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to confront climate change challenges in which the Philippines is a State party, committed to its core principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2012)
The Bali Action Plan, decided in the Bali Climate Conference (COP 13) of December 2007, identified adaptation as one of the key building blocks required for a strengthened future response to climate change. (United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, 2012) Consequently, The Delhi Declaration highlighted the importance of adaptation as a “high priority for all countries”. The National Framework Strategy on Climate Change (NFSCC) of the Philippines was a result of the call to prepare a National Adaptation Program of Action by the IPCC and the Bali Conference. It gave more emphasis and urgency on adaptation to risks in an area due to variable and extreme climate conditions.
The NFSCC, also known as the "framework", was rooted on IPCC’s knowledge about climate change’s serious implications on the country’s efforts to address poverty and sustainable development. This served as the basis for a national program on climate change and established an agenda through the National Climate Change Action Plan. This Governance Innovation Report took off from NFSCC’s guiding principles, particularly (Climate Change Commission, 2010):
Its vision of a climate risk-resilient Philippines with healthy, safe, prosperous and self-reliant communities, and thriving and productive ecosystems;
The goal to build the adaptive capacity of communities and optimize mitigation opportunities towards sustainable development;
Make use of risk-based framework where strategies/activities shall be formulated, with decisions made based on causes, magnitude and impacts of risks;
Adaptation measures based on equity, in accordance with common but differentiated responsibility; special attention must be given to ensure
equal and equitable protection of the poor, women, children and other vulnerable and disadvantaged sectors;
The role of local governments as front-liners in addressing climate change; and
The value of forming multi-stakeholder participation and partnerships in climate change initiatives, including partnerships with the private sector, other government agencies and the civil society, especially with indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups who are most vulnerable to climate change impacts.
The said framework created the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) to guide the local government units in the preparation of their Local Climate Change Action Plans (LCCAP). The proponents utilized the NCCAP as template for developing the Local Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation (LAP- DRR-CCA) for the Municipality of Cainta. The framework also recognized a consultative approach that seeks the consensus of stakeholders and their meaningful participation in the formulation of the action plan.
In attempting to understand the critical concepts of disaster risk, the proponents of this study came across several theoretical and conceptual developments that include a hazard paradigm, a vulnerability paradigm, resilience and extended alternative adjustments later known as adaptation.
Hazard Paradigm
Thirty-five years ago, a trio of scholars, Ben Wisner; Ken Westgate and Phil O'Keefe, published a paper called “Taking the Naturalness Out of Natural Disasters.”
Their paper laid the foundation for something now widely agreed on - that nature makes earthquakes, landslides and floods, but humans are responsible for the deaths by failure of proper planning and putting preventive measures in place. The people most likely to die during disasters are the poor and the vulnerable. The paper by Wisner et.al. continued to spark debate worldwide while engineers, geographers, seismologists and academicians tried to push governments into investing more money in preparing for natural calamities, arguing that better building standards and policies which are more rigorously enforced could save thousands of lives; that better education, more economic development and greater social equity could buffer millions against deprivation and loss. (Radford, 2006) According to Prof. Wisner and his hazard paradigm, there is no such thing as an innocent disaster. Disaster results from the clash of two opposing forces: the socio-economic conditions creating human vulnerability and the natural processes that create geophysical hazards. As a result, the focus of attention has shifted to the needs of the most disadvantaged members of society and to the importance of vulnerability assessment and mapping in disaster risk studies, programs and projects. (Smith, 2004) This theory became the basis for the proponents of this study to look into concepts that were critical in performing a hazard assessment by understanding the origin and classification of hazards as well as the different dimensions that characterize a hazard. Specifically, this Governance Innovation Report adopted the concept of “hazardscape” that engages the
physical susceptibility of the Municipality of Cainta and vulnerability of its people. Hazardscape also substitutes for the term “natural hazards.”
Pressure and Release Model
Vulnerability comprised the second important element to disaster risk. People possess different capacities to deal with exposure by means of various strategies of action (Chambers, 2006). To support this theory, Blaikie et al (2004) developed the Pressure and Release Model (PAR), which is considered as the most influential thinking around vulnerability in the disaster risk field. This model explained disaster risks from a macro perspective and seeks to trace the progression of vulnerability from its root causes shaped by dynamic pressures that can give rise to unsafe conditions. These three forces are defined as follows (Schilderinck, 2009):
Root causes (or underlying causes) are a set of well-established, widespread economic, demographic and political processes within a society that give rise to vulnerability (and reproduce vulnerability over time) and affect the allocation and distribution of resources between different groups of people;
Dynamic pressures are the processes and activities that transform the effects of the root causes into vulnerability and channel the root causes into particular forms of uncertainty related to hazards such as population growth, rapid urbanization and deforestation;
Unsafe conditions are the specific forms in which the vulnerability of a population manifests itself in time in conjunction with the hazard. This may occur through
such processes as fragile local economic conditions, lack of disaster planning and preparedness and a fragile environment.
Figure 9 below summarizes the PAR Model and shows how disasters occur when unsafe conditions are combined with physical exposure to hazards.
Figure 9 Pressure and Release Model (PAR)
Access to Resource Model and Human Vulnerability Framework
This study also referred to Wisner et. al.’s (2004) Access to Resource model, which acts as a complement to their PAR model. (Benjamin, 2009) It explained how unsafe conditions at the household level influence their capacity to cope with disasters. This model compelled the proponents of this study to look into the level of access to resources
of the communities in Cainta and to gauge their capacities to respond to the impacts of hazards. Resources referred to here could be economic (e.g. income, loans, employment), related to health or infrastructure (including communications) or be information-based. Figure 10 below summarizes this model. Box 1 shows the normal life of households, whose choice of a specific livelihood is limited by the unsafe conditions (box 2) and influenced by the household’s social relations (box 1a) and surrounding structures of
domination (box 1b). During normal times, households create a form of defense coined as “social protection” to save their livelihoods from disruptions. Social protection is a
repeating process (expressed as t1, t2, t3 and tn) but can also operate at the public level in the form of preparedness plans provided by the government or the community. Hazards (Polygon 3 in Figure 10) have both spatial and temporal dimensions (Polygon 4) that can often depend on a trigger event (Polygon 5). In Polygon 6, the event hits the households, having different effects depending on the level of social protection. A low level can turn the event into a disaster. The impacts of the disaster and the household’s responses to them are iterative for a period of time (Polygon 7). After this period the households have the choice of either passively waiting for the next disaster or to strengthen their capacities and social protection as preparation (Polygon 8).
Improved access to resources is the key mechanism through which households could improve their livelihoods, make them sustainable, and increase their resilience against shocks and their capacity to restore their livelihoods after a disaster. (Schilderinck, 2009)
The Access to Resources model shows a clear relation between vulnerability and livelihoods and serves the same function of resistance as livelihood does in Dr. Mark Pelling’s Human Vulnerability Framework. Figure 11 below further illustrates Pelling’s
Human Vulnerability Framework.
Since it is critical to acknowledge the importance of resilience in disaster risk, the proponents factored in resilience in its risk assessment component. This study used the issues around livelihood and social protection to strengthen its vulnerability assessment. Capacity assessment, a participatory process, was used to understand how the communities cope with and survive in times of crisis. Therefore, to generate a balanced approach to disaster risk assessment, this study required both hazard characterization and vulnerability and capacity assessment, using the above-mentioned context.
Barangay / Community-Based Disaster Risk Assessment
Hazard Characterization/ Assessment Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Local Development Planning Planning Environment Social Economic Environment al Infrastructure & Land Use
Institutional
Issues/ Vision-Reality Gaps
Sectoral Goals, Objectives and Targets
Sectoral Programs, Projects, Activities Vision AIP Budgeting Threats of Natural Hazards Impacts of Climate Change Theoretical Framework
This Governance Innovation Report was based on the mainstreaming guidelines framework formulated by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) to mainstream DRR and CCA in local development plans. The overall theoretical framework presented below guided the proponents in the conduct of this study:
The framework illustrated in Figure 12 involved two processes and described the steps this study went through in disaster risk assessment and identification of their entry points in the local development planning process. (National Economic and Development Authority, 2008) The process started with a community-based disaster risk assessment (DRA) focusing on hazard characterization, vulnerability and capacity assessment. The second process looked at how the results of the risk assessment were used to enhance the aspects of the development planning process: from visioning; profiling; analyzing vision- reality gap; transforming issues into goals, objectives and targets; and specifying the appropriate Programs, Projects and Activities (PPAs). The PPAs should exhibit reduction in risks by increasing resilience or reducing the vulnerability of Cainta. This paper also highlighted the fact that good governance requires the integration of reducing vulnerability and risk to natural hazards in order to achieve sustainable development especially in the Municipality of Cainta. (Siebert, Mollen, & Rosales, 2008)
Operational Framework
This study used a community-based disaster risk assessment that involved a) hazard characterization, b) vulnerability assessment, and c) capacity assessment. On the other hand, the entry points in the plan were in the following: a) analysis of the multi-sectoral planning environment, b) identification of issues and problems, c) formulation of goals, objectives and targets, and d) identification of programs, projects and activities.
This study went through a participatory risk assessment and planning process in four phases illustrated in Figure 13 discussed in detail in the next chapter.
To realize the adoption of appropriate and adequate countermeasures to prepare for and reduce disaster risks, a participatory and systematic process was used to identify and assess the hazards which threaten the community and the communities' vulnerabilities and capacities at the barangay level. It involved an understanding of how people perceive and measure disaster risks.
The level of understanding of the community on their natural disaster risks – hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities –influence their level of resilience and the proper identification of appropriate and adequate risk reduction measures. (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2012) Hence it was important to assess the
Figure 13 Operational Framework for the Creation of Municipality of Cainta's LAP-DRR-CCA
Phase 1