RISK REDUCTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA
RAMON A. ILAGAN CODY R. CAVESTANY LESTER G. CAVESTANY
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ATENEO SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
MASTER IN PULIC MANAGEMENT
The Governance Innovation Report attached hereto, entitled "CREATION OF AN INTEGRATED LOCAL ACTION PLAN FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA" prepared and submitted by RAMON A. ILAGAN, CODY R. CAVESTANY and LESTER G. CAVESTANY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Public Management, is hereby accepted.
DR. ANTONIO G.M. LA VIÑA, JSD DR. MARY JEAN CALEDA
Adviser Faculty Coordinator
Date signed Date signed
Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Public Management.
ANTONIO G.M. LA VIÑA, JSD Dean, School of Government Ateneo de Manila University
__________________ Date signed
We, RAMON A. ILAGAN, CODY R. CAVESTANY and LESTER G. CAVESTANY, would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to the following persons who have made the completion of this Governance Innovation Report (GIR) possible:
Our esteemed adviser, Dean ANTONIO G.M. LA VINA, J.D., for inspiring us to work in the area of climate change and disaster preparedness and for his vital support in this Governance Innovation Report.
Our faculty coordinator, Assistant Dean, MARY JEAN A. CALEDA, PH. D., for her constant reminders about deadlines and for the much needed motivation to graduate on time.
Associate Dean MARIO C. VILLAVERDE, MD, for giving us permission to work on this GIR as a team.
Our GIR readers, MS. JESSICA BERCILLA and MR. ANGELO APOSTOL, for helping us revise and improve the initial drafts of our GIR.
MRS. VERON S. ILAGAN, for sharing with us your vision of creating a more progressive and flood-free Cainta.
All the heads and staff of the various Offices and Departments of the Municipality of Cainta, for assisting us in the collection of valuable data and information.
Since this GIR signifies the culmination and completion of our graduate studies at the Ateneo School of Government, we would like to also take this opportunity to express our indebtedness to all our Professors who have provided the necessary teachings and
iv learning experiences for us to achieve the completion of our Master in Public Management degree program.
PROF. CYNTHIA G. CASTEL (Understanding the Bureaucracy)
PROF. CORAZON ALMA G. DE LEON (Power, Ethics and Accountability)
FR. PATRICK Z. FALGUERA, S.J. and PROF. MARIDES C. FERNANDO (Leadership in Public Service)
PROF. EDNA ESTIFANIA A. CO (Public Policy Development and Analysis) PROF. ENRICO C. MINA (Applied Economics for the Public Sector)
DEAN ANTONIO G. LA VIÑA (Climate Change and Sustainable Development) PROF. ALFREDO F. DIAZ, JR. (Organizational Development and Change Management)
PROF. MILWIDA M. GUEVARA (Public Finance and Budgeting) PROF. GILBERT G. LOZADA (Local Planning and Development)
PROF. VIRGINIO P. FULGENCIO (Local Investment and Enterprise Development) PROF. MARY JANE C. ORTEGA and PROF. AURMA M. MANLANGIT (Modern Management in Local Government)
PROF. AMELIA C. ANCOG (Governance Innovation Seminar)
Special thanks to the staff and “frontliners” of the Ateneo School of Government: MR. MANUEL “MANOLO” GREGORIO, MS. ANNA KARMELA ZABAT, MS. MARICEL “ISEL” V. DE GUZMAN, MRS. VENUS VINLUAN and MR. TOM
v To our families and parents for their invaluable support. Words will never be enough to express our gratitude to you for always being there for us, MRS. CRISTETA CAVESTANY and MRS. CORAZON S. RABE. To the next generation of Cainteños, especially to BERNICE, CHARICE, JONAH, NIKKI and LEX. LINDSAY JOY CAVESTANY, LEANDER CAVESTANY, and EDDIE RABE, JR. who kept on believing in us.
Our batchmates, the MPM BATCH 2010, for all the wonderful memories, yummy merienda and food breaks, parties and get-togethers, hirits, loveteams, never-ending chain of recitations, and most importantly, the friendships forged that had led to family-like ties and lifelong bonds. Special thanks to our groupmates in TEAM M.I.: Atty. Ricardo “Oying” Angeles, Paolo Daleon, Dennis de la Torre, Mayor Angelito “Dondon”
Dimacuha, Diana Lumauig, Peter “Tonypet” Mallari and Nette Reyes.
Finally, we would like to praise and thank the Lord, our God, for making everything fall into place, in accordance with your Divine Will. All these we have done, and more we shall do, in the name of public service, and for your greater glory! Ad majorem Dei gloriam!
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Title Page i Approval Page ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents vi
List of Acronyms viii
List of Tables xiii
List of Figures xv
List of Appendices xviii
I INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Rationale of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Objectives of the Study 5
Significance of the Study 6
Scope and Limitations of the Study 7
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 10
The Natural Hazards in the Philippines 10
Disaster Risks and Effects in the Philippines and in the Municipality of Cainta
The Legal Mandate of the Local Government 25
III RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 27
Conceptual Framework 27
Theoretical Framework 36
Operational Framework 37
Operational Definition of Terms 40
IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 47
Research Design 47
Locale of the Study 58
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 80
Plans, Policies and Programs 80
Hazard and Climate Change Impacts 92
Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment 106
Disaster Resilient Cainta 121
VI SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
Summary of Findings 130
Lessons Learned and Recommendations 140
LIST OF ACRONYMS ACRONYMS
ADB Asian Development Bank
AIP Annual Investment Plan
ASoG Ateneo School of Government
BDPW Barangay Disaster Planning Workshop
BFP Bureau of Fire Protection
BPO Business Process Outsourcing
CBDRRMP Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Program
CBFEWS Community-based Flood Early Warning Systems
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CCC Climate Change Commission
CDP Comprehensive Development Plan
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CMDRRMO Cainta Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Office
COP Climate Conference
CRI Climate Risk Index
CSO Civil Society Organization
CY Calendar Year
DepEd Department of Education
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DILG-MLGOO Department of Interior and Local Government – Municipal Local Government Operations Officer
DOST Department of Science and Technology
DR Disaster Risk
DRA Disaster Risk Assessment
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction Management
DRRMF Disaster Risk Reduction Management Fund
DRRMP Disaster Risk Reduction Management Plan
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
ELA Executive and Legislative Agenda
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GAA General Appropriations Act
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIR Governance Innovation Report
GIS Geographic Information System
HDI Human Development Index
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action
IEC Information and Education Campaign
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
LAP Local Action Plan
LAP-DRR-CCA Local Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change
LCCAP Local Climate Change Action Plans
LDRRM Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management
LDRRMO Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Office
LDRRMP Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Plan
LG Local Government
LGSAT Local Government Self-Assessment Tool
LGU Local Government Unit
LRT Light Rail Transit
MCM Management or Evacuation Center Management
MDCC Municipal Disaster Coordinating Council
MDRRMC Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council
MENRO Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office
MEO Municipal Engineering Office
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPSO Municipal Public Safety Office
MSWDO Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office
NCCAP National Climate Change Action Plan
NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
NDRRMP National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NFSCC National Framework Strategy on Climate Change
NGO Non-Government Organization
OCD Office of Civil Defense
OTOP One Town, One Product
PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical & Astronomical Services Administration
PAR Philippine Area of Responsibility
PAR Pressure and Release Model
PDRRMO Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Organization
PEZA Philippine Economic Zone Authority
PHIVOLCS Philippines Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
PIDS Philippine Institute for Development Studies
PPA Programs, Projects and Activities
PWD Persons with Disabilities
RA Republic Act
REDAS Rapid Earthquake Damage Assessment System
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
LIST OF TABLES
1 Total Damages by Top 5 recorded Natural Disaster Types in the Philippines (1901-2009)
2 GIR Timetable 48
3 Sectoral Representation of DRR CCA Summit 50
4 Population per Barangay 59
5 Land Areas of the Seven Barangays 61
6 Slope Category 63
7 Target Income and Annual Revenues (2004-2011) 65
8 Commission on Audit's 2009 Annual Financial Report For Rizal 66
9 Goal Achievement Matrix Scale 73
10 Sample Hazard Assessment Matrix 77
11 Scoring Scale - Level of Progress (Local Government Self-Assessment
Tool for Disaster Resilience)
12 Excerpt from LGSAT 79
13 Hazard Assessment Summary 94
14 Flood Prone Areas and Number of Affected Families 95
15 Hazard Sensitivity of the Seven Barangays of the Municipality of Cainta 105
16 Agricultural Crops by Area, 2011 109
17 Livestock and Poultry Production, 2011 110
LIST OF FIGURES
1 The Philippines 11
2 Philippines in the Pacific Typhoon Belt 12
3 Annual number of serious earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and typhoons between 1900-2002
4 Monthly Average Frequency of Occurrence of Tropical Cyclones 16
5 Frequency of Tropical Cyclone Passage Over Each Geographical Zones in the Philippines
6 Geographical Zones and Tropical Cyclone Paths 18
7 Distributions of Active Faults and Trenches in the Philippines 19
8 Philippine Natural Hazard Map 20
9 Pressure and Release Model (PAR) 32
10 The Access to Resource Model 33
11 Pelling's Human Vulnerability Framework 35
12 The LAP-DRR-CCA Planning Framework 36
13 Operational Framework for the Creation of Municipality of Cainta's
14 Operational Framework Toward a Disaster Resilient Municipality of Cainta 39
15 Milestone and Activity Timeline 48
16 Drafting the LDRRMP of the Municipality of Cainta 55
17 Geographic Location of Cainta 59
19 Cainta River Network Map 62
20 Ground Shaking Map 64
21 Wealthiest Municipalities in the Philippines (2009 COA Report) 67
22 Expenditure Program (Distribution by Sector) 2011 Budget Year 67
23 Expenditure Program by Sector Comparative Trend, 2009-2011 68
24 DILG's Rationalized Local Planning System 75
25 Hyogo Framework for Action: 2005-2015 Building the Resilience of
Nations and Communities to Disasters
26 Cash for Work in Cainta 86
27 Typhoon Incidence 92
28 Projected Rainfall Change (Dry Season) 93
29 Projected Rainfall Change (Wet Season) 93
30 Cainta Elevation Map 97
31 Hazard Map of the Province of Rizal 97
32 Flood Hazard Map 98
33 Earthquake Prone Areas in the Philippines 99
34 Cainta in the Distribution of Active Faults and Trenches in the Philippines 100
35 Cainta Valley Fault System 101
36 Valley Fault System Earthquake Scenario (Cainta) 103
37 Valley Fault System Earthquake Liquefaction Scenario (Cainta) 103
38 Liquefaction Map of Cainta (Wet Season) 104
40 Vulnerability to Disasters of the Philippines 106
41 Land Use Map of the Municipality of Cainta 108
42 Human Development Index, 2000 111
43 Population Density, 2000 112
44 Populated Places 112
45 Settlement Areas 113
46 Aggregate Map of Informal Settlers in Metro Manila (2000) 114
47 Self-Assessment for Disaster Resilience Sectoral Representation 117
48 Gender Representation 117
LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX
1 King Country Questionnaire for Preliminary Assessment of Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Barriers
2 LAP-DRR-CCA (Program, Projects, Activities)
3 Local Government Self-Assessment Survey Tool
4 List of CBDRRM informants
5 Key Findings on the Municipality of Cainta's Self-Assessment for Disaster Resilience
Given its geographical location and geophysical characteristics, the Municipality of Cainta is vulnerable to the risks of natural hazards and the impacts of climate change which cause disasters that lead to loss of lives, disruptions in livelihoods and damage to properties. Thus, strategic local planning, anchored on international frameworks and national policies, is a critical first step to build safer and more climate and disaster-resilient communities through the efficient utilization of public resources and the effective implementation of a climate and disaster risk reduction program.
This Governance Innovation Report created an integrated and multi-sectoral local action plan for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation mainstreamed into the Annual Investment Plan of the Municipality of Cainta. Using the four-fold themes of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, this local action plan addressed the Municipality’s vulnerabilities to natural hazards and climate change impacts. It also
utilizes capacity-building strategies at the barangay level for disaster risk reduction and management and climate change adaptation.
To strengthen the resilience of the entire Municipality, the proponents studied international, national and local policies, plans, practices and programs in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation; characterized natural hazards and climate change impacts; assessed vulnerability and capacity; and recommended programs, projects and activities to be funded and implemented in 2013.
Background of the Study
This study, referred to as the Governance Innovation Report (GIR), is the capstone achievement of the graduate students’ academic requirements in the Master in Public
Management of the Ateneo School of Government. The Manual in the Preparation of Governance Innovation Report (Ateneo School of Government, 2011) described this form of GIR as an “Action Plan,” wherein the proponents analyzed the problems of natural
disasters and climate change in areas where the residents of Cainta are vulnerable and formulated an integrated plan of action that would assist the local government to reduce disaster risks and enhance the climate change adaptive capacity in the Municipality of Cainta.
Rationale of the Study
The Ondoy Experience
On the 26th of September 2009, Cainteños were awakened by the rush of floodwaters inside their homes caused by the nightlong rain of Tropical Depression Ketsana, more popularly known as “Super Typhoon Ondoy.” More than 90% of
Municipality of Cainta was flooded, causing the death of 15 people and inflicting damages worth over PHP100 million. But the tragedy in Cainta was just a tiny part of a much larger disaster. Ondoy’s record-breaking rainfall, which was greater than the average rainfall for the whole month of September, caused widespread flooding all over Metro Manila, Central and Southern Luzon, and some areas in the Visayas and Mindanao, directly affecting about 5 million people in 2,018 barangays, 172 municipalities, 16 cities of 26 provinces in 12 regions, including the National Capital Region. In the aftermath, the damage to infrastructure and agriculture was estimated at PhP11 Billion, 15,798 families had to evacuate their homes, 529 people were injured, 37 went missing, and 464 died. (National Disaster Coordinating Council, 2009)
Through Ondoy, Mother Nature sent the leaders in the capital city of Manila and its surrounding areas a catastrophic wake-up call to the harsh realities of natural hazards, exacerbated by climate change. The Philippine government finally saw how vulnerable we were and the Filipino people started to become more aware of the findings and warnings of global warming scientists. And there was no choice but to respond and to prepare for future disasters.
Less than a month after Ondoy, Republic Act 9729 or the “Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009” was signed into law, which recognized that the “State shall integrate disaster risk reduction into climate change programs and initiatives.” R.A. 9729 mandated the Climate Change Commission to formulate a National Climate Change Action Plan
(NCCAP), which would serve as a guide for local government units (LGUs) in writing their own Local Climate Change Action Plans.
In addition, Republic Act 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act was enacted in May 2010, affirming the State’s duty to “uphold the people's constitutional rights to life and property” by addressing the root causes of
vulnerabilities to disasters, strengthening the country's institutional capacity for disaster risk reduction and management and building the resilience of local communities to disasters including climate change impacts. R.A. 10121 required the development and implementation of a comprehensive National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) that would serve as a template for the LGUs in crafting their own Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (LDRRMP).
With President Benigno S. Aquino III’s signing of the first NCCAP on November 22, 2011 and with the finalization of the NDRRMP in September 2012, governors and mayors were expected to formulate and implement two separate local action plans, one for climate change and another for disaster risk reduction and management.
However, seeing the linkages and commonalities between both policies and advocacies, it was the humble opinion of the proponents that both plans could be integrated into a single Local Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation (LAP-DRR-CCA). This integrated plan of action is in line with the Memorandum of Understanding signed in February 2011 by National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) and Climate Change Commission (CCC) to “support the implementation of disaster and climate risk reduction measures
identified by local government units through joint disaster and climate risk information coordination and knowledge.” The formulation of the LAP-DRR-CCA for the
Municipality of Cainta, which is what this Governance Innovation Report is all about, would be an effective tool for building safer and more resilient communities in Cainta.
Statement of the Problem
This study was conducted to provide answers to the following questions:
1) What were the international, national and local policies, plans, practices and programs in disaster risk reduction and climate change that had to be considered in the creation of the Local Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation (LAP-DRR-CCA) of the Municipality of Cainta? 2) What were the natural hazards and climate change impacts which distressed the
communities in the Municipality of Cainta and their vicinities that should be addressed in the LAP-DRR-CCA?
3) How did the local government officials assess the vulnerabilities of the exposed areas and the capacities of the communities in the Municipality of Cainta in terms of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation?
4) What were the programs, projects and activities that should be included in the LAP-DRR-CCA of the Municipality of Cainta to strengthen the resilience of the entire Municipality, in coordination with government and development agencies, the private sector, civil society organizations and other stakeholder?
Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study was to create an integrated and multi-sectoral LAP-DRR-CCA that would be mainstreamed into the Annual Investment Plan of the Municipality of Cainta to help address the vulnerabilities to natural hazards and climate change impacts, to build the local capacity for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, and to strengthen the resilience of the entire Municipality, in coordination with government and development agencies, the private sector, civil society organizations, marginalized groups and other stakeholders. To achieve this, the proponents used a 4-step approach:
1) Studied the international, national and local policies, plans, practices and programs in disaster risk reduction and climate change that had to be considered in the creation of the Local Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation (LAP-DRR-CCA) of the Municipality of Cainta;
2) Characterized the natural hazards and climate change impacts, which distressed the communities in the Municipality of Cainta and their vicinities and which should be addressed in the LAP-DRR-CCA;
3) Assessed the vulnerabilities of the exposed areas and the capacities of the communities in the Municipality of Cainta in terms of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation; and
4) Recommended programs, projects and activities in the LAP-DRR-CCA that should be included in the development and investment plans of the Municipality of Cainta.
Significance of the Study
Disasters happen when natural hazards, such as typhoons and earthquakes, affect places and communities that are not able to cope with the forces of nature, directly causing the loss of lives and damages to property. (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2008) According to the 2011 World Disaster Report, disasters from 2001 to 2011 increased five times as there were 7,070 disasters across the continents, affecting 2.7 billion people, leaving 1.3 million dead. Not surprisingly, ninety percent of the disasters occurred in the Asia Pacific region, which is susceptible to earthquakes and weather-related catastrophes, exacerbated by climate change and the high incidence of poverty in the region.
The Philippines, in particular, is classified as being at ‘extreme risk’ to the impacts of climate change and weather-related disasters since we ranked 10th in the world in the 2012 Climate Change Vulnerability Index and the Global Climate Risk Index. Our country’s average of 19 typhoons will not only increase in quantity, but also in severity.
(International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2010) Eighty-five percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) comes from areas that are experiencing the increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves, floods, droughts and typhoons. These
impacts of climate change affect our productivity in the agricultural and aquatic sectors, thus creating havoc in our food supply. These changes reduce the availability of water, making it harder to access clean water. These impacts increase the incidence of climate-sensitive diseases, exposing our countrymen to a dengue epidemic.
With the overwhelming evidence of climate change and the tragic experiences of natural disasters, local governments should focus on the translation of global problems and national concerns into local plans to be implemented by local government units toward more effective risk governance. If the Philipine government does not come up with a plan of action that would reduce our risks and vulnerabilities, then more deaths and losses will occur when natural disasters strike. Strategic planning is a critical first step to build safer and more disaster-resilient communities through the efficient utilization of public funds and resources and through the effective implementation of a climate and disaster risk reduction program. The age-old adage, “He who fails to plan, plans to fail,” holds true today as it always has.
Scope and Limitation
This Governance Innovation Report, in the form of an Action Plan, was an analytical study of an existing problem where the proponents provided management advice and professional support through a plan of action. (Ateneo School of Government, 2011).
1) The threats of natural hazards and climate change impacts that distress the Municipality of Cainta and its vicinity - This study limited itself to the threats of earthquakes, typhoons and floods and their corresponding impacts.
2) The vulnerabilities of the exposed areas and communities – The researchers included a Community-Based Disaster Risk Assessment to study the vulnerability to risks and the capacity of the communities to cope with the hazards.
The professional support from the proponents was done through the design and facilitation of a participatory planning process in creating the LAP-DRR-CCA by conducting seminars, workshops and group discussions for the local stakeholders. The first draft of the LAP-DRR-CCA, containing the consolidated proposals and recommendations from the communities in the different barangays, also included management advice from the proponents which reflected their findings in their study of international, national and local policies, plans, practices and programs in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation.
The draft of the LAP-DRR-CCA was submitted to local government officials who are involved in creating the Local Development Plan and the 2013 Annual Investment Plan (AIP) of the Municipality of Cainta. The inputs from the department heads and heads-of-office in the local government were used to revise and finalize the LAP-DRR-CCA.
The final output of this Governance Innovation Report served as the foundations of the Municipality of Cainta’s Local Climate Change Action Plan and the Local Disaster
Risk Reduction and Management Plan, which were both required under the law. The LAP-DRR-CCA could also serve as a supporting document of the Municipality of Cainta to be nominated for the Sasakawa Award of the United Nations’ 2010-2015 World
Disaster Reduction Campaign “Making Cities Resilient: My City is Getting Ready.” The LAP-DRR-CCA was presented to the public on September 26, 2012, as a way of commemorating the third anniversary of the Ondoy Tragedy.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This part of the study reviewed the various sources that relate to the objective of creating an integrated Local Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation (LAP-DRR-CCA) for the Municipality of Cainta, in the following areas:
Understanding the natural hazards in the Philippines and in the vicinity of the Municipality of Cainta;
Recognizing the disaster risks in the Philippines and in the Municipality of Cainta; and
Describing the legal mandate of the local government.
The Natural Hazards in the Philippines
The first part of this review dealt with research on the natural hazards that affect the Philippines, with particular emphasis on earthquakes, typhoons and floods. This served as the background in our characterization of the hazards that distress the country. Here it is important to note an important distinction, as pointed out by Alcantara Ayala (2002), between “natural hazards” and “natural disasters.” “Natural hazards” are threatening events brought about by forces of nature, such as volcanic activity, earthquakes, cyclones, floods and others. On the other hand, “natural disasters” are tragic incidents that occur
when natural hazards have catastrophic consequences on human systems due to their economic, social, political and cultural vulnerabilities.
Geographically speaking, the Philippine archipelago has 7,107 islands scattered across 1.3 million square kilometers of oceanic water between 116° 40' and 126° 34' East of Greenwich and 4° 40' and 21° 10' North of the Equator. It lies on the southwest of the Pacific Ocean and off the eastern coast of the Asian continent and is considered part of South East Asia with such neighbors as Vietnam to the east, Indonesia and Malaysia to the south, and Taiwan in the north. The Philippine archipelago forms a sovereign nation officially known as the “Republic of the Philippines,” also called “home” by the 94 million inhabitants.
Alongside the abundant natural resources of the Philippines, there are also natural hazards that have frequented the tropical islands since the ancient silk trade of the Malay sailors. Two primary reasons cause these natural hazards: the country is on the western
Figure 1 The Philippines (in red)
rim of the Pacific Ring of Fire, a region of active volcanoes and major earthquakes; and the Philippines in the Pacific typhoon belt which is often struck by tropical cyclones.1
Bankoff (2003) presented a historical account of natural hazards in the Philippines written by chroniclers from the time of the Spanish colonization to the modern times describing the high exposure of the Philippines to geophysical hazards including earthquakes and volcanoes, meteorological hazards, specifically tropical cyclones, and hydrological events such as floods.
The Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 (2011) enumerated the natural hazards experienced by the country including 20 earthquakes per day, 22 active volcanoes out of 300, and the 20 tropical cyclones that enter the Philippine Area of Responsibility every year. The frequency of these natural phenomena in the Philippines is relatively
1 From pictures taken above the earth, a tropical cyclone resembles a huge whirlpool of white clouds. Tropical cyclone is the general term for all storm circulations that originate over tropical waters. It is called hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean, cyclone over the Indian Ocean and typhoon over the Pacific Ocean. Tropical cyclone signals: bracing for the wind, Economic Issue of the Day, PIDS, December 2005, Vol.5 No.4
stable, according to Gaillard, et. al. (2005 ). He showed that the annual average number of tropical cyclones, the number of earthquakes with a magnitude of 6 or higher, and the incidences of volcanic eruptions remained roughly the same in the 20th century. As shown in Figure 3, earthquakes with a magnitude of 6 or higher and volcanic eruptions also maintained a relatively stable number of occurrences. Also, tropical cyclones that cross the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR) have maintained an average of twenty to thirty per year, with about fifteen storms that cross the archipelago. However, the threats of cyclones and the flooding it may bring could possibly get worse for us.
Figure 3 Annual number of serious earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and typhoons between 1900-2002 Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical & Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) (2005) as cited by Asian Development Bank (2009) noted the increase of 4.2 cyclones in the annual average of the frequency in cyclones entering the Philippine area
of responsibility during the period 1990–2003. The Philippines also had recent experiences with super typhoons. In September 2009, Tropical storm Ketsana, locally known as “Bagyong Ondoy” dumped 341 millimeters (mm) of rainfall in its first six
hours over land, surpassing the highest 24-hour rainfall of 334 mm in Metro Manila recorded in 1967. (NASA, 2009) A few days later, Typhoon Pepeng, known internationally as “Parma,” brought winds of up to 230 kilometer per hour (km/hr) and rainfall of up to 1,000 mm in some areas. (2009) In August 2012, the weeklong monsoon rains known as “Habagat” resulted to another flooding disaster that hit the Municipality of Cainta and placed it under a State of Calamity.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies warned that due to climate change, the Philippines’ average number of typhoons will not only increase in quantity, but also in severity. (2010)
Senator Loren Legarda (2010), the principal sponsor and author of the Climate Change Act of 2009 cited a survey in October 2007 by the Nielsen Company and the Oxford University Institute of Climate Change in where respondents were asked, “How
concerned are you about the following environmental issues? - Climate change / global warming?” Among the 54 countries surveyed, the Philippines topped the results with a
78% concern rating. Asian Development Bank (2009) discussed the actual and possible impacts of the observed and expected changes in extreme events and severe climate anomalies in Southeast Asia. The Manila Observatory (2010) discussed how climate change would increase the magnitude and frequency of weather hazards in the Philippines
caused by sea level rise, increase in average surface temperatures, and more intense rainfall.
For climate change impacts, DOST-PAGASA (2011) projected seasonal temperature increase, seasonal rainfall change and frequency of extreme events in 2020 and 2050 under the medium-range emission scenario in Metro Manila and the Province of Rizal.
Tropical cyclones that enter the Philippine Area of Responsibility are classified and described by PAGASA as follows:
Tropical Depression - maximum sustained winds is from 45 to 63 kilometers per hour (kph)
Tropical Storm - maximum sustained winds is from 64 to 117 kph Typhoon – maximum sustained winds is 118 kph and higher
Gonzales (1994) as cited by Velasco and Cabanilla (2003), gave us an idea of the characteristics of the tropical cyclones that enter the PAR. Figure 4 shows the Monthly Average Frequency of Occurrence of Tropical Cyclones in the Philippine Area of Responsibility, depicting highest occurrences in the months of July, August and September, with three cyclones per month. October and November have about two per month and December has one. Cyclones from January to May are rare because this is considered the dry season. Things start to pick up again in June, which is officially the start of the cyclone/wet season.
Figure 4 Monthly Average Frequency of Occurrence of Tropical Cyclones
These cyclones make landfall in different parts of the country. As Figure 5 shows, the geographical zones of the country have different frequencies of tropical cyclone passage. The upper parts of northern Luzon has the most frequent passage of hydrological hazards with 5 tropical cyclones in 2 years while the Southern, Central and Western Mindanao regions have the least number of tropical cyclone passage, with an occurrence of 1 cyclone in 12 years. Our area of interest, the Municipality of Cainta lies in a zone where there are 5 cyclones in 3 years. Each island group in the Philippines is divided into regions and two regions were of particular importance to Cainta and to this study: the National Capital Region and Region VI-A, which covers the Province of Rizal.
In addition, Figure 6 illustrates the various paths taken by the tropical cyclones in the course of a year. It is apparent that the safest months for the Municipality of Cainta would be the during the summer months starting from January to April.
Related to precipitation would be flooding. Zoleta-Nantes (2000) warned that the total flood prone area of Metro Manila, including the urbanized towns of Cainta and Taytay, is up to 103.6 square kilometers, directly affecting hundreds of thousands of residents in the area. Liongson (2010) discussed the dynamics of the system of river basins and waterways in Metro Manila and the nearby towns in their capacity to handle hydrological hazards.
On the topic of earthquakes, Figure 7 illustrates the Philippine Fault and other subsidiary faults and trenches that generate seismic activity in our country, causing an annual average of 887 earthquakes.
The Municipality of Cainta is exposed to the earthquake hazards mainly because of the Marikina Valley Fault System. Koo, et.al. (2009) reviewed the geological and tectonic setting for Central Manila and its surrounding area within 500 kilometers, including Cainta, and identified the Marikina Valley Fault system, Philippine Fault and the Manila Trench, formed by subduction of the Eurasian Plate under the Philippine Island arc, as the
lead causes of seismic hazards in the National
Capital Region and its nearby towns. And these tectonic factors contributed to the July 16, 1990 Luzon earthquake which had an epicenter magnitude of 7.8 on the Richter Scale, as discussed by Armillas, et.al. (1990). The Earthquake Impact Reduction Study for Metropolitan Manila (2004) cited studies of Valley Fault System, which poses the greatest threat to Metro Manila and its surrounding areas. The West Valley Fault is approaching its active phases, with estimated magnitudes of around 7 or higher.
Given the above account of the literature about the natural hazards that pose threats to our country and to the Municipality of Cainta, the next part of this review described the disaster risks and impacts that these natural hazards pose.
Disaster Risks and Effects in the Philippines and in the Municipality of Cainta
A distinction was made earlier between natural hazards and natural disasters, emphasizing that the natural hazards combined, with the vulnerabilities of human systems, often result to great catastrophic losses and damages which then constitute the disaster. In other words, a disaster is defined in terms of how it impacts the populace and how it disrupts the social, economic, infrastructural, environmental and/or environmental sectors in the affected area.
But what is a disaster? De Guzman (2003) asserted that a standard universal definition is yet to be accepted. Neil Britton supported this in the 396-page collection of articles entitled “What is a Disaster?” (Perry, 2005). But both de Guzman and Britton cited the Australian Emergency Manual’s definition as worthy of mention, stating that a disaster is a “serious disruption to community life which threatens or causes death or
injury in community and/or damage to property which is beyond the day-to-day capacity of prescribed statutory authorities and which requires special mobilization and organization of resources other than those normally available to those authorities.”
In a similar vein, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of
2010 defined disaster as a “serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. Disasters are often described as a result of the combination of: the exposure to a hazard; the conditions of vulnerability that are present; and insufficient
capacity or measures to reduce or cope with the potential negative consequences. Disaster impacts may include loss of life, injury, disease and other negative effects on human, physical, mental and social well-being, together with damage to property, destruction of assets, loss of services, social and economic disruption and environmental degradation.”
With these definitions in mind, this review delved into the literature about disasters in the Philippines and in particular, the Municipality of Cainta.
The Global Climate Risk Index (CRI) measured by Germanwatch analyzed to what extent countries have been affected by the impacts of weather-related loss events (storms, floods, heat waves etc.). In the Long-Term Climate Risk Index for the 10-year period, from 1991 to 2010, the Philippines placed tenth in the world, with an average of 801 deaths and US$660 million in losses and damages per year. It is also worth noting that among the ten countries most affected, all of them are developing countries. These countries, including the Philippines, are often the ones least prepared to mitigate the risks of disasters. (Harmeling, 2011)
Pacheco, et.al (2010), confirmed the impact of storms and floods in the Philippines, as shown in the table below where typhoons ranked as the worst disaster-causing hazard, followed by floods. Typhoons and floods also account for the worst natural disasters in the Philippines, in terms of deaths and damages.
Bankoff (2003) related the pattern of tropical cyclones to the intensity of regularity of flooding in the Philippines, as cyclones bring 38 percent of the annual average rainfall in the country, especially between July and November. In addition, 56 percent of all flooding incidents were caused by typhoons, while the rest were brought about by heavy rainfall or monsoons.
In Metropolitan Manila, floods affect at least 14 percent of the land area or 86.7 square kilometers, and if the towns of Cainta and Taytay are included, the total flood-prone area would be 103.6 square kilometers, as noted by Zoleta-Nantes (2000), adding that the urbanization problems and political challenges were making matters worse.
Ballesteros (2010) provided some staggering statistics on the slum population in the Philippines, estimating the number of slum dwellers in Metro Manila to be at 37 percent or 4 million as of 2010, and a third of them living below the poverty line. The slum areas are scattered across Metro Manila with 43 percent on government lands, 15 percent on private properties; and 15 percent in danger zones.
The problem has gotten the attention of the Aquino Administration. In fact, the Philippine government, through the Philippine Information Agency has announced a P38 billion socialized housing program over the next 5 years, with an allocation of P10.55 billion in 2012 for informal settlers, prioritizing those whose homes are at-risk because they are very near rivers, creeks and other waterways. (2011) Muto (2009) supported this prioritization, stressing that the poorest among the urban poor are extremely vulnerable because they do not have enough resources to relocate from danger zones and they find it hard to cope with the consequences of frequent typhoons or floods.
The Annual Report Calendar Year 2010 (Department of Environment and Natural Resources Region IV-A) stated that Cainta is “no stranger to typhoons and floods.” All of the seven barangays in Cainta are vulnerable to floods since Cainta is a natural floodplain, experiencing frequent floods during strong rains. Barangay San Juan in Cainta even experienced a flood height of 5.0 meters during Typhoon Ondoy.
During the Habagat Disaster in 2012, 80 percent of Cainta was submerged in rainwater with floods spanning from two feet to a high of ten feet. Six out of seven barangays were badly affected. Brgy. San Juan and Brgy. San Andres had the most number of evacuees because of the number of informal settlers in their area.
Due to the geographic low-lying location of Cainta, there are about 14,000 families whose residences are prone to flooding. But the risk of disasters is greatly increased by the presence of informal settlements on the banks of rivers and waterways in and around the Municipality.
An area of concern, in particular, is the Manggahan Floodway. Vicente, et.al. (2006) estimated that there are 1,153,726 informal settlers along the Manggahan Floodway that spans the localities of Pasig City, Municipality of Taytay and the Municipality of Cainta.
The Legal Mandate of the Local Government
Local governments have the legal duty to initiate and promote Local Economic Development policies and programs. Section 14, Article X of the 1987 Constitution in its declaration of Local Government principles states that “The President shall provide for
regional development councils or other similar bodies composed of local government officials, regional heads of departments and other government offices, and representatives from non-governmental organizations within the regions for purposes of administrative decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units therein and to accelerate the economic and social growth and development of the units in the region.”
In addition, Sections 15 of Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code states
“Every local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and
corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it shall exercise powers as a political subdivision of the national government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory.” And Section 16, states that “Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and
technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.”
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.
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
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)
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 Convened the Cainta DRR-CCA Summit Multi-stakeholder campaign: 7 barangays HOAs Business Sector Religious Sector Youth Academe CSOs NGOS Informal Settlers PWDs Phase 2 Conducted Community-Based Disaster Risk Assessment & Planning Barangay Disaster Planning Workshop Multi-sectoral approach DRA Report Phase 3 Developed the Municipality of Cainta’s LAP-DRR-CCA Grassroots approach Multi-sectoral PPAs 2013 Annual Investment Plan Phase 4 Building a Culture of Safety and Resilience in Cainta Presentation of LAP-DRR-CCA Multi-stakeholder (Summit participants) Sasakawa Award
people’s perception of risk, nature and behavior of hazards, elements at risk and their
survival or coping strategies and what resources they could use in disaster management activities. This particular phase of the study, illustrated in Figure 14 showed that these four contribute to the elements of the Municipality of Cainta’s LAP-DRR-CCA,
particularly its programs, plans and actions. This second operational framework also shows how the components of disaster risk assessment work together to generate data for a situational analysis needed to come up with community development projects.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION OF THEIR DISASTER RISK
Socio-economic status Culture Insiders (community members) and outsiders Common understanding
Local knowledge plus
scientific and technical information OTHER COMPONENTS OF COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER RISK ASSESSMENT Hazard Vulnerability Capacity DISASTER RESILIENT MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA No informal settlements built on flood prone areas
Inclusive, competent and accountable local government
Shared information base Empowered people
Steps to anticipate and mitigate disaster (and climate change) impacts Able to respond,
implement immediate recovery strategies and cope
Operational Definition of Terms
The Local Action Plan referred to in this Governance Innovation Report ensured the strong focus of DRR and CCA by integrating both into one local action plan. It sought to incorporate a comprehensive risk-reducing approach in climate change adaptation in the Municipality of Cainta’s programs, projects and activities and its Annual Investment Plan
(AIP) for 2013.
The definitions in this study were taken mainly from the IPCC (as used in the Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009) and UNISDR combined with relevant definitions found in the literature review.
Hazard – a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity
that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. (United Nations International Disaster Reduction , 2009) It can include potential conditions that may represent future threats and can have different origins. For the purpose of this study, the proponents only focused on natural hazards specifically earthquake, tropical cyclones/ typhoons, and flood. It can be characterized by its location, intensity and probability. This study also recognized hazard as the primary cause of human vulnerability.
Vulnerability – the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope
with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity and its adaptive capacity. (Source: