Cartoon by Aaron Paul C. Caril
EDITORIAL
Taming Carina: The nagging policy debate
on disaster management
Typhoon Carina may have left the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR), but the human suffering in its aftermath will last longer. As reported by PAG-ASA, Carina did not make landfall in the Philippines but still affected several areas in Luzon.
Owing to its geographical location, the Philippines is exposed to disasters which have been part of the lives among Filipinos. This risk factor owing to the country’s geography is compounded by other risk factors such as poverty and the dire need for more funding for risk reduction and management. The need for financial support is urgent and cannot be ignored.
Geography cannot be changed. But disaster risk reduction and mitigation of the aftermath of every disaster are supposedly manageable. What happened after every calamity made us realize that we have developed a culture of maladaptation rather than disaster resilience.
For example, in coastal communities, we are reminded of disaster-prone areas, supposedly no-build zones. Most of the casualties come from these areas. The concerned LGUs would normally declare that the former settlers in no-build zones would no longer be allowed to rebuild their houses in the area. However, this pronouncement is good only until another disaster happens when the casualties again come from the same area.
Over the years, the country has evolved and shifted its disaster management approach. In 2010, Republic Act No. 10121, or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, was enacted into law, which adopted four thematic pillars (e.g., prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, rehabilitation, and recovery), formed a multi-stakeholder council, and devolved most functions to the local governments. It also mandated the need for national and local disaster risk reduction and management plans, which were ultimately advised by national agencies to be streamlined into the larger local development plan.
Despite the passage of the RA 10121, problems such as lack of horizontal and vertical coordination among stakeholders, inadequate human and financial resources, and insufficient capacity, persist. It’s crucial that we work together, across all levels, to address these issues.
During the time of former President Rodrigo Duterte, he had consistently pushed for the passage of a law that would create the Department of Disaster Resilience. His call was supported by some lawmakers in the Senate and the House of Representatives, who had pending bills in both houses. The DDR was meant to consolidate disaster-related agencies and supplant the inter-agency model of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) — which currently includes the government, NGOs, and the private sector — to minimize bureaucratic hurdles. Duterte’s term ended without the law being passed. President Bongbong Marcos seems to have no clear stand on creating the DDR. He expressed interest in establishing a new department for disaster management a few days after his inauguration but has seemingly changed his stance. He instead reiterated support for his sister, Senator Imee Marcos’ proposal that the NDRRMC be strengthened and placed under the Office of the President (OP).
Disasters in the Philippines are threats to the lives of every Filipino. The government must urgently resolve policy issues on disaster prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, rehabilitation and recovery. The urgency of this matter cannot be overstated. While natural disasters cannot be prevented, we should at least prevent another disaster from aggravating our suffering — our failure to adopt effective disaster preparedness, mitigation, and recovery measures.