Here we are again, facing the aftermath of a monster storm, strangely named “Mangkhut” (its international name, coming from the Thai word for Mangosteen) and its innocuous-sounding Filipino name “Ompong” (a Dolphy character if I correctly remember). But the story is the same. Winds, rain, floods, storm surges, and landslides wreck havoc and cause loss of life and damage to property.
We are better now, of course. Dozens still died compared to the thousands when Yolanda devasted the Visayas and Pablo and Sendong hit Mindanao. But we cannot rest on our laurels.
In a recent article I co-wrote with Dr. Kristoffer Berse from the National College of Public Administration and Governance of the University Philippines, we pointed out that no disasters are the same, but there are common themes of what constitute a good response. We pointed out that: “A well-established early warning system ensured timely evacuation, while the operation centers of most cities were in full gear as torrential rains pounded the metropolis intermittently. But what created significant buzz among netizens is in how cities like Marikina, Makati, and Quezon City—certainly our ‘star cities’ when it comes to disaster management—have raised the bar in camp and evacuation management. Marikina and Makati put up modular tents, a foldable technology adopted from the Japanese, while Quezon City showcased its own fire-proof and solar-powered pop-up huts. These examples should serve as the gold standard for other cities to up their ante in the provision of temporary shelters.”
The provinces, cities, and towns of Northern Luzon would certainly have benefited from the experience of Marikina, Makati, and Quezon City. Its time to scale up inter-LGU (local government unit) cooperation so best practices can be emulated.
A best practice, Professor Berse and I point to is the shift towards nature-based solutions to manage flooding and other disasters. Multi-billion mega-flood control projects can only do so much; we need to harness nature so it can take back what it gives.
While some local governments have improved their capacity to address disasters, Professor Berse and I propose that we cannot rest on the laurels of these star LGUs. As we have done for five years now, we strongly support the creation of a national agency that could dedicate its full resources in ensuring that the good practice of some LGUs become standard practice throughout the country. We observed: “Scaling up of good practices cannot be done more effectively and efficiently in the current setup wherein the Office of Civil Defense, the Secretariat of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), could not even directly receive funds for Capital Outlay to finance the creation DRRM training institutes nationwide, as mandated by law. It does not help that the OCD, as an attached agency, has to compete with the bureaucratic priorities of its host agency, the Department of National Defense (DND).”
We believe that all of our local successes will be in vain if there is no authoritative and accountable agency that could effectively harmonize these efforts for a coherent whole-of-society and whole-of-government endeavor. Unfortunately, our efforts continue to be marred by bureaucratic squabbling and largely isolated activities, with LGUs on the receiving end of competing, if not conflicting, information and instructions from various national agencies. Take for instance what we did with a good thing like Project Noah.
Fortunately, President Duterte in his last SONA is supporting the creation of a standalone executive department. Albay Rep. Joey Salceda, one of the most experienced and innovative on disaster issues when he was governor of his province, has filed a bill creating of a Department of Disaster Resilience. Professor Berse and I suggest that we go further and create a Department of Disaster Resilence and Climate Change, with the Climate Change Commission and its powers and functions absorbed into the new department.
The Salceda bill, of course, is not yet perfect in its current form. Congress should not start from scratch. It should consider the findings and recommendations of the nationwide consultations with various groups involved in NDRRMC operations that took place in 2015-2016, an effort led by NDRRMC Executive Director and Defense Undersecretary Alexander Pama to prepare for the formal “sunset review” of Republic Act 10121.
Professor Berse and I propose the following considerations in creating a new department.
First, Congress must be strategic in deciding which existing agencies should be integrated into the new department. For example, we must thoroughly discuss the pros and cons of transferring Pagasa and the Mining and GeoSciences Bureau (MGB) to the new department. We do not want the unintended consequence of having the mandate of these agencies, which goes beyond disaster resilience, affected by such a move. Are there other options short of removing them respectively from the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)? Top officials and rank and file from the affected agencies must certainly by consulted so all bases are covered.
Second, the amalgamation of the NDRRMC and CCC, as the highest policymaking and advisory body, is also necessary. These institutions have been managed separately, undertaking activities that should have been integrated from the beginning. Now is the perfect time to make this institutional convergence happen officially and for good. For as the saying goes, too many cooks could spoil the broth. But similar to Pagasa and MGB, the top officials and rank and file of CCC should be consulted, among others to also identify mandates that might be affected by this change. Mitigation regulatory responsibilities should now be completely returned mainly to the DENR but with the Departments of Energy, Transportation, and Agriculture as playing important roles. The negotiation mandate of the CCC should now be returned mainly with the Department of Foreign Affairs working with all agencies but with the Secretary of the new department as the minister in charge for purposes of official meetings.
Third, the new department must have one clear one line Cabinet secretary that will now be in charge of both disasters and climate change. It was not effective to have the President, who is very busy, to chair the NDRMRMC and CCC. He still of course will have control over the new department as head of the executive branch.
Fourth, on the financial side, the People’s Survival Fund should be included in discussion on funding resilience. By finally integrating disaster risk reduction planning and climate change adaptation, new sources of funding could be identified for resilience projects. This includes the Green Climate Fund where money is available for both mitigation and adaptation.
In sum, we can face disasters better. But we must be united in our efforts, not distracted by our toxic politics. How to do that will be the topic of my next column.