"What are we waiting for?"
"What are we waiting for?"
Last week, the picturesque Taal volcano woke up from a 43-year slumber. When news of the volcanic eruption first came out on social media, I thought it was simply one of those signs of unrest that said volcano would exhibit from time to time.
Hours later, images of the volcano spewing ash clouds and causing volcanic thunderstorms were being shown on television. The phreatic eruption caused the evacuation of hundreds of thousands along the coast of Taal Lake. Thousands of residents from several municipalities were displaced and sought refuge in neighboring towns in Batangas and Cavite. Almost overnight, the town of Lemery in Batangas and several others became virtual ghost towns. Even Metro Manila, located almost 50 kilometers away from the volcano, experienced ash fall in the hours that followed.
Within 48 hours, however, the government’s disaster management apparatus quickly took control of the situation. Forced evacuation was imposed. Evacuation centers were immediately set up by neighboring local government units to accommodate the growing number of displaced individuals and families. Security roadblocks were placed to manage the influx and movement of people. Within the day, both the national government and several other local government units as well as non-government organizations and private individuals began distributing the needed food and other relief items for the evacuees.
It was a far cry from how things were six years ago when Super Typhoon “Yolanda” struck the country, which resulted in an unparalleled loss of life and destruction of property. While Tacloban City and nearby municipalities had to wait for almost three days for the relief efforts to get organized and for aid to reach the local population—this time, the government’s effort was almost instantaneously set in motion, thus mitigating the possibility of an even more serious human catastrophe.
Admittedly, so much remains to be desired in the ways we prepare and respond to natural calamities such as typhoons, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. But one cannot ignore the fact that there has been a significant improvement in terms of the greater attention that government and other stakeholders have given to disaster preparedness and the increased investments that have been made to upgrade their disaster response capabilities. The truth is, given that the Taal volcanic eruption happened almost unexpectedly, the situation could have been worse. But thanks to the national government’s efforts and the cooperation of the affected communities, its disastrous effects have been mitigated. Clearly, we have learned a lot from the natural disasters that have affected our country in recent years.
Slowly, disaster preparedness is now becoming more of a priority. In the past, we only used to focus on disaster response efforts. This probably explains why despite a reduced calamity fund allocation this year, disaster management stakeholders are expected to remain ready and equipped in addressing natural calamities. The logic is, with the mainstreaming of disaster management in local governance and given that more efficient and effective disaster preparedness strategies are already in place, the cost to be afforded to disaster response will be much lower than before.
Of course, political naysayers will continue to criticize the move by Congress to reduce the calamity fund allocated this year. But setting politics aside, there is more sense investing in disaster preparedness and education in order to reduce disaster response spending. With families living in safer and more resilient communities, and with disaster management personnel provided with the right skills and equipment, the adverse impact of natural disasters on the safety and wellbeing of the people—as well as on government spending—will be reduced significantly.
This brings us to the need to fast-track the passage of the bill creating the Department of Disaster Resilience. With a comprehensive, focused and full-time government agency tasked to spearhead our disaster preparedness, response and recovery efforts, we can more effectively reduce the risks caused by and protect the people from natural hazards. The establishment of a specialized disaster agency will provide the right enabling apparatus for disaster preparedness, training and education, risk reduction and mitigation, humanitarian relief and response and post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation.
For example, while local governments are considered the first responders, this becomes a problem when local governments themselves are affected and debilitated. As in the case of the sudden eruption of the Taal volcano, there is a need for a single national disaster management agency that will always ready to take on leadership roles especially in a large-scale disaster situation. Having such an agency, it will be easier for other stakeholders from both local government and private sectors to coordinate their efforts. Our experience from Typhoon “Haiyan” have taught us that in a humanitarian emergency, closer cooperation and more effective coordination, however, can only happen if there is a single government agency to direct all actions, especially in determining and achieving measurable targets that will apply to all stakeholders.
Lastly, establishing the Department of Disaster Resilience would reinforce the fact that disaster management is a continuing, 24-hour process. In the long term, this means that disaster management-related spending should continually shift to preparedness and mitigation, instead of focusing entirely on disaster response efforts. With a permanent agency in place, it becomes possible to help LGUs strengthen their DRRM capacities by providing the right support, technology and expertise to be able to build community disaster resilience.
Looking back six years ago, many of the challenges that ensued from the Haiyan response would have been averted if we had a single Department of Disaster Resilience. With the local government in need of national government support, the DDR could have provided a more focused and professional leadership in disaster management. The DDR could have taken the lead in monitoring response and early recovery strategies, with clear continuity and sustainability until the recovery and rehabilitation phase. The DDR could have helped create stronger convergence with other humanitarian actors, and learn best practices as a result of this collaboration. Not only would we have recovered sooner, but also we could have made the best out of learning from our mistakes and so improve the way we understand, respond and recover from disasters.
So, what are we waiting for? With the lives of people at stake, let us do better. Let us pass the Disaster Resilience Bill now!