Risk Returns

[

] 107

At the same time, the network generated public support by

providing clear information and educational materials that

campaigned for good DRR to be taken on by congress. This was

done through media briefings, news articles, films and documen-

taries that drove home the urgency of the new law.

Key events in the Philippines helped to raise the profile of

disasters and the need for a new DRR law. For example, the

flooding of the capital Manila and surrounding areas by Typhoon

Ketsana in September 2009 placed national policymakers face-

to-face with disasters and public opinion. This combination of

public and popular pressure led to political change.

Challenges

There were some challenges to this process. Decision-making

was often slow, given the nature of a consensus-based network.

Working at all levels and regions across the Philippines often

meant that information was slow to arrive. However, the

Manila-based members had the benefit of engaging with central

government officials on a day-to-day basis and built and utilized

informal ties with key leaders in congress.

Impacts of the action

In May 2010 the new Disaster Risk Reduction Management

(DRRM) Act was passed in the Philippines. The law has now

moved from emergency response as the main focus of disaster

management towards prevention, protection and empowerment.

It identifies building resilience as a national commitment, and

it adopts and adheres to the principles and strategies consistent

with international frameworks like the HFA.

The results have been a more decentralized approach to DRR

and disaster response, with CSOs, NGOs, communities and the

private sector recognized as key stakeholders for implementing

the law, in addition to government. This is recognition that effec-

tive DRR requires decentralized decision-making structures and

strengthened links between local, district and national levels. The

impacts of this include:

• The mandatory inclusion of civil society in DRRM

councils, which will work with local, regional and national

governments for the implementation and monitoring of the

DRRM law. This is recognition of the immense and valuable

contribution of CSOs in representing and developing the

capacities of communities, identifying risks, accessing

resources for DRR and relief, and managing volunteers during

times of disaster.

• The creation of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and

Management Council, which comprises heads of different

executive departments of government, government

institutions, local government associations, CSOs and the

private sector, and is mandated to oversee DRR at a national

level. The Office of Civil Defence is the implementing

government agency for DRR.

• Local Government Units (LGUs) have been recognized as

the frontline of emergency response, poverty reduction

and development planning. LGUs are now mandated to

initiate DRR work. They have been given the responsibility

for implementation of the law, have been provided more

flexibility in the allocation of resources to do this, and can

be held to account by being penalized if they do not adhere

to the law.

The DRRM Act imposes penalties on local govern-

ment officials if DRR work is not carried out,

including fines of 50,000 Pesos to 500,000 Pesos

(approximately £700–£7,000) and imprisonment

of 6–12 months. Government officials can also be

disqualified from public office. This is a wake-up

call to local officials who now face serious conse-

quences if they do not put DRR into practice at a

local level. The law also gives LGUs ownership and

flexibility in DRR programming. An example of this

is rather than accessing funds from the national

government, which can be a very slow and bureau-

cratic process, LGUs can now access funds from

other supportive LGUs if their local council passes

the resolution.

The capacity of local government has significantly

increased. Staff receive training in DRR so they

understand the complexities of vulnerability and

resilience. Local DRR management offices have been

established which now set the direction and coordi-

nate DRR work in their jurisdictions.

The DRRM Act is a big step in the right direction

for disaster management in the Philippines which

establishes political commitment, recognizes the

need for more decentralized resources for DRR, and

empowers a range of stakeholders at national and

local levels to be involved in decision making.

Planning and commitment

Successful DRR is not just about avoiding risks; it

is also about building a sustainable culture of safety

with the appropriate legal frameworks and policies to

support this in the long term. It requires good govern-

ance – a collective effort, and is the responsibility of

governments, civil society, communities, interna-

tional development agencies, and private companies

alike. This joint approach can be difficult to nurture

and often advocacy can be extremely useful in raising

awareness and profile of disaster risks and acting as a

catalyst for negotiations.

It is important to remember that this takes time

and requires planning, commitment and continuity.

Major advocacy gains are not accomplished within

a typical one to two years project timeframe, for

example. And advances are always susceptible to set

backs or regression. In the Philippines, as this article

goes to press some lawmakers in congress want to

repeal the section of the DRRM law (passed in 2010)

that mandates a fixed five per cent expenditure on

DRR. Therefore the debate rages on, but so do the

skills acquired by partners, communities and all

of those involved in the advocacy process that are

continuing to contribute to good governance for DRR

and reducing possible vulnerability to disasters long

into the future.

For the full series of case studies please see Partnering

for Resilience: Reducing disaster risks through success-

ful partnerships, Christian Aid, April 2011.