Assessment of Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management

(DRRM) at the Local Level

Commission on Audit
2014

Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations....

Introduction..

Philippine Disaster Profile..

Governance Structure on Disaster Management

Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund

(LDRRMF).

16

Issues Identified in Previous and Recent Audit Results..

17

Recommendations

22

Audit Results of Selected LGUs Affected by Typhoon

Yolanda...................................................................................

23

Conclusion..

28

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

List of Abbreviations
AFP
CCA
CCAC
CDP
CHED
CLUP
DA
DBM
DENR
DepEd
DFA
DG
DILG
DND
DOE
DOF
DOH
DOJ
DOLE
DOST
DOT
DOTC
DPWH
DRRM
DSWD
DTI
EWS
GDP
GSIS
IEC
JMC
LDCC
LDRRMC
LDRRMF
LDRRMFIP
LDRRMO
LGU
MDRRMC
NAPC
NDCC
NDRRMC
NEDA
NGO
OCD

Armed Forces of the Philippines

Climate Change Adaptation
Climate Change Advisory Committee
Comprehensive Development Plan
Commission on Higher Education
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Department of Agriculture
Department of Budget and Management
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Department of Education
Department of Foreign Affairs
Director General
Department of Interior and Local Government
Department of National Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Finance
Department of Health
Department of Justice
Department of Labor and Employment
Department of Science and Technology
Department of Tourism
Department of Transportation and Communications
Department of Public Works and Highways
Disaster risk reduction and management
Department of Social Welfare and Development
Department of Trade and Industry
Early warning system
Gross domestic product
Government Service and Insurance System
Instructional, education and communication
Joint Memorandum Circular
Local Disaster Coordinating Council
Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund
Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund Investment Plan
Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office
Local government unit
Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
National Anti-Poverty Commission
National Disaster Coordinating Council
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
National Economic and Development Authority
Nongovernmental organization
Office of the Civil Defense

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

PCW
PDRRM-2010
PHIC
PNP
PRC
QRF
RA
RD
RDCC
RDRRMC
SSS
VC

Philippine Commission on Women

Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010
Philippine Health Insurance Company
Philippine National Police
Philippine Red Cross
Quick Response Fund
Republic Act
Regional Director
Regional Disaster Coordinating Council
Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
Social Security System
Vice Chairperson

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

Introduction

The recent spate of events has shown that the frequent occurrence of disasters
in the country has prevented the Philippine Government to reduce the incidence
of poverty and reduce the number of people and assets vulnerable to natural
disasters.
Disasters are serious disruptions on the functioning of a community or a
society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental
losses and impacts, which exceed 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.1
Disasters can strike anytime, anywhere. It can cause irrevocable damage to life
and property if the right measures are not put in place to avoid the same. This
can also bring out the best and worst of human nature. The manner in which
action is taken goes a long way to determine how people fair from the
experience. Hence, there is need for disaster risk reduction and management
(DRRM).
DRRM is the systematic process of using administrative directives,
organizations, and operational skills and capacities to implement strategies,
policies and improved coping capacities in order to lessen the adverse impacts
of hazards and the possibility of disaster. Prospective DRRM refers to risk
reduction and management activities that address and seek to avoid the
development of new or increased disaster risks, especially if risk reduction
policies are not put in place.2

1
2

Section 3(h), RA No. 10121

Section 3(o), RA No.10121

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

Philippine Disaster Profile

The Philippines is an archipelagic nation comprised of 7,107
islands, spanning 1,850 kilometers from north to south. Its total
land area measures around 299,764 square kilometers and its
coastline is about 36,000 kilometers, the longest coastline in the
world. It is bounded by three large bodies of water: on the west
and north by the South China Sea; on the east by the Pacific
Ocean; and on the south by the Celebes Sea and the coastal
waters of Borneo.3
A.1. Disaster Threats
to RPs Growth

Due to the countrys location along two major tectonic plates of

the world the Eurasian and Pacific Plates it experiences an
average of 20 earthquakes per day or 100 to 200 earthquakes
every year. There have been 90 destructive earthquakes in the
country in the past 400 years.
There are also 300 volcanoes in the country, 22 of these are
active and 36,289 kilometers of its coastline is vulnerable to
tsunami.

A.2. Natural Hazards

Setting in the
Philippines

Typhoons or tropical cyclones are also perennial threats to the

country. Due to its location along the typhoon belt on the North
Pacific Basin in the Pacific, where 75% of typhoons originate,
an average of 20 to 30 typhoons per year, five to seven of
which can be destructive, strike the country. One-fourth of
these typhoons have high wind speeds of up to 200 kilometers
per hour.
In truth, from 1970 to 2009, the annual average direct damage
to disasters ranged from P5 billion to P15 billion (US$100
million to US$300 million). Indirect and secondary impacts
further increased these costs. Cost of direct damage is
equivalent to more than 0.5% of the national gross domestic
product (GDP).
Aside from its economic impact, natural disasters claim an
annual average of 1,002 casualties. And in the last five years,
flooding has been the topmost disaster in the country.

Carmelita A. Laverinto. The Philippine Disaster Management System.(2010) 3

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

. Disaster Impact

Super typhoon Yolanda (international name: Haiyan) is the

most powerful and devastating tropical cyclone that struck the
Philippines in recent memory. The Category 5 typhoon made its
first landfall over Guiuan, Eastern Samar in the early morning of
November 8, 2013 and wreaked havoc, primarily on the Visayas
region, until its exit from the Philippine area of responsibility the
following day.
Weather officials said Yolanda had sustained wind speeds
exceeding 185 kph when it made landfall. The strong winds
ripped off the roofs of thousands houses and knocked down
shanties, trees, power and telephone lines and cell towers. Storm
surge waves as high as 6 to 7 meters or a two-storey high
building, were also seen, claiming thousands of lives and
destroying property.
Yolanda left a trail of destruction in the lives of more than 3.4
million families or 16 million people, spread across 12,139
barangays in 44 provinces, 591 municipalities and 57 cities of
Regions IV-A, IV-B, V, VI, VII, VIII, X and XI and CARAGA.
A total of 4 million people have also been displaced by the
typhoon.
According to the National Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Council (NDRRMC), Yolandas death toll has
reached 6,300 as of 17 April 2014, while the number of injured
stood at 28,689 and 1,061 are still missing.
In terms of economic damages, NDRRMC has pegged the total
losses at P39.8 billion, with almost P20 billion for infrastructures
and P20.2 billion for agriculture in Regions IV-A, IV-B, V, VI,
VII, VIII and CARAGA.
Table 1. Impact of Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines,
November 2013 (as of 17 April 2014)
Areas Affected:

Regions IV-A, IV-B, V, VI, VII, VIII, X,

XI and CARAGA

Casualties:

Dead6,300; Missing 1,061;

Injured28,689 persons
Total of 3,424,593 families, of which
890,895 families (4,095,280
individuals) were reportedly displaced
Total of P89,598,068,634.88 worth of
damages broken down into the
following sectors. (Table 2)

Severely Affected
Population:
Total Estimated
Damage & Losses:

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

Table 2
Sector
Infrastructure
Productive
Social
Cross-Sectoral
Total

Amount (in peso)

9,584,596,305.69
21,833,622,975.09
55,110,825,740.69
3,069,023,613.41
89,598,068,634.88

Yolanda might be the strongest tropical cyclone to ever make

landfall in recorded history but many catastrophic storms and
other natural and man-made disasters have already battered the
Philippines since time immemorial. Disasters have always
been a perennial problem for the country, causing mass
casualties and destruction of millions of properties as can be
gleaned from the following graph and table:

Fig. 1. Natural Disaster Occurrence in the Philippines from 1900 to 2014

Occurrence

350

314

300
250
200
136

150
100
50

28

18

30
3

25
1

Table 3
No. of events
No. of people killed
No. of people affected
Economic damage (000 US$)

565
69,724
185,749,697
22,971,533

Source: "EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International

Disaster Database www.em-dat.net Universit
Catholique de Louvain - Brussels - Belgium"

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

Governance Structure
on Disaster Management
Disaster management involves a system composed of large numbers of diverse
interacting agencies, a complex web of interlinked bi-directional power
relationships among stakeholders with widely differing characteristics. Sound
governance is critical in ensuring effective functioning of the different
government agencies all throughout the various stages of disaster management.
The NDRRMC is on top of this, being the highest policy-making body on
disaster risk reduction and management of the country. It likewise advises the
President on the status of disaster preparedness, prevention, mitigation,
response and rehabilitation undertaken at the national and local levels. The
following chart shows the organization and membership of the Council:

Fig. 2

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

A. National Organizations
Working on DRRM

Given below is the table on DRRM national institutions:

T abl e 4 . Key s t akeh ol der s and i ns ti t ut i ons on D R R M i n t he P hil i ppi nes

Disaster Management Coordination
Office of the Civil Defense (OCD)

The OCD is entrusted to ensure the protection and public

welfare during disasters or emergencies. The OCD serves as
the operating arm of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Council (NDRRMC), supporting discharge of its
functions.

NDRRMC;
Reduction
(RDRRMC);
Reduction
(LDRRMO)

The highest policy-making body on matters of disasters in the

country. NDRRMC advises the President on efforts in disaster
management undertaken by the government and the private
sector, thereby serving as the highest policy-making body on
disaster management. The NDRRMC is replicated at the
regional and local levels, and these bodies function
substantially like the NDRRMC, operating and utilizing
resources at their respective levels.

Regional Disaster Risk

and Management Council
and Local Disaster Risk
and Management Office

Sectoral Government Agencies (e.g.

Department of Public Works and Responsible for carrying out their respective tasks and
in
disaster
management
including
Highways (DPWH), Department of responsibilities
preparedness,
mitigation,
response
and
rehabilitation.
Transportation and Communications
(DOTC), Department of Science and
Technology (DOST), Department of
Agriculture (DA),Department of Energy
(DOE), Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), etc.)
The NDRRMP outlines the roles of the national government,
the NDRRMC, OCD, the Regional Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Council (RDRRMC), the Local Disaster
Risk Reduction and Management Offices (LDRRMOs), and
Provincial, City, Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Councils (P/C/MDRRMC or Local DRRMCs).
The national government integrates DRRM into the Philippine
Development Plan as well as the sectoral DRRM plans of
national line and government agencies along the four Priority
Areas (prevention, preparedness, response and rehabilitation).

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

B. National Strategies on Disaster

Management

Fig. 3

The following diagram demonstrates

an integrated system of disaster
management reflecting the different
agencies and their specific tasks.

Fig. 4
As shown, agencies are clustered under the different phases of
Disaster Management in order to ensure a more coherent and
effective response across all key sectors or areas of activity.
National cluster leads like DENR, Department of Education
(DepEd) and DPWH are lending support to regional Disaster
Coordinating Council to institutionalize the standards and
dimensions of the cluster approach. Local government Units
still continue to play a critical role in disaster response but
capabilities at the local level and coordination between the
latter and national government agencies still face a big
challenge.

B.1. Paradigm Shift

With the adoption of Hyogo Framework for Action in 2005,

the Philippine Government, (mainly members of the
NDRRMC, the countrys focal point for disaster response)
took steps to shift from the focus on relief and response to that
of DRRM. International and national non-government
organizations (NGOs) saw an ally in government as it took on
projects with a comprehensive approach to disasters. Foreignassisted projects provided opportunities where government
could take a proactive role in identifying hazards, assessing
risks, mapping, informing,
and communicating with
community residents, working with local government units
(LGUs) and LDCCs devising early warning system (EWS),
and mainstreaming operation.

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

10

Disaster risk reduction is also being integrated in national and

local policy development and planning processes. This
commitment resulted towards the drafting of Strengthening
Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National
Action Plan 2009-2019 as well as the Strategic Plan on
Community Based Disaster Risk Management 2007-2011.
Some series of dialogues and consultations among
stakeholders, international and local NGOs, the academe and
government facilitated the planning process. The field
experience of NGOs complements the scientific knowledge of
the science and technology institutions and the academe, and
the NDCCs practical skills and knowledge on post-disaster
activities. The DRRM field has grown to be inclusive of
several other players, from development planning, housing,
environment, and disaster fields and thus broadened the work
of NDCC.
Republic Act (RA) No. 10121 otherwise known as the
Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of
2010 (PDRRM-2010) was enacted on May 27, 2010, to
strengthen the Philippine disaster risk reduction system. It
specifically provides for the development of policies and plans
and the implementation of actions and measures pertaining to
all aspects of disaster risk reduction and management,
including good governance, risk assessment and early
warning, knowledge building and awareness raising, reducing
underlying risk factors, and preparedness for effective
response and early recovery. A separate office is created that
will principally be responsible for the implementation of
disaster risk reduction and management programs.
Local and regional DRRMCs are important links in the
national-local chain. The RDRRMC takes the overall lead in
ensuring that DRRM-sensitive regional development plans
contribute to and are aligned with the NDRRM Plan.
B.2. DRRM at the Local Level

The RDRRMC is tasked to coordinate, integrate, supervise and

evaluate the activities of the LDRRMC. It is responsible in
ensuring disaster sensitive regional development plans and in
case of emergencies shall convene the different regional line
agencies and concerned institutions and authorities.
It is
composed of the following:

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

11

Fig. 5

Table 5
Chairman

Source: http://brgy9apoblacion.wordpress.com

Vice
Chairperson
(VC) for
Disaster
Preparedness
VC for Disaster
Response
VC for Disaster
Prevention &
Mitigation
VC for Disaster
Rehabilitation
& Recovery
Members

Secretariat

Regional Director
(RD),OCD
RD, DILG

RD, DSWD
RD, DOST

RD, National Economic and

Development Authority
(NEDA)
Executives of regional
offices and field stations at
the regional level of
government agencies
OCD Regional Office

The LDRRMC is chaired by the Local Chief Executive and

has 18 member agencies. It is responsible in taking the lead in
preparing for responding and recovering from the effect of any
disaster based on the following criteria:
The Barangay Disaster Council, if a barangay is
affected;
The City/Municipal DRRMC if two or more barangays
are affected;
The Provincial DRRMC if two or more
cities/municipalities are affected;
The RDRRMC if two or more provinces are affected;
The NDRRMC if two or more regions are affected
The Local DRRM Plans (LDRRMPs) are developed by the
LDRRMOs at the provincial, city and municipal levels and the
Barangay Development Councils. The OCD is tasked to
evaluate and ensure that disaster risk reduction measures are
incorporated into the Comprehensive Development Plan
(CDP) and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).
The NDRRMC and intermediary LDRRMCs shall always act
as support to LGUs which have the primary responsibility as
first disaster responders. Private sector and civil society
groups shall work in accordance with the coordination
mechanism and policies set by NDRRMC and concerned
LDRRMCs.

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

12

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

13

C. Related Regulations

C.1. DILG Memorandum Circular

No. 2012-79 dated April 25,
2012

The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)

issued Memorandum Circular No. 2012-79 dated April 25,
2012, entitled, Seal of Disaster Preparedness. The circular,
which became effective in 2012, covers a high-risk province,
city or municipality, and has for its objectives the following:
1.

To recognize and incentivize local government

performance
in
institutionalizing
disaster
preparedness.

2.

To assess performance gaps, link gaps to policy

or
program
intervention
and
monitor
improvement(s) on disaster preparedness.

The concerned local governments are to be assessed

using sets of criteria that are consistent with the
DRRM Framework. The Seal has two (2) levels of
assessments: the first level is done annually while the
second level is undertaken when an actual disaster
occurs.
Disaster preparedness, which is a test of a local
government capability to address the potential effects
of a disaster to human life, implies a window of 6 to
12 hours. The Seals provisions, however, gives
emphasis to the foundational administrative
requirements (i.e., structure, competence and tools) of
disaster preparedness.

Fig. 8

Level 1:
Minimum Criteria:
1.
2.
3.

4.

Leadership Structure - organization of the DRRMC

and the DRRMO
Guide to Action - risk assessment and mapping,
institutionalized planning and budgeting
Disaster Preparedness - contingency planning early
warning and evacuation alert system, pre-emptive
evacuation, stockpiling equipping, technical
competency and community awareness
Partnership, Volunteerism and Innovation
partnering national government agencies, other
local governments, Society and the Private Sector,

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

14

organized volunteers, innovation

Disaster preparedness - Response is a test of a local government
capability in ensuring basic survival and subsistence needs of
the affected population based on acceptable standards during a
disaster.
Level 2:
Minimum Criteria:
1.

Search and Rescue - trained personnel, equipage,

response time, zero casualty
2. Evacuation Center Management - adequate temporary
shelter for evacuees, power, water supply, food health
and sanitation, counseling and trained center
management personnel
A local government that passes Level 1 Assessment receives a
Certificate of Recognition. On the other hand, a local
government that passes both Level 1 and Level 2 Assessments
receives the Seal and Disaster Management Fund or Disaster
Equipage.
As of this writing, no LGU has been awarded the Seal of
Disaster Preparedness. This only shows that a lot of work still
has to be done by LGUs in the aspect of Disaster
Preparedness. Also, the DILG has drafted the 2014 Seal of
Good Local Governance: Pagkilala sa Katapatan at
Kahusayan ng Pamahalaang Lokal where disaster
preparedness is one of the components.
C.2. COA Circular No. 2012-002
dated September 12, 2012

C.3 NDRRMC, DBM and DILG Joint

Memorandum Circular No.
2013-1dated March 25, 2013

COA Circular No. 2012-002 dated September 12, 2012

provides the guidelines on accounting and reporting the
allocation and utilization of the LDRRM Fund (LDRRMF), the
NDRRM Fund given to LGUs, and Receipts from Other
Sources. LGUs are already complying with these guidelines.
Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 2013-1 dated
March 25, 2013 of the NDRRMC, Department of Budget
and Management (DBM) and DILG provides the guidelines
on the allocation and utilization of the LDRRMF. It aims to
enhance transparency and accountability in the use of the
LDRRMF. The JMC also defines the projects and activities
to be undertaken by LGUs for each of the four thematic
areas of DRRM.

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

15

Local Disaster Risk Reduction

Management Fund (LDRRMF)

Fig. 9

LDRRMF
2011
5%

95%

The LDRRMF replaced the Local Calamity Fund (LCF),

consisting of not less than 5% of the estimated revenue from
regular sources. LGUs are mandated by RA 8185 since 1996
to allocate 5% of its Internal Revenue Allotment as LCF and
can only be used upon declaration of a state of calamity by
the local legislative body. In 2003, a Joint Memorandum
Circular was issued by the DBM and the DILG, allowing the
use of the LCF for disaster preparedness and other predisaster activities. This fund is set aside to support disaster
risk management activities such as, but not limited to, predisaster preparedness programs including training,
purchasing life-saving rescue equipment, supplies and
medicines, for post-disaster activities, and for the payment of
premiums on calamity insurance.
In 2011, allocations to LGUs amounted to P13,257,391,000,
5% of which amounts to P662,869,550 representing the
LDRRMF for 2011.

Fig. 10

LDRRMF
2012
5%

For 2012, allocations to LGUs amount to P18,303,490,000,

5% of which amounts to P915,174,500 representing the
LDRRMF for 2012.

95%

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

16

Issues Identified in Previous

and Recent Audit Results
Previous and more recent program assessments and
financial audits on DRRM implementation at the local level
reveal the following cross-cutting issues:
Lack of Capacity and Technical
Expertise

The mismatch between institutional responsibilities and

capacities at the local level has been identified as a major
impediment to effective DRRM implementation. This has
been determined as a major constraint even before the
enactment of RA 10121.
According to a national table assessment on LGU
compliance to RA 10121 conducted by the Bureau of
Government Supervision last year, only 23% of LGUs
located in flood-prone areas are prepared for disasters in
terms of awareness, institutional capacities and
coordination.
The data was gathered by the Municipal Government
Officers through the Seal of Disaster Preparedness Capture
form which covered 1,714 LGUs consisting of 80
provinces, 143 cities and 1,491 municipalities identified by
the Mines and Geosciences Bureau within the 18 Major
River Basins.
The study further showed the gaps in the following vital
aspects of DRRM implementation:
Incomplete roster of LDRRMC members and
understaffed LDRRMOs. Data show that only 42% or less
than half of the respondents have complete LDRRMC
members. Only two-thirds or 67% of organized LDRRMOs
have a complete staff in-charge of research and planning,
administration and training, and operations and warning.
Moreover, mayors who serve as incident commanders may
not have the necessary skills on disaster or emergency
operations and the functionality of Disaster Emergency
Centers was not determined.

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

17

Lack of preventive technical DRRM mechanisms. LGUs

which were found to have a 52% level of disaster
preparedness still lacked mechanisms on communication and
warning, search and rescue, evacuation, relief operations,
transportation and medical health services. A warning and
evacuation alert system is still not in place in most of the
respondent LGUs although only 27% of the respondents
have yet to enact an ordinance on forced or preemptive
evacuation. Moreover, most LGUs do not have stockpiles
and equipage due to lack of baseline or standards.
Lack of awareness of RA 10121 and
non-compliance to its provisions

Lack of public awareness or the threats and impacts of

all types of hazards. Instructional, educational and
communication (IEC) materials and guides on DRRM were
found to be insufficient in substance and form.
The results of audit on the DRRM of LGUs as presented in
the 2012 Annual Financial Report reveal the following
issues, specifically on the mostly shows cross-cutting issues
in the audited agencies, as follows:

Region
V
XI
XII
ARMM
Total
Table 6

No. of LGUs without an

approved Investment Plan
11
1
3
22
37

Non-preparation and submission of

LDRRMF
Investment Plan (LDRRMFIP). Under COA Circular No.
2012-002 dated September 12, 2012, LGUs are required to
prepare an LDRRMFIP annually. In the validation made by
the audit teams, thirty-seven (37) LGUs in four regions were
reported to have either not been able to prepare their
LDRRMFIP or the Plan did not bear proof that it went
through the deliberation of the LDRRMC as required under
RA 10121. In one LGU, the LDRRMF was utilized without
an approved Investment Plan.
Statutory LDRRMF appropriation not observed. The
amount set up for the LDRRMF in two regions was short by
P39.240 million as compared with the required ceiling set
under Section 21 of RA 10121, which is 5% of the estimated
revenue from regular sources.
Table 7
Region
Amount of LDRRMF
appropriation not
observed
II
no amount
V
39,240,810
Total
39,240,810

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

18

Table 8
Region
CAR
V
ARMM
Total
Table 9
Region
CAR
I
II
IV-B
V
X
XII
Total

Amount
3,145,000
1,503,479,219
3,871,778,289
5,378,402,508

Amount
82,000,000
no amount
76,660,167
343,118,417
731,000,721
24,267,915
24,267,915
1,281,315,135

Non-implementation of LDRRMF programs, projects

and activities. LGUs in three regions, were either not able
to maximize the utilization of their LDRRMF or have not
implemented the programs/projects/activities under the
LDRRMF in the total amount of P5, 378,402,508.

Incorrect charging and misclassified LDRRMF

expenditures. Seven regions had LGUs which charged
expenditures that were not DRRM-related activities against
the LDRRMF aggregating to P1, 281,315,135.00. Moreover,
one LGU utilized the allotted amount for QRF even without
the required declaration of a State of Calamity. There were
also disbursements amounting to P2, 723,827,087.00 in
three regions which were not properly documented or
without adequate supporting documents.
Table 10
Region
II
IV-B
V
Total

Amount
3,300,000
159,212,149
2,561,314,938
2,723,827,087

In 2013, this practice has not been corrected in the case of

region 8, we observed that:
Table 11
LGUs
Mun. of Sta. Rita
Calbayog City
Mun. of
Matuguinao

Amount
717,725.00
4,238,687.00
1,513,281.15

Disbursement vouchers and supporting documents for

purchases charged to the LDRRMF were incomplete or not
submitted for audit, thus, the propriety of the disbursements
could not be determined.
Non-preparation and submission of LDRRMF utilization
report. Forty-two (42) LGUs in seven (7) regions were not
able to prepare the required utilization report on the
LDRRMF in the total amount of P302.046 million.
Moreover, in three of these regions, the utilization reports
lacked the supporting documents for funds used in the
amount of P2, 723,827,087.00.

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

19

Table 12
Region

I
II
IV-B
V
IX
X
XII
Total
Table 13
Region
I
II
IV-B
V
X
XII
Total

Amount of
LDRRMF balance
not transferred to
a Trust Fund
4,338,600,035
2,254,273,302
857,161,705
13,156,983,733
1,865,238,742
3,851,174,036
26,323,431,553

No. of LGUs without

LDRRMF Utilization
Report
1
3
1
24
11
1
1
42

Non-transfer of unexpended LDRRMF balance to a

Trust Fund. The unexpended balance of the LDRRMF in
six regions with a consolidated amount of P26,
323,431,553.00 was not transferred from the General Fund
to the Trust Fund under the Trust Liability-DRRM account
as required under COA Circular No. 2012-002, or the
account used was erroneous. One LGU (Region IV-B, Abra
de Ilog, Occidental Mindoro) was noted to have reverted
back the unexpended LDRRMF amount to the
unappropriated surplus and another LGU (Region II Nueva
Vizcaya) did not have adequate disclosure in the Notes to the
Financial Statements.
In 2013, the same practice of non-transfer of unutilized
amount of LDRRMF to a Trust Fund has also been observed
in the following LGUs in region 8:
Table 14
LGUs
Province of Samar
Mun. of Sta. Rita
Calbayog City
Mun. of Sta. Margarita
Mun. of Sto. Nio
Mun. of Matuguinao

Lack of coordination and

communication among DRRM
stakeholders

Amount
Php19,106,925.95
1,366,665.46
114,974.365.26
1,424,218.65
950,204.20
706,568.55

The report on the sources and utilization of the LDRRMF

required under COA Circular No. 2012-002 dated
September 12, 2012 were not submitted.
In DILGs 2013 preparedness assessment report, it was
evident that coordination between and among LGUs,

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

20

national government agencies, civil society organizations,

volunteers and the private sector left much to be desired.

Patronage Politics

The governance failure observed during the onslaught of

typhoon Sendong has a cost resulting in lack of
responsiveness to the needs of the majority of the
population.
Despite enactment of PDRRM-2010, the
patronage system forms the socio-cultural foundation of the
current disaster management system in the Philippines, thus
prohibiting a risk management ethos.
As a result of
patronage, decisions are based on electoral considerations
rather than on evidence or technical assessments. This result
in underinvestment in vital national-level infrastructure
projects and the concurrent resourcing of micro-level
projects...4 In fact in the audit of the DILG, it was reported
that 96% of the donated funds remained unutilized as at
December 31, 2012 thereby depriving the intended
beneficiaries of the much needed immediate assistance.
Coordination between local institutions and national and
international actors is a challenge because LGUs were given
the responsibility to lead but lacked the capacity and
technical expertise to manage disaster risks. This major
constraint has been determined even before PDRRM-2010
was enacted.
The mismatch between institutional
responsibilities and capacities, particularly at the local level,
has been identified as a major impediment to effective
implementation of disaster risk reduction and management.
This observed condition is likely to contribute to the nonutilization of funds allotted to disaster response long after
the disaster is over.

4Ibid,

pp. 27-28.

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

21

Recommendations
In view of the assessment results, audit findings and observations,
we are offering the following recommendations for the optimal
implementation of the countrys DRRM system in accordance with
RA 10121, especially at the local level:

Close coordination among LGU officials and other

DRRM offices. To ensure effective formulation,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the
LDRRM Plan and the LDRRMFIP, as well as the proper
utilization and distribution of the LDRRMF, LGU
officials must work closely with other DRRM offices.
Proper formulation and mainstreaming of the
LDRRM Plan and Fund Investment Plan.
Consultations with the Local Development Council must
be an integral part of the preparation of the LDRRM Plan
and Fund Investment Plan. LGU officials must also
ensure that these plans are integrated into their Local
Development Plan.
Proper and efficient utilization of the LDRRMF.
LGUs must comply with RA 10121s statutory ceiling for
the LDRRMF and utilize the said fund strictly for
calamity-related activities, supported by the required
documents, so as to accomplish all planned projects and
activities.
Preparation and timely submission of reports on the
LDRRMF. LDRRM Officers must strictly comply with
the accounting and reporting requirements stipulated in
RA 10121 and COA Circular No. 2012-002, dated 12
September 2012, to ensure that the financial information
are appropriately taken up in the books and properly
presented in the financial statements with adequate
disclosures. These reports should be posted on the LGUs
website and conspicuous places within its premises.

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

22

Audit Results of Selected LGUs

Affected by Typhoon Yolanda
Presented below is a summary of the highlights of the results of
COAs assessment of the implementation of disaster prevention,
mitigation and preparedness in selected cities and municipalities in
Regions VI, VII and VIII, the three regions that were adversely
affected by supertyphoon Yolanda.
Prevention and Mitigation
Mainstreaming and integration
of DRRM and CCA into national,
sectoral, regional and local
development plans, policies and
budget
Assessment results show that DRRM and Climate Change
Adaptation (CCA) have been integrated into the local development
policies, plans and budget of the provinces of Guimaras, Iloilo and
Antique in Region VI. Guimaras, in particular, is at 100% in terms of
conducting risk assessment, vulnerability analysis and other sciencebased technology and methodologies to enhance its ecological
profile, sectoral studies and mainstream DRRM activities/CCA in
CLUP and CDP. While the province of Antique and its
municipalities of Sibalom and San Jose de Buenavista have
implemented DRRM and CCA-related programs and activities such
as flood control projects, reforestation, nursery management, coastal
resource management and infrastructure projects like drainage
systems and dumpsites.
For its part, Negros Oriental in Region VII is still updating its
Provincial DRRM Plan to conform to the National DRRM and CCA
plans and policies, while Region VIII has yet to incorporate disaster
prevention and preparedness in its regional development policy.
As for the use of LDRRMF, the municipalities in the province of
Capiz were found to have a low rate of fund utilization, which may
tend to increase rehabilitation effort and disaster assistance instead of
lessening the impact of disaster. In Capiz, related disbursements are

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

23

classified under Other Maintenance and Operating Expenses

consisting of salaries and wages, overtime pay, etc., which are not
intended to support the LDRRM focused-Program Project Activity,
contrary to Sec. 21 of RA 10121 and Sec. 5.5 of the JMC No. 20131, dated March 25, 2013 of the NDRRMC-DBM-DILG.
In Santa Barbara, Iloilo, the utilization of the approved LDRRM
Fund for calendar year 2013 was not strictly followed. Of the
municipalitys appropriated amount of P4,800,859.25 for 2013, only
P1,625,443.02, or 33.9% was used to pay for the monthly
honoraria/wages of members of the ALERTO Rescue Team and
municipal employees, charged against the Capacity Building and
Risk Reduction Rehabilitation and Environmental Management
components of the Municipal DRRM Plan. This substantial
administrative support expenditure unnecessarily diverted funds that
would have fully financed the various requirements of the municipal
plan for the year.
While honoraria for the ALERTO Rescue Team may be charged to
the program, those of the municipal employees, including their
wages, should not be charged against the MDRRMP since they are
regular employees of the municipality, even if temporarily detailed
to the program.
Enhancing Capacities of
Communities to Reduce Their
Own Risks and Cope with the
Impacts of All Hazards
In both Sibalom and San Jose de Buenavista in Antique, mapping
and risk assessment of barangays have already been undertaken. In
Sibalom, barangays are required to include hazard maps and seasonal
calendars in their plans. Vulnerability assessment, hazard mapping
and capacity building research activities have also been undertaken
in Escalante City, Negros Occidental in Region VI.
Some gadgets and EWS were in place in the province of Antique, but
the distribution and installation of a Tsunami Warning System, Flood
Level Water Monitoring System and Landslide Early Detection
System was still ongoing. The municipality of Sibalom, Antique has
set up a weather station and three (3) automatic rain gauge systems.
The DOST had also planned to install water level and rain gauge
system in March 2014 and advisories are disseminated through text
messaging. There is also a weather station and automatic rain gauge
system in Barangays Aningalan and San Remegio in San Jose de

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

24

Buenavista, Antique. Flood, earthquake advisory and regular weather

updates are also disseminated through text messaging.
In Escalante City, Negros Occidental, meetings have been held in
barangays and the private sector to develop, establish and train them
on community-based disaster EWS for various hazards and hazard
monitoring.
In Negros Oriental, a CCA Plan has been developed, identifying
strategies and activities consisting of, among others, the formulation
of Land Use Plan in all LGUs and issuance of co-management
agreement and increasing the communitys level of awareness about
the effects of climate change.
The province has also created a Climate Change Advisory
Committee (CCAC) to recommend legislation, policies, strategies
and programs on appropriations for climate change adaptation and
mitigation, coordinate with the LGUs, national agencies and private
entities to address the vulnerability to climate change impacts and
disaster risk management of the province, among others. With the
creation of the CCAC, the enhanced monitoring, forecasting and
hazard warning may already be addressed.
In addition, the advocacy for the implementation of the building code
and use of green technology, conduct of inventory, vulnerability and
risk assessments for critical facilities and infrastructure are to be
included in the updating and revision of its Provincial Plan.
Disaster Preparedness
Increase the Communities
Awareness Level
To increase the communities level of awareness of the threats and
impacts of all hazards, risks and vulnerabilities, assessments are
continuously done in the province of Antique. In the towns of
Sibalom and San Jose de Buenavista, IEC materials, such as posters,
flyers and books, have been developed. The DRRMO staff members
in San Jose de Buenavista have also undergone trainers training and
barangay training. The town has also established a trainers pool and
issues a semestral newsletter.
In Negros Oriental, a Public Information Services has been put in
place, consisting of programs and activities geared towards
information dissemination to the community level through tri-media

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

25

and barangay awareness campaign programs, production of reference

materials and coordination with different agencies and sectors to
increase the understanding and application of risk reduction
measures and better prepare communities.
Necessary Skills to Cope
with the Impacts of Disaster
To equip the communities with the necessary skills to cope with the
negative impacts of disaster, regular simulation exercises on how to
deal with earthquakes, flood and fire have been conducted in the
provinces of Antique, Negros Oriental and Negros Occidental. In
Sibalom, Antique, trainings have been conducted for DRRMO staff,
schools, barangays and 4Ps beneficiaries. Search and rescue groups
have been organized, training modules for schools and communities
have been developed and risk assessments and drills and trainers
training have also been conducted in communities to increase the
capacity of local institutions.
In Escalante City, Negros Occidental, earthquake and fire drills have
been done in schools and hospitals. DRRM and CCA will also be
integrated into the citys school curricula, textbooks and teachers
guides as soon as they get the approval of DepEd officials. End-toend monitoring, forecasting and EWS are established and/or
improved through the conduct of meetings with barangays and
private sectors to develop, establish, train on community-based
disaster EWS for various hazards and hazard monitoring.
Increase the Capacity
of Institutions
To increase the capacities of institutions, DRRMO staff in Sibalom
and San Jose de Buenavista, Antique has undergone seminars and
trainings have also been done in communities, particularly for
teachers on how to conduct an earthquake drill.
In Negros Oriental, Red Cross and other rescue NGOs have been
accredited and the inventory, stockpiling and prepositioning of
resources, and establishment of the DRRM Operations Center have
also been implemented. Risk assessments, contingency planning,
knowledge management and training activities have also been
partially implemented.
Develop and Implement
Comprehensive National
and Local DRRM Plans
As for the goal to develop and implement comprehensive national
and local disaster preparedness policies, plans and systems, both

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

26

Sibalom and San Jose de Buenavista in Antique have fully functional

DRRMOs. In fact, Sibalom was adjudged as the Best DRRMO,
Regional level in 2013, while San Jose de Buenavista won as 1st
runner-up, Best DRRMO. Both municipalities have created their
own Operations Manual and Protocols of Response.
Negros Oriental has enhanced its Incident Command
coordination and communication systems as well as the
manual of operations for Operation Centers. Both Negros
and Negros Occidental are also conducting an inventory
existing resources and services.

System
standard
Oriental
of their

In Region VIII, the LGUs have organized DRRMCs but the

DRRMOs have limited personnel or some staff members are in
concurrent capacity.
Strengthen Partnership
Among All Key Players
and Stakeholders
To strengthen partnership among all key players and stakeholders,
the towns of Sibalom and San Jose de Buenavista in Antique and the
Province of Negros Oriental maintain a directory or database of key
players and stakeholders, which are disseminated in the barangays
and posted in conspicuous public places.
In Region VIII, however, the lack of coordination among national
and local government agencies was evident in the audit observations
and news reports. This is evidenced by the massive looting of
business establishments, delayed distribution of relief goods and
delayed retrieval of casualties.

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

27

Conclusion
In general, the national and some local DRRM Plans, grounded on
sound legislative framework, are already operational. But there is no
doubt that challenges still abound and there is a pressing need for
government offices to get their acts together, fine-tune their DRRM
plans and optimize their implementation. Given that typhoons,
floods, landslides, drought, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis
and the like will continue to strike the country, the government and
the general public have no other recourse but to intensify their
disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness. Climate change
will only bring about more, recurrent and fiercer calamities that is
why DRRM should be at the forefront of national and local
development plans and policies.
Based on the audit findings on selected regional and local
governments hardest hit by Yolanda, the following are some major
points for consideration in optimizing DRRM implementation:
Imbalance Between Budget Level
and Risk Exposure
There is a significant imbalance between the risk exposure of poor,
vulnerable LGUs and their available resources to prevent and cope
with the impact of disasters. LGUs with higher vulnerability to
disasters are also those which belong to the low-income class. While
the law encourages LGUs to invest on disaster risk management, the
current system, however, puts LGUs in poorer and island provinces
for example, at a disadvantage as they have lower revenues and thus,
less available resources for their calamity fund. This inequality in the
availability of resources among LGUs as a consequence of natural
disasters could impinge on the overall standard and provision of
services and infrastructure in more hazard-prone areas of the
country.
Under nominal circumstances, total disbursements of LGUs must not
exceed actual total collection plus 50% of the uncollected estimated
revenue for that year. However, disbursements can only be made for
purposes and amounts included in the approved annual budget
(disaster plan), implying little flexibility in the reallocation of
resources to reflect changes in expenditure priorities brought about
by a disaster. Furthermore, any overdraft outstanding at the end of a
fiscal year must be met from the first collections of the following
year's revenue, which is expected to fall due to loss and damage to

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

28

properties and livelihood as a consequence of a disaster. This clearly

creates a situation where disasters drastically reduce revenues but at
the same time increase expenditure for immediate disaster response
and recovery.
While it is true that LGUs have varying disaster-related expenditure
demands and revenue-raising capacities, which are both affected by
the incidence and severity of calamities that strike them, these
differences are not taken into account in the allocation of resources
for disaster management.
LGUs can access the National DRRM Funds to fill in their budget
shortage for disaster response and recovery, but this process entails
considerable time and delay. On the part of the DBM, they disclosed
that they are not getting requests for supplemental funds from some
LGUs.
Since low-income LGUs cannot rely solely on their own resources to
sustain their DRRM programs and projects, they must find a way to
source external assistance, specifically from the national
government. The next challenge then is how to smoothen and hasten
the process of sourcing DRRM funds from the national coffers
especially in the aftermath of a disaster.
Implement and Mainstream
Proactive, Sustainable
DRRM Plans
As for prevention and mitigation, foresight and proactiveness are still
the missing essential components of many DRRM Plans. The audit
results show that development programs are highly reactive, done
intermittently or only when there are disasters. Many DRRM
programs and projects are also not sustained because they are not
mainstreamed into development plans and more importantly, into
national and local policies.
Moreover, some LGUs were not able to fully utilize their LDRRMF
or have not implemented the programs/projects/activities stipulated
in their plans, as reported in the Annual Financial Report for
calendar year 2012. Some LGUs also charged expenditures against
the LDRRMF that were not related to disaster risk management.
A major factor to consider in the formulation and implementation of
DRRM is the socio-economic condition of disaster-prone and
vulnerable communities. Rapid population growth and density,

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

29

urbanization, environmental degradation and pollution not only

increase disaster risk but also aggravate its impact.
Monitor Accomplishments
and Document Community
Experiences
Monitoring and evaluation, and documentation are also areas for
improvement that can contribute to optimal DRRM implementation
at the local level. Audit results show that except for policy
development activities, many local governments have no reports on
communities, teams and managers trained on disaster preparedness
and response, and no information on the training institutions that
were established for DRRM.
Through the years, various communities have evolved their own
coping mechanisms in response to managing different disaster
situations. Local governments should document the accumulated
experiences of communities from previous disasters. The
information that will be gathered would be truly helpful not only in
updating the LGUs contingency plan but also in developing a
sustainable disaster management system with strong community
ownership. These documented experiences are actually valuable
assets in disaster reduction and management.
Promote Better Understanding
and Use of Technical Terms
and Data
Four technical aspects that LGUs need to focus on and improve are
as follows:

Integrate and implement geo-hazard assessments into the

local CLUP

Promote a common understanding of forecasting signals and

technologies
to
prevent
misconceptions
and
misunderstanding

Better appreciation of risk factors at the community/local

level especially those living in harms way

Rationalization of hazard maps to ensure the safety of both

public and private structures in all localities. In flood-prone
areas, for example, the inadequacy of flood control
structures must be addressed.

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

30

Areas for Improvement

on Disaster Preparedness
In the aspect of preparedness, the areas that need more effort are the
following:

Completion of Local DRRM Plans

Integration of hazards assessment into the CLUP
Institutionalization of DRRM Offices
Enhancement of coordination centers
Organization of community volunteers
Training and equipping of responders

In summary, the national and local governments must work closely

together to address the gaps in DRRM planning, implementation, as
well as monitoring, evaluation and documentation. The other
ultimate challenge is how the national and local governments will
become more proactive and fortify their disaster prevention,
mitigation and preparedness programs and projects, given their
limited and inflexible budgets. Two options that they can explore are
the maximization and investment of the 20% Development Fund for
rehabilitation for DRRM infrastructure projects and the promotion of
livelihood programs related to disaster prevention, mitigation and
preparedness.

Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) at the Local Level

31