Disaster Governance: The Yolanda Experience

Clarinda L. Berja

Introduction

The concept of disaster governance emerged as a way to achieve adaptive, multi-level

and inclusive governance systems that can deal with complex and massive disaster

impacts. Previous research focused more on government activities than governance. But,

coping capacities of societies are contingent upon governance since it influences the way

in which different stakeholders – governments, legislators, public servants, civil society,

media and private sector, are willing to coordinate actions to manage and reduce disaster

risks.

In the Philippines, disaster risk reduction and management was institutionalized through

the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (Republic Act

10121). The Act 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. (NDRRMP, 2011)

The basic guiding principle of the NDRRMP is good governance, within the context of

poverty alleviation and environmental protection. It highlights the importance of

partnerships towards effective delivery of services to the citizenry. The plan integrates

engagement of government with civil society organizations (CSOs), the private sector and

volunteers in implementing the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM)

programs. It is consistent with the Philippine Development Plan, the National Climate

Change Action Plan, and the National Security Policy such that DRRM activities are

integrated with budgets of relevant line agencies. The NDRRMP is a road map on how DRRM

shall contribute to gender-responsive and rights-based sustainable development. (DILG,

2011)

Disaster governance can be subsumed under the more general rubric of risk governance.

Since its domain encompasses the full range of risks recognized by human societies,

including health and medical, safety and security, and environmental risks, such as

hazards and disasters. It involves examining governance relationships involving actor

networks that operate mainly within a local geographic context. This also includes

vertical relationships of local and supra-local entities, e.g., states, provinces, regions, and

national-level and international and global actors in terms how community, flood plain,

or watersheds are managed. Thus, disaster governance is closely linked with

environmental governance since it involves environment-related incentives, knowledge,

institutions, decision-making, and behavior interventions.

The vastness of the extent of damage and losses wrought by Typhoon Yolanda brought to

the Philippines a host of institutions that have their own system of operation. Thousands

of humanitarian aid and development workers, private sector groups, civil society, church

and other organizations implemented programs and projects in the various stages of

disaster response, rehabilitation, reconstruction and recovery. What seems to be lacking

at that time is coordination of the various efforts in providing assistance to the victims

and affected localities. It is in this context that the collaborative nature of disaster
governance wherein multiple organizations come together to solve problems makes it an

important concept in disaster response and management.

The concept of disaster governance is closely linked to collaborative governance that

refers to “processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that

engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of

government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public

purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished. In the case of disaster governance, the

“public purpose” on which collaborations focus is the reduction of disaster-related risks.

It encompasses the interrelated sets of norms, organizational and institutional actors, and

practices (spanning pre-disaster, trans-disaster, and post-disaster periods) that are

designed to reduce the impacts and losses associated with disasters arising from natural

and technological agents and from intentional acts of terrorism. Norms include laws and

regulations at multiple scales, informal norms, consensus-based standards and

frameworks, and other mechanisms that encourage collective action, such as the diffusion

of best practices through policy and practitioner networks. Organizational and

institutional actors include entities that compose state systems, for-profit organizations,

and nonprofit entities. They also include international and global institutions, scientific

and professional societies, coalitions and alliances, boundary organizations that connect

scientific and policy-making bodies, and social movement and emergent organizations.

Disaster agents include natural triggers, including geologic and atmospheric hazards, as

well as technological disaster sources, including explosives and hazardous materials.

Willful disasters are events created by state or nonstate actors for the purposes of causing
mass casualties and destruction and demoralizing populations.’ (Tierney, 2012; Gupta,

2010)

The concept of disaster phases, or the hazards cycle, is relevant to questions of

governance. Disaster vulnerabilities can be reduced through pre-event activities, such as

hazards and vulnerability assessments; land-use regulations; building code development,

adoption, and enforcement; warning systems; and education and training programs. When

disasters occur, negative impacts can be reduced through appropriate disaster response

measures, e.g., lifesaving and the provision of emergency food and shelter, and through

providing effective decision support to emergency responders.

Post disaster measures include short- and longer-term recovery programs, as well as the

formulation and implementation during disaster recovery of interventions designed to

reduce future disaster losses and promote sustainability. Governance arrangements and

key actor participation typically vary across these disaster phases, adding to the

complexity of governance challenges.

This paper seeks to: (1) provide an overview of Philippine policies on disaster response

and management systems; (2) describe the provincial structure of disaster risk reduction

and management; and (3) identify some governance issues that could be addressed for

future improvement.
Philippine policies on disaster response and management systems

Our country tops the list of countries that are prone to hazards brought about by extreme

weather events that often lead to disaster - displacing populations due to destruction of

governance likewise increasing in urban areas. These twin problems of environmental

hazard and poverty lead to disaster.

In 2013, Yolanda devastated the province of Leyte, one of the poorest provinces in the

country. It brought about thousands of deaths and displaced more than 6,000 families.

The 2016 Global Report of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center reported that

there are about 20,000 people who are still displaced due to Typhoon Yolanda as of

2015.i The disaster also caused extensive damage in agricultural crops and infrastructure.

It was a crucial test of governance, in both national and local levels because its damages

and losses were massive. It also posed challenges to international organization that

provided humanitarian aid in the wake of the disaster. “Various policy dilemmas caused

by specific crisis situations and the limitations of the top-down policymaking system urge

us to reconsider the interactions among the central government, local governments, and

society while coping with disasters.“ (Zhang 2010).

The long history of disaster governance (national and local) in the Philippines dates back

to 1941. To summarize:

• 1941: Executive Order (E.O.) 355 – Establishing the National Emergency

Commission. The government implemented measures to control and coordinate

civilian participation to meet serious crises through provincial, city, and

 municipal emergency committees.

• 1954: Republic Act (RA) 1190 – Establishment of National Civil Defense

Administration (NCDA). Thus, the creation of national and local civil defense

councils.

• 1968: Executive Order 159 - Establishment of a disaster control organization by

all government offices including departments, bureaus, offices, agencies,

instrumentalities and political subdivisions of government, including all

corporations owned and/or controlled by government.

• 1972, Letter of Instruction 19 – Establishment of the Office of Civil Defense

(OCD) to coordinate national level activities and functions of the national

government, private institutions and civic organizations.

• 1978: Presidential Decree (PD) 1566 – Establishment of the National Disaster

Coordinating Council (NDCC) as the highest policy-making body and the focal

organization for disaster management in the country. This provided for the

establishment of regional, provincial, city, municipal, and barangay disaster

coordinating councils

• 2009: Climate Change Act of 2009 (Republic Act 9729). An Act Mainstreaming

Climate Change into Government Policy Formulations, establishing the

 Framework Strategy and Program on Climate Change, Creating for this purpose

the Climate Change Commission and for other purposes.

• 2010: Republic Act 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and

Management (PDRRM) Act.1 RA 10121 provides for the development of policies

and plans and the implementation of actions and measures pertaining to all

aspects of DRRM, 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.

The 2010 PDRRM Act emphasized that there is a need to “adopt a disaster risk reduction

and management approach that is holistic, comprehensive, integrated, and proactive in

lessening the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of disasters including climate

change, and promote the involvement and participation of all sectors and all stakeholders

concerned, at all levels, especially the local community.”3

It has expanded the membership of the previous National Disaster Coordinating Council

(NDCC) from 19 to 44 members. The former NDCC, as chaired by the Secretary of

National Defense, was composed of Cabinet Secretaries and Heads of Agencies with

major contributions to disaster response. The council is composed of the following

agencies:

1 Commission on Audit Report (2015)
 • Secretary of the Department of National Defense (DND) – Chairperson

• Secretary of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) - Vice-

Chairperson for disaster prevention and mitigation

• Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) –Vice-

Chairperson for disaster preparedness

• Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) –Vice-

Chairperson for disaster response

• Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)

- Vice-Chairperson for disaster rehabilitation and recovery.

Other Council members are representatives from financial institutions, local government

leagues, the private sector and civil society organizations (CSOs).

The council is replicated in the regional down to the barangay level, thus linking all

disaster-related offices and LGUs which have specific roles to play in disaster

management.

NATIONAL DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

(NDRRMC)
 DRRMI

OCD NDRRMO

RDRRMO RDRRMO

PDRRMC PDRRMO

CDRRMC/
MDRRMC
BDC/
BDRRMC

Figure 1: Councils and Offices of NDRRMC

Based on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)16 of the Philippine

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010, the different Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Councils will be activated when:

a. Barangay Development Council (BDC) – if a barangay is affected;

b. City/Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

(C/MDRRMC) – if two or more barangays are affected;

c. Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

(PDRRMC) – if two or more cities or municipalities are affected;

d. Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

(RDRRMC) – if two or more provinces are affected;

e. National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

(NDRRMC) – if two or more regions are affected.

The National DRRM Plan has four priority areas:
 1. Disaster Prevention and Mitigation

2. Disaster Preparedness

3. Disaster Response

4. Rehabilitation and Recovery

Definition of the four priority areas:

“The priority area on Disaster Prevention and Mitigation provides key strategic

actions that give importance to activities revolving around hazards evaluation and

mitigation, vulnerability analyses, identification of hazard-prone areas and

mainstreaming DRRM into development plans. It is based on sound and scientific

analysis of the different underlying factors which contribute to the vulnerability of the

people and eventually, their risks and exposure to hazards and disasters.

Disaster Preparedness provides for the key strategic actions that give importance to

activities revolving around community awareness and understanding; contingency

planning; conduct of local drills and the development of a national disaster response

plan. Risk-related information coming from the prevention and mitigation aspect is

necessary in order for the preparedness activities to be responsive to the needs of the

people and situation on the ground. Also, the policies, budget and institutional

mechanisms established under the prevention and mitigation priority area will be

further enhanced through capacity building activities, development of coordination

mechanisms. Through these, coordination, complementation and interoperability of

work in DRRM operations and essential services will be ensured. Behavioral change
created by the preparedness aspect is eventually measured by how well people

responded to the disasters. At the frontlines of preparedness are the local government

units, local chief executives and communities.

Disaster Response gives importance to activities during the actual disaster

response operations from needs assessment to search and rescue to relief

operations to early recovery activities are emphasized. The success and realization

of this priority area rely heavily on the completion of the activities under both the
prevention and mitigation and preparedness aspects, including among others the

coordination and communication mechanisms to be developed. On-the-ground

partnerships and the vertical and horizontal coordination work between and

among key stakeholders will contribute to successful disaster response operations

and its smooth transition towards early and long term recovery work.

The Rehabilitation and Recovery priority area cover areas like employment and

livelihoods, infrastructure and lifeline facilities, housing and resettlement, among

others. These are recovery efforts done when people are already outside of the

evacuation centers.

The NDRRMP recognizes that certain concerns cut across the 4 DRRM priority

areas. These include health, human-induced disasters, gender mainstreaming,

environmental protection, cultural sensitivity or indigenous practices, and the

rights based approach. They are a combination of issues and approaches that

should be taken into consideration in each of the priority areas.

The NDRRMP is scheduled to commence in 2011, immediately after its approval

from the members of the National DRRM Council members. In general, the set of

activities are divided into three timelines, with the first two having 2years interval

while the last one with 5 years, to wit:

• Short term 2011 – 2013

• Medium term 2014 – 2016

• Long term 2017 – 2028

 However, specifically for the priority areas on Response and Rehabilitation

and Recovery, Operational Timelines were used primarily to give an overall

guidance on “rapid” time element in providing humanitarian activities and

recovering from the disasters. Likewise, the operational timelines will guide

the plan’s implementation and monitoring activities for the two priority

areas.”

It can be argued that the Philippines has a strong set of policies, frameworks and plans for

disaster risk reduction (DRR), through which work on resilience can be grounded

however, support local political leaders to disaster management, local appreciation of the

importance of disaster management, funding, and training as well as the support from the

national government are key to effectiveness. Further, climate change is altering the

playing field, as areas that had historically not been affected by disasters, and as such had

been less likely to proactively view disaster management, are now exposure to the same

risks and vulnerabilities to disaster.

Disaster Governance and Community Resilience

Disaster governance is a relatively new concept. Current literature tends to focus more on

concepts such as disaster management and disaster risk reduction. However, Tierney

(2012) asserts “governance is a more inclusive concept wherein disaster management and

risk-reduction activities take place in the context of and are enabled (or thwarted) by both

societal and disaster-specific governance frameworks.” She added that disaster scholars

tend to focus on government activities, such as legislation, regulation, and governmental

planning, rather than governance.

On the other hand, other studies show a concept of governance in disaster situation came

from the idea that functions that used to be carried out by public entities are wherein

functions that government used to perform are now dispersed among diverse sets of

actors, including the private-sector and civil society entities (Agranoff R, McGuireM.

2003 and Goldsmith S, Eggars WD. 2004 cited in Tierney 2012).

The key elements of governance—including polycentric and multilayered institutions,

learning and communication, community competence, and participation and

collaboration—have been analyzed and discussed, especially in regards to their roles in

building community resilience (Lebel et al. 2006, Norris et al. 2008 cited in Tierney

2012).

However, a distinctive gap between these two concepts—improving governance and

improving disaster management—remains. Scant attention has been paid to specific

enhancements to overall governance quality that would lead to better disaster risk

management for at-risk societies and populations. Few concrete strategies have been

offered for improving local disaster risk management capacities. On the other hand, the

need to develop guidelines and procedures for integrating disaster risk management into

government systems is receiving growing attention.

This paper argues that disaster risk reduction and management must be mainstreamed in

the local governance system in order to improve local capacities in disaster risk

management, which would consequently increase community resilience to disaster.

The Typhoon Yolanda experience demonstrated the salience of governance in disaster

management. The media exposed the lack of coordination in disaster response within

government and with the other agencies that extended assistance to disaster victims.

Political rifts between the Aquino and the Romualdez/Marcos families as well as the

Liberal Party and the Opposition Party aggravated the problem. There was also lack of

coordination with the International Aid Agencies and local nongovernment organizations.

Some of the foreign donors also went directly to the communities and distributed aid.

They wanted to make sure that the aid would reach the target beneficiaries. Some of them

wanted to avoid the red tape of government. Further, the entanglement of governance

issues and the coordination of disaster response and preparedness efforts has drained the

bureaucratic resource and political goodwill of the National Disaster Risk Reduction

Management Council (NDRRMC), a coordinating body of disaster management.

The complexity of the Typhoon Yolanda disaster confirmed that there are no short-term

solutions to address the damages and losses brought about by disasters, which are

compounded by the effects of climate change.

Shortly after Typhoon Yolanda wrought havoc to the Eastern Visayas and other

neighboring region, former President Aquino appointment Senator Panfilo Lacson as a

rehabilitation czar (Presidential Assistant for Recovery and Rehabilitation, with a cabinet

rank position) to oversee reconstruction in the regions that Supertyphoon “Yolanda”

devastated. He latter on resigned due to overlaps of his office - Office of the Presidential

Assistant on Recovery and Rehabilitation (OPARR) and the NDRRMC. He argued that

there could be no two leaders handling the same task. At that time, there was the
NDRRMC was perceived as ineffective because it is merely a coordinating agency. For

disaster response, for example, the lead agency is Department of Social Welfare and

Development (DSWD). The other agencies involved include the following: OCD,

DRRMC, DOH, DILG, DND and LGUs. NDRRMC would have to coordinate with these

various agencies. This brings us the question whether there is a need to have a separate

agency that with the major function of disaster preparedness, response and management

given that the country is disaster prone and the risks of disaster is greater with climate

change.

Leadership is crucial in times of disaster. They have an important role during disaster and

that is to provide perspective and direction. However based on past experiences, local

chief executives the first ones to be criticized for lack of presence in the aftermath of a

disaster or when there are gaps in the delivery of services. In the case of Typhoon

Yolanda, it took some time before the local government became operational. National

government was present although government regulations, in many cases made thing

move slower.

Another important issue in disaster governance are related to assessments and data

generation. Damage assessment is one of the important activities in post-disaster rescue,

rehabilitation and recovery. It begins immediately after the catastrophic event and

provides an initial view of the situation. It details what has actually happened. It identifies

what assets were affected and which of them has been damaged. It also provides an

evaluation of the potential for the situation to continue and possibly escalate.2

2
UN/ISDR; https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology
When we talk about community recovery from disaster, our orienting concept is one of a

system that is responding to stress. System stress takes place when demands on the social

system exceed the system's ability to respond to demands being placed on it (Haas and

Drabek, 1970; Mileti, 1975). The greater the impact of a disaster agent on a community's

built and social environments; the greater the amount of stress would have on the system.

How communities respond to long-term stress in the post-impact years will have

consequences for families, businesses, and the local government. This is the reason why

it is crucial that communities are able to manage disaster risks and to come up with an

accurate damage and losses assessment.

“Post disaster relief efforts require good data. Good data helps aid agencies efficiently

target the victims of disaster. It also helps to scale up rehabilitation efforts in a sustainable

fashion. The need for good data probably explains why aid agencies conducted their own

surveys in areas devastated by Typhoon Yolanda. The specific data needs of aid agencies

were not otherwise readily available. Immediately after the typhoon the relief operations

of UNICEF and the World Food Programme (WFP) made use of the national household

targeting system of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

However, the list included only the beneficiaries of the government run conditional cash

transfer program. There was no list of non-beneficiaries. (Berja, 2016).” It must be

pointed out however that data quality, transparency, and availability affect every phase of

disaster response and management since reliable and timely data is crucial in decision-

making.
Conclusion

This paper showed the importance of governance in disaster risk reduction and

management at different stages of disaster response. It highlights the salience of disaster

governance in a multi-issue, multi-level and multi-actor dynamics in responding to

complex disaster such as Typhoon Yolanda. Laws are not sufficient in DRRM.

Notwithstanding the laws and institutional mechanisms created by the Philippine

government, recovery from the damages and losses of the typhoon was too slow. Political

rifts have negative consequences that were detrimental to the survivors of Typhoon

Yolanda. Thus, various institutions and key stakeholders down to the community level

must be engaged, and knowledge sharing and capacity-building of communities must be

strengthened in order to build community resilience.

References

Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, I. Davis, and B. Wisner, 1994 At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s
Vulnerability and Disasters, London: Routledge.

Hewitt, Kenneth 1983 Interpretations of Calamity, Winchester, MA: Allen & Unwin, Inc.

Turton, David 2003 “Refugees and ‘Other Forced Migrants’: Towards a Unitary Study of
Forced Migration,” Paper presented at the Workshop on Settlement and Resettlement in
Ethiopia, January 28-30. Addis Ababa.

Gupta, Sushil et. al (2010). “Synthesis Report on Ten ASEAN Countries Disaster Risks
Assessment”.

IDMC, 2016 Global Report on Internal Displacement

Administrative Order No. 2010-01. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of

Republic Act 9729. 20 January 2010.

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Manual for Science and Mathematics
Teachers. Program Development Unit, Science Education Innovations Division:
Reprinted, December 2012.

Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 101211. 27 September 2010.

Republic Act No. 9729, The Climate Change Act of 2009.

Republic Act No. 10121, Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of
2010.

iIDMC, 2016 Global Report on Internal Displacement