Towards Resilient Recovery in the Archdiocese of Cebu

Facilitating Disaster Recovery in Communities Devastated by Typhoon Yolanda

A Process Document

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cebu

Relief and Rehabilitation Unit

May 2016

1
Foreword

Post-disaster humanitarian work is always a race against time. When a disaster leaves behind
staggering losses in human lives and damages to properties, the primary goal is to save as many lives
as possible and to alleviate the suffering of those affected. However, once disaster recovery is
fuelled by the huge inflow of donations, the mounting pressure immediately brings in a string of
rapid and expensive activities that are largely donor-driven, thus side sweeping the need for
community impact, people’s participation, and sustainable development. As a result, the “processes”
the communities need to undergo are forgone and the following concerns are left un-addressed:

1. To what extent are the interventions improving the condition of the affected communities?
2. To what extent are the people participating in the relief and recovery process?
3. To what extent is the process laying the foundation for subsequent phases?

When Super Typhoon Haiyan ripped through the Philippines in 2013, the Archdiocese of Cebu
became no exception from the standard humanitarian response. In fact, the response of the local
Church in Cebu was a series of hits and misses that underscored the eternal tension between an
obligation to deliver tangible outputs on a timetable acceptable to funding agencies, and a need to
deliberately build the capacities of the communities in analysing their disaster risks and in bringing
forward solutions.

However, software processes need not be delineated from hardware deliverables at all times; much
“good” may still be achieved if recovery is seen from the eyes of the communities. This means
refocusing the dynamics of disaster recovery back to the communities who are often overlooked as
the locus of relations. More importantly, this entails looking closely at the “process” of recovery
planning by unravelling the following details: who were at the forefront of the recovery, and how
was the recovery done. More often than not, the communities, the ones most affected by disasters,
are disconnected from the process and denied of their right to chart their own roadmap to recovery.

It would thus be the aim of this paper to examine and reflect on the process the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Cebu underwent as her response to the devastation left behind by the typhoon -
through its Relief and Rehabilitation Unit. As the events are laid out in chronological order, the
following aspects of the recovery story are continually highlighted: (1) the context (what happened),
(2) the content (what was done), (3) and the process (how it was done). By contextualizing the
events from the perspectives of both the communities and the local Church, gaps in the response are
identified and addressed through a conceptual model recently developed by the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Cebu. It is the local Church’s “way forward” – fruits born from encounters with the
most disaster-risk communities and enriched by its dialogue with the most at-risk people.

All insights and reflections are captured in this process document, written in close coordination with
the management team of the Relief and Rehabilitation Unit of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Cebu (RCAC-RRU): Fr. Charles Louis Jayme (Director), Maricel Cogtas (Program Manager) and Leo
Vincent Tan (Program Coordinator and Lead Community Organizer). It is likewise hoped that the
learning gained by RCAC-RRU be shared with future humanitarian workers – so that its experience of
accompanying disaster-stricken communities towards their recovery may “bear more fruit.”

2
Introduction

On November 8, 2013, Super Typhoon Haiyan (locally known as Yolanda) slammed across central
Philippines and left a trail of destruction to communities lying on its path. As it pummelled through
the islands, Yolanda ripped shelters, cut off people’s access to safe water and sanitation, inundated
farmlands, swept away coastal livelihoods, destroyed entire ecosystems, broke down social
infrastructures, and displaced millions of people. While the losses to human lives and assets were
unprecedented in recent history, the tragedy of Yolanda unwittingly opened a window of
opportunities for local institutions to strengthen their responsiveness to the needs of the people.

The northern tip of Cebu was not spared from the devastation, thus forcing the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Cebu (RCAC) to respond to an emergency crisis it was not prepared to handle.
However, with support from the National Secretariat for Social Action of the Catholic Bishops’
Conference of the Philippines (also known as NASSA), the Archdiocese of Cebu was able to provide
immediate relief to the most affected people before quickly transitioning into the recovery phase,
thus laying the foundation for a three-year disaster recovery program in Northern Cebu. In its desire
to provide holistic and integral development to the affected communities, the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Cebu created a new unit to lead the recovery process – the Relief and Rehabilitation
Unit (RCAC-RRU).

Thrown into the chaos of post-disaster humanitarian work, the newly created and inexperienced
RCAC-RRU began a rigorous and painstaking process in building its institutional capacity in providing
relevant and effective accompaniment to the disaster-stricken communities. It had to work its way
out of a “ground zero”-of-sorts, starting from where the people were in the aftermath of the
disaster and where it was as an institution capable of responding to the disaster, before adopting
new paradigms for meaningful engagement with the people.

Now that the rehabilitation program is on its final year, RCAC-RRU has come to realize that resilient
recovery may only be achieved by building communities rooted in the integral development of each
human person – a community of disciples living in communion with each other, and participating in
the mission of Christ as a Church of the Poor. In a nutshell, the only way the Church can facilitate
resilient recovery in the communities is by being a resilient Church – at the grassroots.

I. The beginnings of the Relief and Rehabilitation Unit

The impact of super typhoon Yolanda in northern Cebu

On the morning of November 8, 2013, Super Typhoon Yolanda, a Category 5 typhoon with its highest
recorded wind speed estimated at 315 km/hr, entered Philippine territory and made its first landfall in
the coastal town of Guiuan, Eastern Samar. The super typhoon then travelled westwards to the
provinces of Samar (West), Leyte, Cebu, Capiz, Iloilo, Aklan, Antique and Palawan, before it finally
made its exit from the Philippines’ area of responsibility on November 9. It traversed through the
northern part of Cebu when it made its 3rd landfall in the Philippines on Daanbantayan at 9:40 AM;
and its 4th landfall on Bantayan Island at 10:40 AM.

3
Map 1. The path of Super Typhoon Yolanda

With hurricane-force winds having an average radius of 46 nautical miles, Yolanda ravaged the
northern part of Cebu province, particularly the municipalities of Borbon, Tabuelan, Tabogon, San
Remegio, Bogo City, Daanbantayan, Medellin, Santa Fe, Bantayan, Madridejos, and even parts of
Camotes Islands.

Figures from the Philippine National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (NDRRMC) report
a total of 6,166 people who died across the Philippine islands, 27,665 injured, 1,785 recorded as
missing, and over 890,895 families (over 4 million people) were reported as displaced. The Philippine
Department of Social Welfare Services and Development (DSWD) reported more than 1.14 million
damaged houses, while the cost of damage to infrastructure and agriculture was estimated at over
PHP 35.5 billion (more than 800 million USD).

In Region 7 (to which the province of Cebu belongs), 74 people died, 348 were injured, and 5 were
recorded as missing. Furthermore, the Department of Social Welfare Services and Development
(DSWD) has estimated that in Region 7 alone, 5,881,352 people were affected; 205,937 people were
displaced; and 120,694 houses were damaged. Infrastructures were likewise severely damaged and
livelihood assets were destroyed, particularly in coastal communities where livelihoods were swept
into the seas.

4
The response of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines

In the aftermath of Super Typhoon Yolanda, the parishes in the Archdiocese of Cebu immediately
became a conduit of relief operations through which food donations and used clothing from the
private sector were delivered to the affected households. To easily identify household beneficiaries,
the chapel systems and structures within the parishes were utilized and local leaders at both the
parish and chapel levels were soon mobilized. To augment the donations that were quickly coming
in, an “adopt-a-parish” system was hurriedly implemented in the Archdiocese wherein parishes
outside of the affected areas “adopted” one of the 23 devastated parishes and provided relief to the
affected households.

Meanwhile, NASSA, which is the social development arm of the Philippine Catholic Church,
immediately reached out to its world-wide Caritas network through its Rome-based coordinating
body Caritas Internationalis. By launching an emergency appeal to the Caritas confederation, NASSA
successfully raised close to PHP 300 million to implement an emergency program for the nine (9)
most affected dioceses, fully funded by over 30 member countries. The aim of the program was to
provide immediate assistance to the most vulnerable households across the 9 dioceses.

Table 1. NASSA’s Partner Diocesan Social Action Centers (DSACs) for the Emergency Response Program
Eastern Samar Diocesan Commission on Social Action-Justice and Peace – Diocese of Borongan
Samar Diocesan Social Action Center - Diocese of Calbayog
Leyte Archdiocese of Palo Social Action Center
Cebu Caritas Cebu, Inc. – Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cebu
Iloilo Jaro Archdiocesan Social Action Center
Capiz Capiz Archdiocesan Social Action Center
Antique Diocesan Social Action Center – Diocese of San Jose de Antique
Aklan Diocesan Social Action Center of Kalibo, Inc.
Palawan (North) Apostolic Vicariate of Taytay – Social Action Center

Figure 1. A coordination meeting with DSACs and Caritas Internationalis Member Organizations in Cebu City

Table 2. Typhoon Yolanda Emergency Response Strategy (EA23/2013)

5
 Program Strategy Objective
Immediate Food Relief To ensure that the most vulnerable
meet their immediate needs
Food Source Recovery To quickly restore access to primary
food sources destroyed by the
typhoon
Emergency Shelter To address the immediate need for
emergency shelters
Non-Food Items (NFI) To quickly restore essential
& Hygiene Services household assets and to ensure that
households have access to hygiene
maintenance supplies to last a
household of five for a minimum of
30 days
Program Inputs
10-15 kilos of rice, 1 kilo of lentils
Cash grants (Php 700) for food purchases
Fishing boats and gears
Small-scale agricultural inputs
Poultry (chickens)
Plastic sheets, nails, ropes
Jerry cans, cooking utensils, matches,
blankets, mosquito nets, bathing soaps,
laundry soaps, toothbrushes,
toothpastes, malongs, nail clippers,
sanitary napkins, pails with lid, water
dippers

The creation of a relief and rehabilitation unit in the Archdiocese of Cebu

Unprepared for a disaster as massive as that wrought down by Yolanda, the Archdiocese of Cebu
was overwhelmed by the mounting needs of the affected communities. Caritas Cebu, which is the
local social development arm of the Archdiocese of Cebu, holds office in Cebu City and is a three hour
ride from Bogo City, the biggest town in the Yolanda-devastated northern region in Cebu. To make
the situation even worse, its small team was tied down by on-going relief operations for
communities affected by the Visayas earthquake, another disaster that struck the provinces of Cebu
and Bohol only two weeks before Yolanda hit the Philippines.

Pressed for time due to the looming emergency crisis, NASSA was able to convince Archbishop Jose
Palma of Cebu to temporarily appoint as Program Manager a nun from the Daughters of Charity to
directly implement its emergency program - Sr. Maria Perpetua “Mapet” Bulawan. Incidentally, Sr.
Mapet was the administrative officer in NASSA prior to her assignment to a school run by her
congregation in Bogo City. Wasting no time, Sr. Mapet immediately set up a small office in the
Daughters of Charity-run St. Louise de Marillac College of Bogo, and tapped student volunteers and
school workers to form a skeletal implementation team. Thus, a new unit was created in the
Archdiocese, yet without an official name.

How emergency relief assistance was delivered to the communities

To facilitate the implementation of the program, the emergency response unit headed by Sr. Mapet
quickly coordinated with the parish priests to gather information regarding the emergency situation
in the affected communities. The initial task was to identify areas to be covered by the emergency
program based on the following criteria set by the unit:

 The level of assistance received from the government and other agencies
 The number of vulnerable sectors and low-income families within the community
 The accessibility of the area to hasten delivery of relief assistance.
Once communities were identified, the parish priest gathered his chapel leaders to meet with the
emergency response staff for a brief orientation on the program, before specifically appointing
6
people to bring the emergency workers to the communities. Target beneficiaries then underwent
detailed assessments of their living conditions vis-à-vis their food sourcing needs and were
eventually selected based on the following criteria:

 Households who were still staying in evacuation centers at the time of assessment
 Households who were still living in makeshift shelters at the time of assessment
 Households whose livelihoods were severely affected by the typhoon
 Households with elderly and persons with disabilities (PWD)
 Households with pregnant lactating women (PLW)
 Households with family members recorded as either dead or missing due to the typhoon
 Solo-parent households with at least two dependent members

Distributions were done mostly in parish churches. In some cases, relief assistance had to be brought
closer to the target communities where chapels, barangay halls and covered courts served as
distribution sites. To stress the need to protect the most vulnerable members of the community,
priority was given to the elderly, persons with disabilities, and pregnant lactating women. To
promote transparency and accountability, beneficiaries were briefed of the assistance they were
supposed to receive from the Archdiocese.

Figure 2. Shelter plastic sheets are delivered to Bogo. Figure 3. Student volunteers prepare NFI kits

Figure 4. Beneficiaries register in Daanbantayan Figure 5. Beneficiaries receive 10 kilos of rice.

7
Organogram 1. The organizational structure adopted by RCAC-RRU during the emergency phase.

Program Manager NASSA

Finance Officer Area Coordinator 1 Area Coordinator 2 Driver

Bookkeeper

Parish Volunteers Parish Priests

Chapel Leaders

Barangays / Chapels

Since RCAC-RRU was being managed at that time by a nun from St. Louside de Marillac College, the
core staff of the new unit came mostly from the Daughters of Charity’s own network. To illustrate,
one area coordinator was a social worker recruited from the Hospicio de San Jose in Manila, a
Daughters of Charity-run hospital; and the other area coordinator was a faculty member of St. Louise
de Marillac College of Bogo. The Finance Officer was likewise a school staff from Mindanao, replaced
later by a graduate scholar of the Daughters of Charity.

Under this set-up, the following responsibilities were delegated:

Program Manager
Area Coordinators
Parish Priests
Parish Volunteers
Finance Officer and Bookkeeper
She oversaw the over-all implementation of the emergency response
program in adherence to the guidelines and timetable set by NASSA, and
submitted timely accomplishment reports.
They worked with the parishes to determine the least-served
communities, identify the most vulnerable households within those
communities, and deliver the appropriate relief services based on the
profiling conducted.
They recommended communities in need of relief services and provided
parish volunteers to assist the area coordinators.
They assisted the area coordinators from the selection of beneficiaries to
the actual distribution of inputs.
They managed the funds downloaded by NASSA.

8
RCAC-RRU’s accomplishments in the emergency phase

After four months, RCAC-RRU was able to reach 9,711 households in 7 municipalities through
NASSA’s Emergency Response Program. Below is a detailed breakdown of the relief assistance
provided for each municipality.

Table 3. RCAC-RRU’s program accomplishments by March 31, 2014

Gardening Tools /
Non Food Items

Fishing Boats

Cash Grants
Shelter Kits
Food Packs

Households
and Gears

Livestock

Reached
Total
MUNICIPALITY

DAANBANTAYAN 800 1,400 800 15 215 800 1,800

MEDELLIN 300 1,955 300 7 500 909 1,651
SAN REMEGIO 400 1,300 400 18 384 600 1,300
BOGO 629 1,545 869 - 428 874 3,970
TABOGON 240 600 240 - 300 - 840
TABUELAN 140 200 140 - 150 307 140
STA. FE 10 - - - - 10 10
2,519 7,000 2,749 40 1,977 3,500 9,711

The appointment of a RCAC-RRU Director

In the middle of February 2014, Fr. Charles Louis “Cha” Jayme, a seminary formator from the
Archdiocese of Cebu, was formally appointed by Archbishop Jose Palma as RCAC-RRU Director to
head the newly created unit. It was Fr. Cha who would give the official name Relief and Rehabilitation
Unit (RCAC-RRU) to distinguish its activities from Caritas Cebu, Inc.

The appointment, however, came three months since Yolanda hit Northern Cebu - when much of the
direction setting and program staffing were established already. With the emergency program about
to end, the entry of an RRU Director had very little impact in the implementation of activities, more
so because the unit’s direct line with the Archdiocese of Cebu, particularly to Caritas Cebu, remained
unclear. As such, RCAC-RRU’s relief operations proceeded business-as-usual, with the unit
maintaining direct accountability and reporting lines to NASSA.

9
Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction: The transition from relief to recovery 1

The necessity to better understand the impact of the disaster across the affected dioceses was
realized by NASSA even while the emergency program was being implemented. Hence, a training
workshop on Community-Managed Disaster Risk Reduction (CMDRR), funded by the Catholic
Organization for Relief and Development Aid (CORDAID), was held in January 2014. The activity was
participated by emergency program directors, staff, and volunteers from the 9 dioceses who were
directly working with the disaster-stricken communities.

Figure 6. A CMDRR workshop is facilitated by Rusty Biñas, Cordaid Global DRR Advisor, in Cebu City

As a result of this training, within 3 months after Typhoon Yolanda struck the Philippines, the DSACs
across the 9 dioceses conducted Participatory Disaster Risk Assessments (PDRA), the initial step in
the CMDRR framework, in 118 communities and assessed a total of 24,403 households. The PDRA
was conducted in 3 key phases to determine the degree of disaster risk in the community. These
included undertaking hazard assessment, vulnerability assessment, and capacity assessment. The
assessments were completed in the middle of March 2014, and are now the basis of the three-year
recovery program of NASSA - Recovery Assistance to Vulnerable Communities Affected by Typhoon
Haiyan in the Philippines (REACH Philippines).

Table 5. Spread of CMDRR activities across Yolanda-affected dioceses in the Philippines

Diocese Province Number of Number of
PDRA Households
communities Covered
Diocese of Borongan Eastern Samar 5 963
Diocese of Calbayog (Western) Samar 6 1,524
Archdiocese of Palo Leyte 10 1,909
Archdiocese of Cebu Cebu 47 5,350
Archdiocese of Jaro Iloilo 16 4,297
Diocese of San Jose Antique 10 1,208
Diocese of Kalibo Aklan 5 2,560
Archdiocese of Capiz Capiz 5 1,535
Apostolic Vicariate of Taytay Palawan 14 5,057

1
Adapted from “Community as Key to Resilient Recovery: Disaster Recovery in Haiyan-Affected Dioceses in the Philippines”, a
discussion paper prepared by NASSA for the World Reconstruction Conference 2 in Washington DC, 2014
10
Participatory Disaster Risk Assessments in RCAC-RRU

In February 2014, less than a month after the CMDRR workshop was held in Cebu, RCAC-RRU
coordinated with the affected parishes to prepare for PDRA in target communities. Deviating from a
strategy that covered an expansive geographical area during the emergency period, RCAC-RRU
chose to focus on only four municipalities within mainland Northern Cebu for the recovery phase.
The municipality of Santa Fe would only be added in the second year of the recovery program.

Map 2. The geographical focus for RCAC-RRU’s Participatory Disaster Risk Assessments in March 2014

*The municipality of Santa Fe was only added in Year 2 of REACH Philippines.

To carry out PDRA, volunteers were requested from parish priests of the target municipalities. With
enough support from the parish priests, at least 50 volunteers were gathered for a 3-day orientation
where they were taught how to conduct PDRA. This pool of volunteers was given a free hand to
identify the communities, but was given only one week to complete the assessments. By March 2014,
a total of 53 communities were assessed, but only 47 were submitted to NASSA since the
assessments in the remaining 6 communities were not completed in time for the cut-off period.

Table 7. Distribution of PDRA Activities among the parishes in Northern Cebu

Municipality Parish No. of No. of
Communities Households
Bogo City Archdiocesan Shrine of San Vicente Ferrer 7 653
San Remegio St. Michael the Archangel Parish 8 688
San Juan Nepomuceno Parish 6 326
Medellin Our Lady of the Assumption Parish 5 403
St. Niño Parish 8 1,771
St. Ignatius of Loyola Parish 7 420
Daanbantayan St. Rose of Lima Parish 12 1,447

11
 53 5,708
Recovery Assistance to Vulnerable Communities Affected by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines
(REACH Philippines)

A few weeks after PDRA was conducted, NASSA reconvened the 9 dioceses in Boracay to prepare
proposals for a long-term recovery program using data collected from the risk assessments. RCAC-
RRU was represented by Fr. Cha Jayme (Director), Sr. Mapet Bulawan (Program Manager), Jhomar
Awiten (one of the Area Coordinators from the Emergency Program), Rosalie Verdida (Finance
Officer), and three student-volunteers who facilitated PDRA in the communities. In less than a week,
the RCAC-RRU team submitted a 3-year recovery proposal addressing the needs of the communities
to rebuild shelters, water systems, sanitation, livelihoods and ecosystems.

Figure 7. NASSA, diocesan workers, and Caritas Internationalis member organizations plan in Boracay, Aklan

It was also while developing the program in Boracay that RCAC-RRU conceptualized the vision,
mission and goals which would guide the work of the newly created unit. Its vision for the
communities was vaguely articulated and it remained to be seen how the vision would be realized.

Table 8. The vision, mission and goals of RCAC-RRU developed in Boracay, Aklan
Vision To become a faith-based and love-driven Relief and Rehabilitation Unit of the Archdiocese of
Cebu journeying with disaster-stricken communities so that they may become resilient
communities rooted in their integral development

Mission To facilitate the recovery and rehabilitation of Yolanda-affected communities, from being calamity
survivors to victors and artisans of their own development

Goals To establish a functional Relief and Rehabilitation Unit with capacitated staff committed to the
realization of the vision and mission of the Unit

To craft and implement an effective, efficient, relevant, transparent, accountable, sustainable and
participatory three-year relief and rehabilitation program for the Archdiocese of Cebu

To synergize the collaborative endeavours of partners and stakeholders for the sustainable

12
 integral development of its partner communities
After consolidating proposals from the 9 dioceses, NASSA launched another emergency appeal to
Caritas Internationalis to raise funds for the first year of the REACH Philippines program. Within a
month since the launch of the appeal, initial funding was immediately obtained from the Caritas
Internationalis Member Organizations (CIMO). And in June 2014, NASSA began downloading to the
dioceses the funds to be used for the implementation of the programs.

Table 9. Budget allocated to RCAC-RRU for each Program Year

Program Program RCAC-RRU No. of RCAC-RRU
Year Code Budget Communities
2014-2015 EA12/2014 Php 52,768,714.30 53
2015-2016 EA07/2015 40,104,730.00 38
2016-2017 EA08/2016 15,237,086.00 16

2
II. What is REACH Philippines?

Building back better by building community resilience

The extent of the devastation brought by Typhoon Yolanda highlighted the different frameworks
through which disaster response is understood and acted out by different stakeholders. A good
number of humanitarian, non-government, and faith-based organizations, for example, have largely
focused their attention in providing recovery support to those affected by the disaster through rapid
needs assessment. These short-term efforts, however, fail to recognize the inherent capacities of
communities to articulate and plan out ways to determine their own recovery. This often encourage
competition among the organizations to implement activities along specific programme objectives
and rigidly-defined timelines with little regard to community contexts and real needs. In a sense, the
humanitarian community and the national government operate on the assumption that communities
have limited capacities. As a result, communities usually end up as passive recipients of aid.

This is the gap that REACH Philippines hoped to fill in the standard humanitarian response. Informed
by the Community-Managed Disaster Risk Reduction (CMDRR) framework in disaster recovery,
NASSA, with its national network of Catholic churches, embarked on a coordinated effort with
Yolanda-stricken communities and local partners, such as barangay and municipal governments, in
facilitating a recovery process that allowed the communities to analyse their own disaster risk and
existing capacities, evaluate their capacity gaps, articulate their desired future states, and plan out
the support required to address the identified capacity gaps.

2
Adapted from “Finding Resilience: Calibrating Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction in Haiyan-Affected Dioceses”, an
internal document in NASSA prepared by Athena Banza, Greggy Pellerin and Paul Richard Dy
13
Figure 8. Components of the CMDRR framework

4. A Community Organization monitors and evaluates Monitoring & Evaluation

implementation

3. A Community Organization implements the plans Implementation

2. Community develops Contingency and Development Plans Planning

1. Community conducts Participatory Disaster Risk Assessment Assessment

Locating resilience in the CMDRR framework

The CMDRR framework is segmented into four levels; each level a requisite of the next.

1. The community conducts Participatory Disaster Risk Assessments (PDRA).

2. The community translates the results of the PDRA into DRR measures in the form of
community Development and Contingency Plans.
3. A functional Community Organization implements the disaster risk reduction plans.
4. The community organization measures their risk reduction interventions through a
Participatory Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation Plan (PMEL).

Following the conduct of the PDRA, the development of community contingency and resiliency plans
(i.e. strategies to address capacity gaps and reduce the degree of disaster risk) are expected to be
undertaken. These plans are to be fed by data and analysis from the PDRA, and the necessity of
organizing task groups among the community members to follow through on translating the plans
into concrete actionable elements at different levels is emphasized (i.e. policy support and inclusion
in the regular development planning of government agencies, linking with relevant non-government
institutions for capacity or funding support, among others).

Simultaneous to these tasks is the need to plan out how the community can set up and implement an
effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism to consolidate all its recovery efforts and better
manage the structures and systems in place in the event of another hazard in the future.

In itself, the entire CMDRR process is anchored on the bigger Community Resilience Framework
(CRF). The CRF views resilience as the end state through which human survival is attained and this is
achieved by facilitating the increase of community capacities to survive and bounce back from
disasters. Survivability is measured by their absorptive capacity for the impact of an impending
hazard; bouncing back is measured by the adaptive capacity of communities to recover immediately.
14
Figure 9. Community Resilience Framework 3

The Human Element at Risk is at the centre of analysis that requires the following Capacity
capacity support: Support
Foundation of Safety Survivability (first 72 hrs.) 1st Level
(food, water, clothing, shelter)
Livelihood and Health Bouncing Back 2nd Level

Ecosystem Services Supports survivability and bouncing back 3rd Level

Community Readiness Helps community to survive and to bounce back 4th Level
(systems and structures)
Enabling Policy Environment Ensures human security 5th Level
(upholds community DRR initiatives
to support systems and structures)
International Treaties Global order 6th Level

3
Extracted from “Building Resilient Communities: A Training Manual on Community Managed Disaster Risk
Reduction” (CORDAID, 2013 edition)
15
The PDRA as the initial step in a bottom-up process 4

The conduct of the Participatory Disaster Risk Assessment (PDRA) among the Yolanda-affected
dioceses proved valuable in many ways for the communities and the partner institutions (parishes,
diocesan social action centers and local government units). Aside from being used as a tool to raise
funds for recovery work, it kicked off a process that highlighted a shift in paradigms at different
levels and forced a rethinking of humanitarian norms for both the Church and the local governments.
It stressed the necessity of refocusing the dynamics of recovery back to the communities and its
members, and acknowledged that they are often overlooked in the determination of the capacities
and gaps of individual households to bounce back.

In sum, the following aspects of the PDRA were highlighted:

1. Participatory process. For many, the PDRA was the first experience of the communities in a
participatory process, as opposed to the usual downloading of recovery projects in
communities. The interventions may have been the same, but it was how the process
unfolded that was appreciated by the community. The PDRA process trusts the community
in its own analysis of its capacities for survivability and bouncing back; it aims to build on
the capacities articulated by the community.

2. Capacities versus needs. By allowing the community to chart its own roadmap towards
disaster recovery, the humanitarian community acknowledges the power and expertise
waiting to be tapped in the communities. The role of non-government and other
organizations then shifts into one that creates an enabling environment which allows the
transformation of the capacities into a seedbed for the empowerment of both the
individual and the community.

Figure 10. Participatory Disaster Risk Assessment in Barangay Tag-alag, Marabut, Samar

4
Adapted from “Community as Key to Resilient Recovery: Disaster Recovery in Haiyan-Affected Dioceses in the Philippines”, a
discussion paper prepared by NASSA for the World Reconstruction Conference 2 held in Washington DC, 2014.
16
3. Community building. The PDRA brought a heightened awareness of what a community is,
and who or what comprises it. It brought people to an expanded appreciation of who the
“neighbour” is and gave them a sense of responsibility towards one another.
Understanding the degree of risk of each household, they learn to prioritize their most-at-
risk community members during any assistance.

4. Community analysis and ownership. During the PDRA, the process of communal self-
assessment provides community members with an understanding of the interrelated roles
of the individual and the community for community resilience. As they attempt to address
the individual capacity gaps, they are naturally recognizing a symbiotic relationship
between their community and its members.

Figure 11. Community risk mapping in Barangay Molo, Kalibo, Aklan

5. The community as a stakeholder. The PDRA gave community members a stake in their
recovery process, and allowed them to make claims on funds and resources that are
rightfully theirs, being the primary stakeholder of the funds that the government and NGOs
raise. By being given the opportunity to actively participate in their own recovery process,
in stark contrast to their usual role as recipients of goods and services, the communities
realize that they are the very enabling environment that drive the transformation of both
their individual members and the systems and structures that are in place around them.

17
From bottom-up to top-down: The case of RCAC-RRU

Building back better, however, was a different story in RCAC-RRU. Owing perhaps to the challenges
of a process-oriented approach to disaster recovery and the limited capacity of its young staff, RCAC-
RRU opted to follow the usual output-focused course taken by disaster recovery planners.

 Rather than analyse the capacities of each element in the community that builds up resilience
(shelters, water, livelihoods, ecosystems, infrastructures), the PDRA in RCAC-RRU focused
mainly in assessing the extent of damages to shelters. A direct result of this approach is the
lack of integration between real needs and a comprehensive resilience planning.

 Rather than allow the community to define the capacities required for resilience in their own
terms, it was RCAC-RRU who set the criteria households must meet to qualify for shelter
assistance. This approach did little to stimulate local ownership, and reinforced a dole-out
approach to recovery that turned people into mere “beneficiaries” of assistance.

Figure 12. Risk map shows extent of damage to shelter, not the degree of risk based on capacities

 Because people did not take the lead in planning for recovery, programming became a
reinforcement of a standard set of pre-determined interventions. As a result of this top-down
planning, not much in-depth consultations happened in the communities.

 Because the analysis was not based on capacity gaps that make people at-risk for disasters,
the programming did not integrate disaster risk reduction. DRR initiatives were thus reduced
into mere add-ons, and resilience became an empty technical catch phrase for both RCAC-
RRU and the devastated communities. This mind-set can be gleaned from the logical
framework developed for the first two years of the three-year recovery program.

18
Year 1: Building back by restoring lost assets, and giving everyone a slice of the pie

The recovery strategy to rebuild communities for the first year was two-pronged for RCAC-RRU:

1. Overwhelmed by the extent of damage to shelters in Northern Cebu, RCAC-RRU prioritized the
shelter needs of the communities more than anything else.

Table 10. Extent of housing damage in Northern Cebu according to a report from IFRC
Municipality Housing Damage Level*
Daanbantayan 91%
Medellin 51%
Bogo City 46%
San Remegio 49%
*Calculated as the # of houses reported as totally destroyed by NDRRMC divided by the total estimated # of families

 For households living within 40 meters from the shoreline (declared as no-build zones by
the national government), RCAC-RRU made arrangements with the local governments to
relocate these high-risk households to safer areas. Four relocation sites were identified and
developed by the local governments, and typhoon-resilient shelters with attached toilets
were built by RCAC-RRU for the relocated households.

Criteria for selection of relocation site shelter beneficiaries

A. Shelter was either totally or partially damaged, located within the no-build zone.
B. Household must be least-served and least-reached by donor agencies.
C. Household income must be below minimum wage; an indication that the household
has little capacity to rebuild its shelter.
D. Vulnerable households:
- With elderly
- With persons with disability (PWD)
- Solo-parent household
- Female-headed household

 For households outside of the no-build zone, typhoon-resilient shelters were built on-site.

Criteria for selection of on-site shelter beneficiaries

A. Shelter was totally damaged, located outside of the no-build zone
B. Household must own a lot, with pertinent legal documents (i.e. tax declaration)
E. Household must be least-served and least-reached by donor agencies.
F. Household did not receive housing assistance by the government known as
Emergency Shelter Assistance (ESA)
G. Household income must be below minimum wage; an indication that the household
has little capacity to rebuild its shelter.
H. Vulnerable households:
- With elderly
- With persons with disability (PWD)
- Solo-parent household
- Female-headed household

19
2. In accordance to a RCAC-RRU policy that disbarred beneficiaries from receiving more than one
form of assistance, shelter beneficiaries did not receive any form of livelihood assistance. To
accommodate households who failed to meet the requirements for shelter assistance,
individual livelihood projects were given instead to help them recover the livelihood assets that
were lost during Typhoon Yolanda:

o Distribution of fishing boats and gears

o Distribution of livestock
o Distribution of farm inputs
o Setting up of small business enterprises

3. No DRR planning was taken up on the first year to allow the team to focus on the hardware
deliverables (shelters, toilets, piped water systems, dug wells, livelihood assets, etc.).

Table 11. A simplified logical framework of Year 1 of REACH Philippines (EA12/2014)

General Goal:
To contribute in building disaster-resilient communities affected by Typhoon Yolanda
Sector Specific Objective Result Input Activities
Shelter Communities live in safe Targeted households have Construction of shelters in
and disaster-resilient reconstructed their shelters relocation sites;
shelters with typhoon-resilient On-site shelter construction;
features in terms of Awareness on safe building;
improved design, materials, Training for local builders
workmanship and location
Water, Communities have access Targeted households have Level 2 piped water systems in
Sanitation to improved water and improved access to safe relocation sites;
and Hygiene sanitation facilities at both water and sanitary facilities Dug wells (hand pumps);
(WASH) communal and household in accordance with cluster Household latrines;
level (linking in closely with standards. Communal septic tanks;
shelter interventions) Hygiene promotion
campaigns
Livelihoods Communities have Targeted beneficiary families Goat raising;
improved and diversified have restored and diversified Hog raising;
livelihood options within livelihoods. Poultry (chicken) raising;
the vicinity of their living Fishing boats and gears;
area Farming inputs (seeds, tools);
Small business enterprises
Capacity RCAC-RRU Team, parishes RCAC-RRU Team effectively Organizational capacity
Strengthening and target communities implement rehabilitation and strengthening activities;
have strengthened their development projects. Staff training
organizational and
individual capacity to
effectively implement
rehabilitation and
development projects.
Ecosystem Communities are able to Targeted communities will Mangrove replanting
contribute to the have ecosystem
rehabilitation of ecosystem rehabilitated.

20
Year 2: Correcting the gaps from Year 1

Because RCAC-RRU was a neophyte in disaster recovery work, mistakes were bound to happen. The
second year thus had to address gaps from the first year and the following adjustments were made.

1. Gaps in the livelihood program had to be addressed; these gaps were a result of inadequate
consultations with communities and pressure from NASSA to hasten its budget spending at the
expense of project processes. Hence, livelihood interventions were poorly designed and
production assets were rapidly distributed. Some of these gaps were the following:

a. Some of the fishing boats and gears did not match the local needs of the fishermen
and had to be remodelled.

b. Some of the hogs distributed to beneficiaries were not age-appropriate for hog-
raising and new schemes were explored to compensate for the losses (i.e. swine
dispersal and fattening programs).

c. A more comprehensive set of criteria was laid down to ensure that livelihood
interventions are given to the right people (e.g. BFAR registration for fishermen,
availability of a water source for hog-raising households). A sound business concept
note likewise became a requirement prior to the release of funds.

d. Beneficiaries were grouped into self-help groups (SHeG) to enhance sustainability.

This was a shift from the distribution of individual livelihood projects in the first year.

2. Gaps in the shelter program were also addressed. The shelter program was expanded to include
high-risk households who were not given shelter assistance on the first year due to the RCAC-
RRU policy that restricted households from receiving more than one form of assistance. The
policy was an outcome of a dole-out approach that sought to cover as many beneficiaries as
possible.

3. A new relocation site was identified in Barangay Marikaban (Santa Fe) to build 100 shelters.

4. Recognizing the need to look at the community initiatives from the lens of DRR, RCAC-RRU staff
underwent refresher sessions in CMDRR and began to facilitate CMDRR by pilot-testing the
contingency planning process in select communities.

5. Furthermore, partnerships with local government units continued in recognition of the need to
share resources and to ensure the sustainability of projects, particularly in the relocation sites.

Table 12. Partnerships established for the development of the relocation sites
Relocation Site Lot Provider Site Development Electricity Water
Tacup San Remegio LGU San Remegio LGU CEBECO ?
Hagnaya San Remegio LGU San Remegio LGU CEBECO ?
Bungtod Bogo LGU Bogo LGU CEBECO ?
Marikaban Archdiocese of Cebu Santa Fe LGU CEBECO ?
21
Table 13. A simplified logical framework of Year 2 of REACH Philippines (EA07/2015)
General Goal:
To facilitate the recovery and rehabilitation of the Yolanda-affected communities from being calamity
survivors to victors by accompanying them to become resilient towards their integral development
Sector Specific Objective
Shelter To build settlements for
communities who are
still living in makeshift
houses
Water, To strengthen target
Sanitation communities on WASH
and Hygiene awareness in the 5 new
(WASH) PDRA areas and 4
schools.
Livelihoods To restore and
rehabilitate livelihood
endeavours towards
sustainable economic
development among
communities
Community To facilitate participation
Development among all community
& members to build their
Capacity capacities for integral
Building development.
To form BEC seldas as a
way of community living
To build the skills RCAC-
RRU staff and parish
volunteers on
community development
Advocacy To promote awareness
on marine ecology and
the rehabilitation of
marine resources
damaged by informal
settlers and largely by
Super Typhoon Yolanda
Results
Targeted households have
resilient houses constructed relocation site in Sta. Fe;
in the identified relocation Additional shelter construction in
site and on-site settlements the on-site settlements
Targeted households in the
identified areas have access
to adequate clean water
and sanitary facilities
Targeted households in
identified communities have
revived and sustained
livelihood endeavours
Targeted communities and
capacitated RCAC-RRU staff
actively participate and
involved in the
development of
communities
Targeted communities
protect the environment to
withstand calamities
Input Activities
Shelter construction in the new
Level 2 piped water systems in
relocation sites;
Household latrines and
communal septic tanks;
Biogas system in relocation sites;
Hygiene promotion trainings and
communal latrines in
schools/evacuation centers;
Skills training on solid waste
management in the relocation
sites
Hog raising;
TESDA skills development
trainings;
Fishing boats and gears;
Self-help groups (SHEG)
formation
Community leadership seminars;
BEC seminars;
Community organizing seminars;
Team building activities;
Recollections and retreats;
Emergency Preparedness and
Response (EP&R) trainings
Coastal prevention awareness;
Trainings/seminars in marine
preservation;
Coastal clean-up;
Mangrove planting
22
Figure 13. Risk mapping in Barangay Marikaban Figure 14. Fr. Cha visits the relocation site in Marikaban

Figure 15. Open dug well is constructed on site Figure 16. Promoting hygiene in Barangay Bitoon

Figure 17. Livelihood training in a relocation site Figure 18. Mangrove planting in Barangay Caputatan

23
III. How was REACH Philippines implemented?

The expansion of RCAC-RRU during the transition to recovery

Since the recovery program in RCAC-RRU did not have a unifying CMDRR framework, programming
was thus neatly divided into several sector-based projects (i.e. Shelter, WASH, Livelihoods).
Consequently, the organizational structure of RCAC-RRU was expanded to accommodate this piece-
meal and sector-based programming.

Organogram 2. The RCAC-RRU organizational structure adopted for REACH Philippines

Another salient characteristic of the revised organogram is its written distinction between Project
Officers and Community Organizers, but in reality, every program staff was both a Project Officer and
a Community Organizer; and each one was expected to both provide technical support and to
mobilize the beneficiaries. This duality of roles demanded that Project Officers cover an
overwhelming workload of communities to work with. For instance, a WASH Officer attends to the
needs of each community with a WASH project; a Livelihood Officer monitors each community with
livelihood interventions; and a Shelter Officer has to be on top of the demands of each construction
site. Eventually, the poor project officer-to-community ratio during the first two program years made
close monitoring extremely difficult.
24
Table 14. Number of projects for each parish during Years 1 and 2 of REACH Philippines
NO. OF COMMUNITIES
MUNICIPALITY PARISH w/ Shelter w/Shelter w/ w/
(Relocation) (Onsite) WASH Livelihood
Y1 Y2 Y1 Y2 Y1 Y2 Y1 Y2
SAN REMEGIO San Juan Nepomuceno 1 1 1 2 2 3 - 2
St. Michael the Archangel 1 1 - 1 1 2 8 8
MEDELLIN Our Lady of the Assumption - - 1 3 1 3 4 4
Sto. Niño - - 1 3 1 3 6 6
St. Ignatius of Loyola - - - - - - 2 2
DAANBANTAYAN St. Rose of Lima - - 2 3 2 3 7 7
BOGO San Vicente Ferrer 2 2 - 1 2 3 4 5
SANTA FE Sto. Niño - 1 - - - 1 - 1
4 5 5 13 9 18 31 35

The technical capacity of the staff to support the projects was also an issue. Most of them were fresh
out of colleges and seminaries and without any experience in community work when they joined
RCAC-RRU. NASSA stepped in to help fill some of the initial capacity gaps by providing trainings on
financial management, procurement procedures, logistic systems, and WASH programming.
Moreover, NASSA collaborated with the Canadian Culture of Peace Program (CCOPP) and CO
Multiversity to train the diocesan community organizers in their organizing work.

Other local partners, both within and outside the local Church in Cebu, were also tapped to augment
RCAC-RRU’s institutional capacities in community development, report writing, livelihood project
implementation, environmental protection awareness, renewable energy initiatives, emergency
preparedness, community-managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR), and Basic Ecclesial
Communities (BEC) organizing.

Fr. Cha Jayme, as RCAC-RRU Director, also began to take a more active role in the overall
management of the program, particularly in making crucial decisions affecting the direction of
program implementation. With the presence of Fr. Cha in the organization, RCAC-RRU began to
establish a direct link to the office of the Archbishop of Cebu. The coordination with the Parish
Volunteers, which was an advantage during the emergency phase, was likewise continued in the
recovery phase.

Through these initiatives, an enabling environment was gradually being established to build the
capacities of RCAC-RRU for a more effective technical accompaniment to the communities. However,
it took more time before the various management roles could be harmonized such that community
processes can be prioritized, and for community organizing to take deeper root in the recovery
program.

25
The continued involvement of the Parish Volunteers

Recognizing the crucial role of the Parish Volunteers on the ground, RCAC-RRU continued to work
closely with them during the implementation of REACH Philippines projects. Mostly lay ministers,
psalmists, lectors and catechists in their respective parishes, these Parish Volunteers who helped out
in the initial relief activities began to take on more roles throughout the project management cycle,
always working in tandem with the Project Officers.

Some of these responsibilities were the following:

1. Conducting the PDRA activities

2. Profiling the beneficiaries
3. Gathering the required legal documents from shelter beneficiaries
4. Monitoring the implementation of the program
5. Facilitating the BEC and SHeG sessions

Table 15. Number of Parish Volunteers for each parish during Years 1 and 2 of REACH Philippines
Total No. of No. of Active
MUNICIPALITY PARISH Parish Parish
Volunteers Volunteers
SAN REMEGIO San Juan Nepomuceno 8 7
St. Michael the Archangel 11 9
MEDELLIN Our Lady of the Assumption 3 3
Sto. Niño 8 8
St. Ignatius of Loyola 4 3
DAANBANTAYAN St. Rose of Lima 6 6
BOGO San Vicente Ferrer 3 3
SANTA FE Sto. Niño 23 23
66 62

Recognizing the potential of the Parish Volunteers to deepen their participation in the recovery
projects, initial training was provided for them during the second year to equip them with the same
skills as the Project Officers to contribute more to the project, particularly in organizing the
beneficiaries. Capacities were developed in the following areas:

1. Facilitating community-managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR)

2. Organizing basic ecclesial communities (BEC)
3. Organizing communities using the 10 basic CO steps
4. Developing leadership skills and attitude
5. Capacity for reflection

Towards the middle of the second year of program implementation, the Parish Volunteers began to
be called Parish Coordinators in recognition of the important role they play in delivering program
services to the communities. It is generally hoped though that the parish coordinators will increase
their catalysing and enabling roles in the management of projects, particularly in unifying them into

26
the CMDRR framework. By involving the Parish Coordinators in the initial stages of the recovery
process, the capacity of the parishes for future humanitarian engagements is also being enhanced.

The work of the Parish Coordinators, however, remained outside of the official parish structure and
was not fully recognized in their respective parishes. Moreover, the role of the parish priests had
been generally limited to blessings during turn-over ceremonies and in signing memorandum of
agreements with the beneficiaries. It is desired that parish priests become more involved in the
recovery program.

Organizing the communities initially through sector-based committees

As expected with a sector-based recovery program, the recovery process has been largely input-
driven. In focus group discussions conducted in the relocation sites, communities highlighted the
inputs (i.e. shelters, toilets, water systems, etc.) received as their “peak moments” more than the
community processes they underwent. To illustrate, other than the 400 hours of sweat equity each
household is required to render for the shelter project, not much was mentioned on what they have
done collectively as a community to build resiliency.

Since programming was sector-based, the organizing work had been sector-based as well. Primarily
to sustain the projects after the inputs were turned-over to the beneficiaries, RCAC-RRU organized
their beneficiaries into groups called committees, with each one having its own separate structure
and function within the community. Households in the relocation sites, however, were organized
into homeowners’ associations to serve as umbrella organizations for the sector-based committees.
Moreover, these homeowners’ associations have their own set of officers and should be
distinguished from existing government structures such as the barangay and purok systems.

Table 16. Types of organizing for each sector

SECTOR Relocation Site Non-relocation Site
Shelter Shelter-DRR Committee Shelter-DRR Committee
WASH WASH Committee WASH Committee
Livelihoods Livelihood Committee Self Help Group (SHeG)

Shelter-DRR Committee: This committee is responsible for the technical maintenance of the
individual shelters built by RCAC-RRU and “prepares” the shelters in the event of a hazard.

Coordinator

Assistant
Coordinator

Technical Person 1 Technical Person 2

27
Self-Help Group: This is an informal group of 10-20 people whose members meet regularly to set up a
savings and loans fund to assist each other in their emergency needs and in other purposes that the
group agrees to undertake. To promote transparency and shared responsibilities within the group,
members take turns in safeguarding the funds and recording the financial transactions.

Book Writer 1 Moderator Book Writer 2

Livelihood Committee: This committee develops business proposals and manages the livelihood
projects, and are set up only in communities with group-based livelihood projects.

Livelihood Head

Sales Bookkeeper Treasurer Logistics

Quality Quality Quality Delivery Purchasing

Control Control Control

WASH Committee: This committee promotes hygienic practices to ensure cleanliness in the
community; and operates, maintains and manages the installed water and sanitation systems (i.e.
piped water systems, dug wells, toilets in evacuation centers, biogas systems).

WASH Committee

Water Sanitation Hygiene

Technical Persons (3) Technical Persons (3) Technical Persons (3)

Plumbing, Piping, etc. Cleanliness Barangay Health Workerss

28
IV. The Way Forward for RCAC-RRU

A return to Community-Managed Disaster Risk Reduction (CMDRR)

In October 2014, halfway through the first year of implementation, Sr. Mapet Bulawan left RCAC-RRU
to pursue other personal endeavours. As the primary architect of RCAC-RRU’s recovery program, Sr.
Mapet’s departure left a momentary void in program implementation. Sr. Mapet was a loss to RCAC-
RRU in terms of operational efficiency, but her exit nevertheless provided an opportunity for the unit
to reflect on the direction of the organization and to rethink its approach to disaster recovery.

Figure 21. RCAC-RRU meets with Archbishop Jose Palma in August 2014.

Sometime towards the end of Year 1, Fr. Cha Jayme was invited by the Agustinian fathers in Cebu City
to give a talk on the role of the Church in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). Based on some notes from
the CMDRR workshop of Mr. Rusty Biñas, Fr. Cha tried his best to present an overview of DRR and to
stress the important role played by the community in reducing the risks for disasters. For Fr. Cha, the
community being highlighted here is nothing else but the Church as the People of God, a community
of disciples gathered together as one part of the mystical body of Christ.

The talk was an eye opener for Fr. Cha in several ways. Reflecting on the threats posed by climate
change and the reality of natural disasters becoming the new normal in the Philippines, Fr. Cha
recognized the need to prepare the RCAC-RRU-assisted communities for natural hazards by building
their capacities to survive and to immediately bounce back from them. At that point, Fr. Cha saw the
crucial role of a community-managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR) framework that weaves
together every activity in a recovery program.

These realizations led Fr. Cha to develop a three-point agenda to set the direction for RCAC-RRU.

1. Enable communities to mitigate their disaster risks through CMDRR.

2. Organize the communities for empowerment.
3. Build the capacities of the communities for resiliency.

However, it would still take time before the young team would fully appreciate CMDRR as a
community process; for they too shall undergo a process of continuous action and reflection on their
own. Only then can the recovery program be realigned back to CMDRR.
29
Recreating an enabling environment for CMDRR in RCAC-RRU

The second year of REACH Philippines marked the shift to an approach geared towards the gradual
integration of all sector-based projects into the unifying CMDRR framework. To create an enabling
environment for CMDRR, Fr. Cha inserted small adjustments in the implementation structure of
RCAC-RRU without sacrificing the deliverables committed to the communities and to Caritas
Internationalis.

1. Reorienting RCAC-RRU towards CMDRR

Since the thrust was to tie in all sector-based programs into the CMDRR framework, staff
members had to be re-familiarized with CMDRR through a reorientation training that was
adopted from the CORDAID-sponsored workshop in 2014. This was quickly followed by a
NASSA-initiated refresher workshop held in Leyte where the team saw first-hand how the
CMDRR process was implemented in other Yolanda-stricken communities. Looking now at
recovery from the perspective of the communities, RCAC-RRU was able to identify gaps in
their first round of PDRA and resolved to make the necessary corrections. And since a new
relocation site was identified in Barangay Marikaban, RCAC-RRU saw it fit to conduct PDRA
anew with the hope that Marikaban becomes a model community for CMDRR in Cebu.

Figure 22. Paul Dy, a former NASSA staff, conducts a CMDRR reorientation for staff & parish volunteers

What was significantly different with the new PDRA was the deliberate handing over of the
“power to decide” to the community. This is in direct contrast to the process that was
followed during the first program year where it was RCAC-RRU who authoritatively laid down
the criteria, and the community simply followed. To correct the gap in the process, the
community in Marikaban, using their own local standards, was allowed to identify its most-at-
risk households who needed to be relocated to a safer area. To illustrate, the community
gave higher priority to households sharing shelters over households renting shelters; larger
households over smaller households; and households who migrated to other areas in the
aftermath of the typhoon but have since then relocated back to Marikaban. By allowing the
community to define its own required capacities for resiliency building, resiliency was
localized. Within months, program Implementation which used to be painstakingly slow
quickly accelerated, and program budget spending improved by more than 50%.

30
Figure 23. The risk map produced in Barangay Marikaban had more detailed risk assessments and helped the
local community volunteers to identify their most-at-risk households for relocation

At the end of the second year, Marikaban finished its contingency planning activities and is
now preparing to lobby for government funding, with the hope that the barangay adopts and
implements the contingency plan. The work for resiliency is far from over though since the
risk analysis map developed by the community during the PDRA will still be used to craft
disaster-preventive development plans for resiliency building.

2. Reinforcing the community organizing thrust of RCAC-RRU

As early as the first year of REACH Philippines, NASSA, together with Development and Peace
(Caritas Canada), has recognized the crucial role of community organizing (CO) in CMDRR by
providing the dioceses with CO trainers from CO Multiversity, a local NGO. In fact, it stressed
in its proposal submitted to Caritas Internationalis that underpinning the recovery program is
a community organizing process which will facilitate the transformation of the communities
from beneficiaries into an organized group engaging with the government as rights holders
and partners in development. And it was the task of CO Multiversity to train and mentor the
community organizers who will be hired by the dioceses.

However, due to the output-driven orientation of RCAC-RRU back then, community

organizing work was not fully appreciated. Thus, the role of the assigned trainer, Ms. Lily
Presbitero, was limited to occasional coaching sessions for crisis intervention in order to
hasten community mobilization for the distribution of project deliverables.

But as appreciation for CMDRR began to grow in RCAC-RRU, particularly when a new
program management team came in, the need to facilitate community processes was
highlighted even more. This paved the way for a more in-depth training program in
31
 community organizing to equip RCAC-RRU with the necessary skills and attitude to facilitate
the CMDRR process in the communities.

Fully aware that RCAC-RRU is a young organization, Lily chose to provide “coaching” rather
than go full-blast into community organizing training. Moreover, the deliverables were
already defined at the onset and the CO process was only being “inserted” into the program
in hindsight. Lily thus had to make a distinction between “coaching” which focuses on
accomplishment of goals, vis-à-vis “training” which builds job proficiency and competencies
towards the accomplishment of goals.

Contextualizing the CO process according to the situation, Lily suggested that RCAC-RRU
employ both “solid” and “sweeping” types of organizing work. “Solid organizing” is for the
relocation sites, and “sweeping organizing” is to be applied to the scattered communities
where there were only a handful of beneficiaries. To emphasize the need for two types of
community organizing in RCAC-RRU: the second program year had 5 relocation sites, more
than 30 scattered communities, and only 8 project officers/community organizers.

Moreover, a CO “FACE” framework was adopted to define RCAC-RRU’s new role in the
communities. “FACE” stands for the four basic roles of a community organizer – (1)
Facilitator, (2) Animator, (3) Catalyzer, and (4) Enabler. Through the CMDRR process, RCAC-
RRU will evolve to become a new “FACE” to the communities.

Figure 24. The CO “FACE” framework developed by Lily Presbitero 5

Facilitator

Animator

Catalyzer

Enabler

Within the SAD context of a prevailing culture of silence, apathy and dependency in society, a
CO animates the people to act, encouraging them to participate in the process of change
towards the end goal. Since such movement for change would normally require collective
efforts in order to be effective, the CO helps to facilitate the process towards the meeting of
minds and hearts among the people in order to decide as a group.
Their ensuing action from such meeting must then catalyze the realization of the change
desired or end goal so that it is important for the people to have adequate preparation before
5
Customized C.O. Training Curriculum for RCAC-RRU developed by Lily Presbitero in 2015
32
 any group action. Victories, however big or small, greatly contribute to the people’s self-
confidence, sense of determination, and sense of power over previously uncontrollable aspects
in their lives.

As the people gain from their actions and pursue their movement towards their end goal, the
CO has to ensure that they are enabled along the way so that lessons are learned, knowledge is
generated, skills are developed, attitudes/values are formed; thus, making future actions much
more effective.

Building people’s capacity is inherent in CO work because, ultimately, it is the People’s

Organizations together with their strategic partners and supportive linkages of varied types
that would sustain the movement for change. After all, it is the unwritten rule that COs enter
with an exit plan.

Figure 25. Lily Presbitero from CO Multiversity coaches the staff and conducts seminars for volunteers

3. Establishing a CMDRR-enabling management team

A new program management team was introduced during the transition from the first year
to the second year - as Fr. Cha was discerning for a “better way” of facilitating disaster
recovery in the communities. The new pair of Program Manager (Maricel Cogtas) and
Program Coordinator (Leo Vincent Tan) were new to humanitarian work, and so they
brought with them a fresh set of discerning eyes and greater openness to “new ways of
doing things”.

This transition was crucial as it helped establish an enabling environment that would pave the
way for an institutional re-orientation to community processes through CMDRR. Working
together with Lily, the Program Manager, Program Coordinator and Fr. Cha (as Director)
comprised the Training Management Team (TMT) which would reinstitute CMDRR and
community organizing in the recovery program.
4. Building the capacities of RCAC-RRU for community engagement

33
 Recognizing that much of the success of the program lies in the capabilities of the staff in
performing technical work and community mobilization, the Project Officers were enrolled in
a certificate course on community development at St. Theresa’s College in Cebu City that ran
through 6 weekends. In an attempt to veer away from the usual dole-outs provided by
humanitarian agencies and local governments, the certificate course gave the Project
Officers a better understanding and appreciation of Community Development as an end-goal
in helping communities.

To prepare the staff in training potential leaders in communities, small sessions called Basic
Organizing Study Series (BOSS) were also conducted. These seminars mainly dealt with the
concepts of leadership and followership as fundamental in the success of any organization.

Since CMDRR aims to develop inherent capacities in the communities, the Appreciative
Inquiry (AI) tool was likewise introduced for the staff to acquire a disposition that constantly
searches for the best in people, in organizations, in communities, and in the world relevant to
them. By affirming successes, strengths, and potentials, the staff’s capacity to discover new
possibilties, to imagine, and to design together with the communities are developed.

5. From Parish Volunteers to Parish Coordinators

The Parish Volunteers who have been the front-liners of RCAC-RRU since the emergency
phase were also invited to join the trainings to build their capacities for increased community
involvement. In the second year of REACH Philippines, the Parish Volunteers were active in
the formation of groups (i.e. homeowner associations, SHeGs) and in carrying out the second
round of PDRA activities in communities. In the final program year, it is hoped that the Parish
Volunteers, now aptly called Parish Coordinators for CMDRR, sustain their commitment to
the recovery program as their capacities in simple project management are developed.

Figure 26. Parish Coordinators participate in a CMDRR Orientation in July 2015

6. Building “small churches” through Basic Ecclesial Communities (BEC)

34
 In the second year of REACH Philippines, RCAC-RRU began forming Basic Ecclesial
Communities (BEC) in most of the relocation sites. These are groups of 10-20 individuals,
mostly neighbours, who meet regularly as a new way of being a “small church”. Following
the “MaKaLiPang” method, the group hears the Word of God (maayong balita), reflects on
their experience (kasinatian), discerns their proper response (lihok solbad), and prays
together (pangamuyo).

Through the formation of BECs, the process of integral development is initiated, which
considers the human, spiritual, political, and economic aspirations of the community. They are
reflections of the life and mystery of the Blessed Trinity. These communities do not live turned-
in on themselves but radiating towards other communities with faith becoming incarnate in
structures, institutions and in concrete daily living. 6

To address the socio-economic needs of the members, the BECs were also formed into Self-
help groups (SHeGs). These self-help groups are community-based financial support groups
who voluntarily come together to make small regular savings contributions until there is
enough capital that can be loaned to the members for their emergency needs.

7. An attempt to achieve geographical focus in community organizing

Geographically scattered communities make monitoring difficult and community organizing

almost impossible. Hence, there was an attempt to move from a sector-based organizing to a
geographically-focused organizing by forming Project Officer-and-Parish Coordinator
tandems in the middle of the second year. This setup, however, was not fully implemented
because of the need to deliver the hardware deliverables according to the defined project
timetable.

Table 17. Community-to-Project Officer ratio at the end of Year 2

No. of Communities w/Shelter projects 18 No. of Shelter Project Officers 3

No. of Communities w/WASH projects 18 No. of WASH Project Officers 2

No. of Communities w/Livelihood projects 35 No. of Livelihood Project Officers 2

6
“In Jesus’ Footsteps: The Archdiocese of Cebu’s Experience in BEC Implementation “ by Fr. Mamerto Mambaje (Building Basic
Ecclesial Communities: Case Studies from the Philippines, 2000)
35
Year 3: Community-based organizations toward integral development

In April 2016, RCAC-RRU staff and parish coordinators were gathered for a Process Integration
Seminar to close out the second year and to reflect on the program direction for the upcoming year,
which is also the final implementation year of REACH Philippines. To integrate all sector-based
initiatives into a unifying framework, Fr. Cha Jayme presented to the group a framework for
Community-Based Organization (CBO) building with an integrative approach.

Figure 27. Fr. Cha Jayme, RCAC-RRU Director, gives a talk during the Process Integration Seminar

What is a Community-Based Organization (CBO)?

The Community-Based Organization is an instrument for CMDRR; it is a concrete mechanism to

respond to the persistent challenge thrown at the local Church to help create an enabling
environment for meaningful community participation at the margins - towards the resilience of
communities vulnerable to hazards. With the rapid onset of climate change, building community
resilience against natural hazards is becoming more imperative. And with the right approach,
disaster risks can still provide opportunities in making communities resilient against future hazards.

A bottom-up process of planning for resilience

Disaster risk reduction rests on the assumption that the causes of disasters are closely associated
with unsustainable development patterns which increase the risk faced by large sectors of the
community. Effective DRR measures must therefore tackle unresolved issues in development and
must be centered on developing community capacities and releasing people’s potentials to respond
to risks. A community-managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR) program therefore is about
changing power relations, decision-making, and access to resources within the community. And to
link in resilient recovery before and after disaster, community systems and structures for local
resilience must be recognized and strengthened.

Taking the lead in the access of resources for resilience

Communities need support to develop their resilience. While local governments and NGOs usually
take the lead and provide directives to local communities, CMDRR aims to reverse the process. In
CMDRR, representatives of communities initiate action by reaching out to local governments to
assist them in their development projects. And this can only be achieved if linkages to civil society
organizations (CSO), local government units (LGU), and non-government organizations (NGO) are
36
established that would hopefully create collaborative partnerships for both funding and technical
assistance.

The role of a community-based organization (CBO)

Herein now lies the significance of a community-based organization that brings together community
members to collectively address a common disaster risk and pursue the appropriate disaster risk
measures. In CMDRR, it is the community organization which plans for resiliency using the
community resiliency framework (CRF); and networks to mobilize resources to implement the plans.

The church as promoter of an enabling environment for building resilience

The local church, through RCAC-RRU’s CO-FACE approach, is present to facilitate the planning, to
advice, and to identify gaps in the community’s available knowledge and existing capacities. The CBO
even takes CMDRR a step further by highlighting the key role of the faith as a powerful tool for
community transformation. In a country that is predominantly Catholic, a “faith in action” can
catalyse communities to make deep social changes. Hence, a CBO must be anchored on “small
churches” that concretize spirituality and move the heart into action. In the Archdiocese of Cebu,
these small churches take the form of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs), small groups of 10-20
neighbours who gather regularly as the priestly, prophetic, and kingly people of a Church of the
Poor. Locally known also as Makalipang, the prayer-reflection-action cycle can raise consciousness on
the social realities that confront the communities.

As a community of disciples, the BECs celebrate the presence of Christ in the sacraments. Christ
continues to shape the community through sacraments. They gather in the memory of Christ and
celebrate the Eucharist. They are ready to offer their life in self-sacrifice. Like Christ, BECs actively
participate in building the Kingdom of God – propelled by the Christ values of justice peace and love.
They follow the way of Christ who is poor, make an option for the poor, and empower the poor to
actively participate in the mission of Christ 7

Morally responsible and socially engaged BECs must then give rise to the emergence of grassroots
servant-leaders. Spurred by the desire to serve the common good, the BECs must help create the
enabling environment for the meaningful participation of the people for good governance. And such
collaborative and discerning communities are needed for a process-oriented recovery.

The end goal of the recovery process is not the replacement of lost assets but resilience… and resilience
is an empty concept unless considered from the perspective of the people affected 8

7
“Basic Ecclesial Communities: An Ecclesiological Vision” by Fr. Amado Picardal, CSSR (Building Basic Ecclesial Communities:
Case Studies from the Philippine Experience, 2000)

8
“Breaking the Disaster Cycle: Engaging Communities, Civil Societies and Local Authorities in Resilient Recovery”, a discussion
paper prepared by CORDAID for the World Reconstruction Conference 2 held in Washington DC, 2014
37
How does a Community Based Organization look like?

Below is a schema of the framework developed by RCAC-RRU to address the need to empower
communities and to build their capacities in responding to their vulnerability to disaster risk.

Organogram 3. The proposed structure of the Community-Based Organization (CBO) for each community

GENERAL CBO Officers

Sector-Based Committees
ASSEMBLY (organizational and
(technical functions)
administrative functions)

Shelter President

VP
WASH COUNCIL OF
LEADERS
(coordinating body) Secretary
Livelihoods
Treasurer
DRR
Auditor

BEC BEC BEC BEC BEC

(SHeG) (SHeG) (SHeG) (SHeG) (SHeG)

1. Basic Ecclesial Communities and SHeG

These clusters of 10-20 households that meet once a week at an agreed time for prayer, Bible
reflection and faith-sharing based on concrete life-situations would be the building blocks of
the CBO. Integral to the BEC is the sharing of current problems that affect any of the
members or the entire neighbourhood. In a BEC sharing, it is hoped that people’s dreams and
aspirations for an authentic life with Christ bear fruit in a community of faith and action.
Community prayer and reflection deepen the internalization of the Gospel values of Christ
and the missionary character of Christian discipleship.

To help foster Christian charity and mutual help within a support group, the BECs will also
function as self-help groups (SHeG) that would offer livelihood support and emergency
assistance to its members. By responding to both the spiritual and socio-economic needs of
members, it is envisioned that the formation of BECs will lay the foundation for the integral
development of the human person which becomes the guiding light of his moral and social
vision for his community.

38
2. General Assembly

The general assembly, as the highest policy-making body of the CBO, will provide the BEC
clusters a venue to effectively deal with common problems and concerns among the
members. Community problems may be discussed and raised to various fora until solutions
are reached at the appropriate level of action - with the help of the entire assembly.

In CMDRR, the general assembly will provide people with the opportunity to take the lead
and make them responsible for their own resiliency, a process initiated by the participatory
disaster risk assessment (PDRA). It is also within an assembly setting where people may
prioritize community issues and map out a resiliency plan to build local capacities through
their community contingency and development plans.

3. Sector-Based Committees

These are the sector-based committees organized by RCAC-RRU during the first two years of
REACH Philippines. Since the contingency and development plans cover a multitude of
community issues pertaining to shelters, water, sanitation, livelihoods, ecosystems and social
infrastructures, the CBO will need technical assistance to innovate and come up with
concrete solutions to these very specific problems. Having received sufficient trainings from
RCAC-RRU, these technical committees will provide guidance to the CBO for its sectoral
concerns.

4. Organizational Administration

To formally establish the CBO, elected officers will be given regular organizational positions
within the CBO structure. Together with the BEC members, the officers will craft
organizational policies and develop community programs and guidelines that are within the
mandate of their constitutions and by-laws.

Also, the administrative officers would identify internal resources which may be tapped to
implement the resiliency plans, and to seek out and lead in the dialogue with other
stakeholders who are capable of sharing their agenda and combining resources with the
community. One way to source external funds would be to participate in the planning and
budgeting process of the local government to ensure adequate allocation of government
funds for CMDRR.

5. Council of Leaders

Comprised of CBO officers and leaders from the sector-based committees (Shelter, WASH,
Livelihoods, and DRR) and geographically-defined member groups (BECs and SHeGs), this
collegial and coordinating body will emphasize the shared responsibilities of everyone in DRR
policy-making, organizational management, and leadership functions.

39
What still needs to be done to complete the transition to CMDRR?

To complete the transition to support the CMDRR process, changes are to be made at three levels –
(1) RCAC-RRU, (2) Parishes, and (3) Communities.

1. Integration of all sector-based programs into the CMDRR framework

In the final year of the REACH Philippines recovery program, RCAC-RRU is integrating all sector-
based initiatives under one specific objective: to strengthen and to sustain resilient communities
through the integration of the following:

a. Institutional RRU-level capacity building

b. Community-managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR)
c. Community organizing (CO)

In the previous years, resiliency had been segmented into sectors that were clearly differentiated
from each other. Hence, technical projects had “lives of their own”. But in the final program
year, community resiliency would be consolidated and integrated into the CMDRR process.
Sector-based hardware outputs would still be delivered to address obvious capacity gaps,
particularly in the relocation sites where site development continues to be a work-in-progress,
but there should be increased consciousness of community processes that enhance community
ownership and participation. This means communities need to be given more opportunities for
collective decision-making and consensus building.

Table 18. A simplified logframe for Year 3 of REACH Philippines (EA08/2016)

General Goal:
To continue building disaster-resilient communities affected by Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines
Specific Objective Sector Result Input Activities
To strengthen and Institutional Acquired appropriate Conduct of CMDRR process in 8 parishes;
sustain resilient Capacity competencies to implement Training of staff and parish coordinators
communities and Building, the REACH Philippines on FACE (Facilitating, Animating,
people’s organizations CMDRR and program by providing various Catalyzing, Enabling) & BEC Organizing;
through integration of Community institutional strengthening Construction of evacuation centers/multi-
(1) institutional Organizing interventions at purpose buildings in relocation sites;
capacity, organizational and Development and adoption of community
(2) community community level. contingency plans;
managed disaster risk Spiritual and values formation sessions
reduction, Shelter Targeted communities have Training of local artisans on shelter
(3) the community trained artisans, functioning resiliency features;
organizing resiliency plans, and Shelter technical training on maintenance
information, education and and preparedness;
communication (IEC) Development and adoption of resiliency
materials available for plans;
preventive maintenance to Creation of a home-owners’ association in
sustain the resiliency relocation sites;
features Training on land tenure rights and Basic
Organizational Study Series (BOSS)
40
 WASH Targeted communities have
trained BWASA groups
equipped with skills,
knowledge and tools for
preventive maintenance of
WASH facilities, supported
by hygiene promotion
campaigns
Livelihoods Targeted communities with
enterprise development
strategies through provision
of SHeGs, production of
organic inputs and products
to improve family income
and sustain market linkages
and networks
Ecosystem Targeted communities have
strengthened initiatives on
disaster risk reduction,
ecosystem development,
climate change adaptation,
natural resources
management
Installation of biogas systems and water
receptacles;
Technical training on maintenance of
biogas system and water receptacles;
Communal latrines and hygiene
promotion campaigns in schools;
Testing of potability of water sources in
the relocation sites
Integration of SHeG and BEC organizing;
Training on value-added enterprises, shell
crafting, seaweed farming, household-
based vermin composting;
Community-based livelihood projects;
Solid waste management;
Monitoring of mangrove systems;
Seabed restoration/coral rehabilitation;
Seminars on “Laudato Si”

2. Integrative community organizing

Consolidation, however, is not limited to programs. To address a recurring gap in the way the
organization is structured to support community organizing, adjustments are necessary to
prepare RCAC-RRU in organizing communities for CMDRR. In fact, some Project Officers would
describe their organizing work in previous years as “taphaw ug kuwang sa tutok” (superficial and
lacking in focus); each Project Officer is mindful only of the assigned sector. Hence, nobody sees
the holistic needs of the communities. Alongside the shift towards a geographically-focused
community organizing work, all Project Officers would be converted into Community Organizers
with focus communities.

Moreover, the area of coverage would be trimmed down from 37 communities to only 16 in the
final program year. Two communities would be covered for each parish: a relocation site
(whenever there is one in the parish) and a non-relocation site. Either way, each Community
Organizer would continue to work in tandem with the Parish Coordinators.

Community Relocation Site

Organizer Community
PARISH
Parish Non-Relocation Site
Coordinator Community
41
 Because CMDRR is a multi-faceted process, the community organizing training program would
be expanded to provide the Community Organizers and Parish Coordinators enough flexibility in
terms of skills to cater to the varied but particular needs of each community.

Table 19. Types of community organizing approaches to be used in building CBOs 9

Issue-based approach
Socio-economic project-based approach
Faith-based approach (BEC)
This refers to an organizing approach which revolves around
issues or problems that are felt by a significant number of
people in the community, and is considered as “winnable” if
people use their numbers to negotiate to an external group.
This centers around the introduction of socio-economic
projects that are either identified after a study of the felt
needs of the community or pre-packaged by a funding
source. Collective action is important in developing self-help
or self-managed projects in response to their community
needs.
This approach is used when working within the structures of
the Church. It imparts spiritual teachings and the imperatives
of the faith. Unity is stressed when addressing common
needs, issues and aspirations.

For resiliency to be grounded in the integral development of the human person, BEC organizing
would remain as the fundamental approach in organizing communities. The issue-based and
socio economic project-based approaches are meant to enhance the BECs, thereby making the
BECs (and essentially the CBOs) “integrative”.

3. Sustaining community accompaniment through the parishes

As the three-year REACH Philippines winds down in March 2017, RCAC-RRU plans to pass on its
community accompaniment role to the parishes. Hence, it had been investing in capacity building
initiatives for the Parish Coordinators. In the final program year, the Parish Coordinators will step
up to go beyond playing supportive roles to the Project Officers and become co-implementation
partners of RCAC-RRU. This entails an intensified and extensive training for the Parish
Coordinators in community organizing.

In reality, although they contributed significantly to project implementation since the emergency
phase, the Parish Coordinators have been working mainly outside of their respective parish
structures. Most parish priests, in fact, have shown little involvement in the recovery program.
And for a few who have expressed interest, the operational structure of RCAC-RRU was unable
to provide the mechanisms to allow for their active participation. More often than not, parish
priests have been confined to ceremonial roles such as blessing of shelters and other similar
assets during turn-over ceremonies. Moreover, several Parish Coordinators have expressed
concern over the sustainability of the integrative BEC organizing being planned. Drawing insight
from their own experience of BEC organizing in the past, many Parish Coordinators agree that

9
“Rural Community Organizing in the Philippines” (CO Multiversity, 2002)
42
the success or failure of forming BECs in the Archdiocese of Cebu lies chiefly in the active
participation of their parish priests.

There are two doors being opened to sustain this new way of “being BEC” and “doing CMDRR”:

 It is hoped that solid organizing work in the pilot communities would create vibrant
Community-Based Organizations animated by the Christian faith of the BECs such that
the CBOs and the BECs will become so ingrained in the social fabric of community life –
even with minimal support from the parish priest. Before funding dries up, the
accompanying presence of RCAC-RRU hopefully realizes its full potential by creating an
environment for the development of the CBOs and the BECs before it phases out of the
communities. And through the sustained capacity building at both parish and community
levels, relevant and effective Community-Based Organizations can hopefully provide their
BECs with opportunities to put their faith into action.

 While it is hoped that the sustainability of the Community-Based Organizations anchored

on the BECs would lie on the strength of the organizing work in the final program year,
an institutional linkage still needs to be established between the trained Parish
Coordinators and the Archdiocese of Cebu. At present, the only direct link between the
work of the Parish Coordinators and the Archdiocese is through RCAC-RRU. Almost three
years down the road, the institutional existence of RCAC-RRU is likewise uncertain. And
given the priest-centric nature of parishes in the Archdiocese of Cebu, the accompanying
role of the Parish Coordinators to the CBOs needs to be fully integrated into the parish
structures for the organizing work to continue.

RCAC-RRU therefore needs to work closely with the Archdiocesan BEC Commission to
integrate the Parish Coordinators’ CBO building efforts into the Archdiocese of Cebu’s
overall BEC organizing work. At the parish level, BEC formation, although not always
functional, is already part of the formal structure of the Parish Pastoral Council (PPC) and
it has as one of its key components a committee on service, thereby giving CBO building a
springboard to begin the community organizing process. Moreover, the PPC structure
and network is wide-reaching and has as its alter-ego at the grassroots the Chapel
Pastoral Council, thus providing the Church opportunities to effectively reach those at
the margins – the most vulnerable of all.

As it is, the structural foundation is in place to open more possibilities for the Church to
enrich the social dimension of organized faith building; and the Parish Coordinators
would play a crucial role both in organizing and sustaining the CBO. This invitation is not
lost on the Parish Coordinators, many of whom have recognized already the opportunity
offered by Yolanda to animate the pastoral ministry in their own parishes, and to deepen
their understanding of what it takes to follow Christ as they live out a Christian faith that
is expressed in justice, solidarity, and charity.

43
Figure 28. The parish structure is drawn by the Parish Coordinators in Daanbantayan

44
Conclusion

The tragedy brought about by Typhoon Yolanda upon hundreds of thousands of families opened the
eyes of many to an even greater tragedy – how the degree of disaster risk has rapidly progressed for
scores of communities over a short period of time. Analysis and reflection have taught us that while
hazards may either be natural or man-made, disasters are always man-made. A disaster strikes a
community when it has lost the capacity to absorb the impact of a hazard. And the only way to
prevent disasters is to build the capacities of a community for resilience - because the resilience of an
individual in the community can never be achieved unless we build the resilience of an entire
community. This, perhaps, is one of the most profound learning of RCAC-RRU.

Would things have been drastically different if this insight had been as clear as the sky from the
beginning for everyone who set foot on the holy grounds of communities? We do not know. It takes
time to internalize big words such as capacity, resiliency, community and liberation. And perhaps, this
was a journey and a process the Archdiocese of Cebu had to take as well – with a little bit of help
from the communities themselves, our so-called “beneficiaries”.

And yet somewhere along the way, by a stroke of grace from God, RCAC-RRU stands once more in a
very familiar position – back to its first ever CMDRR workshop in 2014, and soon after the unit was
born to accompany communities brought to their knees by the typhoon. In a sense, RCAC-RRU is
being brought back to its humble beginnings, but bigger and wiser after years of active engagement
with some of the most disaster-risk communities.

Enriched by the lives of its “beneficiaries”, RCAC-RRU clearly understands now what capacity,
resiliency, community and liberation mean. More than 40 pages of a documented journey have been
belabouring this point over and over again. But the reflections of RCAC-RRU have enriched these
concepts even more as they find their rootedness in the integral development of each human
person. RCAC-RRU thus envisions a vibrant and empowered community organization with the
capacity to develop community resilience - precisely because it has as its bedrock Basic Ecclesial
Communities whose lifeblood is the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of their journey
towards resilience and liberation.

Cardinal Orlando Quevedo, Archbishop of Cotabato, once wrote:

Truly in the BECs the poor have taken up their own destiny into their own hands. If the Church is the
People of God, it is in the BECs that this mystery is being realized, lived, and acted upon. The poor, as the
Church, are making their own response to their own poverty. This is the highest form of Church
response there is - when the poor are no longer outside the orbit of the Church but they identify
themselves as God’s people called by God to march on to their Exodus to liberation.

There is nothing entirely new with the Community-Based Organization dreamed of by RCAC-RRU.
And the same is also true for CMDRR. But the novelty of both frameworks lies in their ability to assist
the poor in making concrete paths toward their own integral liberation. “So whoever is in Christ is a
new creation; the old things have passed away; behold new things have come.” (Corinthians 5: 17)

45
Closing Notes

In a short span of time, the young Relief and Rehabilitation Unit of the Archdiocese of Cebu swiftly
moved across the development spectrum in both content and process. Within three years since its
inception, RCAC-RRU has evolved from being a charity-oriented organization constructing individual
shelters and distributing livelihood assets to “beneficiaries”, into a development-minded institution
aiming to build the capacities of “communities” for their integral liberation. But liberation cannot be
achieved through individual assistances and piece-meal interventions; the capacity building initiatives
may only be sustained by organizing communities to become local institutions capable of
transforming systems and structures for the integral development of both the human person and
communities.

Humanitarian workers and development practitioners alike prefer to make very clear distinctions in
the continuum of emergency, recovery, reconstruction, development, and liberation - even
compartmentalizing them rigidly into strictly defined phases. But from the eyes of the communities,
none of these distinctions really matter. In fact, they are all one and the same, running along one
continuum in the quest for a freedom that transforms. By looking at disaster recovery from the eyes
of Christ, the Church’s engagement with the disaster-risk communities essentially becomes a genuine
dialogue for transformative freedom, for both the communities and the Church.

How do we know that RCAC-RRU is on the path towards liberation? We know that transformation is
possible in disaster recovery when everyone involved, both the individual communities and the
institutional Church, begin to “see themselves differently” and open themselves to “a new way of
being”. And this can only be achieved through the way the Church does the things that she has to do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This process document was prepared for the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cebu by Paul Richard G. Dy,
a former Program Officer for Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning in CBCP-NASSA’s
Humanitarian Unit (NASSA-HU). Similar to RCAC-RRU, NASSA-HU is an office that was established by the
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines in the aftermath of Yolanda to assist the community
rebuilding efforts of the most affected dioceses.

46