Re-framing Resilience Policy in DRR and CCA1

Rowena R. Boquiren, Ph.D.2

Historian and Social Scientist

Disasters are normal in the Philippines, by its geologic setting and associated
meteorological attributes. This is why the work on disasters has been concerned only
with hazards being met by relief, rehabilitation and modicum reconstruction, with the
objective to return to the pre-disaster situation. It is understandable why even
indigenous knowledge and sociopolitical systems had and have easily adapted to
routine changes in climate.

Over the past 5 to 10 years, however, the usual disasters that we experienced have
become more and more frequent, unexpected, and devastating. The multifarious
hazards that we are experiencing only now are part of the ”new normal,” with hazards
not just for natural reasons, but also including the effects of people’s activities in using
the environment. If the natural hazards had been for earth movements due to
earthquake, or having the usual typhoon seasons of less than 20 per year on the
average, or having the usual 20-year intervals of El Niño and La Niña in the country -
these as the “old normal”- the effects of anthropogenic impacts are now being felt as
the “new normal,” clearly related to climate change that is being negotiated as a global
issue for more than two decades now, but is actually because of how we have lived on
this planet since the 1850s, the period when the industries and consumption habits had
shifted to the use of oil and chemicals, more and more timber, and so. This is why the
“common but different responsibilities” (or CBDR) is a negotiating point especially by
developing countries in the meetings for the UNFCCC.

1
Keynote Address, Save our Agno and Abra Ecosystem: A Regional Conference
Towards Partnership for Resilience, sponsored by the Benguet State University and Partners
for Resilience, held at Gladiol Hall, BSU in La Trinidad, Benguet, 30 September 2015
2
Professor (Retired), University of the Philippines Baguio

1
These recent past years of addressing disasters have taught us that disaster risks now
involve the combination of exposure to hazards (floods, cyclones, droughts,
pollution, and others), the underlying vulnerabilities that increase susceptibility to
the impact of hazards, and the adaptive capacities that enable resilience and
adaptation in the face of hazards, negative environmental trends and other shocks.

Hence, as standard response, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in order to build resilience
is now being handled with a combination of the following activities:

 Reduce vulnerabilities, referring to the conditions determined by physical,

social, economic and environmental factors or processes, which increase the
susceptibility of a community to hazards and shocks. It is summarized as
V= ƒ (E, S, AC).

 Mitigate the impact of hazards (which are natural or manmade situations which
have the potential to adversely impact the lives and livelihoods of communities.
Science-based knowledge and information systems as well as action is
increasingly recognized.

 Develop and enhance adaptive capacities in individuals, communities and

institutions (that can be used productively to reduce risk and build up resilience).
New thinking also means that the greater the capacity of a community and its
people and institutions, the more resilient will such community be to hazards,
shocks and climate variabilities.

As further explanation, we:

- Reduce the exposure to significant climatic variations; this is hazard-specific (not
the entire area but may be just sections; not all buildings, not all ecosystems,
not all residents, and not at the same degree of exposure.
- Reduce the sensitivity to the effects of climate changes, for example, changing
the choice of crops to be planted, or having alternative access routes, having
different mobility patterns, changing the schedule of activities, having different
livelihood sources
- Increase the adaptive capacity.

In short, what we desire in DRR is : ↓V= ƒ (↓E, x↓ S, ↑AC).

2
I am taking off from these ideas in DRR to connect it to the quest for resilience. I am
hoping that the conference will move beyond this view, to reframe our perspectives
about DRR and resilience, as I am sure that national agencies, LGUS, POs and
NGOs are always enhancing their tools and knowledge products (nationally and
internationally).

I am inviting the participants to reframe resilience in disaster risk reduction, by

(i) adding emerging ideas in recovery and resilience, and (ii) linking these with climate
change adaptation and sustainable development. Disaster risk reduction,
resilience, climate change and sustainable development are key concerns
that are inter-connected. With both the Abra and Agno river systems as very
concrete contexts where diverse opportunities are present, we have to take another
hard look at what and how else we can advance the efforts to have a sustainable and
resilient future.

    

As the generic view in the “new normal” is presented, “DRR can be understood as the
capacity of a system, community or society to adapt in the face of hazards by taking
action in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of function and structure. In
part, this is determined by how much a community is capable of self-organization to
maximize risk reduction measures and apply learning from past disasters to forward-
looking disaster preparedness” (World Vision).

 Our understanding of these ideas as common people and as belonging to

institutions proved to be inadequate. Aside from the view on the “new normal” that
disasters are not only concerned about the hazard but also exposure, vulnerability,
and adaptive capacities, is the thinking that exposure and vulnerability are also
changing along with the climate. We now have more and more urban areas
where income inequality is getting wider despite inclusive growth (indeed even with
increasing GDPs) and there are new vulnerabilities, if these are hazards that people
are living with, in logging or logged over as well as mining and energy-sourced
areas. (In the discussions of policy makers, planning bodies, funders and advocates,
the emphases are in cities with the largest populations - at 10 million - and most are
coastal areas; only BLISTT along with 2 others are highland metropolitan areas
These cities are also the priorities in electoral exercises - so where and how are the
communities in the Abra and Agno river systems included in programs?)

3
 While coastal cities and communities are more exposed to floods and storm surge,
the population is about 10 million (still a tenth of total population).

 As DRR approaches came to be revised, all the more have these became linked to
climate change concerns, with the difference realized this way : response
needed is short-term and immediate for disasters, but more strategic and
long-term for climate change. Who must be involved and what agencies are
responsible and accountable, are now answered not by the government, institutions
and volunteers anymore, but increasingly by more and more of the populace. The
finger-pointing is getting avoided, stakeholders have multiplied, disciplinal experts
and scientists as well as common people on the ground are engaged in studies,
planning and implementation.

The experience of ‘Ondoy’ in the Philippines six years ago (27 September 2009)
showed us that climate change mitigation and adaptation cannot be treated
separately from addressing disaster risks because the country is the most, if not
among the top 3 vulnerable countries . (As a personal account, the country was
being ravaged by Ondoy then when we were en route to and finally in Bangkok
negotiating climate change adaptation (CAA) and mitigation, hence we had
additional press releases, fora and discussions to get support for the disaster that
was being experience back home. The negotiations and negotiators for mitigation
and adaptation were not yet clearly solid as a team but the disaster kept the whole
team intact to make our position as . . .

The next experiences in serious flashfloods in the country, peaked by “Yolanda”

(Haiyan), and recently “Ineng” in Baguio and the rest of the Cordillera,
demonstrated all the more that CCA must be handled together with DRR. For how
can we(who focus on climate change) still work for adaptation to climate change
when we are losing people and communities along with their homes and lands? For
those affected by disasters, who have yet to adapt , and where, indeed, can they
adapt to? The same is true in mitigation.

 Resilience is the ability to cope with shock and returning to the normal or even
exerting change that allows the system to function. (It is the ability of a system to
reduce, prevent, anticipate, absorb and adapt, or recover from the effects of a
hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, including through ensuring the
preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic structures and
functions.)

4
 But we just want to bounce back (as in the rubber band that is elastic, returning
always to its original state after being stretched in shock), because we want a
better, next state where we can live and function in a transformed situation.
Resilience on the ground – overstretching and in ambiguity, can be for maintenance
of the status quo and making individuals to respond in their own, un-institutionalized
ways to adapt as members of a community.

Resilience in disaster is now “dissected” as having several aspects:

Physical - ICT-enabled observation, capacity to analyze when needed
Organizational - with evidenced-based governance
Social - disaster education
Economic - creative reconstruction of the economy -- in financing, production,
and distribution flows, disaster

Scope of shared and coordinated aspects :

economic and physical : cdc
physical and organizational : food, water, energy, people
organizational and social : to cover resource management and
access, physical planning
social and economic : involving basic and higher education levels,
including life-learning content in messaging, with use of inter- and trans-
disciplines.

Among workers in disaster risk reduction and resilience is a model (Loyzaga

2015) which still unpacks the concerns (Fig. 1).

 In DRR, the typical “recovery” involves post-disaster context to restoration,

replacement, and rehabilitation. Post-disaster needs assessment cater to recovery and
reconstruction. But appreciation of the pre-disaster context is now emerging, as also
important to restoration, replacement and rehabilitation in planning action. (The
approach is developed by UNDP, referred to as Pre- Disaster Recovery Planning or
PDRP.) The following are important in the PDRP in the national, regional, and local
levels:

o Goals, objectives, and strategies based on informed disaster scenarios, with pre-
disaster baseline data to be used in the assessment, and evidence-based, not
policy-envisioned ideas (for goals and objectives)

o Organizational structure that assigns post-disaster roles and responsibilities

5
 Fig. 1. Ways forward : shared and coordinated aspects of disaster reduction and resilience
Source : Antonia Yulo Loyzaga, 2015

In planning and implementing pre-disaster actions, PDRP is important because

o the lessons for recovery in the next disasters have to be learned (“ We cannot
keep reacting on a post-disaster mode.”)
o there are other hazards from the changing climate that are emerging (“we have
to be prepared”

Pre-disaster recovery planning is any planned attempt to strengthen disaster recovery

plans, initiatives, and outcomes – before a disaster occurs. The concept of PDRP is built
on the recognition that much can be done before a disaster happens to facilitate
recovery planning after a disaster and improve recovery outcomes.

 Sustainable development is the strategic goal why resilience is being pursued in disaster
risk reduction with climate change adaptation and mitigation. This is not a new goal

6
 since the 1987 Brundtland Report. Human development goals are not met while the
ability of natural systems to continue to provide the natural resources and ecosystem
services is not maintained. DRR and CCA are continuing challenges if sustainable
development is not being pursued.

 How now must we proceed in making the reframed view work?

What are the actions that we can focus on to begin moving forward, with and beyond
PRDF as a basic early step but linked with DRR, CCA, sustainable development?

As policy guide, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) has its vision to ‘substantially
reduce disaster losses in all countries.’ Recognizing that more efforts are needed to
have disaster risk reduction at the core of sustainable and resilient future, all countries
are challenged to respond to the call to “build the resilience of nations and communities
to disasters.” The UN Plan of Action on Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience was
arrived at in 2013 as international response.

Meanwhile, Republic Act 9729 (or Climate Change Law) mandates the preparation of
Local Climate Change Action Plans. RA 10121 (National Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Law mandates the preparation of Local Risk Reduction and Management
Plans. Both laws cite the integration of CCA and DRR in development plans.

For goal-setting : What are the concerns in the Abra and Agno river systems and
water basins? We relate this question to pre- and post-disaster assessment for
recovery, reconstruction ; climate change adaptation (and mitigation), sustainable
development (with the Millennium Development Goals now expanded from 1o to 17).
Physical recovery, economic recovery and life recovery are the inter-linked objectives in
this reframed perspective.

Who are to be involved?

Who are the stakeholders and in what roles? (Actions must be clear on spatial scales to
be covered, upstream and downstream).
Who are “in-charge,” who are/are not enjoying the benefits?

Not just LGUs and government agencies are involved. Scientists, local people, other
stakeholders must be engaged. Trust in the community and leadership in good eco-
governance is critical.

Organized, science-based actions are needed.

7
Act in organized ways. Make governance (scientific) evidence-based, not policy-based
evidence that presumed state and standards. Business as Usual is no longer what is
expected (not business as usual or NBU). We should not act from routines or business
as usual, we need to next stage that works on alternatives

The approach we take should be trans/inter-disciplinary. Trans-disciplinary

analysis/action is needed for building adaptive capacity/resilience options (e.g. crafting
policies, programs at different levels of applications and intersections)

Pre-disaster recovery planning is needed, for which science is needed. Pre-disaster

science is context-driven, entails different sectors and layers and anticipates complexity
in needs.

From pre- and post disaster recovery up to sustainable development, scientific

information can be of most value when embedded in land use plans, conservation, and
emergency procedures. (We still do not have a land use law, and we have not updated
the forest lines.)

There are non-negotiables recommended (Guiang, 2012) in environment and natural

resources (ENR) planning at the ecosystem, LGU, CADT, and tenure levels to guide
plans based on “givens” – or things that cannot be easily changed - and “ criteria” that
are commonly agreed among stakeholders. They serve as boundaries or limits to FLUP,
CLUP, resource management planning for CADTs and tenure holders, can be used as
guide for improving and strengthening “local governance mechanisms” at the tenure,
LGU, ecosystem levels, provide a “level field” in promoting private investments, and can
allow public investments (GAA, IRA, non-IRA, grants, donors) more effective and
efficient. The following classifications are layers

1) Watershed and/or sub-watershed divides

2) Boundaries of political units (provinces, cities, municipalities)
3) Boundaries and coverage of national and local laws and policies setting aside
lands of the public domain for “conservation, forest protection, watersheds,
habitats whether these are with forests or degraded forestlands”
4) Areas covered by existing closed and open canopy natural forests including
mangroves
5) Land classification (forestlands, protected areas, minerals, agricultural)
6) Areas covered by tenure rights, CADTs, and other instruments

8
 7) Hazard zones determined from vulnerability and CC-related analyses –estimates
of historical damages from disasters, geo-hazards, weather patterns, landslides
and flashfloods, storm surges, earthquakes, tsunamis, et.

Social capital is important

While the practice in DRR and CCA is presently dominated by engineering and techno-
scientific components. But human well-being aspects must not be omitted, especially
concerning livelihood, health, education and lifelong learning. Building adaptive capacity
and resilience is anchored on a social-vulnerability analysis. Being science-based also
means being context--sensitive and ecosystem-based, including perspectives of
stakeholders. Community initiatives have to be considered in programs of LGUs and
national agencies, moreso when dealing with no build zones or non-negotiables when
laying down recovery plans.

As a final thought, planning to minimize risks and seeking stability (or returning to
the normal, pre-disaster setting) is no longer possible (IPCC 2012:34), because we are
in a new normal situation, with climate change. As Climate Change Commissioner
Sering assesses (in her Rappler interview on 24 September 2015), we need science
to identify risks, plan around with programs and projects, have the funds and
budget requirements, and political will, with political will as a major decisive
element (for up to 40 to 50% of what’s required)

References

BDRC Learning Circle and Aksyon Klima, Alternative Pathways to Climate Change
Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction : Mainstreaming and Integration in
Development Planning and Budgeting of Local Government Units, 2012.
International Recovery Platform, Guidance Notes on Recovery, Pre-Disaster
Recovery Planning, 2012.
Guiang, Ernesto, ‘The Basis of Non-negotiables at the watershed, sub-watershed, LGU,
CADT and tenured areas,” for the Biodiversity Protection Program, DENR, 2012.

Loyzaga, Antonia Yulo, Reflections on Reconstruction : Thoughts on Pre-Disaster

Recovert Planning, NBAU2, 2015.