See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299595690

Post Haiyan: Enhancing Resilience Through Disability Inclusive Community-

Based Disaster Risk Management in Tabogon, Cebu, Philippines (Baseline
Report Executive Summary)

Technical Report · September 2015

CITATIONS READS
0 239

2 authors:

Kaira Zoe Alburo Canete Regina Macalandag

Erasmus University Rotterdam Australian National University
28 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Islands of Hope Project:Pan-Pacific Indigenous Responses to Globalisation and Climate Change View project

Gender perspectives in disaster research in the Philippines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kaira Zoe Alburo Canete on 04 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Enabled
POST HAIYAN: ENHANCING RESILIENCE THROUGH DISABILITY INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT IN TABOGON, CEBU, PHILIPPINES

A BASELINE STUDY

Regina E. Macalandag and Kaira Zoe K. Alburo-Cañete

 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Disclaimer: This publication has been produced with the assistance of

Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Deutschland e.V (ASB). The content and views
expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and
cannot be taken to reflect the views of ASB. ASB accepts no responsibility
for any loss, damage or injury resulting from reliance on any of the
information or views contained in this publication.
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ................................................................................... i

List of Figures ........................................................................................ ii

List of Tables ........................................................................................ vi

Acronyms ............................................................................................ vii

Executive Summary ............................................................................... ix

KEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................... xi
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ xvi

Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................... 1

About the Project .................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 5

Chapter 2. Approach and Methodology .................................................... 8

The Study Design ................................................................................... 11
 SURVEY................................................................................................................... 12
 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................. 14
 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ............................................................................... 14
 INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 15
 DRAWING OUT COMMUNITY RESILIENCE INDICATORS ........................................ 15
 PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS AND VALIDATION WITH PARTNER COMMUNITIES
AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................. 16

Scope and Limitations ........................................................................... 17

Chapter 3. Disability and Disasters ........................................................ 19

Chapter 4. Profiles of Partner Communities ........................................... 24

The Municipality of Tabogon ................................................................. 24
Barangay Libjo ....................................................................................... 28
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................... 30
 MATERIAL STYLE OF LIFE ........................................................................................ 32

Barangay Somosa .................................................................................. 36

 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................... 39
 MATERIAL STYLE OF LIFE ........................................................................................ 41

Chapter 5. Findings and Observations .................................................... 45

Living with Disaster and Disability ......................................................... 45
Disability in Partner Communities.......................................................... 50
 RIGHTS, WELLBEING AND PARTICIPATION ............................................................ 53
 FUNCTIONING LIMITATIONS IN RECEIVING AND ACTING ON DISASTER
INFORMATION ....................................................................................................... 64

Disaster Risk Reduction and Disability in Partner Communities:

The Current State-of-Play ...................................................................... 67
 KNOWLEDGE ON DRRM LAW AND POLICIES ......................................................... 67
 FUNCTIONALITY OF DRRM STRUCTURES ............................................................... 69

Accessing Disaster Information .............................................................. 74

 PREFERRED SOURCES OF INFORMATION............................................................... 75
 QUALITY OF ACCESS AND BARRIERS TO ACCESSING DISASTER INFORMATION
AMONG PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ................................................................... 80

Understanding Community Resilience .................................................... 82

 COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES: UNDERSTANDING THREATS, CAPACITIES, AND
BARRIERS TO RESILIENCE ....................................................................................... 82
 “MEASURING” COMMUNITY RESILIENCE: THE NEED FOR INCLUSIVE
INDICATORS ........................................................................................................... 87
 COMMUNITY VISIONING: DESIRED RESILIENCE OUTCOMES ................................. 89

Chapter 6. Conclusion & Recommendations ......................................... 103

Conclusion .......................................................................................... 103
Recommendations ............................................................................... 108

References ........................................................................................ 115

Annexes ............................................................................................ 119

 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Acknowledgments

The research team would like to thank A2D Project—Research Group for
Alternatives to Development Inc. for commissioning this study. Special thanks
go to Ms. Erlinda Parame, Project Coordinator for the ENABLED Project, for
ensuring the facilitation of preparations for the field research. We also
acknowledge the rest of the ENABLED Project staff, namely Liezl Camacho, Jose
Luis Blanco, and Jasrima Casim for their valuable assistance to the research team
particularly for arranging interviews, focus group discussions, procuring
documents, and providing support during fieldwork. Without their assistance
and cooperation, this study would not have been as successful. We are also
grateful to field enumerators for all their hard work in carrying out the baseline
survey.

We would also like to thank in particular Ms. Lourdes Anne Gamalo for her
assistance in documentation and in the conduct of community workshops.
Moreover, we acknowledge the contribution of Mr. Jon Oliver Balili for managing
and processing survey data.

We are especially grateful to A2D Project staff who have extended support and
guidance to the research team throughout different stages of this study. Thanks
go out particularly to Ms. Katherine Velmonte, Ms. Djannil Barrera, Ms. Rhodora
Felizarta, Mr. Aloysius Cañete, and all other individuals we failed to mention but
have immensely contributed to the development of this report.

Finally, we wish to thank all respondents for giving generously of their time to
participate in the interviews and other data collection activities.

I
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

List of Figures
Figure 1. Twin Track Approach (DFID) ................................................................................. 4

Figure 2. Parallel Mixed-Method Design ............................................................................ 11

Figure 3. Age-Sex Disaggregated Data of Sample Populations .................................. 13

Figure 4. Population Growth Rate of Tabogon ................................................................. 25

Figure 5. Age-Sex Distribution of Residents of Barangay Libjo ................................. 28

Figure 6. Age-Sex Distribution of Registered Persons with Disabilities in Libjo

(Purok-Level) ................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 7. Educational Attainment (Barangay Libjo) ...................................................... 31

Figure 8. Housing Materials (Barangay Libjo) ................................................................. 33

Figure 9. Source of Drinking Water (Barangay Libjo) ................................................... 33

Figure 10. Lighting Facilities (Barangay Libjo)................................................................ 34

Figure 11. Toilet Facilities (Barangay Libjo)..................................................................... 35

Figure 12. Age-Sex Distribution Per Sitio (Barangay Somosa) .................................. 37

Figure 13. Persons with Disabilities and Women (Barangay Somosa) .................. 38

Figure 14. Road Surface Type ................................................................................................. 40

Figure 15. Educational Attainment (Barangay Somosa) .............................................. 40

II
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Figure 16. Housing Materials (Barangay Somosa) ......................................................... 41

Figure 17. Source of Drinking Water (Barangay Somosa) ........................................... 42

Figure 18. Lighting Facilities (Barangay Somosa) .......................................................... 42

Figure 19. Significant Events during the Past 3 Years................................................... 46

Figure 20. Age-Sex Distribution of Registered Persons with Disabilities

(Barangay Libjo) ........................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 21. Age-Sex Distribution of Registered Persons with Disabilities

(Barangay Somosa) ...................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 22. Disability Equation considering impairments interacting with various

barriers ............................................................................................................................................. 52

Figure 23. Prevalence of Functioning Limitations .......................................................... 52

Figure 24. Increase in Prevalence of Disabilities after Applying WG short set of

Questions ......................................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 25. Perception of Persons with Disabilities’ Rights (multiple responses)

.............................................................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 26. Experience of good health in the last 6 months ......................................... 54

Figure 27. Decision-making at Home .................................................................................... 55

Figure 28. Access to Basic Services....................................................................................... 55

Figure 29. Perception of Relative Poverty ......................................................................... 56

Figure 30. Hope for the Future (among persons with disabilities).......................... 57

III
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Figure 31. Participation in Community Activities ........................................................... 58

Figure 32. Consulted in Community Plans and Programs ........................................... 58

Figure 33. Facilitating and Hindering Factors to Participation of Persons with

Disabilities ( BarangayLibjo).................................................................................................... 60

Figure 34. Facilitating and Hindering Factors to Participation of Persons with

Disabilities (Barangay Somosa) .............................................................................................. 61

Figure 35. Reasons for not participating in activities that aim to prepare people
for disasters .................................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 36. Conditions that encourage participation ...................................................... 63

Figure 37. Perceptions of LGU officials on certain DRR-related issues and

concerns ........................................................................................................................................... 68

Figure 38. Barangay Somosa BDRRMC Structure ........................................................... 69

Figure 39. Hazard Map of Barangay Somosa .................................................................... 70

Figure 40. Come across any material on how to prepare for disasters .................. 76

Figure 41. Preferred Sources of Information on Disasters.......................................... 77

Figure 42. Type of Information Desired ............................................................................. 78

Figure 43. Got adequate information to prepare for Typhoon Haiyan ................... 78

Figure 44. What can be done to prepare people better for disasters...................... 79

Figure 45. Desired resilience outcomes .............................................................................. 90

IV
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Figure 46. Community Resilience Framework ................................................................. 91

Figure 47. Community Resilience Indicators .................................................................... 92

V
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

List of Tables
Table 1. Distribution of Samples............................................................................................ 12

Table 2. Some socioeconomic indicators for the Municipality of Tabogon (2010

Census) ............................................................................................................................................. 25

Table 3. Age, Sex, and Educational Attainment (2010 Census) ................................. 26

Table 4. Age-Sex Distribution of Residents of Barangay Libjo ................................... 29

Table 5. Number of Barangay Personnel ............................................................................ 30

Table 6. Self-rated Sufficiency of Family Income (Barangay Libjo) ......................... 36

Table 7. Age-Sex Distribution per Sitio (Barangay Somosa) ...................................... 37

Table 8. Number of Barangay Personnel ............................................................................ 38

Table 9. Self-rated Sufficiency of Family Income (Barangay Somosa).................... 43

Table 10. Factors to Participation of Persons with Disabilities (Barangay Libjo &
Barangay Somosa) ........................................................................................................................ 62

Table 11. Disaster-related Trainings and Seminars ....................................................... 72

Table 12. Community Perspectives: Threats, Capacities and Barriers to

Resilience ......................................................................................................................................... 82

Table 13. Scoring Scale .............................................................................................................. 93

Table 14. Scoring System for Assessment of Resilience in Communities .............. 94

VI
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Acronyms

ASB Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund
A2D Project A2D Project – Research Group for Alternatives to Development, Inc.
BDC Barangay Development Council
BDRRMC Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
BHW Barangay Health Workers
BLGU Barangay Local Government Unit
CEBECO Cebu Electric Cooperative
CSO Civil Society Organizations
DI-CBDRM Disability Inclusive Community Based Disaster Risk Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DiDRR Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction
DPO Disabled Peoples’ Organization
DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
DRRMC Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
ENABLED Enhancing Resilience through Disability Inclusive Community Based
Disaster Risk Management
FGD Focus Group Discussion
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action
IEC Information, Education, Communication
IRA Internal Revenue Allotment
KALAHI-CIDSS Kapit-bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive Integrated Delivery of
Social Services
KII Key Informant Interview
LGU Local Government Unit
MDRRMO Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office
MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau
MPDC Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator

VII
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

MSL Material Style of Life

MSWDO Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office
NGO Nongovernment Organization
PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration
PAR Participatory Action Research
PDRRMO Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office
PhilDHRRA Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in
Rural Areas
PNP Philippine National Police
PWD Persons with Disabilities
RA Republic Act
RAD Rapid Assessment on Disability
QRT Quick Response Team
TV Television
UN United Nations
UNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
WG Washington Group
WHO World Health Organization

VIII
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Executive Summary

One of the most significant findings of a pioneering UN global study on

persons living with disabilities and disasters shows that 85.57% of respondents
from 137 countries state that they have not participated in any community
disaster risk reduction and management process currently in place in their own
communities (UNISDR 2014). This has serious implications on the capacity of
persons with disabilities to access important lifesaving information; and even
more on their ability to act on such information. Thus, by excluding persons
with disabilities in disaster risk management planning and programming,
persons with disabilities continue to face higher risks in times of disasters.

In the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, which struck provinces

across Central Philippines, the Secretariat for the UN Convention of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (UN-ENABLE)1 reported that thousands of persons
with disabilities were heavily affected by the disaster. Despite the rescue and
relief operations conducted by government task forces, there was an observed
lack of sensitivity in addressing the specific needs and conditions of persons
with disabilities (UNISDR 2014). The lack of understanding of the rights of
persons with disabilities and the insufficiency of social services further
aggravated the conditions of exclusion faced by persons with disabilities within
their own communities, especially in the wake of Haiyan.

1
The official website of the Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (SCRPD)

IX
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

As disability is now increasingly being recognized as an important

consideration in reducing disaster risks, the ENABLED Project was
conceptualized and initiated by A2D Project—Research Group for Alternatives to
Development Inc. in partnership with Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund, a German relief
and social-welfare organization engaged in a wide range of social service
provision in Germany and abroad. This project aims to promote a disability
inclusive community-based disaster risk management (DI-CBDRM) in the
Haiyan-affected Municipality of Tabogon, Cebu, with Barangay Libjo and
Barangay Somosa as pilot areas.

A requirement for any project that aspires for inclusiveness in its

processes and design is to first understand conditions that hinder participation
of at-risk groups including persons with disabilities. With this in mind, this
study is designed to gather baseline data for the project, and to contribute to
developing local indicators to assess community resilience.

The research employed a mixed methods approach to data collection,

analysis, and interpretation. A convergent mixed methods design requires the
collection of different yet complementary data (i.e. using both quantitative and
qualitative approaches) in order to strengthen the reliability of data, validity of
findings and recommendations, and deepen our understanding of the processes
that facilitate or enable disability inclusion in DRR. Data collection activities
consisted of desk research of related studies, review of key documents sourced
from the partner communities, and primary data gathering. Primary data were
generated through surveys, focus group discussions, key informant interviews,
and institutional capacity assessment. Data validation and feedback sessions
were conducted to ensure that community stakeholders are given the
opportunity to appreciate the data, and provide their inputs and insights which
are incorporated in this report.

X
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

KEY FINDINGS

As Typhoon Haiyan had been the most destructive disaster that partner
communities have ever experienced, the disaster also presents an
opportunity to “build back better”, beyond infrastructure and towards
resilience.

If there was ever an important lesson that communities learned from their
experience of Haiyan, it was that preparedness not only saves lives but it also helps
them cope better after a disruptive event. The study had pointed out how people
generally exhibited complacency despite receiving information regarding the strength
of the typhoon. A stark realization emerged that not only should people be able to
receive information, they should also know how and be able to act on it as well.
Participants from partner communities draw from their experiences and difficulties in
recovering from the effects of Haiyan, wherein a substantial number still have not
“bounced back”, attributing these difficulties partially to not being prepared. Thus,
study respondents exhibited a more open attitude towards learning more about disaster
and what to do to prepare for future hazards. The project therefore comes at an
opportune time to facilitate the development of DRR capacities of partner communities
as well as mainstream disability inclusion in DRR processes.

Significant experiences during and after Haiyan were accounted as follows:

 Apart from lack of preparedness apparent in the community in general, persons with
disabilities faced greater difficulties in terms of evacuation and access to relief goods
and services. This is attributed to the general lack of consideration of specific needs of
persons with disabilities, as well as other at-risk groups such as women and older
persons, in carrying out disaster response and developing relief distribution systems.

 Community members experienced greater hardships as important lifelines were affected

which limited their access to basic utilities such as communication and power.
Economic difficulties exacerbated as prices of basic commodities went up by 40%, and
unemployment worsened due to damages wrought by the typhoon on plantations.

 Compared to other Haiyan-affected municipalities in Northern Cebu, there is a general

sentiment that Tabogon was not highly prioritized and therefore received less aid and
assistance.

XI
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Institutional capacities of partner barangays to develop and carry out DRRM

programs are uneven.

Due to several factors, including but not limited to, availability of internal
resources, presence of external support and technical assistance, extent of DRR
knowledge and capability, and level of engagement of community-based organizations
in barangay decision-making and implementation of programs, Barangay Libjo and
Barangay Somosa are at different levels of strengthening their DRRM structures and
processes.

The following are the major observations regarding institutional capacities in

the project areas:

 Local officials interviewed have demonstrated knowledge regarding the national policy
on DRRM however this has not yet translated to the creation and operationalization of
DRRM Councils and its processes, both at the municipal and barangay levels.

 Barangay Somosa has partly benefited from technical assistance provided by NGOs
carrying out DRR-related projects in the community. This has resulted in the facilitation
of DRRM planning, hazard mapping, and initial set-up of the DRRM Committee.

 Barangay Libjo has had less engagement with NGOs providing technical assistance and
has yet to organize its DRRM structure. While a budget for 2015 has been allocated, no
written plan has yet been formulated.

 A number of DRR-related trainings and seminars have been conducted in the partner
communities by various NGOs and government bodies such as the Provincial DRRM
Office, but capacity building has mainly involved local officials and community leaders
and lacks knowledge and skills transfer to other community members.

 Key barangay officials have candidly admitted that most of their DRRM programming
that have been reported and documented have mostly been done “for compliance”; but
they have also voiced out their interest, willingness, and commitment to pursuing the
full operationalization of their DRRM system and processes.

 There is generally a low level of participation from CSOs in local special bodies and
DRRM Councils/Committees. At the municipal level, the DRRM Council only meets “as
the need arises”, and are only attended by government officials and department heads.

 Overall, while inclusion of persons with disabilities is acknowledged as important by

municipal and barangay officials, there is still the need to deepen understanding on the
roles and responsibilities of persons with disabilities from a rights-based perspective.

XII
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Persons with disabilities have more difficulties achieving wellbeing and

quality of life, and formal mechanisms that ensure inclusion and
participation of persons with disabilities in existing LGU structures
particularly DRRM are not yet in place.

While it has been acknowledged that DRRM structures need to be strengthened,

there remains no conscious effort to mainstream disability perspectives in DRRM and
governance through providing means for representation, active participation, and
reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities. Although there is agreement
that persons with disabilities are part of “vulnerable groups” and must be considered in
evacuation, response, and relief operations, there is still a need to sensitize duty-
bearers, service providers, and officials regarding their obligation to promote the rights
of persons with disability in risk reduction and in development.

The following outlines the prevailing conditions in the communities vis a vis
disability inclusion in DRRM:

 As the promotion of disability inclusiveness begins with the collection of disability data,
it has been observed that data-keeping at the barangay and municipal levels are limited
and seemingly inconsistent.

 Using the Washington Group short set of questions, disability prevalence in Barangay
Libjo and Barangay Somosa have been estimated at 13% each. This is higher than the
2010 Census projection of 2.2%.

 While most survey respondents expressed that they believed that persons with
disabilities have basic rights such as rights to safe living conditions, to education, and to
work, among others, the baseline data also shows how persons with disabilities still
experience more difficulties in achieving wellbeing and quality of life in terms of health,
decision-making at home (or lack of voice), and access to basic social services. While
most respondents generally have difficulties achieving wellbeing and quality of life as
well especially following Haiyan, conditions of persons with disabilities are worse off
than the general population.

 In both barangays, a great majority of persons with disabilities say that they do not see
any significant change in their conditions in the next 12 months.

 Participation in community activities is generally low among all respondents, with

Barangay Libjo having lower participation rates than Barangay Somosa. Persons with
disabilities tend to participate less in community events than the general populace.

XIII
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

 The main barriers to participation in community activities that were identified are
distance of venue, inaccessibility of venue, and not having enough time to attend
meetings. Women in particular said that as they had primary responsibility of looking
after children, it would be preferable if venues have facilities that are safe for children.

 In general, close to half of persons with disabilities/functioning limitations involved in

the survey said that they are not aware of disaster preparedness activities in the two
barangays.

Current modes of disseminating risk information do not take into

consideration functioning limitations of some community members.

While radyo baktas (mobile community announcements made through the use
of loudspeakers) may be a popular way of spreading relevant information that concerns
the community, this mode of communication, if not coupled with other means to ensure
that information reaches those who have certain limitations, runs the risk of being
exclusionary. This study has shown that there are a significant number of persons who
have difficulties receiving information coursed through common means of
dissemination (text, TV, radio, etc.). The following demonstrates functioning limitations
in terms of receiving risk information:

IN LIBJO

2% have difficulties hearing loudspeakers as a form of early warning

9% have difficulties seeing disaster information through text, TV, or newspaper

12% need assistance in going to an evacuation center

IN SOMOSA

10% have difficulties hearing loudspeakers as a form of early warning

20% have difficulties seeing disaster information through text, TV, or newspaper

16% need assistance in going to an evacuation center

XIV
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Of course, constraints are not only limited to physical, auditory, visual, or

intellectual impairments. Constraints to accessing information might also be brought
about by socio-cultural factors surrounding gender and age, to name a few. Workshops
have revealed, for instance, the difficulties of women in attending community meetings
when they also have the primary obligation to care for young children at home. Without
safe and accessible venues suited for women bringing children, for example, women
might be constrained from full participation in community activities.

The purok system is an appropriate strategy for ensuring a whole-of-

community approach to DRRM.

The data gathered for this study has demonstrated the barriers which constrain
community members from participating in DRR activities. Among those mentioned is
the issue of proximity to their homes. Given that most activities are done at the
barangay center, those who are farther from the center, or have no means of
transportation, or have obligations at home, or have difficulties in mobility are less
likely to participate. The purok system organizes communities at the sub-village level,
which is only a cluster of around 50-100 households, which provides a greater chance of
participation. Moreover, developing preparedness plans at a smaller scale may be seen
as more practical. Having people deal with community members they are already
familiar with (i.e. neighbors), and who are likely to be related to them, promotes more
social cohesion. While this does not diminish the importance of barangay governance,
putting in place the purok system is likely to make risk reduction measures more
effective and efficient.

Grounded on their own concept of resilience, local communities envision a

resilient community as having secure homes and livelihoods, safe family
members, robust community infrastructures, upheld environment-friendly
practices, maintained hopes and dignity, manifest social cohesion and
cooperation, and empowered grassroots sectors especially the marginalized.

The community visioning activity with stakeholders from the two barangays
yielded a set of “resilience outcomes” that they desired to achieve. Moreover, they
identified what would enable them to attain these outcomes, which are translated into
indicators for resilience categorized into physical, procedural, and social enablers. Of
greatest significance to both communities and are considered as priority areas are
security of livelihood, service delivery especially in times of emergency, preparedness

XV
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

information, establishment of strong community organizations, promoting

community/social bonds, and strengthening of DRRM structures and capacities.

The following are the desired resilience outcomes identified by the community:

1. Security of home and livelihood

2. Safety of family members
3. Robustness of community infrastructure
4. Environmental preservation practices
5. Maintenance of hope and dignity
6. Social cohesion and cooperation
7. Empowerment of grassroots sectors especially marginalized groups

RECOMMENDATIONS

In line with the aims of Project ENABLED and of this baseline study,
we present an easy to recall set of recommendations, acronym
ENABLED, for LGUs, advocacy partners, communities and projects
embarking on disability inclusive DRRM.

Ensure functionality of DRRM structures at both the municipal and barangay

levels and enhance DRRM effectiveness through the purok system.

The lack of capacity of LGUs and communities to deal with disasters and
disability resulted to great damage, huge losses, and difficulties in recovering.
Knowledge on how to deal with disasters in its full cycle from preparedness to recovery
and rehabilitation is a requisite to capacity building. There is a need to increase current
knowledge and capacity levels of LGUs and communities by ensuring the localization of
the national DRRM policy into municipal and barangay DRRM Plans, seeing through that
these are fully working at local levels, and continuous training and knowledge sharing is

XVI
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

facilitated and accessed by cross-sections of the population including persons with

disabilities and at-risk groups. The establishment of the purok system is seen to help
improve the operationalization of local barangay structures. In this regard, the purok
system is not meant to be a separate structure isolated from barangay governance
systems. Rather, it is expected to be incorporated in existing processes.

Navigate through disability knowledge to enhance the quality of

engagement/role of persons with disabilities and those at-risk in existing
DRRM structures.

The view that people with disabilities and those at-risk cannot do anything or
cannot contribute to any community development effort has hindered or minimized
their engagement in DRRM initiatives. This factor can be traced back to the limited
knowledge on how to include persons with disabilities and other at-risk groups in such
initiatives and processes. By drawing out more understanding of disability and its
dynamics including reliable data on persons with disabilities, the quality of engagement
and role of persons with disabilities and those at-risk in existing DRRM structures will
be enhanced. Understanding disability also provides insight on how certain disabilities
such as mobility, hearing or speech impairment affect their capacity and level of
engagement especially when stigmatization is strong. From a cost-benefit analysis,
return of investment by LGUs and communities on DRRM initiatives is multiplied as it
addresses a broader and more diverse set of needs of the population.

Moreover, persons with disabilities are particularly aware of the challenges and
shortcomings of existing structures and processes. Given this, they are a rich resource
from which insights can be gleaned to develop better, more accessible, and more
inclusive standard operating procedures, training designs, community early warning
systems, and governance processes. Regular consultations with persons with
disabilities must be conducted to ensure that their specific needs are being met, and
barriers to participation are reduced. Ultimately, the goal is not to create special
programs for persons with disabilities but to make DRRM and development processes
and systems enabling for all stakeholders.

XVII
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Achieve quality of access to information/communication in the prevention

and mitigation of risks during disasters.

Disaster information becomes an issue if people have difficulty accessing them

and thereby deters them from taking action, whether independently or with assistance.
As information on disaster determines the type and level of action populations take to
prepare and protect themselves from an impending disaster, access to disaster-related
materials, information or activity are requisite to disaster preparedness. Preferred
information sources of the local stakeholders will have to be considered in selecting
what media and type of information works best for them to effectively aid them in
preparing for disasters. Furthermore, disaster information may already be available
and widespread yet are rendered ineffective because certain individuals like persons
with disabilities cannot make use of such information materials due to their functional
limitations. Thus, it is critical to make a detailed check on barriers to accessing
information in these communities especially among persons with disabilities to better
utilize disaster information and make it more inclusive.

Broaden community resilience-building activities to involve not only

community leaders; reach out to the community’s general membership
especially those from at-risk groups.

One important observation from the baseline study is that previous projects,
capacity-building activities, and awareness raising events have mainly involved only key
community leaders. While it is important to promote community leadership through
developing local front liners, project planners and implementers should be cautious
about involving only a select few and label this as “inclusive”. Being inclusive means to
make sure that barriers to participation are eliminated or reduced; and by dealing only
with local leaders, project implementers might indirectly or unwittingly be exclusionary
by providing a “barrier” through selective participation. In the same way, when dealing
with local DPOs, project staff should make sure that they do not only engage with DPO
officials.

XVIII
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

Leverage existing laws, policies, and international commitments to

facilitate disability inclusion in DRRM and in development processes at the
local level.

It has been highlighted in this report that the Philippines has committed to a
number of international covenants as well as passed relevant laws that can be
considered as institutional drivers for disability inclusion. While the Philippines may
still have a long way to go in terms of fully promoting equal rights an opportunities of
persons with disabilities in practice, such disability and DRR-related laws may be used
to set the formal directions for mainstreaming disability inclusion in DRRM. Concretely,
such policies may be used to lobby for local ordinances or resolutions that would
require adherence to accessibility standards in government/public buildings, or ensure
that persons with disabilities will be represented in governance structures. Good
practices in disability inclusion legislation may be found in other local governments
such as Cebu City which has been able to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance and a
barrier-free tourism policy. Since policy advocacy is also one of the main objectives of
the project, the project staff would benefit from learning exchanges between those who
have been able to successfully pass local legislation on disability rights. On the whole, it
is a requirement that such laws, policies, and legislative actions be developed with the
full participation of concerned DPOs.

Expand the advocacy for disability-inclusive DRR to involve like-minded

organizations, agencies and individuals.

The ENABLED Project is also part of a larger advocacy initiative to promote the
mainstreaming of disability perspectives in DRRM and development in general. Such
initiative will be more effective if the project engages in coalition-building with other
organizations that share the principles, views, and aspirations of the project. At present,
there are very few who are working on disability-inclusive DRRM in the province, or in
the Philippines for that matter. However, there are active development communities
working on disability rights or on DRRM. Their respective knowledge, competencies,
and skills can be tapped to help form this network and create a community that is
committed to the advancement of disability inclusive DRR. To do this, a crucial first step
is to articulate the vision of the network, agree on principles that form the basis of unity,

XIX
 ENABLED: BASELINE STUDY

and develop an advocacy agenda within a set time frame. It is equally important to
include sustainability issues in planning activities, as well as sourcing of funds for future
anticipated activities. Lastly, it is crucial the existing DPOs are involved in the formation
of such network.

Document processes, accomplishments, as well as challenges to facilitate

continuous learning among project staff as well as partner communities.

Given the nature of this project—inasmuch as it aims to contribute to a nascent

movement advocating for disability inclusion—it is imperative that opportunities to
reflect and learn be integrated throughout the entire process of project implementation.
Moreover, in adherence to the project’s commitment to inclusiveness, monitoring,
evaluation, and learning must be done with the participation and involvement of
community members, especially persons with disabilities and other at-risk groups. This
is where the application of Participatory Action Research is very important. In order for
PAR to be applied, it must inhabit all processes of project implementation wherein
communities participate in continuously collecting information regarding their
conditions, analyzing and interpreting data, and planning which is informed by evidence
gathered. Hence, investing in capacity-building for data collection and record-keeping
would be beneficial. It is recommended that these processes be included in the MEL
plan of the project.

Lastly, as part of ongoing contribution to the theory and practice of resilience

building, part of the learning process is also to test and enhance the resilience indicators
developed through this baseline, with community validation as a key process for
continuous improvement.

XX

View publication stats