Page 1

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Acknowledgements By its very nature, this book is the product of ideas and involvement of many people. It is difficult to enumerate here all the individuals, organizations and communities who made this book a reality. Special thanks are due to the authors, Annelies Heijmans and Lorna Victoria, for conceptualizing, organizing and seeing this book project through its completion with much aplomb --- notwithstanding budget constraints. As a collaborative endeavor between the Center for Disaster Preparedness and the Citizens’ Disaster Response Center, gratitude is due to Celso Dulce Jr., for finding time from the frenzied pace of work at CDRC to sit in meetings to give comments and suggestions on the contents of the book and for facilitating access to CDRC/N documents, files and photos. We acknowledge the assistance of the Field Operations and Research and Public Information Departments for locating project files, reports and photos, particularly Marietta Lupig, Nikki de Vera, Miguel Mendreza, Odon Morillo, and Rolando Libang for sharing their experiences with communities and the network members, and who served as informants to check out historical information. Nona Melendres and Edwin Elegado gave comments from the Regional Centers’ perspective. From the CDP staff, special mention goes to Noel Puno for coordinating technical support and Marita Santos for providing computer assistance. Malu Cagay, May Fourth Luneta and Ricky Pinlac gave support and encouragement. From the CDP Board, Emmanuel Luna participated in the initial meetings to design and critique chapters. Appreciation is also extended to Bert Bruins for critically reviewing the drafts from a non-CDRN point of view to make the presentation and text more readable and understandable. Gratitude is also extended to Labrador Victoria for some assistance in editing. This book would not have been possible without the funds from the Dutch Relief and Rehabilitation Agency for the Preparedness Support Program Finally, due recognition and credit are expressed to the Citizens’ Disaster Response Network and its partner people’s organizations who are the real authors of many of the ideas expressed in this book. However, CDP claims sole responsibility for whatever errors and shortcomings this book may have. Zenaida G. Delica Eufemia-Castro Andaya CDP Board of Directors

Page 1 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Foreword First and foremost, this book is a gift of love from the Center for Disaster Preparedness (CDP) to the Citizens’ Disaster Response Center (CDRC) and its Regional Centers (RCs) are the initiators, implementers and promoters of the citizenry-based development-orien disaster response (CBDO-DR) approach. As an institution and as individuals, we have lea so much from developing the CBDO-DR with the Citizens’ Disaster Response Network an partner people’s organizations. They have greatly inspired us with their initiatives and energies unleashed through their participation in CBDO-DR. CDP was established from the Training and Education Desk of CDRC and since 1999, CD been a separate institution committed to assist in the capability building of the Citizens Disaster Response Network (CDRN) and other agencies and communities in community based disaster management through training, research, and consultancy services. Since CBDO-DR is the trade-mark of CDRN, at CDP we say we will continue to promote the principles and experiences in CBDO-DR and to advocate for local and community based disaster management. By publishing the CBDO-DR framework and CDRN’s practice to address vulnerabilities to disasters by recognizing and building people’s capacities CDP hopes to contribute to furt strengthening the Network’s institutional and operational capacity. Definitely, the book i source of updated concepts, practical tools and experiences of the RCs in assessing disa situations and designing appropriate disaster response interventions. More importantly, however, CDP hopes to return and pass on to the present and future personnel of CDRC and the RCs the sense of pride that it has been privileged to receive sharing CBDO-DR to other agencies and communities, both locally and internationally. Needless to say, this goes with the challenge to continually learn from experiences and improve work with partner people’s organizations. This style of work has seen CDRN thr the initial years to its present level of growth. This book is surely a useful reference in community-based disaster management for practitioners and agencies/organizations involved in disaster management. At the end o International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, disaster occurrence and loss has no been reduced and the local and community-based approach is now seen as an integral component of building resilient communities for disaster risk reduction. Further, we hope that this book would foster exchanges and linkages among practitione communities and organizations involved in disaster management at the local and comm levels. Community-based disaster management is an emerging trend which encourages multidisciplinary support and draws all stakeholders towards a progression of safety, resilience, and people-oriented development. Zenaida G. Delica Eufemia-Castro Andaya CDP Board of Directors

Page 2 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Foreword Acknowledgements Chapter 1 Different Views on Disaster and Disaster Management Why are the Filipino people so vulnerable to disasters? The prevailing view on disasters and disaster management in the Philippines Birth of an Alternative Disaster Management Framework Building the organizational infrastructure for the promotion of CBDO-DR Endnotes and References Chapter 2 Features of the CBDO-DR Approach Perceives disaster primarily as a question of vulnerability Recognizes and builds people's capacities Contributes to addressing the root causes of people’s vulnerability Considers people's participation essential in disaster management Puts a premium on building organizational capacity of vulnerable sectors Builds partnership between the vulnerable and less vulnerable sectors The CBDO-DR approach links disaster response with development Effectiveness of Citizenry-Based Development-Oriented Disaster Response Approach Endnotes and References Chapter 3 Assessing Disaster Situations Why assess disaster situations? People's participation in assessing disaster situations and future risks The Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment The Damage Needs and Capacity Assessment The Capacity and Vulnerability assessment Relation of DNCA, CVA and HCVA Endnotes and references Chapter 4 Responses to Increase Capacities and Reduce Vulnerabilities The process of increasing people’s capacities People’s participation in the identification and selection of disaster responses Responses before, during and after disasters to address vulnerabilities through building capacities Pre-disaster responses: preparedness Pre-disaster responses: mitigation Responses during disaster event: emergency assistance Post disaster responses: rehabilitation Continuing responses Endnotes and References Page 3 of 171

List of Figures Figure 1.1: Map of CDRN Regional Centers all over the Philippines. Figure 2.1: Graphical representation of disaster concepts. Figure 2.1: Process of transforming at risk communities into resilient communities. Figure 3.1: CVA matrix according to economic class (Anderson, 1989: 16) Figure 3.2: CVA matrix according to gender (Anderson, 1989: 16) Figure 3.3: Sequence of tools for data gathering. List of Boxes Box 1.1: Most common disasters in the Philippines Box 1.2: Examples of emergency assistance based on sense of urgency and lack of people’s participation Box 1.3: Government’s neglect to pay attention to root causes of vulnerability Box 1.4: People’s responses in the Bicol Region during Mt Mayon eruption in 1984 Box 1.5: The need for an alternative disaster response proceeds from complaints and criticism on how the government handled disasters during the Martial Law years Box 2.2: General principles for safe, empowered and resilient communities as found in the vision statement of CDRC and the Regional Centers Box 4.1: Steps to conceptualise and select appropriate responses Box 4.2: How presence of GDRO in community can save lives; the experience from Central Luzon (Delica, 1998) Box 4.3: Feedback community members on community’s Counter Disaster Plan Box 4.4: Community level warning systems Box 4.5: Capability building towards a resilient community Box 4.6: Chronology of events experienced by SATAMAKA members residing in Manggahan, Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City Box 4.7: Feedback from internal refugees in Antique, Panay Island, supported by CRREED Box 4.8: Feedback community members on rehabilitated water system Box 4.9: Negotiation by internal refugees to return to their farms (‘BalikUma’) Box 4.10: Feedback community on communal action Box 4.11: Case of successful campaign: ‘Sulod Campaign’, Panay Island, Philippines Box 4.12: Alliance building among lahar-affected communities in Central Luzon Annex 1. A brief overview of the most common and frequent disasters occurring in the Philippines and their effects on people 2. Glossary of Citizenry-Based and Development Oriented Disaster Response (CBDO-DR) Terms 3. Tools for participatory data gathering 4. Damage, Needs and Capacities Analysis (DNCA) 5. Categories and factors for capacities and vulnerabilities analysis 6. Acronyms Page 4 of 171

List of Tables Table 1.1: Disasters in the Philippines: population affected by disaster type (1991-1999) Table 1.2: Allocated budget for government departments in 1999 (Congress, 1998) Table 1.3: CDRN Regional Centers Table 2.1 Features of the ‘dominant’ and the CBDO-DR approach Table 3.1: Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Matrix Table 3.2: Example of hazard assessment of floods in urban poor communitiers in Metro Manila Table 3.3: Example of hazard assessment of armed conflict in Mindanao Table 3.4: Example of people’s capacities to deal with floods and drought Table 3.5: Example of DNCA results in armed conflict situation (GRP and MILF in Lanao del Sur Province, May 2000). Table 3.6: Particularization of categories and factors for Vulnerability Assessment Table 3.7: Example of CVA used as a tool to identify rehabilitation activites in Sagada, Mountain Province (in 1992), an area prone to earthquakes and typhoons Table 4.1: Process from at-risk communities to resilient communities Table 4.2: Tasks of Evacuation Committee Table 4.3: Effects of community capacity building on emergency response (Core Donors, 1999: 17)

Page 5 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response List of Tables Table 1.1: Disasters in the Philippines: population affected by disaster type (1991-1999) Table 1.2: Allocated budget for government departments in 1999 (Congress, 1998) Table 1.3: CDRN Regional Centers Table 2.1 Features of the ‘dominant’ and the CBDO-DR approach Table 3.1: Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Matrix Table 3.2: Example of hazard assessment of floods in urban poor communitiers in Metro Manila Table 3.3: Example of hazard assessment of armed conflict in Mindanao Table 3.4: Example of people’s capacities to deal with floods and drought Table 3.5: Example of DNCA results in armed conflict situation (GRP and MILF in Lanao del Sur Province, May 2000). Table 3.6: Particularization of categories and factors for Vulnerability Assessment Table 3.7: Example of CVA used as a tool to identify rehabilitation activites in Sagada, Mountain Province (in 1992), an area prone to earthquakes and typhoons Table 4.1: Process from at-risk communities to resilient communities Table 4.2: Tasks of Evacuation Committee Table 4.3: Effects of community capacity building on emergency response (Core Donors, 1999: 17)

Page 6 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster R List of Boxes Box 1.1: Most common disasters in the Philippines Box 1.2: Examples of emergency assistance based on sense of urgency and lack participation Box 1.3: Government’s neglect to pay attention to root causes of vulnerability Box 1.4: People’s responses in the Bicol Region during Mt Mayon eruption in 198 Box 1.5: The need for an alternative disaster response proceeds from complaint the government handled disasters during the Martial Law years Box 2.2: General principles for safe, empowered and resilient communities as fo statement of CDRC and the Regional Centers Box 4.1: Steps to conceptualise and select appropriate responses Box 4.2: How presence of GDRO in community can save lives; the experience fro (Delica, 1998) Box 4.3: Feedback community members on community’s Counter Disaster Plan Box 4.4: Community level warning systems Box 4.5: Capability building towards a resilient community Box 4.6: Chronology of events experienced by SATAMAKA members residing in M Commonwealth, Quezon City Box 4.7: Feedback from internal refugees in Antique, Panay Island, supported by Box 4.8: Feedback community members on rehabilitated water system Box 4.9: Negotiation by internal refugees to return to their farms (‘Balik-Uma’) Box 4.10: Feedback community on communal action Box 4.11: Case of successful campaign: ‘Sulod Campaign’, Panay Island, Philipp Box 4.12: Alliance building among lahar-affected communities in Central Luzon

Page 7 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response List of Figures Figure 1.1: Map of CDRN Regional Centers all over the Philippines. Figure 2.1: Graphical representation of disaster concepts. Figure 2.1: Process of transforming at risk communities into resilient communities. Figure 3.1: CVA matrix according to economic class (Anderson, 1989: 16) Figure 3.2: CVA matrix according to gender (Anderson, 1989: 16) Figure 3.3: Sequence of tools for data gathering.

Page 8 of 171

THEMATIC RESOURCES During the Regional Working Group Meeting on Strategy for Information Exchange in September 2001, the collective opinion of the group was that information on certain themes and topics were not easily available. It emerged that if information is collated in one location, it would be easy to locate and retrieve, thereby enhancing the sharing of information in the region. Thus it was decided to have a page set up for themes that are pertinent to the project, as well as to the needs of partners in the region. Thematic Areas Advocacy Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction Measures Community Based Project Planning Community Based Risk Assessment Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis Early Warning Systems Earthquake Preparedness Evaluation Methodologies Flood Mitigation Gender Analysis for Disaster Management Livelihood Options Risk Assessment Urban Disaster Mitigation

Page 9 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 1 Different Views on Disasters and Disaster Management The Philippines is the most disaster prone country in the world. It is known for its Mount Pinatubo eruption, disastrous typhoons, floods, garbage and land slides in Metro Manila, and for the war in Mindanao. At the end of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (1990-2000), the Philippines was still at the top of the list of countries hit by disasters, as recorded by the Center for Research and Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) in Belgium. These records show that the Philippines was hit by an average of 10 disasters a year since 1991 compared to 8 disasters a year from 1900 to 1991(1). The country’s National Disaster Coordinating Council monitored over 100 disasters during the last ten years causing some 180 billion pesos in damages. The Philippine National Red Cross records 2,000 deaths annually and more than 3.6 million people displaced within the last decade (Herrera, 2000). However, these numbers show only the tip of the iceberg, since they include mostly disasters of a certain scale that attracted media attention. Not all agencies record disasters in the same way; they use different criteria. Some organizations only document natural disasters. The way agencies monitor and document disasters, reflect what they consider a disaster, how they perceive them, and in what way they respond to disaster events. The Citizens’ Disaster Response Center and its network of Regional Centers include local disasters in their figures. These are disasters that do not gain prominent media coverage in the Philippines and abroad, but which are equally disastrous for local communities as large-scale disaster in terms of loss of lives, damage to property and livelihood, and human suffering. All disasters, whether big or small, have an impact locally and have adverse effects on households and communities. For 1999 alone, CDRC registered 335 disasters in the Philippines, which affected about 1,850,000 families (more than 9 million individuals). These records are substantial in number and impact. Box 1.1: Most common disasters Aside from natural disasters, CDRN includes humanmade disasters in its documentation like fire, in the Philippines( 2) industry-related disasters, pollution, armed conflict, and development aggression. The distinction z Typhoon / storm surge between natural and human-made disasters is z Flood increasingly difficult to make. Most disasters are z Drought / El Niño usually a combination of both natural hazards and z Volcanic eruption / lahar human action: e.g. floods are the result of heavy z Earthquake / tsunami rain (typhoon) and denuded mountains (due to z Landslides / mudflow logging). Drought can be the result of the El Niño phenomena and the same denuded mountains. z Militarization / armed While there is a trend for large-scale or “megaconflict disasters” since the 1990s, human-made disasters z Development aggression have also been increasing in frequency of z Fire occurrence. z Red tide z Epidemic The increase in number and scale of disasters z Pest infestation cannot be explained solely by a similar rise in the z Pollution (fish kill, toxic number of typhoons, floods, earthquakes or volcanic waste, etc.) Page 10 of 171

eruptions. What happens, though, is that people’s vulnerability to disasters increases: more people are affected (many repeatedly) and their ability to cope with the negative effects seems to weaken. Further, new types of human-made hazards continue to emerge. Table 1.1: Disaster in the Philippines: population affected by disaster type, 1991-1999 (click the table to enlarge)

Page 11 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 1 Why are the Filipino people so vulnerable to disasters? The Philippines' exposure to disasters is to a significant extent due to the country's geographical and physical characteristics (CDRC, 1992). It is the world’s largest archipelago composed of more than 7,100 islands. It lies along the Western Pacific Basin, the world’s busiest typhoon belt, with the average of 20 typhoons hitting the country each year. Coastal and extended swamp areas are prone to floods and storm surges during typhoons. The country is further part of the Circum-Pacific seismic belt and lies in between two major tectonic plates, whose movements create mountain ranges, islands, volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis. There are 220 volcanoes in the country, out of which 21 are active. El Niño occurrences induce drought in many parts of the Philippines, regularly posing a serious problem in agricultural production and potable water supply. Disasters, however, do not occur only as a result of natural events like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and typhoons. They are also the product of the social, economic and political environment -- an environment where people live in adverse socioeconomic situations that lead them to inhabit high risk areas and engage in unsustainable and dangerous livelihoods. Not all hazards necessarily result in disasters. They only become disasters when they affect people who cannot cope with the physical, economic and social impact. The resulting disaster is, therefore, more than a function of the physical strength, intensity and magnitude of a hazardous event. It is also determined by society’s and people’s peculiar capacity, i.e. its ability to withstand, protect itself and recover rapidly from damaging events (CDRC, 1993). The Philippines has a population of 75 million, and IBON figures place the poverty incidence level at 77% (IBON, 1999). Poverty is mainly due to the unequal distribution of wealth and resources: the richest of the 20% of the population cornered 51.8% of the country's income, while the poorest 30% make do with only 9.3% (IBON, 1998). So the majority of Fililpinos have incomes that cannot provide for the most basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter. When hazards strike, poor people suffer more than the rich, because they lack the means to protect themselves and recover easily. Instead, they become more indebted or are forced to sell their limited properties, further undermining their basic means for survival. The rich can afford two- to three-storey houses to have protection against floods or can easily transfer residence to a safer location. Over time, poor people have developed coping strategies to adjust to recurring hazards. But, the worsening economic conditions can cause these coping strategies to fail. The inequitable distribution of the country’s resources is inherited from the colonial past and has not been addressed by the Philippine government since. Land reform programs failed to redistribute large landholdings to landless peasants. Also, farmlands are being recently converted to industrial, residential, commercial and tourist areas mainly because of the creation of exemptions inserted by landowners in Congress. Large areas of forest and prime agricultural land, previously devoted to food production, are taken away from farmers for conversion into "high value" and "export-winner"crops like asparagus, strawberry, bananas, and cut-flowers. The export-orientation of the Philippine economy exacerbates landlessness and worsens the existing food insecurity situation of the poor. Page 12 of 171

The government allows local and foreign investors to (over)exploit natural resources, like marine resources, forests and minerals. Marginalized farmers and fisher folks are left on less productive grounds or are displaced. To make ends meet, they are forced to engage in environmentally unfriendly methods and techniques. The practice of both groups results in environmental degradation and depletion, increasing the risk for disasters (floods, drought, pests, pollution, red tide, landslides, etc.) The government’s privatiza-tion policies no longer treat health care, education and housing as basic services for all people, but as commodities in an open market. As a result, costs for health services, education and housing have gone up, becoming too costly for the majority of the Filipinos. Only 10% of the population can afford health services at their current cost, 20% hardly can, while the majority can not afford, or depend on charitable institutions. 17 million Filipinos suffer from malnutrition. 4.6 million Filipinos are illiterate and most others (70% of enrollees) finish only up to elementary level. Limited educational background limits options for poor sectors to find alternative sources of livelihood when facing disasters. Furthermore, government does not prioritize low-cost housing and services like water and sanitation (20 million people in the Philippines are homeless). Instead, it promotes investments in resorts, shopping malls, golf courses, middle and upper class subdivisions, etc. Philippine politics is largely controlled by the economic elite. The election process is the main mechanism where people participate to select those who will pass laws, formulate policies and govern. Patronage politics and "guns, goons and gold" thwart the people’s will. There is no substantial people's participation in decision-making and governance. The unequal distribution of wealth, unequal participation in decision-making and political power does not contribute to a stable peace and order situation. Communist rebels, Muslim groups, Christian vigilante groups and the Armed Forces of the Philippines still continue their armed conflicts, causing the displacement of thousands of families every year (internal refugees). Most vulnerable in these situations of armed conflict are women, children, and elderly -- especially those from indigenous tribes. People who have low confidence in their ability to affect their environment are harder hit by disasters than those who have a sense of their ability to bring about the changes they desire. While many rich in the Philippines lack social responsibility, Page 13 of 171

poor people have been conditioned that they do not have the resources required to help themselves or that change for the better is not possible since these are how things have been done ever since. "It has always been this way with many political administrations in the past to the present". Limited development opportunities and options and living daily on a survival mode also breed negative attitudes such as "bahala na" (fatalism),"kapit sa patalim" (living on the edge), and "crab mentality" (pulling others down in an effort to go ahead). For the majority of the Filipino people, disasters have become part of their "normal" life. They experience difficulties but they find ways to survive. Their sources of livelihood are unstable and their income is often insufficient to sustain the family’s basic needs. Most families suffer from food shortages and malnutrition. When disasters strike they become more indebted because they have little or no savings. Because they are poor, they can not afford strong houses nor live in safe locations. Due to low education level, they have limited access to information and low awareness of hazard risks and what they can do to protect themselves. When disasters strike, their already poor health condition worsens, and makes them more vulnerable for infections and epidemics.

Page 14 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 1 The prevailing view on disasters and disaster management in the Philippines In a country where disasters are so prevalent, one would expect the government to play a crucial role in addressing disasters in order to protect its population. The previous sections show, however, that government’s policies worsen people’s vulnerability to disasters rather than reduce them. Disaster management has not been high in the priorities of the Philippine government despite the increased economic costs of disasters in the last two decades. Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1566 promulgated in June 1978 remains to date its governing legislation, notwithstanding changed disaster contexts and needs since then. This P.D. 1566, "Strengthening the Philippine Disaster Control and Capability & Establishing the National Program on Community Disaster Preparedness", is the legal basis for the disaster management system in the country. The decree established the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) and the different area-level disaster coordinating councils from the provincial to the village or barangay levels. P.D. 1566 also ordered the formulation of a national disaster plan, "The Calamities and Disaster Preparedness Plan", which was completed in 1988. However, despite the Plan’s provision for disaster preparedness, government’s response to disasters is limited to emergency relief, while rehabilitation and mitigation are undertaken in rare cases. The latter often results in technical and structural measures only, like dikes and dams. The government itself admits that its response to disasters is inadequate and reactive, both at national and local level in dealing with the hazards faced by the country. The following deficiencies can be noted: z




Disaster preparedness is inadequately integrated into the overall development planning process. (NLUC, 1992) Hazard-monitoring and forecasting: only the meteorological network is quite dependable. 29 stations monitor earthquakes, but 60 more stations would be needed to adequately monitor seismic activities in the country (PHIVOLCS, 2000). Twelve of the 22 active volcanoes are not yet monitored. In the case of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, the government failed to anticipate the duration of the emergency which was aggravated by continuing threats of lahar. (CDP, 1998) A serious weakness of the disaster management system lies in the poor implementation of policies laid out in P.D.1566 in the areas of multi-level disaster preparedness, sustaining the program for organizing and capability building and permeating the government set-up with a developmental disaster management philosophy (Laigo in CDRC, 1996) Limited funds available at local level: with the decentralization of national government functions to the local government units, only 5% of the Internal Revenue Allotment of the local government units is earmarked for emergency assistance. It is only recently that these funds can also be used for disaster preparedness measures. These funds, however, are so minimal that local Page 15 of 171

governments can not sustain training at the community level or other preparedness activities. z

Calamity funds from the national government are far from sufficient, and do not get the administrations’ priority. The bulk of the national government funds are allocated to debt-servicing and national defense( 3). Table 1.2 Allocated budget for government departments in 1999 (Congress, 1998)

Departments/funds Debt Service Fund – interest payments National Defense Social Welfare and Development Calamity Fund

Allocated budget 1999 (in thousand pesos) 107,878,000 51,661,484 1,606,058 2,062,000

Authors like Cuny (1983), Anderson and Woodrow (1989) described features of distinguished approaches to disaster management. One of these approaches is the “traditional” or “dominant” approach, and it is this one that can be used to characterize the prevailing framework of disaster management in the Philippines. In the “traditional” or “dominant” approach, all attention of disaster response is focused on the hazard and the disaster event itself. Its basic goal is to alleviate immediate suffering of the victims and to “get things back to normal”. Government frequently promises to deliver as much aid as possible as if this aid was to provide a basis for greater security and wealth (Anderson, 1989). In this way, disasters become relief and emergency response problems to be solved by material aid, a logistical exercise to be undertaken (Cuny,1983) The people affected are seen as helpless, needy “victims” who are totally devastated by the disaster. As such they are treated as passive recipients of external aid. Damage and needs assessment are undertaken rapidly prior to response, usually by external experts, while government and aid agencies take all the responsibility for providing aid and make all the decisions about what to give to whom. They manage the distribution of aid, and set the priorities, all without consulting the people they intend to support (Anderson, 1989). Speed of response, a sense of urgency to alleviate suffering takes center stage, and considerations of appropriateness and timeliness to culture, gender, age are not taken.

Box 1.2: Examples of emergency assistance based on sense of urgency and lack of people’s participation Page 16 of 171




After typhoon Mameng (September 1995) which caused 12 foot high laharflows that covered the whole town of Bacolor in Central Luzon, the evacuated families received nutritious astronauts’ biscuits from a foreign government channeled through the Philippine government. The people did not know that these concentrated biscuits were supposed to be consumed with a lot of water. As a result a lot of children suffered from severe headaches. Women complained about this food assistance, since they found it culturally inappropriate. They called it for chicken food. Right after a fire incident in Tondo, Metro Manila, where 300 families lost their homes, assistance was provided by the local government. They distributed rice, noodles and sardines, and nurse-uniforms for clothing purposes. The affected families, however, did not have kitchen utensils left to prepare food, and did not want to wear all the same uniform. Temporary shelter was still lacking at that time. The government set up evacuation centers in Central Luzon for lahar victims. They were all constructed by contractors. The evacuees were not involved in the planning and implementation of the work. The government even built so-called production-centers for industries to establish. These were to supposed to serve as alternative source of livelihood for the evacuees. Two years after completion, only one production-center was in use: not even 10% of the workers were lahar victims. Most of the people affected were farmers and had no skills and knowledge for industrial work.

There are problems with the dominant or traditional approach in disaster management. The goal of bringing things back to normal implies a re-creation of the conditions that led to the disaster. And because disasters are perceived as unforeseen events (natural phenomena), agencies fail to establish the real source of the problem: the root causes of people’s vulnerability, which in the Philippines, derive from social inequity and government policies which have inimical effects on majority of the population. The perception that problems will be solved primarily through outside aid results in bigger problems. All too often, people come to depend on the relief agency operations for their daily survival, long after the crisis is over. Thus, the relief goods and the system used for delivering them, actually foster a culture of mendicancy and increase people’s dependency rather than promote greater development. Likewise, in viewing disasters largely from the perspective of natural hazards, the problem of determining the appropriate intervention is then elevated to the realm of science and technology and put in the hands of scientists and experts. As is often the case, most of these disaster interventions, like bridges and ‘mega-dikes’, computers and state-of-the-art monitoring equipment, are grand and costly. Their construction and acquisition become ends in themselves. Obscured in the process are the people and their needs as these interventions become the indicators of “development” rather than as means to people’s development. Moreover in focusing on the technical and scientific side of the problem, the socioeconomic dimensions of vulnerability are ignored. Further, the significant role of disaster survivors and the vulnerable communities and sectors themselves as the primary actors in formulating and implementing any disaster intervention is obscured.

Page 17 of 171

Box: 1.3: Government's neglect to pay attention to root causes of vulnerability Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and in the years thereafter, more communities were completely or partly covered by lahar flows, causing a lot of material damages, agricultural losses and casualties. The responses of the government focused on relief, rescue operations, rebuilding infrastructure (roads and dikes), and to a lesser extent, building evacuation centers. The restored roads and dikes were, however, washed out yearly due to lack of feasibility studies and proper designs. This resulted in more displaced families. The government had no prevention plan and was not willing to redistribute land and to restore livelihood opportunities for the victims through resettlement programs. Instead, the crowded evacuation centers turned into permanent sites where people remain uncertain about their future.

Page 18 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 1 Birth of an Alternative Disaster Management Framework In the early 1980s the Philippines experienced a series of severe disasters. Yet to recover from the effects of the debilitating drought in 1983, the Filipino people had to cope with the adverse effects of six successive strong typhoons during the second half of 1984. Maring (which affected Luzon) and Nitang (which hit Mindanao and parts of Visayas with more than 200 kph) were the first two killer typhoons occurring in the months of August and September. Then Paring, Reming, and Toyang followed, affecting Central and South Luzon. Hardly recovered from Nitang, the Visayas Region was again hit by another destructive typhoon, Undang at 205 kph. Damages caused by these typhoons reached 4.6 billion pesos. About 2,500 persons perished and 280,000 families were left homeless. In the Bicol Region, the Mayon Volcano erupted on September 23 after showing telltale signs as early as July 1984. More than 35,000 families were affected from 50 barangays (villages) in 10 towns of Albay and 14 persons were killed. Lava covered at least 1,654 hectares of pasture and cropland. 24 million pesos worth of crops and livestock were destroyed. These disasters happened in the year – dubbed as "nineteen eighty poor"- when the country’s economy slid from bad to worse in the eighteenth year of President Marcos’ dictatorship. Unemployment had increased and prices of consumer goods soared to levels never experienced since World War II. The ordinary people had difficult times to survive, let alone to recover from the various disasters. It was as if the disasters fueled and reinforced the people’s protests to express their growing discontentment with government, despite the intensified militarization, political arrests and rampant human rights violations of Marcos’ regime. Disaster affected peasant and urban poor communities (who were angry because of the government's neglect to respond to the country’s disaster situation) sent urgent appeals for assistance to cause-oriented groups, people’s organizations and churchbased organizations. As a result, a "Support Disaster Victims Campaign" was launched from October 1984 to July 1985 which embraced a broad mix of civic organizations, service agencies, individual volunteers and affected communities. The campaign aimed to unite and mobilize the greatest number of people, particularly in the urban centers and Metro Manila to extend financial, material, technical, and manpower support to the people in disaster areas, especially the rural areas where there was no ready access to social services. The initial experience of working together in relief gave birth to the vision of a citizenry-based and development-oriented approach to disaster response (CBDO-DR). This CBDO-DR approach should be seen as an alternative to the ‘traditional’ disaster response approach of the government and other aid agencies in the Philippines.

Page 19 of 171

The CBDO-DR approach is further a critique of the government’s development framework. Government's priorities are mainly defined by a privileged minority who wield economic and political power in conjunction with foreign interests. The social system constricts the participation of the majority of the Filipinos in the country's socio-economic and political life. Citizenry-based and development-oriented disaster response should therefore contribute to transforming or removing the structures of inequity and underdevelopment. Box 1.4: People’s responses in the Bicol Region during Mt Mayon eruption in 1984 A two-pronged approach was initiated by cause-oriented organizations in Albay, Bicol. On September 21, 1984 – the anniversary of the declaration of Martial Law – the usual statements denouncing the Marcos dictatorship were accompanied by posters and streamers calling for a genuine disaster response program, condemning the widespread graft and corruption, and calling on government to become more pro-people. Simultaneously, solicitation drives were organized. The thousands of farmers who came to the rallies brought sweet potato , cassava and vegetables – anything they were able to spare – for the families who had evacuated from the 12-km buffer zone around the volcano. The response was great and the true spirit of ‘bayanihan’ was rekindled in the people’s minds. After the eruption on September 23, 1984, the religious, professional and youth sectors started a movement to help the victims. The religious sector led the solicitation drive for relief goods and other needs. The students conducted a volunteers-recruitment campaign in the schools. Radio stations aired public information programs to make people aware of an alternative relief effort different from the government. On November 9, 1984, an ad-hoc committee was formed to assist the evacuees. By the end of that year, more than 1,000 families – most affected and least served - were given support by the committee and volunteers. The ad-hoc committee further undertook concerted activities with the affected people and volunteers to clear the communities from boulders left behind by floods of lava. For several weekends, fathers, mothers and children removed the boulders that caused low-lying areas to be flooded, while other areas dried up. The ad-hoc committee provided cooked rice and canned goods to the community members and volunteers. The Tabang Para sa Mga Biktima sa Bikol (TABI), meaning Support for the Victims in Bicol, is the offshoot of this local ad-hoc committee. Aware of the region’s extreme vulnerabilities to disasters, and the increasing number of victims and internal refugees, the group of volunteers decided to formally organize TABI in March 1985.

Page 20 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 1 Building the organizational infrastructure for the promotion of CBDO-DR The “Support Disaster Victims Campaign” was considered a big success among the participating groups and affected communities. To promote the alternative disaster management framework a more permanent structure that covers the whole country would be necessary. In this context the Citizens’ Disaster Rehabilitation Center (CDRC) was formed in Manila as a direct offshoot of the campaign. Its name would later change into Citizens’ Disaster Response Center, better expressing the nature of its mandate that goes beyond rehabilitation efforts.

CDRC consulted and linked up with counterparts in the different regions where disasters were rampant and people very vulnerable. These counterparts were either existing NGOs, networks of POs, concerned individuals or church groups. In some areas, CDRC helped build a regional center like for instance in Negros. From 1984 till 1991 eighteen Regional Centers (called Regional Affiliates up to 1992) all over the country were formed to promote the CBDO-DR framework. Presently there are 13 Regional Centers ( 4). The Regional Centers are partners, not branches of CDRC. The latter functions as a secretariat to the network, called the Citizens’ Disaster Response Network (CDRN) comprised of CDRC and the Regional Centers. CDRC serves as a communication center, provides technical assistance and capability building support to the network-members, assists the Regional Centers in research and advocacy, and networks with funding agencies. The Regional Centers respond to the particular context of natural and human-made disasters in their regions. Since the beginning they have supported the most vulnerable and least served communities and families, Page 21 of 171

especially internal refugees displaced by the armed conflict in the more than three decades of war between the government and the New People’s Army and other armed groups. Figure 1.1: Map of CDRN Regional Center CDRC and the Regional Centers took the position that while government is primarily responsible for the instituting programs in disaster management and social services, non-government organizations were dutybound to assist affected communities where government's efforts were inadequate and unable to eliminate the structural causes of disasters. While the Filipino people overthrew the Marcos dictatorship in 1986, factors that generated vulnerability to disasters were still not dismantled. In 1987, the First National Conference on Citizenry-Based DevelopmentOriented Disaster Response and Preparedness Work was held with the theme “Addressing the state of marginalization and disaster-vulnerability of the Filipino people and the Philippine environment”. It was in this conference that the general principles and framework of CBDO-DR were formally laid out as a guide in alternative disaster management for CDRC and the Regional Centers. Conference participants accepted the challenge to organize and mobilize the vulnerable sectors in people-oriented disaster management all over the Philippines. The next chapter will present the main features and principles of the CBDO-DR approach. Table 1.3. CDRN Regional Centers Regional Centers

Area Year Covered Established

Founded by

LUZON Tabang para sa Biktima sa Bikol (TABI)


Center for Relief and Cagayan Rehabilitation (CRRS-CV) Valley Isabela Nueva Vizcaya


NGOs & Concerned Individuals in Bicol


Regional Development Center & Social Action Center

Page 22 of 171

Rehabilitation Services of Metro People Organized Against Manila Disaster (RESPOND) Rizal


POs in Metro Manila in cooperation w/ CDRC

Central Luzon Center for Central Emergency Aid Luzon


AMGL (Regional PO) in cooperation with CDRC

Southern Tagalog Action Southern for Relief and Tagalog Rehabilitation of Disaster Palawan Victims (STARR)


CDRC in Cooperation with NGOs in Southern Tagalog

Monta単osa Relief and Cordillera Rehabilitation Services - Upland Cordillera (MRRS) Abra


Cordillera Network of POs & NGOs

MAI Welfare and Mindoro Development Foundation (MAI)


Mindoro NGOs

Ilocos Region Development Center (IRDC)

Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur Abra La Union


Ilocos POs and Regional Development Center



Negros NGOs in cooperation with CDRC


VISAYAS Negros Relief and Rehabilitation Center (NRRC)

Center for Relief and Panay Rehabilitation Education and Economic Development (CRREED)


NGOs in the Panay Island in cooperation with CDRC

Center for Relief and Rehabilitation of Samar (CRROS)



Samar NGOs in cooperation with CDRC

Cebu Relief and Rehabilitation Center (CRRC)

Cebu Bohol


NGOs in Cebu

Page 23 of 171

Leyte Center for Development Education (LCDE)



ILAW Resource Center and NGOs in Leyte

Northeastern Mindanao


Agusan NGOs

Humanitarian Alliance Southern Against Disaster - Davao Mindanao (Halad-Davao)


Mindanao NGOs

Disaster Response Center (Direct)

Far South Mindanao



Humanitarian Alliance Against Disaster -West (Halad-West)

Western Mindanao



Humanitarian Alliance Against DisasterCotabato (HaladCotabato)

Central Mindanao



MINDANAO Bread for Emergency Assistance and Development (Bread)

Box 1.5: The need for an alternative disaster response proceeds from complaints and criticism on how the government handled disasters during the Martial Law years z



Government relief and rehabilitation efforts were marred by so much graft and corruption such that it inspired a joke among the Bicolanos (which was again heard when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991 in Central Luzon): “For every eruption, a mansion” Relief was used to further political agendas and foster recipients’ dependence to a patronage political system: boxes for Surigao typhoon relief were pasted with labels “Alay ni (gift from) Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos” even as these were donated by a foreign government as indicated on the other side of the box. Government response to the food and medical relief needs of disaster affected areas was insufficient due to financial constraints and misappropriation of funds. Social services were a low priority in the government’s 58.8 billion pesos budget in 1984. Most of the budget went to allocations for the military and servicing of foreign debt. Page 24 of 171





Relief and rehabilitation operations were hampered by red tape and favoritism in the selection of beneficiaries such that legitimate victims were excluded from the list Assistance was inappropriate for the actual emergency needs of those affected Lack of coordination among various government agencies resulted in confusion, duplication of services in some areas, and gaps in service in other concerns Lack of political will and a solid program for disaster preparedness based on performance of reactive response. Although Presidential Decree 1566 has mandated the formulation of a National Calamities and Disaster Preparedness program down to the local government levels since 1978, there is a yawning gap between policy and implementation.

Page 25 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 1 Endnotes (1) CRED ranked the Philippines as “number one” in natural disaster occurrence with 702 incidents from 1900 to 1991, followed by India (369), Canada (201), Japan (170), Bangladesh (166). (2) For an overview of the most common disasters in the Philippines we refer to Annex 1 in this book. (3) In the case of the war in Mindanao (peak from March-August 2000), the government spent 23 Million pesos per day for the war, while it spent 1 Million pesos per week to assist more than 600,000 internal refugees (Mercado, 2000). And still the conflict has not ended, neither is there hope that a solution will be found in the near future. (4) LCDE now covers both Samar and Leyte. MAI and STARR have opted to transfer disaster management functions to the Southern Tagalog People’s Resource Center. HALAD-CMR has changed its legal status in 1995 to TRIPOD and as such is no longer a member of CDRN. CDRC Direct Services Unit now covers areas of RESPOND in Metro Manila and CONCERN in Central Luzon. References Anderson, M.B. & P.J. Woodrow, 1989, Rising from the Ashes; Development Strategies in Times of Disasters, Westview Press, pp 338 CDRC, 1989. A Magazine to Commemorate the Fifth Anniversary of CDRC, Manila, October 1989. CDRC, 1990. "CDRC: Pursuing a Vision", The Network, Manila, Vol. 1 No.2, January 1990, pp. 1, 17 -19. CDRC, 1987. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Citizenrybased and Development-Oriented Disaster Response and Preparedness Work, Manila, CDRC, July 1987, unpublished, 177 pp. CDRC, 1992, Disasters: The Philippine Experience, pp 127 CDRC, 1993, Disaster Management Framework: Citizenry-Based Development-Oriented Disaster Response (CBDO-DR), unpublished, 7 pp CDP, 1998, "Disaster Management System in the Philippines" in Risk Assessment Project Report in cooperation with London’s Southbanks University ECHO-funded Community-based Disaster Mitigation Program, unpublished Congress, 1998, Summary of Obligations and Proposed New Page 26 of 171

Appropriations by Departments, FY 1998-2000, Tables II-1 and II-2 Cuny, F.C. 1983, Disasters and Development, Oxford University Press Herrera, Christine, 2000. “RP most disaster prone — Red Cross” in Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 24,2000, Manila. IBON Databank Philippines, Inc., 1984. IBON Facts and Figures, Vol. VII, No. 153, Manila IBON, 1998, Midyear Briefing, The Estrada Administration: coping with the economic crisis, IBON Birdtalk, Manila, June 25. IBON Foundation Inc., 1999. "Skewed Distribution of Wealth", IBON Facts and Figures, Manila, Vol. 22, Nos. 3-4, 15-28 February 1999. Laigo, 1996, GO Disaster Preparedness and Response: Strengths and Problems, in: CDRC, The Philippine Reader on Disaster Management, Manila, Philippines, pp 48-63 Mercado, J, 2000, during open forum on Mindanao situationer held in Titus Brandsma Center organized by Philippine International Forum, August 4 National Land Use Committee, 1992. National Physical Framework Plan 1993 - 2022. Manila, October 1992, pp. 49 - 51 Philippine Daily Inquirer, 1998, Malaria stalks tribal groups, 13 July PHIVOLCS, 2000, Earthquakes, Earthquake Hazards and Philippine Seismicity, 37 pp

Page 27 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 2 Features of the CBDO-DR Approach Citizenry-Based and Development-Oriented Disaster Response (CBDO-DR) aims to contribute to pro-people development for the general improvement of the well-being and quality of life for the majority of Filipinos. The vulnerable or marginalized sectors are at the heart of the development agenda as its main force as well as its primary beneficiary. Their needs, interests and aspirations are the CBDO-DR’s main concern. For CDRC/N, people-oriented development is both the end result and the process of reducing vulnerabilities and increasing capacities of the marginalized sectors of Philippine society. CDRC/N subscribes to the view of development as "the process through which people increase their capacities for producing things they need and for managing their political and social lives as they desire and, and at the same time (especially in disaster-prone areas) reduce their immediate and long-term vulnerabilities to events which threaten their economic and socio-political existence"(Anderson, 1989). Given its roots, CBDO-DR has been summarized in the following way: citizenry-based because of its reliance on the capability of the Filipino people to remedy their disaster situation themselves and to help each other; development-oriented because it seeks to address the root causes of vulnerability through an empowerment process. Later, the CBDO-DR framework evolved into a more complete concept as CDRC/N pioneered and specialized in its line of work. It adapted general disaster management concepts from the United Nations and various aid and development organizations and made these applicable to the Philippine disaster context. The CBDO-DR features are the guiding framework for CDRC and the network members. The main distinguishing features of the CBDO-DR approach are:

1. it looks at disasters as a question of people’s vulnerability 2. it recognizes people’s existing capacities and aims to strengthen these

3. it contributes to addressing the roots of people’s vulnerabilities and

to transforming or removing the structures generating inequity and underdevelopment

4. it considers people’s participation essential to disaster management 5. it puts a premium on the organizational capacity of the vulnerable sectors through the formation of grassroots disaster response organizations

Page 28 of 171

6. it mobilizes the less vulnerable sectors into partnerships with the vulnerable sectors in disaster management and development work These six features are highly inter-related and are all developmentoriented in nature. Each feature will be discussed separately in more detail.

Page 29 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 2 Perceives disaster primarily as a question of vulnerability When CDRC/N developed the CBDO-DR principles in the mid-1980s, it came across authors like O’Keefe and Westgate, who define disaster in a way that suits the Philippine disaster situation. They include vulnerability into the disaster equation: "A disaster-event is the manifestation of an interaction between extreme physical or natural phenomena and a vulnerable human group." Later, CDRC/N found common bonds with Frederic Cuny, Mary Anderson and Peter Woodrow in further elaborating its discourse on CBDO-DR. Their stress on the concepts of coping strategies and capacities helped to show how to make disaster management responses truly developmental. CDRC/N perceives disaster primarily as a question of vulnerability. A disaster occurs as the result of a hazard that strikes a vulnerable community or group whose inherent capacity is not enough to withstand or cope with its adverse effects and impacts (CDRC, 1993) The result is general disruption of community functions, damage and loss to life, property, livelihood and the environment. A hazard is an event or occurrence that has the potential for causing injury to life or damage to property and the environment. Typhoons, earthquakes, floods and other hazards are not disasters in themselves although they have a potential to cause damage and loss to people and their property. The hazard is only one of the factors in causing a disaster. Hazards may be natural (e.g. earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption), human-made (e.g. armed conflict, environmental pollution, development aggression) or a combination of both (e.g. floods, landslides, drought). Vulnerabilities refer to long term factors and conditions adversely affecting the ability of the community or society to respond, to cope with or recover easily from the damaging effects of the occurrence of hazards or disaster events. These factors precede the disaster event, contribute to its severity and may continue to exist even after. (Anderson, 1989:10) At the level of local communities, vulnerability is a difficult concept to grasp. Instead, terms like ‘weaknesses’, ‘problems’ and ‘constraints’ are used to understand why people are regularly affected by disasters, and why they have difficulties to recover. In this way, factors and reasons that generate people’s vulnerability come out. On the other hand, capacities refer to the strengths and resources that exist within the people and their community which are used to mitigate, prepare for, cope with damaging effects of hazards or recover from a disaster. Vulnerabilities and capacities can be classified into three categories: (1) physical/material; (2) social/organizational; and (3) motivational/attitudinal. The physical/material vulnerabilities and capacities include climate, environment, sources of livelihood, productive and other skills, land, water capital, infrastructure and services. The Page 30 of 171

social/organizational capacities and vulnerabilities refer to the manner society is organized, its internal conflicts and how it manages them. These factors include family structures, leadership qualities and structures, patterns of decision making, participation levels, social division and conflicts, community organizations, relationship to government, and government policies and legislation. Motivational/attitudinal vulnerabilities and capacities refer to how people in society view themselves and their ability to affect their environment. Factors for this category include attitude towards change, sense of ability to affect environment and get things done, religious belief, ideology, fatalism, dependence/self-reliance, unity/solidarity, and cooperation. The most vulnerable sectors of Philippine society are the poor peasants, fisherfolk, urban poor, workers, indigenous people, women and children. They are also referred to as the marginalized sectors. Figure 2.1: Graphical representation of disaster concepts Attempts within CDRN have been made to graphically represent the key elements which make for a disaster. These have been in the form of equation such as D=H + Vc and Later D=H x Vc Since the mathematical formula cannot capture the concept, the decision within CDRC/CDRN has been to stick to a more graphical representation to simplify concepts which have been found effective in community education and training. A disaster occurs as a result of a hazard that this hits a vulnerable community which inherent capacity is not enough to cope with the adverse affects.

Page 31 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 2 Recognizes and builds people’s capacities

Despite people's vulnerability, experience proves that people still have capacities and are not helpless in times of disaster (Cuny, 1983; Anderson, 1989). During disasters, it is the people themselves who initiate the necessary steps to survive even before aid givers arrive at the disaster scene. They have adapted coping strategies after previous experiences in dealing with disasters. Although disasters may result in the people’s physical de-privation such as the loss of food, shelter, crops, tools, they always have some resources left. These may be some recoverable goods or, as is often the case, the skills and attitudes they carry with them. It can also be the presence of a strong community organization or an elaborate family support system which allows them ample leeway to cope with the disaster event (Blaikie, 1994). It is important to build on these capacities and cumulatively increase them as they are the point of departure for developmental disaster response. Among Filipinos, a notable capacity is the strong sense of family and community cooperation, the "damayan" and "bayanihan"spirit. The presence of community and people’s organizations is also a vital social capacity that CDRC/N mobilizes in its assistance to vulnerable communities and groups. Aside from sharing meager food and other resources to survive, family and community organizations give care and encouragement to face difficulties. Organizations and alliances of organizations provide the strength in its numbers to advocate policies and programs related to disaster management and development. They can also rely on rich experiences in working for a more responsive and pro-people program, realizing broad support and gains from such concerted efforts. Exposure to many adverse conditions has also inculcated in the Filipinos to have a persevering effort to survive and rebuild. Being “madiskarte” (resourceful) coupled with the Filipino wit and humor are attributes which have seen the Filipinos through many crises. Another capacity is indigenous knowledge and practices in preparing for and coping with natural disasters which the modern way of living does not appreciate with its emphasis on scientific and technological fixes.

Page 32 of 171

Since physical and material vulnerabilities presently far outweigh capacities, the viable track for CDRC/N has been to mobilize and strengthen organizational and motivational resources of people. In many cases, it is the social and motivational capacities of vulnerable groups and communities which are their assets to reduce vulnerabilities and accumulate material capacities.

Page 33 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 2 Contributes to addressing the root causes of people's vulnerability

The aim of CBDO-DR as an alternative disaster management framework is to reduce people’s vulnerability and increase their capacity to prepare for, to cope with and to mitigate the adverse effects of disasters. While the occurrence of hazards cannot be prevented, CDRC/N believes that addressing people’s vulnerabilities and its roots causes is the key to reducing the negative effects, if not totally preventing the occurrence of disasters. The CBDO-DR framework considers the importance of addressing people’s immediate survival and recovery needs like physical safety, food, nutrition, health, clothing, shelter, livelihood, and education. Likewise it recognizes the relevance of government’s warning, prediction and monitoring systems, even if these measures only focus on the potential hazard. However, a safer environment can only be achieved if disaster response changes the processes that put people at risk. This means that CBDO-DR includes measures that improve people’s access to resources, change power relations, reinforce livelihood strategies that address poverty, and challenge policies and ideologies responsible for generating vulnerability. The long-term solution lies in transforming the social and political structures that breed poverty and the social dynamics and attitudes that serve to perpetuate it. Box 2.2: General principles for safe, empowered and resilient communities as found in the vision statement of CDRC and the Regional Centers z





A society where people equitably share in the nation’s wealth, have access to basic services, and are self-reliant; A society where the people are free to chart the course of society, meaningfully participating in decision making, and enjoying a credible government; A society whose people pride themselves in their cultural heritage and positive values; A society that enjoys the blessings of a healthy environment and abundant natural resources; A society where people possess the utmost capacity to cope with hazards, both natural and human-made.

Aside from physical and material assistance to vulnerable communities, CDRC/N undertakes non-structural preparedness and mitigation measures like strengthening community organizations through education and Page 34 of 171

counter disaster planning, public information and awareness raising, lobby and advocacy work, and cooperative endeavors with similarly minded people’s organizations and NGOs. Disaster vulnerability can only be reduced if an aware and organized public can pressure the government in such a way that their interests are no longer ignored in government’s decision-making and planning. By addressing the roots of vulnerability in Philippine society, a more sustainable development is hoped to be achieved. The issue of sustainable development is not only anchored in stewardship of environmental resources for the needs of present and future generations, but is more an issue of ensuring social equality, justice, peace, and responsible governance.

Page 35 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 2 Considers people's participation essential in disaster management

Central in this development perspective is people's empowerment. People must be involved and participate fully in all aspects of the process to bring about development, including disaster management. People-oriented development means developing the people’s potential and capacities through their participation in disaster management. CDRC believes that, through participation in disaster response activities, the vulnerable marginalized sectors become more capable of addressing their other basic needs. People’s participation is not just the process of consultation in coming out with appropriate disaster response interventions from data gathering, situational analysis, identification of interventions, implementation and assessment. Their participation is part of an empowering process of changing resource control and power relations. Through building on and progressively increasing social and organizational capacities, vulnerable groups are able to work for and attain physical and material resources and participate in social and political processes in order to change unjust power relations. The vulnerable communities and groups are the main actors in disaster management. They have knowledge about their locality, history of disasters in their place, and how vulnerability to disasters has changed over time. They have the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives directly. People's participation is basic because safety, stability of livelihood, well being and disaster management is, in the last analysis, their own concern and not solely of "experts" such as government, scientists, aid agencies and specialists.

Page 36 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 2 Puts a premium on building organizational capacity of vulnerable sectors

Organizational and social support networks are the most crucial coping mechanisms people rely on in times of crisis and emergency. Not only for sharing food, working animals, farm tools or other resources, but also in terms of decision-making and managing community-wide activities, organizing evacuations and managing emergency response. CDRC/N supports communities in forming grassroots disaster response organizations (GDROs) wherein organizational capacities of communities at-risk are strengthened to enable them to take action towards reducing their vulnerabilities. The formation of grassroots disaster response organizations (GDROs) aims to enable vulnerable communities and groups to effectively participate in CBDO-DR, in pre, during and postdisaster situations. GDROs were initially set up in 1991 among communities threatened by the annual lahar flows in the Mt.Pinatubo environs. The tasks of a GDRO include sharing of the Counter Disaster Plan with all community members, monitoring disaster threats, networking and coordination with Barangay and Municipality Disaster Coordination Councils, issuing warnings, managing community-wide evacuation, search and rescue, planning and conducting relief delivery operations with aid agencies, and implementing mitigation and rehabilitation activities in the community. These grassroots organizations are a vital link to mobilize the entire community in various CBDO-DR activities. The result is an expanding membership and linkage building with the less vulnerable groups in a community. Through organized communities, CDRC/N will be able to reach out to more communities at risk through a multiplier effect. The GDROs and partner POs are given various training, like basic disaster management orientation, training on disaster preparedness and emergency response, and on project management. Other organizational strengthening activities are leadership training, human rights education, negotiation and education in sectoral and development issues. CDRC/N works towards a situation wherein, through its equipping and Page 37 of 171

capability building support, the real disaster managers will be these Grassroots Disaster Response Organizations and not primarily CDRC, the Regional Centers, nor other aid and development NGOs. It is essentially these GDROs that can pressure government to change policies in the interest of vulnerable communities.

Page 38 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 2 Builds partnership between the vulnerable and less vulnerable sectors

Participation is not only limited to the involvement of the vulnerable sectors of the population in disaster response. It also covers the participation of and partnership with the less vulnerable sectors (LVS) like the professionals (e.g. doctors, dentists, nurses, drivers, radio broadcasters, teachers), students, small scale merchants and entrepreneurs, and other segments of society. Their capacity to cope with hazards and recover from disaster situations is greater than that of the vulnerable sectors. This is derived from their access and control of material resources, knowledge and skills and positions in the community and society. They have the capacity to give support and assistance to the vulnerable sectors. CBDO-DR underscores the solidarity of the less vulnerable sectors in the plight of the vulnerable sectors and the mobilization of their support in disasters and related development issues. This finds expression in the forging of a partnership between the vulnerable and less vulnerable sectors of Philippine society in short-term disaster response activities and in efforts which address vulnerable conditions and roots of vulnerabilities and underdevelopment. Experience has proven that CDRC and the Regional Centers can only do so much with its limited staff and resources without the assistance from local less vulnerable groups and friends and supporters from abroad. Initially CDRC and the Regional Centers facilitate the development of such partnerships. As the Grassroots Disaster Response Organizations are strengthened they should be able to draw in the support of the less vulnerable sectors in their communities and areas of influence. Sustained relations of CDRC/N with organized communities and the less vulnerable sectors lead to the formation of Regional Disaster Response Machineries (RDRMs). The RDRM, with the RC functioning as the coordination center, is mobilized in times of large-scale disasters, i.e. when a disaster affects various provinces in the region. This partnership, however, does not count those groups of people who, because of their position in society, are in fact contributory to the vulnerabilities of the marginalized sectors. These are called nonvulnerable sectors and are usually the targets of the vulnerable and less vulnerable sectors in advocacy work which link disaster issues with structures and policies which are at the root of people's vulnerability.

Page 39 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 2 The CBDO-DR approach links disaster response with development

Aid agencies commonly depict disaster management activities in the “Disaster Management Cycle” model, which prescribes a sequential set of actions — relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction, development, mitigation, preparedness — to gain control over disaster events. While this disaster management model used to be associated with the more developmental approach in disaster management, CDRC/N saw that it still had a tendency to focus on the disaster event and emergency response. After 1991, CDRC/N thought it would be more relevant, given the Philippine disaster context, to divide disaster responses into three categories: pre-disaster, during disaster and post-disaster responses. Later CDRC/N realized that in a disaster context of recurring hazards, the post-disaster situation often overlaps with the predisaster situation, causing rehabilitation and mitigation to become integrated and aim to reduce disaster risk. From the communities’ perspective this is also more logical. Dividing disaster responses into pre- and post-disaster events or according to a disaster cycle is quite artificial; e.g. restoring their livelihood after a typhoon is mitigation for the next one at the same time. All disaster responses together should be seen as a process of contributing to people-oriented development, i.e. building capacities and addressing vulnerabilities of at risk communities. Development efforts and disaster management are linked and, at times, identical. Table 2.1 Feagures of the 'dominant' and the CBDO-RD approach

Page 40 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response

Table 2.1 Feagures of the 'dominant' and the CBDO-RD approach Dominant approach

The goal of disaster responses is to alleviate immediate suffering and bring things back to normal like before the disaster event. Disaster responses consist of a sequential series of actions to gain control over disasters, before, during and after the emergency period (disaster cycle model) 1. Disasters are unforeseen events that disrupt normal life and require help from outside. 2. People affected by disasters are helpless victims and passive recipients of external aid 3. Stress is on emergency response, relief, and technological and scientific solutions to address physical vulnerability. 4. Donors decide what victims need Assessment of disaster situations is rapidly done by external experts just after the disaster event

CBDO-DR approach

The goal is to reduce people’s vulnerability by increasing their capacities to prepare for, to cope with and to mitigate the adverse effects of disasters. Aware and organized communities can pressure government to implement policies and programs recognizing people’s needs and interests and promoting a safer environment. 1. Disaster is a question of vulnerability. Disasters happen when hazards hit vulnerable communities whose inherent capacity is not enough to protect itself and easily recover from its damaging effects. Disasters are the product of the social, economic and political environment. 2. People affected by disasters are active actors in rebuilding their life and livelihood. People’s existing capacities are recognized and further strengthened.

3. It addresses roots of people’s vulnerabilities and contributes to transforming or removing structures generating inequity and underdevelopment.

Page 41 of 171

5. Responses focus on individual families and on restoring infrastructure that serves national economic interests

4. People’s participation is essential in all phases of disaster management and contributes to building their capacities.

6. Key players are government, aid agencies, scientists, experts, and disaster managers

Assessment of disaster threat situations is a continuous process before, during and after disaster events and involves community members considering class, gender, age, culture, location, etc. 5. Premium on building organizational capacity of most-vulnerable communities through formation of grassroots disaster response organizations 6. The less vulnerable sectors are mobilized into a partnership with the vulnerable sectors in disaster management and development work

CDRC/N views its disaster responses as a process of community capacity building. In the future, this process will lead to reduction in people’s immediate and long-term vulnerabilities. However, CDRC/N still uses the terms emergency response, rehabilitation, mitigation and preparedness, not to distinguish the different stages of disaster response, but more to indicate the kind of capacities and vulnerabilities to focus on. For instance, preparedness strengthens people’s capacities to improve warning and organized evacuation to reduce people’s vulnerability of living in an unsafe location. Mitigation focuses on reinforcing people’s coping strategies and building organizational capacity to address factors that generate people’s vulnerability like unequal distribution of resources, inability to access basic services, and implementation of anti-people government policies and legislation. In short, CDRC/N defines the disaster response terms as follows( 1): Disaster response: a collective term for all activities that contribute to the process of community capacity building and that will lead to the reduction of people’s immediate and long-term vulnerabilities to disasters. Disaster response includes pre-, during- and post-disaster activities. Preparedness: measures that ensure the ability of at-risk communities to forecast and take precautionary actions in advance of a potential threat. Essential are the formation of a Grassroots Disaster Response Organization and the formulation of a Counter Disaster Plan (warning, evacuation plan, securing of resources, organizational arrangements and policies, evacuation drills and training of community leaders and members). Figure 2.1: Process of transforming at risk communities into resilient communities

Page 42 of 171




Mitigation Preparedness

Emergency Responses

Rehabilitation Mitigation

Within the framework of people-oriented development: CBDO-DR addresses vulnerability and builds capacities Mitigation: measures that ensure the ability of at-risk communities to address vulnerabilities and the factors that generate them. Mitigation mainly focuses on reinforcing people’s livelihoods and coping strategies to reduce disaster risk, and encompasses the following components( 2): z





Reinforcing people’s existing livelihoods to increase or maintain the current level of production and income Reinforcing people’s coping strategies to reduce disaster risks, like diversifying crops, promotion and production of disaster resistant and other indigenous crops, propagation and production of planting materials, improve water supply, establish herbal gardens, alternative sources of income, reliable social and organizational support structures, post-harvest facilities, improved storage methods, day care facilities. Conducting seasonally based preparedness action: like temporary shift in sources of income, counter disaster planning, planting of disaster resistant crops, storage and post-harvest facilities, seed banks and nurseries, mobile resources (livestock, mills). Encouraging long-term investments, such as the presence of fall-back resources in the community, like cultivation of utility trees around homes and lands, maintaining forest reserves for food, fodder and cash, improving watersheds, protection of water sources, establishing contour farming, establishment of village pharmacy, training of community health workers, functional literacy. Strengthening social and organisational support structures to establish a community spirit of cooperation and mechanisms for organised disaster response Page 43 of 171




Making health and sanitation services available at the community level Conducting advocacy and campaigns to press government, from local to national regarding policies and issues that generate vulnerability at community level and/or that form a barrier to solve people’s problems (improve access and control over resources like land, resettlement, peace negotiations) Continuous PO capacity building, public information, networking, and alliance building among communities.

Emergency response: measures that ensure the ability of affected communities to respond and cope with the immediate effects of a disaster. This includes community-level search and rescue, medical assistance, evacuation center management, conduct of damage-needscapacities assessment, planning and conduct of relief operations, networking and negotiation. Emergency response ensures immediate survival of affected communities and focuses on practical needs of survivors. From the perspective of CDRC/N, relief assistance is considered appropriate and developmental when: z

it is based on people’s urgent real needs, considering culture, gender, age, etc.


it considers people’s existing capacities


it does not create dependency and results in a net gain in people’s capacities


content of relief pack is according to nutritional requirements of a family of six good for one week


relief assistance is timely (when the items are still needed)


relief considers people’s participation and contributes to capability building


relief assistance is combined with public awareness raising regarding the causes of the disaster event


less-vulnerable sectors are mobilized for disaster response


relief efforts are linked to rehabilitation and development

Rehabilitation: measures that ensure ability of affected communities to rebuild livelihoods through restoring production, small infrastructure activities and increasing the communities’ organizational capacity. CDRC/N formulated the following criteria that will contribute to the success of rehabilitation projects: z

the identified intervention is based on an analysis of the community situation using Social Investigation and Class Analysis (SICA), Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis Page 44 of 171

(CVA), or Hazard Vulnerability Capacity Analysis (HVCA) z





the project has immediate (short term) benefits, arrests further deterioration of people’s livelihood and augments it the project is part of the community’s long term development plan the community is organized, has a clear structure to manage the project, is able to formulate policies, and has effective leadership when continuing capability building through training and education takes place for both the community as well as for staff of the Regional Center when the people’s organization and regional center monitor and assess project implementation and achievements in a participatory way.

Chapter 4 will discuss extensively the various disaster responses of CDRC/N and show how they build people’s capacities and how they contribute to reducing their vulnerabilities.

Page 45 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 2 Effectiveness of the Citizenry-Based Development-Oriented Disaster Response Approach

In 1999, CDRC/N and its Core Donors conducted an evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the CBDO-DR approach. The evaluation explored effectiveness by relating capacity building of at-risk communities to vulnerability reduction. The overall conclusion was that the CBDO-DR approach has a distinct effect in terms of vulnerability reduction, especially through the network’s comprehensive preparedness and mitigation responses. The key (to effectiveness) is increased self-confidence (of vulnerable communities) through meaningful participation, one of the central elements of the CBDO-DR approach. As a rule, not only the organized members of the community benefit from counter disaster planning, but also the unorganized (Core Donors, 1999: 15). Some of the findings are summarized below: z




After preparedness and mitigation measures are put in place, community members observe a decrease in loss of lives and property. Even in case of armed conflict, the period of displacement is shortened due to organized action in security monitoring, networking and negotiation. Training and formation of GDROs alone already give tangible results at the short term (Core Donors, 1999: 19: 27) When communities are organized in GDROs, they receive more timely relief assistance, with better quality, and in accordance to their needs. Also from the perspective of CDRC/N, the cost is lower compared to relief assistance to unorganized communities, where a higher input of external human and financial resources is required (Core Donors, 1999: 17). Partnership between vulnerable and less vulnerable sectors highly facilitates the implementation of relief operations, because CDRC/N can rely on a large pool of volunteers (Core Donors, 1999: 16). A weakness of CDRC/N, however, is the lack of appropriate indicators to measure vulnerability reduction in a systematic way. Systematic casestudies, keeping records and further research would facilitate the development of relevant indicators (Core Donors, 1999: 20). Page 46 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 2 Endnotes: (1) These definitions come from a number of sources including Andrew Maskrey (1989), United Nations (1992), Kotze & Holloway (1996), CDRC (1994, 1997) with some modifications and additions (2) CDRC/N’s mitigation efforts take mainly place through the Food Security and Nutrition Improvement Program (FSNIP).

References Anderson, M. & P. Woodrow, 1989, Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times of Disasters, Westview Press, 338 pp Blaikie P. et al, 1994, At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, Routlegde, 284 pp CDRC, 1987. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Citizenrybased Development-Oriented Disaster Response and Preparedness Work. Manila, July 1987, unpublished 177 pp. CDRC, 1993, Disaster Management Framework: Citizenry-Based Development-Oriented Disaster Response (CBDO-DR), unpublished, 7 pp CDRC, 1995. CDRN Internal Evaluation, unpublished CDRC, 1994, Bagyo, Lindol, Bulkan at iba pa – Disaster Management Handbook, Manila, 80 pp CDRC, 1994, Proceedings of the Disaster Management Consultation, Antipolo, November 14-16 CDRC, 1997, Proceedings of Disaster Preparedness Training for Trainers, Antipolo, April 16-18 CDRC, 1998, Addressing Food Insecurity and Malnutrition in the Philippines: A Concept Paper, Manila, pp 36 CDRC, 1999. Towards an Alternative Disaster Response Framework: A Citizenry-based Development-Oriented Disaster Response (CBDO-DR), unpublished, 9 pp. Core Donors, 1999, Evaluation of the Citizenry-Based and DevelopmentOriented Disaster Response of CDRC/N, Manila/Amsterdam, May, 40 pp

Page 47 of 171

Cuny, F. C. 1983, Disasters and Development, Oxford University Press Maskrey, A, 1989, Disaster Mitigation – a community based approach: approaches to mitigation, Oxford, Oxfam Kotze, A. & A. Holloway, 1996, Reducing Risk – Participatory learning activities for disaster mitigation in Southern Africa, IFRC and RCS, University of Natal, distributed by Oxfam O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K.N., and Wisner, B., 1976, Taking the Naturelness of Disasters, in: Nature, 260, April 15 UNDP, 1992. Disaster Management Training Programme, An Overview of Disaster Management.

Page 48 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 3 Assessing Disaster Situations When hazards hit vulnerable communities, people are affected in many different ways. They might lose their homes and livelihood, causing economic hardship and even social relations might come under pressure. People might become more vulnerable to all kinds of diseases as well as emotional stress and trauma. When an agency wishes to help disaster survivors, it should first assess the disaster situation and the risks the community is exposed to. In the previous chapters, we highlighted that disaster is a question of vulnerability. We also stressed that communities affected by disasters, however vulnerable they may be, still have some capacities that are very crucial for their recovery. An assessment of people’s vulnerabilities and capacities is necessary for setting effective strategies in disaster management. In this chapter, we will translate the Citizenry-Based DevelopmentOriented Disaster Response (CBDO-DR) framework into practical operational tools, particularly assessment tools. CDRN developed these tools over the years by combining theories with actual experiences in atrisk communities in the Philippines. Several major disaster events like the killer-earthquake in northern Luzon in 1990, the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and several years of devastating lahar flows, the Marinduque mining spill disaster in1995, and the El Niño in 1997-98 prompted CDRN to make its disaster response more pro-active and more comprehensive. The “imported” tools on their turn followed this trend -- the usefulness of tools was continuously tested in a changing disaster context and adapted to particular hazard types and conditions at the regional and community levels.

Page 49 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 3 Why assess disaster situations? When disasters strike, most outsiders are shocked by the suffering they see, and they want to help the victims immediately. Quite naturally, they want to provide the things that they think the ‘victims’ need. However, what aid providers perceive as needed might not always coincide with the actual and felt needs of the affected population. We might identify sanitation facilities to address diarrhea in an evacuation center, while the people prioritize safe drinking water to address the same problem. Even within communities, not all people are equally vulnerable to hazards. Communities are often socially differentiated and diverse. Class, clan, wealth, gender, age, origins, religion, and other aspects divide and cross-cut the community. Beliefs, interests and values of community members may conflict. It is important for disaster managers to be aware of these differences. Vulnerabilities experienced at the community level are deeply rooted in society. If we want to address disasters we need to identify people’s vulnerabilities and their root causes. It is also important to consider how people perceive and prioritize their vulnerabilities. On the other hand, a community also shares things in common like living in the same environment, being exposed to the same disaster risk, and having experienced the same disaster event. Common problems, concerns, hopes and ways of behavior may also be shared. Although communities are not homogeneous but a dynamic mix of different groups, interests and attitudes, the sharing of common things can create a sense of belonging, of community spirit. Social and motivational capacities of people are important assets to consider in assessments if we want our disaster response to go beyond the physical and material needs of an affected community. Disaster responses should build on people’s capacities. Data collected Page 50 of 171

through the assessment can give support to organizing efforts and skills transfer to community leaders which in turn can provide long-term and sustainable benefits to at-risk communities. Assessing disaster situations and focusing on people’s vulnerabilities and capacities is a must if we want our assistance to be appropriate, effective, and sustainable. Assessments serve further as baseline data for monitoring and evaluation purposes during and after implementation of disaster response activities.

Page 51 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 3 People's participation in assessing disaster situations and future risks Assessments of disaster situations have traditionally been done by institutions (insurance companies, scientific institutions like PAG-ASA and PHIVOLCS, government departments on agriculture, public works and highways, social welfare and development, etc.) involved in estimating damages. The work, left to economists, scientists, and experts, uses statistical formulas to calculate and express damages in economic terms. This information is then further used to predict disaster risks in the future and for designing structural mitigation measures like dams and dikes. In the perception of scientists and ‘experts’, affected community members are not considered to play a role in damage assessments, since they lack the knowledge and skills. CDRN’s experience, however, acknowledges the valuable contribution of disaster survivors in all phases of disaster management, particularly during assessing the disaster situation. It is the local people who know their surroundings best and this knowledge should be used in the analysis. With the participation of the communities, assessments become locality and needs specific. As a result of the community’s participation, more appropriate disaster responses are ensured. When people participate, class and gender are considered, as well as age, culture, religion, etc. However, it is not only the assessment results that count. The assessment process itself is equally important. CDRN progressively developed assessment tools with the aim to raise awareness among at-risk communities. When people assess the effects of a disaster event, they become aware about future disaster risks and at the same time they ‘discover’ the root causes of their vulnerability. These realizations foster the need for organized action to improve the conditions at the community level and ultimately to change structures and policies that cause people’s vulnerability to disasters. Participation in assessing disaster situations has the underlying emphasis on grassroots empowerment. Furthermore, the assessment tools for analyzing the situation at the grassroots level developed by CDRN are not kept in the hands of the disaster response agency. The skills to apply the tools are transferred to the people’s organizations and together with their knowledge about the locality, people can improve their expertise in identifying and articulating what they need to reduce their vulnerabilities. CDRN developed three assessment instruments that relate with the pre, during and post disaster phase:

1. Hazard, Vulnerabilities and Capacities Assessment, particularly designed to identify disaster preparedness and mitigation measures at the community level.

Page 52 of 171

2. Damage Needs and Capacity Assessment, developed to assess the situation in a community right after a disaster

3. Capacities and Vulnerabilities Assessment, developed to assess the situation in the community after the emergency period in order to identify appropriate rehabilitation assistance and mitigation measures

We will present the three tools separately, discussing their features, origin, purpose, application, strengths and limitations.

Page 53 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 3 The Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment What? Involves a participatory analysis of past patterns of hazards and present threats at the community level (hazard assessment), combined with an understanding of the underlying causes of why hazards become disasters (vulnerability assessment) and of the available resources an affected community uses to cope with the adverse effects (capacity assessment) Origin CDRN developed the HVCA after the1990 Northern Luzon earthquakes and the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, when it realized the importance of enabling communities to undertake disaster preparedness responses. It modified some of the materials CDRC staff obtained from ADPC’s Disaster Management Courses in Bangkok, especially the workshop facilitated by Mary Anderson and Peter Woodrow1 . Purpose z






to identify the elements at risk in the community and to prioritize those elements that need to be protected to identify appropriate disaster preparedness and mitigation responses which the community will include in their counter disaster plan to raise the community’s awareness about potential disaster risk and what they can do about it (This is a first step towards organizing the community into a grassroots disaster response organization.) to provide disaster specific information, which can be integrated in baseline studies for disaster mitigation and development programs results can be used during emergency periods to identify emergency relief needs and to draft appeals (particularly if community has become inaccessible) repeating the HVCA after some time provides indicators to measure changes in people’s vulnerability

Page 54 of 171

When? The HVCA is conducted in high-risk communities which face recurrent disasters. The community is known to CDRN either because it received relief assistance in the past or it attended a Disaster Management Orientation first. The community is not necessarily organized yet. The content of HVCA is explained during a Disaster Preparedness Training in the community, while the actual conduct is often a separate activity after the said training. The timing to conduct a HVCA should consider people’s daily and seasonal livelihood activities. Very often, the HVCA is therefore conducted in a staggered way, for instance, during the weekends. Who? Staff of the Regional Centers initially explains the HVCA and its features, while later in the process community leaders take on the facilitating role. As much as possible all community members are mobilized to participate in the assessment, especially the most vulnerable ones. Skills and knowledge to do a HVCA are transferred to the community members. How to conduct a HVCA? 1. Before the actual conduct, community members are first briefed about the content of the HVCA: what is a HVCA and what is its purpose (see above). The HVCA consists of three components: z



hazard assessment = community members analyze the nature and behavior of hazards or threats that are likely to hit the community vulnerability assessment = community members identify elements at risk per hazard type and analyze reasons why these elements are at risk capacity assessment = people identify resources they rely on in times of crisis to reduce the damaging effects of hazards and to secure the sustainability of their livelihood.

CDRN developed a HVCA matrix to show the kind of information you need to gather2 (Table 3.1) . Columns 1 till 7 indicate the info needs to understand the nature and behavior of hazards, and is called hazard assessment. Columns 8 till 11 show what data need to be collected to know the effects of the hazard on people and other elements at risk (houses, crops, infrastructure, social relations, motivation, etc.). This is called the vulnerability assessment. The last column is the capacity assessment asking for resources and capacities left that can be used pre-and during the disaster event. After a general overview of what HVCA is, the three components are explained separately in Page 55 of 171

terms of content and how to conduct the assessment (process). Table 3.1: Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Matrix

Table 3.2: Example of hazard assessment of floods in urban poor communities in Metro Manila Hazard Type


Warning Signs


Speed of Onset




Flood z z z z

Water Typhoon HighTide Monsoon rains

Table 3.3: Example of hazard assessment of armed conflict in Mindanao Hazard Type Armed Conflict

Force AFP MILF NPA Abu Sayyaf CAFGU Vigilantes Fanatic groups Private armies Bombings, Crossfire, Massacres, Salvaging, Harassment,

Warning Signs


Increassed deployment of TV, newpaper both conflicting parties z Important dates, z Media, radio,

anniversaries z Election time

Speed Frequency When of Onset Sometimes slow, the fast

No specific schedule


Anytime Not fixed, but as long as root cause of conflict is not addressed, conflict will continue

z Budget

allocation to GO departments z Mass

Page 56 of 171


evacuation z Promotion of

army personnel z “Contacts�

2. Explain the content of a hazard assessment (columns 1-7). The purpose of a hazard assessment is to specify the nature and behavior of the potential hazards and threats people in the community face. The hazard’s features need to be considered for selecting effective preparedness measures: Hazard type: community members can enumerate the kind of hazards that hit or might hit their community. Warning signs: scientific and indigenous indicators that a hazard is likely to happen. These can be announcements through the radio, the number of hours of continuous rain, the particular behavior of animals, etc. Forewarning: time between warning and impact. In case of typhoons the forewarning can be three to four days. Speed of onset: rapidity of arrival and impact. We can distinguish between hazards that occur without almost any warning (earthquake), and hazards that can be predicted three to four days in advance (typhoon) to very slow-onset hazards (drought and famine). Frequency: does hazard occur seasonally, yearly, once a while, once in a lifetime, etc. When: does hazard occur at a particular time of the year (wet or dry season)? Duration: how long is the impact of the hazard felt (earthquake and aftershocks; days/weeks/months that area is flooded; period of military operations)? Points to consider while doing a hazard assessment z




Some hazards cause secondary hazards as well, like earthquakes cause landslides; drought might cause epidemics and pest infestation; floods might carry pollution and cause epidemics; etc. Hazard assessment is based on past hazard patterns, but we should not forget to look at possible disaster threats that are new for the community and are likely to happen. There is an increasing number of threats due to changes in natural, economic, social and political trends. Threats unnoticed before, simply because nothing was exposed to them, can easily turn into major problems that no one had predicted (ethnic conflicts, industrial hazards, AIDS). We should also consider changes in nature and behavior of common hazards. Some hazards, like floods, seem to intensify. As part of the hazard assessment we should consult secondary (scientific) data and/or indigenous knowledgeable people to better understand features and effects of specific disasters. Scientific data should be translated into practical information for community members Page 57 of 171




We should consider the probability of various intensities for each hazard type. The rarer hazards occur in a given area, the less historical or statistical information there is to work with. Therefore, they provide less reliable information for prediction. Other sources should be consulted. Be aware of local threats: the number of small scale, localized hazards which do not hit the headlines or appear in any statistics, is increasing. Collectively, these can present a more serious problem than any catastrophic event. For example, in densely populated shanty towns fires, floods, landslides, and epidemics are increasingly common events.

3. Hazard assessment process: the matrix is a useful guideline to conduct a hazard assessment through a group discussion with community members, and to continue with a discussion on the hazard’s intensity (potential destructive force, adverse effects) and extent (geographical coverage, range of impact). In this way the discussion automatically flows to the next step, i.e. vulnerability assessment. There are several other tools that can help in the hazard assessment. A very common tool applied by CDRN is hazard mapping³ to locate the scale/extent of hazard’s impact and the elements at risk. A historical profile or time line can make us understand how hazards changed over time, which hazard happened in the past, or when hazards started happening. A seasonal calendar can be used to visualize the time, frequency and duration of common hazards. 4. Explain the content of the vulnerability assessment (columns 811). The purpose of the vulnerability assessment is to identify the elements at risk and the reasons why these are at risk. To come up with appropriate and effective preparedness and mitigation measures, the following aspects are important to analyze: Extent: originally CDRN used this column to determine the area (expressed in hectares) affected by the hazard. Community members, however, sometimes have difficulties in expressing ‘extent’ in hectares. ‘Extent’, often interpreted by local people as extent of damage, is usually expressed in terms of quantity of seeds planted on affected land, number of months food supply lost, number of houses damaged, etc. The best way, however, to indicate the ‘extent’ is the hazard map, which visualizes the exact location and coverage of the hazard. Elements at risk and why: elements at risk are people, animals, crops, houses, tools, infrastructure, but also social networks, communication mechanisms, attitudes, or anything that can be negatively affected by a hazard. In column 9, information is asked to describe the effects of the hazard, or in other words, the disaster situation. People will share their past experiences of what happened in the community during the disaster, and how it affected them. The elements at risk are listed and per element, the question is asked WHY this element is at risk. For instance, why are houses and fields destroyed by landslides? Several answers might be possible: because houses are on dangerous location, because of deforestation, because of inappropriate land development, because people have no access to other land due Page 58 of 171

to discriminatory land policies, etc. This analysis is important to determine what preparedness and mitigation measures can be most effective in the short and long term. People at risk: here the groups of people are explicitly identified who are most at risk for a particular hazard, and how they are affected. For example, people most prone to flooding are those in low-lying areas, near the river living in light houses. Among this group, children, pregnant women, disabled and old people are most vulnerable. They need assistance during evacuation, might be more vulnerable to diseases and have special needs. These aspects need to be considered when setting up a warning system, making an evacuation plan, and identifying appropriate preparedness and mitigation responses. Location of people at risk: this means that the groups identified as most vulnerable are located in the hazard map: where do they live? 5. Vulnerability assessment process: In most cases the matrix is used as a guideline to identify vulnerabilities mainly through group discussions with community members or through workshops. At the same time the hazard map is used to visualize the elements at risk, and the location of the most vulnerable people. Some RCs, like LCDE, use a spot map as the main map, while the community adds hazard and vulnerability information on transparent papers or acetate sheets. When these are laid over the base map the analysis is done through relating the information of the various papers to each other. A problem tree is used to analyze the vulnerabilities from immediate causes to root causes. The hazard map reveals the immediate, most visible, vulnerabilities of people at the community level. For some hazards, however, like drought, armed conflict, and landslides, a deeper analysis is needed to understand people’s vulnerability and its root causes. If we want to identify appropriate and effective responses we need to undertake a more thorough vulnerability assessment. For this purpose CDRN developed a checklist of indicators to assess vulnerability, particularly in relation to food insecurity and malnutrition since most disasters affect people’s livelihood strategies. z





Trends in community resulting in risk to food insecurity and malnutrition: changes in land use, changes in land tenure, changes in water supply, changes in production, demographic changes, major political events and government policies. Information is gathered through the historical profile or time line. Land use patterns, related problems, and risks: areas and people vulnerable to disasters, soil fertility, environmental conditions, and elements at risk (see hazard map. Transect can also be used) Seasonal fluctuations: cropping systems, availability of food, periods of food shortage, dietary change, seasonal sources of income, livelihood security, food prices affecting food accessibility, food sources, change in farming practice, purpose of loans, migration patterns, and seasonal diseases. Information is gathered through the seasonal calendar. Production systems: land tenure arrangements, fishing arrangements, techniques applied, inputs used, access to credits/loans, yields, post-harvest facilities, and marketing (class analysis, livelihood analysis, focus group discussion) Health, sanitation and nutrition situation: health condition of people, malnutrition rates, available health services, quality of water, sanitation and hygiene practices, food beliefs/taboos/habits, preventive health measures, main diseases, mortality rates and caring capacity (key-informant interview, height-age-weight measuring, water testing)

Page 59 of 171



Gender roles and responsibilities: division of labor pre, during and post disasters, changes in gender roles over time, access and control to resources, services and benefits of production, and community roles (using tools mentioned above) Social and organizational networks: profile of existing organizations, nature of relations, community-level decision-making mechanisms, participation, and fall-back structures in times of crisis (Social and institutional network analysis, focus group discussion)

This checklist might not be complete, but should be considered as a guideline to help in analyzing people’s vulnerability. Vulnerability assessment is a complex exercise. Though CDRN wants the assessment instrument to be simple enough to be useful, it has to be complex enough to capture reality. 6. Content of capacity assessment: purpose of the capacity assessment is to (1) understand people’s previous experiences with hazards that enabled them to develop coping strategies, and (2) to look into available resources (material, organizational and attitudinal) that the community uses to prepare for and to mitigate the negative effects of the disaster. Capacities and resources available in the community will become the basis for the formulation of the community's counter disaster plan. A community counter disaster plan can consist of preparedness and mitigation measures, and these are often integrated in the community's development plan (see Chapter 4 for a discussion on counter disaster planning). If we ignore rather than support community’s capacities, coping strategies might be undermined, weakened, and eventually increase people’s vulnerability. We should prevent this from happening. 7. Explain the process of capacity assessment: usually a capacity assessment is conducted through a focus group discussion. It is important to review and clarify first the terms "capacity", "resources"and "coping". In a plenary session or in workshops community members brainstorm about the resources and capacities they have as individuals and as a community. These are all listed down. Then the capacities are grouped according to (1) physical/material, (2) social/organizational, and (3) motivational/attitudinal, just to check if all kinds of capacities are included. People should agree on the list before continuing to the next step where the following aspects are discussed: z



Which of the capacities are personal ones (e.g. boat)? Which are community ones (e.g. evacuation center in school)? Are certain capacities particular to special individuals/groups of people in the community? Like leadership, particular knowledge and skills (first aid), assets, etc. Who controls access to these resources (individuals, women, men, PO, church, teachers)?

Page 60 of 171





Why don’t some people have access to those resources? How could access be arranged in times of disaster? Are there any resources that are not used in emergency situations? How could they be utilized? What kind of coping strategies do people have to deal with crisis, effects of disasters? How do they manage resources? How can coping strategies be strengthened in order to reduce vulnerabilities?

Table 3.4: Example of people’s capacities to deal with floods and drought

Capacities identified by urban poor communities in Metro Manila to deal with flood:

Capacities identified by upland communities to address drought

· Boats · Evacuation center in church · Wood, iron sheets to rebuild houses · Footbridges · First aid · Some people have good contact with local government to ask for assistance · Some active community members · Day care center helpful for working mothers

· Diversification of crops · Eating wild crops · Budgeting of meals per day (dietary change) · Selling livestock · Seasonal migration by men and women · Social network to take care of small children · Community organization’s activities maintained despite out-migration · PO formulated land use management plan · Motivated to stay in the remote community, and therefore willing to learn new farming methods

In cases where there is a PO, an evaluation of its organizational capacity is an integral part of the capacity assessment. The purpose is to identify the kind of organizational support the PO needs to gradually build up its management capability to address the community’s vulnerabilities. In a focus group discussion with PO leaders and members, the following issues are discussed: z

What is the history of the PO? When was it formed and for what purpose?


How is the membership? Attendance during meetings? Regular meetings?


How are decisions made?


Does the PO have a community development plan?


How are committees functioning?


What did the PO contribute to the community so far?


Conduct an organizational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis Page 61 of 171


Identify measures to address weaknesses and threats, while using strengths and opportunities.

CDRC/N also uses tools to assess capacities which are the same as those used for the hazard and vulnerability assessment -- only the purpose differs. Community mapping can indicate safe areas and evacuation routes and sites, or water sources that never dry up. Historical profiles and time lines reveal what people did in the past to cope with adverse events, how their coping mechanisms changed. The seasonal calendar visualizes what people do in periods of crisis, how they diversify their income sources, when they have savings, when they have relatively more time to be involved in community activities, etc. Focus group discussions might reveal that old community members have extensive knowledge and openness to share the use of drought resistant crops (capacities in skills and attitude). The livelihood analysis gives us insight in the coping strategies of an individual household. From the institutional and social network analysis we could learn that there is a health committee in the community (with a midwife and a traditional healer), but which has no access to prventive health education. They have a strong expressed interest related to health and nutrition, which is a motivational capacity to explore and to build on in the future. 8. When the three components of the HVCA are completed, the information gathered is filled out in the matrix for each hazard or threat that might hit the community. The matrix is a kind of summary. To complete the assessment, community members review the elements at risk and identify those elements at risk they think should get priority in the counter disaster plan. Level of application of HVCA CDRC promoted the HVCA as an assessment instrument during several disaster preparedness training for CDRN members. The RCs, on their turn, conduct HVCA at the community level as part of the community’s or PO’s counter disaster planning. It is now widely used among the network members, and they feel confident to apply it. The community will not only participate in the data gathering as informants, they are also trained to use the tools and instruments themselves in their disaster and development work. Assessment instruments and data gathering tools are used for planning, monitoring and evaluation purposes. Limitations or difficulties of the HVCA The HVCA was initially developed to identify preparedness measures at the community level. Later, when CDRN started to implement more comprehensive mitigation programs like the FSNIP, it was difficult to match the matrix with a new checklist. The vulnerability assessment portion of the HVCA is limited to the identification of Page 62 of 171

elements at risk, and the immediate reasons. For mitigation programs like the FSNIP, the vulnerability analysis needs deepening to identify the root causes of the community’s vulnerability. This is particularly important for human-made hazards like armed conflict and development aggression, and for slow-onset hazards like drought. These types of hazards require a response that goes beyond preparedness measures. In fact the matrix could stretch column 9 into ‘elements at risk, immediate reasons and root causes4. Strengths of the HVCA z



HVCA is a very effective tool to raise awareness among community members about disaster risks and threats and how these relate to root causes of their vulnerability. It further raises the people awareness about what they can do to be prepared. The reason is that the HVCA is based on people’s actual experiences with disasters. HVCA is easy to apply because it has a clear focus on disaster preparedness. The results of the HVCA can also be used to draft emergency appeals and to identify emergency relief needs. This is very efficient in case the community is inaccessible due to the hazard.

Page 63 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 3 The Damage, Needs and Capacity Assessment What? Involves a participatory analysis of the disaster event, of the damages it caused, of the immediate needs and priorities of the affected community, and of the remaining capacities people use to cope with the adverse effects. Origin Prior to 1989, CDRN conducted Damage Needs Assessments (DNA) or disaster surveys in affected communities to determine the relief and rehabilitation assistance needed. In 1990, the DNA evolved into a Damage, Needs, and Capacities Assessment (DNCA) which focused on emergency situations only. The inclusion of “capacities� stresses the importance that disaster response should build on existing capacities even during emergency periods, or at least, it should not destroy these. Purpose z

To identify appropriate emergency assistance


To receive timely reports from the community level


To generate resources: financial, material and human



To adequately inform the public on the disaster situation, needs and responses (disaster alert and public information campaigns) To update the information gathered through the HVCA (in case behavior of hazard changes)

CDRN envisions that during emergencies, especially when communities become inaccessible for outsiders, a People’s Organization can conduct a DNCA itself and identify the disaster survivors who need assistance most, and the nature of assistance. When? The DNCA is conducted in communities affected by the hazard as soon as weather conditions and circumstances allow people to safely move around.

Page 64 of 171

Who? In well organized communities, i.e. with a functional Disaster Response Committee, the PO leaders conduct the DNCA and relay the information to the Regional Center. In communities where there is no PO, or where the PO has not yet formed a disaster response structure, it is the staff of CDRN who conducts the DNCA together with contact persons from the community. In this case, participation of community members is limited to providing information about what happened, and they are consulted about what their needs are. How to conduct a DNCA? Before the actual conduct, community members are briefed about the content and purpose of the DNCA. This happens either during the disaster preparedness training or during a special emergency response training at the community level. In general terms, a DNCA has the following focus and emphasis: z z




Description of disaster event Effects on people (injured, missing, killed, survived) and damages to housing, food supply, water, livelihood and critical facilities Current conditions of the affected community. This is important to assess especially in cases when the community stays in an evacuation center. A health assessment is an integral part of this section. Resources left and available capacities that can be built upon. This includes the existence of a People’s Organization Immediate urgent felt needs and priorities of the affected community

In addition, questions are asked which are important to select communities and families for assistance: z

Nature and quantity of relief assistance received from other aid agencies


Ways to communicate and coordinate with the community for emergency response

CDRC developed a general DNCA form (Annex 4) that would generate the most basic information needed to identify appropriate relief assistance and to be able to draft an appeal for resource generation. The Regional Centers have simplified and translated this DNCA form into local dialects and trained PO leaders in collecting data. The tools that are used for gathering information about the disaster situation are direct observation, transect walk (or boat ride in case of flood) and interviews: individual interviews with a few affected families (considering vulnerability, class, gender, age), and key-informant interviews with community leaders, health persons or security people. In the aftermath of a disaster, it is deemed inappropriate to use methods that require lengthy attendance and participation before any form of relief can be provided. People are busy with restoring their life and livelihoods. The RC staff validates these data by consulting the council of elders (in case of indigenous communities), organizers, Barangay officials, staff of the Department of Social Welfare Page 65 of 171

and Development, church groups, or partner NGOs. Points to consider while conducting a DNCA z





Be aware of secondary threats (e.g. possible landslides, epidemics, pollution, etc.) Consider the most vulnerable people in the DNCA survey (use the hazard map if available to identify the location of people at risk to be interviewed) Different types of hazards require a different set of questions or checklist. The effects of a flood, for instance, differ very much from the effects of an armed conflict or epidemic. Regional Centers adjusted the original DNCA guideline into hazard-type specific DNCA guidelines. The initial DNCA form is inadequate especially for human-made hazards. Assessing human-made disaster situations require a more elaborate analysis of the event itself and about people’s vulnerabilities. The ‘D’ in the DNCA is not just the material damage, but includes social and motivational ‘damage’ as well. Internal refugees, for example, displaced by armed conflict, might have lost their homes, crops, livelihood and access to their land, but more often they also experienced human rights violations and lost their relatives. These experiences can result in trauma. Likewise, not only physical needs like (food and clothing) are identified, but also non-material support (like psycho-social assistance, advocacy, fact-finding missions, public information campaigns, education on human rights, etc.) Checklist on conditions in the evacuation center should also consider security, presence of armed groups, accessibility for aid providers, conditions during the night, etc.

Level of application of the DNCA All network members have received training on how to conduct a DNCA at the community level. Central issues in this training are the minimum required information that needs to be collected and the level of participation of community members in conducting a DNCA. These two issues are interrelated; when it is the community that conducts the DNCA, it should know what data it should gather. Recent evaluation of community training on DNCA showed that 76% of trained communities can conduct a DNCA and relay information to the Regional Center (Core Donors, 1999). This is a big help in making emergency response more timely, effective and appropriate. Limitations and difficulties encountered when conducting DNCA z

PO leaders are taught how to fill up the DNCA form: what information they need to collect during the emergency situation, how detailed the information has to be, and how they can gather the data. Although the form has been simplified to a minimum Page 66 of 171

set of data, there are still information gaps, which need to be validated by RC staff. This again takes time. z


Sometimes, reliability of data is a problem, e.g. how to estimate the area affected by disaster, or estimate the extent of damage. For community members, it is often not possible to express these in terms of hectares, tons or pesos. They use their own units of measurement, like the area affected can be estimated by the quantity of seeds planted, or sacks of rice, that farmers used to harvest from that land. For community members, these indicators are very reliable. They are even able to estimate how many months of food they lost due to the disasters. In fact, it is the Regional Center who faces difficulties in communicating these figures with potential donors; they need to translate the community’s estimates into ‘western’ indicators. Asking for ‘number of houses damaged’ or ‘partly damaged’ creates confusion, because what we actually mean to ask is how many houses are (in)habitable. The same is true for asking about people’s ‘income’. It is better to ask for their ‘savings’ or ‘coping strategies’.

Strengths of DNCA z



If the PO has the capacity to conduct a DNCA itself, it saves a lot of time for the disaster response agency, especially when the affected areas have become inaccessible. In some areas, where the PO has developed itself into a grassroots disaster response organization, the leaders not only submit a DNCA, they also include a master-list with the names of families that require assistance. The list mentions further the number of family members, and families with special needs. When required, for instance when there are limited funds available for aid, the PO leaders can identify the most vulnerable families that should remain on the list. If a community is frequently hit by hazards, the PO can conduct a DNCA each time and keep the DNCA results. These can be used for preparedness planning (see HVCA).

Table 3.5: Example of DNCA results in armed conflict situation ( GRP and MILF in Lanao del Sur Province, May 2000). Internal refugees in cramped evacuation centers in Marawi City expressed their short- and long term problems, issues, needs, and capacities. "Damage" has been adjusted to "problems"and "issues". (Heijmans, 2000) Timeframe

Problems z No secure evacuation site for 1,118 families z Overcrowded evacuation center z No water available in


Issues Prolonged evacuation might lead to frustration, insecurity about future, and ultimately to conflicts and


Needs Basic needs like food, mats, cooking utensils, mosquito nets, detergent bars, toothpaste and brush, basin, water

Capacities z Clan structure with leadership skills z Faith healing skills z Religious preaching

Page 67 of 171












evacuation centers Food shortage Sanitation and personal hygiene problems Health problems (malnutrition related, injuries like bullet wounds, motherhood related, diarrhea, fever) No source of livelihood No education for refugee children Trauma and psychosocial disturbed behavior Tired of answering questions and filling up forms from different aid agencies (lack of coordination between refugees and agencies) Feeling intimidated by style and process of relief distribution. No house to return to No means to rebuild livelihood Divided

violence in evacuation centers z


Incorrect media projection about the war in Mindanao Internal refugees used by politicians as instruments for personal gains (election period has started)














Old conflicts might arise again about resources (new claims in absence of


containers. Water supply or system to catch rain water Guaranteed shelter Medical assistance Psycho-social assistance Education for children, school supplies, toys Sanitation management Supplementary feeding Alternative livelihood Organized management of evacuation centers Improved relation/ coordination with outside aid agencies Participation in decisionmaking regarding any kind of assistance provided Participation in advocacy

Rehabilitation assistance (housing materials, seeds, farm tools and




Men and women have skills that can be used for temporary employment, like driving skills, vending, masonry, mat weaving, native delicacy production. Policies installed regarding discipline and security in evacuation centers.

Open to learn new things through training

Page 68 of 171

community according religious lines (not for Lanao del Sur Province)





refugees) Rekindling of Muslim and Christian animosities Presence of vigilantes Military suspicion of refugees as MILF sympathizers Internal refugees used by politicians as instruments for personal gains




animals, health and nutrition, etc) Skills and knowledge to deal with potential new conflicts (human rights, negotiation, conflict resolution, government policies, etc) Correct media on root causes of Moro struggle: it is not a MuslimChristian conflict. Genuine solution for the conflict in Mindanao

Page 69 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 3 The Capacity and Vulnerability assessment What? It involves a participatory analysis of (post) disaster situations from the community to the national level expressed in terms of capacities and vulnerabilities. It helps identify disaster management responses that would support development initiatives in the community. Origin From 1989-90 CDRN expanded its program and services with rehabilitation and mitigation projects in at-risk communities. CDRN looked for an instrument that would be consistent with the CBDO-DR approach, and that would reflect the aspects to consider when identifying rehabilitation and mitigation interventions. It found the Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis (CVA) in Anderson’s and Woodrow’s book Rising from the Ashes, Development Strategies in Times of Disasters. CDRC staff also got a chance to attend workshops facilitated by Mary Anderson and Peter Woodrow, one at the ADPC in Bangkok in 1989 and another in Manila in 1992. Purpose z




To identify appropriate rehabilitation and mitigation responses that not only address physical and material needs of the community, but also organizational and attitudinal. To ensure that disaster responses strengthen and build on people's capacities To identify not only the immediate vulnerabilities of the community but also the root causes of people's vulnerability To evaluate achievements of disaster response measures at the community level

When? The CVA is conducted in organized communities with a functional disaster response structure. The community is known to CDRN because in the past it received emergency assistance, training on Disaster Preparedness, and/or Emergency Response and organizational development. Some of these communities have a counter disaster plan. Originally, the CVA was conducted after disaster events to identify rehabilitation assistance. In the last few years, however, the CVA has been combined with the HVCA because (1) communities are exposed to recurring disasters so the pre- and postdisaster phase overlap, and (2) hazards become more complex and require a deeper analysis of the situation. A CVA does not need to be done in one shot. The situation in the community varies during the year, and people might not always have the time to attend meetings and group discussions. In order to get a complete picture of the community’s situation, the CVA might be spread out over several months, and can be continued while initial Page 70 of 171

disaster response measures are being implemented. Who? Staff of the Regional Centers initially explains the CVA and its features. Later on, the community members will take on a more active role in the participatory data gathering process. As much as possible all community members are mobilized to participate in the assessment. Also, skills and knowledge to do a CVA are transferred to the community. How to conduct a CVA? Before the actual conduct, PO leaders are first briefed about the content and purpose of the CVA. The CVA has only two components: z


Vulnerability assessment: community members analyze the factors that generate their vulnerability. The assessment searches for the deeper root causes. Capacity assessment: community members identify resources and their strengths they use to deal with and respond to crisis. Capacities refer here more to people’s abilities to recover after the impact of disasters and periods of stress5.

Fig. 3.1 and Fig.3.2 show two kinds of CVA matrixes, one according to economic class and one according to gender. Capacities and vulnerabilities can also be analyzed using other categories, like ethnicity, or age. To help fill out the matrix, Anderson and Woodrow developed a checklist with categories and factors for the Capacities and Vulnerabilities Analysis (see Annex 5). CDRC/N particularized the checklist to make the kind of vulnerabilities more concrete (Table 3.6). For capacities, the same issues are looked into, but these should then be formulated positively. For instance 'lack of unity, cooperation and solidarity' is a vulnerability, while 'unity and cooperation among villagers' is an attitudinal capacity. The Regional Centers integrated this checklist with a checklist they use for 'community-profiling', i.e. collecting data on demographic, cultural, socio-economic, and political aspects of the community. For that purpose, they use an instrument called Social Investigation and Class Analysis (SICA), which is very common in the Philippines for organizing purposes. The focus is on social (power) relations, production systems, access to and control over resources, socio-economic Page 71 of 171

differentiation, institutional context and access to basic services. The results from SICA show who the most vulnerable and less vulnerable in the community are . CVA and SICA look basically into the same issues; SICA expresses these in political and organizing terms, while CVA uses disaster management language. For assessing people’s vulnerability, the tools that are now commonly used are the following : Community mapping visualizes land use patterns, mobility, and elements at risk. Transect walk gives a better understanding of the map done by the community and provides opportunities to ask more questions regarding physical/material vulnerability. The seasonal calendar gives insight in periods of stress, diseases, hunger, debt, etc. From the livelihood analysis we learn that not everybody is equally affected by hazards; some groups and people are more vulnerable than others. The institutional and social network analysis can show us the lack of coordination among organizations and government agencies, or weak leadership. From the different kinds of semi-structured interviews, we can assess the motivational vulnerabilities of the community. The use of the problem tree and ranking enables community members to express their main vulnerabilities and the root causes of their problems. For assessing people’s capacities, similar tools as for the HVCA are applied. Table 3.6: Particularization of categories and factors for Vulnerability Assessment Physical / material vulnerability z Disaster prone location of

community z Insecure sources of livelihood z Risky sources of livelihood z Lack of access and control over

means of production (land, farm inputs, animals, capital, etc.) z Dependent on money-lenders,

usurers, etc. z Inadequate economic fall-back

mechanisms z Occurrence of acute or chronic

food shortage z Lack of adequate skills and

educational background z Lack of basic services:

education, health, safe drinking water, shelter, sanitation, roads, electricity,

Social / organizational vulnerability z Weak family / kinship structures z Lack of leadership, initiative,

organizational structure to solve problems or conflicts z Ineffective decision-making,

people / groups are left out z Unequal participation in

community affairs z Rumors, divisions, conflicts:

ethnic, class, religion, caste, gender, ideology, etc. z Injustice practices, lack of

access to political processes z Absence or weak community

organizations ((in)formal, governmental, indigenous) z No or neglected relationship

Motivational / attitudinal vulnerability z Negative attitude

towards change z Passivity, fatalism,

hopelessness, dependent z Lack of initiative, no

‘fighting spirit’ z Lack of unity,

cooperation, solidarity z Negative beliefs /

ideologies z Unawareness about

hazards and consequences z Dependence on external

support / dole-out mentality

with government, administrative structures z Isolated from outside world

communication, etc. z High mortality rate,

malnutrition, occurrence of diseases, insufficient caring capacity z Overexploited natural

resources z Exposed to violence (domestic,

community conflicts, or war)

Page 72 of 171

Points to consider when conducting a CVA z



Some capacities can be vulnerabilities at the same time. For instance, the people may have the capacity to cope with disasters by taking odd jobs or migrate temporarily during the aftermath of a disaster. However, the fact that there are limited job opportunities for job placement during emergencies remains a vulnerability, and in case of migration, family and social relations might be negatively affected. Before conducting a CVA, a plan for data gathering should be made containing: { The data that need to be collected { The methods you will use to collect the data. { The sources of the information or who needs to participate in analysis { Sequence of methods / flexible plan and schedule (see third bullet point). { Tasking among team members. Who will be the team leader, facilitator, recorder, process observer, etc. { Process of validation / cross-checking of information to make information reliable Understanding situations at the community level starts with getting a general picture first, followed by a more detailed and focussed analysis later on in the process. Since the various tools generate different kinds of information, we should be aware to use the tools in a particular sequence. Figure 3.3 visualizes the connection and sequence of the tools for conducting a CVA (also applicable for the HVCA if focus goes beyond disaster preparedness). For instance, coping strategies of the various households become more understandable, if we know the community’s past experiences with hazards, the physical features of the area, land use patterns and how people relate to each other. Tools generate information that is unique for that tool, or it produces information that might overlap with other tools. It is important that we match information needs with tools. Overlap in information is not a waste of efforts, but a way to cross-check and validate information.

Table 3.7: Example of CVA used as a tool to identify rehabilitation activities in Sagada, Mountain Province (in 1992), an area prone to earthquakes and typhoons Aspects



z Area is prone to typhoons and

earthquakes, causing landslides, damaging irrigation canals and intake z Earthquakes cause shift in water

sources affecting drinking water supply and irrigation facilities. z Climate conditions permit only

one rice crop; farming is highly dependent on irrigation. z Fast growing population, which

causes pressure on natural resources.


z Due to militarization many

members of the PO became

Capacities z Indigenous engineering/

construction skills to build and repair water works. z Construction materialswhich

are locally available. z Employable skills other than

farming (mining, weaving). z Availability of new water

sources to be tapped for potable water and irrigation. z Traditional labour system to

synchronize farm activities to avoid pests. z Presence of indigenous dap-ay

system to mobilize villagers to

Page 73 of 171

inactive, although now the PO is

take action and to guarantee

recovering again.

sustainability of the projects. z Presence of active People’s

Organization (ASUP) linked to dap-ay system. z Presence of traditional women

and youth organizations. z PO is assisting non-members

as well.


z Due to growing population

farming can not provide for all needs anymore; more young people leave the area for a better livelihood.

z People fight against plans they

do not like (Chico Dam, mining and logging concessions). z Positive attitude towards

involvement women in community decision making. z High awareness on regional

issues. z High motivation for projects

which benefit whole community, regardless POmembership.

Level of application Generally, CDRN appreciates the CVA concepts, but project staff still find it difficult to apply the CVA as an analytical tool for the identification of disaster response interventions. The CVA matrix is useful as a guideline for data gathering, because it reminds you of the different aspects to look into. However, when you collect the data according to the three categories, the result is often more descriptive than analytical. Further, the various vulnerability aspects shown in Table 3.6 are not all equal in nature: disaster prone location refers to an immediate unsafe condition, while lack of access to political decision-making has to do with unequal power relations which might be a reason why people inhabit disaster prone locations. So, the different aspects are interrelated in a cause-effect way. However, this does not appear from the way they are presented in the CVA matrix. This makes it quite difficult to use the CVA matrix for analyzing root causes of vulnerability. Even, if you apply the CVA matrix on different levels, from community to provincial, to national and to international levels, it still does not offer a systematic way of analyzing vulnerabilities with community members. The RCs therefore, feel more confident to use the SICA, although they integrate more and more of the disaster terminology from the CVA, and they apply more participatory tools than before to gather the information.

Page 74 of 171

Fig. 3.3: Sequence of tools for data gathering.

Difficulties and limitations in the application of CVA z



CDRN members find it difficult to use the CVA for the identification of appropriate interventions. The CVA can identify vulnerabilities that can be addressed immediately and those that take more time. But a thorough analysis is seldom made. Its use is limited to counter-check selected interventions: what are the effects of the intervention on people’s capacities and vulnerabilities? Interventions like advocacy, public awareness, specific disaster related training are seldom identified when you use a CVA, meaning that the analysis is not complete. CVA can only be successful with the active participation of all community members. This requires a lot of time and patience and sometimes obstacles or conflicts need to be overcome before you can actually start with a CVA. It is CDRN’s experience that in many cases, this time is not available due to donors’ timeframes and expectations. This is very contradictory to the CBDO-DR principles. Page 75 of 171

Strengths of using the CVA z




CVA can be used before and after a disaster response intervention, i.e. to collect baseline data and for evaluation purposes to assess to what extent capacities are increased and vulnerabilities reduced. The CVA is presented as a matrix, which is structured in such a way that it is easy to remember what sort of data to collect. In combination with participatory tools you can match info needs with corresponding tools. It is comprehensive and covers all important variables in a community. It gives equal consideration to the physical/material, social/organizational and attitudinal/motivational aspects of a community according to class, gender, age, etc. CVA can be used after a disaster happened to identify rehabilitation measures. But it offers also possibilities to assess pre-disaster situations in at-risk communities to identify mitigation (long term) measures. This is particularly true for the Philippine disaster situation where communities face recurrent disasters.

Page 76 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 3 Relation of DNCA, CVA and HCVA Since 1996, CDRC and the RCs have come to an understanding that the DNCA, HVCA and CVA are instruments to get snapshots of the community at particular moments. As such, the community profiles which are the outputs of the three assessments build on one another. The DNCA provides information about a particular disaster event, which is used to update the information of the community’s existing HVCA. And the HVCA outputs can be integrated in the CVA. In the Philippine disaster context, where the post and pre- disaster phase overlap, one could argue that the HVCA and the CVA could be combined into one assessment tool. This would solve the problem of the human-made and slow-onset hazards that require a deeper vulnerability assessment than the HVCA currently offers. Even during the conduct of a DNCA (e.g. among internal refugees in an evacuation center), one should look further than just the damages, and also analyze the conflict situation itself, why the affected people are so vulnerable that they needed to evacuate and the hindrances for their return. Only then we can identify appropriate and timely responses. From the communities’ perspective, the CVA, DNCA and HVCA are very much integrated, because people at risk do not really distinguish between preparedness, emergency relief, rehabilitation and mitigation measures. They integrate all of these together in their Counter Disaster Plan, which they often call also their Community Development Plan. Their main concern is to reduce their vulnerabilities and to increase their capacities to better cope with disasters.

Page 77 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 3 Endnotes: (1) Authors of the book Rising from the Ashes, Development Strategies in Times of Disasters, which influenced in fact all CDRN’s assessment tools (2) Matrix is based on reading materials from ADPC’s Disaster Management Orientation attended by CDRC staff. CDRN adopted ADPC’s matrix to the practices of CDRN and Philippine context. (3) The various tools are discussed in Annex 3. (4) CDP and CDRC are currently testing the applicability of the “disaster crunch model” (explained in Blaikie, 1994) to further improve and deepen vulnerability assessment at the community level. (5) The difference between the CVA and the HVCA is that the CVA focuses more on long term aspects of capacities and vulnerabilities, while the HVCA deals with the immediate, more visible capacities and vulnerabilities

References: Anderson, M. & Woodrow, P., 1989, Rising from the ashes: Development Strategies in Times of Disaster, Westview Press, pp 338 Blaikie P. et al, 1994, At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, Routlegde, 284 pp CDRC, 1994, Capacities and Vulnerabilities Workshop, April 26-29, Dumaguete City, Philippines CDRC, 1994, Rehabilitation of the Aguid Water Works and Abikiyan Irrigation System in response to the 1990 and 1991 earthquakes, a case study conducted together with the Asosasyon Dagiti Sosyodad ti Umili Pidelisan in Pidelisan, Montanosa Research and Development Center in Sagada, and Montanosa Relief and Rehabilitation Services Foundation in Baguio, 26 pp CDRC, 1997, Proceedings of Disaster Preparedness Training for Luzon Regional Centers, June 16-20, Zambales, Philippines CDRC, 1998, 4B, Project Development, Monitoring and Evaluation in Disaster Situations, Manila, Philippines, pp 150 CDRC, 1998, Training Manual on Baseline Data Gathering, pp 75 Heijmans, A, 2000, Identification of External Assistance in Response to the Internal Refugee problem in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, May 30, pp11 Page 78 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 4 Responses to Increase Capacities and Reduce Vulnerabilities What we do to support survivors of natural and human-made disasters largely depends on our disaster management framework and mandate. Do we only provide emergency relief during disasters or will our responses include preparedness and rehabilitation as well? Since 1984, CDRN’s responses evolved from merely emergency relief to a comprehensive set of inter-linked and mutually reinforcing responses. This evolution was triggered by a changing disaster context in the Philippines that required adjustments in CDRN responses. Within the Network, this took place through a process of continuous learning from experiences, both by communities and members of CDRN. What is worthy to mention, however, is that from the beginning CDRN’s emergency response was already developmental in nature and people-oriented in approach. In this chapter, we will share the process of identification and selection of interventions. How are community members involved in this process? How do they use and link the results of the hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessment to the process of identification and selection of appropriate interventions? This chapter will share the different kinds of pre, during and post disaster responses that CDRN implements. We will see that the Network’s responses integrate disaster management and development work based on the communities’ need and people’s existing capacities.

Page 79 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 4 The process of increasing people's capacities CDRN commits itself to support the most vulnerable and marginalized sectors in the Philippines in their struggle to change policies and structures (the root causes) that generate vulnerability to disasters at the community level. CDRN stresses the importance to integrate with community members, to take time to fully understand the local conditions, to conduct HVCA and SICA to identify the most vulnerable groups and implement responses according to people’s needs, capacities and their timeframe. People’s awareness and participation are crucial for the success of disaster risk reduction. To develop this from mere participation in information-giving to interactive participation and selfmobilization involves a long and often difficult process that requires patience and perseverance. Over the years CDRN has developed a series of disaster responses for organized and unorganized communities to increase their capacities to reduce immediate vulnerabilities through PO’s preparedness and emergency response. It is more difficult to address the root causes of vulnerabilities but CDRN has booked some results in this area. Instead of applying a standard set of responses for all communities, CDRN has developed a process of sequential interventions that result in more capable people’s organizations who can take on more and more demanding tasks. Table 4.1 shows the process from at-risk communities to resilient communities. The conduct of a DNCA, relief assistance, a Disaster Management Orientation and Disaster Preparedness Training for communities are good responses to start the process of capacity building. As the output of these responses, the community develops an initial Counter Disaster Plan and forms a Grassroots Disaster Response Organization or structure. To make the GDROs functional, follow-up support is necessary like training on leadership or Emergency Response. It largely depends on the kind of hazards that the community has to cope with what preparedness and mitigation measures they need to undertake from here. These can be responses with immediate benefits like a warning system, an evacuation plan and diversification of crops, or long term mitigation efforts like tree planting, community alliance building and advocacy for resettlement and land rights. This process can take several years and some of the root causes might not even be eliminated in a lifetime. It may require the effort of several generations. This citizenry-based development-oriented disaster response framework considers capacity building as a long term process, and this is not always easy to match with project-based funding principles of most donors. Donors release funds according to a particular disaster stage for administrative or political convenience. The community’s responses do not follow these disaster stages; vulnerable communities continuously develop Page 80 of 171

coping mechanisms and survival strategies before, during or after disasters strike. They address vulnerabilities and not the disaster per se. And this makes it sometimes difficult to get financial support for community’s needs since they sometimes do not fit in the donor’s framework or policies. This is unfortunately true for human-made disasters like armed conflict and development aggression. Further, projects have budget limits, fixed timeframe, inflexibility to change prescribed budget lines even in cases when the people’s needs change, and pressure to have tangible and visible results. CDRN, however, measures achievements in terms of organizational capacity of people’s organizations: are they able to sustain and manage the project gains. High donor expectations and demands (proposals with complete baseline data, clear objectives and indicators, financial reporting requirements, strict reporting deadlines, etc.) might affect the relation with the grassroots organizations and there is a danger that POs are reduced to client status. The Regional Centers continuously critique this ‘sandwich’ position and have to find a balance between being accountable to donors and committed to the needs of the most vulnerable sectors. So far, CDRN has coped with these pressures. And the reason for this is that the CBDO-DR approach allows meaningful participation of POs. GDROs can increasingly take more responsibilities in disaster response and can better measure up to disasters. At the same time, the less vulnerable sectors are there to support the POs. The Citizenry-Based approach means that disaster response relies on people, not only on one disaster response agency. The role of CDRN will gradually decrease in particular communities, while it can shift its services to new areas.

Page 81 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 4 People's participation in the identification and selection of disaster responses It used to be the practice of the Regional Centers to consult mainly the community leaders and committee members of the PO regarding disaster responses and involve only them in the project and selection process. Although efforts are done to involve as many people as possible in the process, it is often hard to involve everybody, particularly the most vulnerable. A limiting factor is, as explained earlier, the timeframe set by donors; time required to assess local situations, to identify priority responses and to make them work require much more time than is usually allowed by donors. Especially when there are different interests among community members or different opinions about feasibility between community and staff of the network, time is needed to understand each other and to level off. It is very important to consider people’s priorities and their perceptions when planning for disaster responses, whether it is relief or for disaster risk mitigation. Box 4.1 illustrates the ten steps applied by CDRN in selecting disaster responses with the community. Table 4.1: Process from at-rist communities to resilient communities Description of community level Activities of RCs and CDRC at process of grassroots disaster community level to support this response organization formation process of capability building Community at risk: the z RC enters community during vulnerable community is hit by the emergency situation, one or more hazards frequently. conducts DNCA and provides Although people have relief assistance developed their own coping z Getting to know leaders, mechanisms in a changing key-persons and situation in environment, this doesn’t mean the community that they are aware of all the z Rapport building with risks involved or of what they community members and can do as a community to local authorities reduce the risks. They are prone to disasters. Start of awareness raising and Start of capability building process by RCs and CDRC: skills development process: z


Understanding the nature and behavior of hazards, disaster risks and the causes of vulnerability in general Understanding the disaster risk situation in



Disaster management orientation / training Conduct a participatory risk assessment (PRA) in the community; hazard assessment, vulnerability assessment, capacity Page 82 of 171





their own community Prioritization of risks to be addressed Increase awareness of people about what they can do themselves before, during and after disasters happen Formulation of a Counter Disaster Plan (CDP): { Identify pre, during and post disaster community needs { Identify available community resources { Identify roles and responsibilities of Disaster Response Committees (DRC) { Identify people and committees for DRC { Formulate communication and decision-making policies and systems { Set-up warning system Formulate evacuation management plan Formalize DRC in existing People’s Organization. This is the formal creation of a grassroots disaster response organization (GDRO). Actions of a functional GDRO: { Share CDP with all community members { Conduct evacuation drills and draw lessons to improve CDP { Networking and coordination with Barangay and Municipality Disaster








assessment, people’s perception of risk (HVCA) Disaster preparedness training (DPT)

Follow-up consultations, meetings with People’s Organization Leadership training Participatory monitoring and documentation of process and results, lessons, etc. Organizational development support

Facilitate learning through drill Training on networking, campaigning, negotiation

Page 83 of 171

Coordination Council, Churches, NGOs, other communities, etc. { Monitoring of threats and hazards in community { Mobilize resources community can not produce or access on its own { Issue warning and manage evacuation { Involved in search and rescue { Report damages and needs to disaster agencies for assistance { Coordinate, plan and implement relief delivery operations with aid agencies z Identification, selection and implementation of short and long-term risk reduction measures From here the PO with a disaster response structure can tackle more demanding activities, link up with other communities and supportgroups and can undertake mitigation measures like creation of seed banks, village pharmacy, repair irrigation works, etc. All these contribute to building resilience.




z z z


Training on DNCA and emergency response Assessment of the GDRO’s preparedness and emergency response Training on planning, monitoring and evaluation

Issue-based training Various skill training Facilitates assessment of capability building process and achievements Facilitates the identification of longer term risk reduction measures

This process of identification and selection of responses has several moments where options are cross-checked and validated. Therefore, CDRN can be sure that responses are appropriate, match with people’s capacity, and address the different levels of factors that generate vulnerability from immediate causes to root causes.

Page 84 of 171

Box 4.1: Steps to conceptualise and select appropriate responses

1. Review baseline data (HVCA, DNCA, CVA, SICA) with community

members and let people prioritise the elements at risk. Ask them why they ranked them like that.

2. Ask community members how problems and disaster risks were

addressed previously. For instance, by other organisations, own coping mechanisms, what resources and skills are available? Why did initiatives fail or succeed?

3. Let the people make a list of possible solutions for each main

problem. This can be done by converting problems (stated in a problem tree) into positive statements or through asking people what needs to change to overcome problems.

4. Convert also the (root) causes into positive statements 5. Ask community members (men and women) what criteria they

used to choose the solutions (not all solutions will be equally beneficial, and some are more difficult to achieve than others). Criteria might deal with power relations, gender concerns, culture, increased income, reduced risk, skills available, environmental friendly, external factors, etc.

6. Discuss the selected responses vis-Ă -vis class, gender, age, 7.

culture, religion, and other CBDO-DR principles. Check in HVCA or CVA matrix which vulnerabilities are being addressed and if all capacities are being used

8. Ask the community members to rank the solutions according to priority, considering the discussion in points 5 til 7. This will inform you on what people want and why.

9. Reach unity among different groups on prioritized responses. 10. As an assisting agency, we compare the solutions with our mandate, capacity, timeframe, and external factors.

Page 85 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 4 Responses before, during and after disasters to address vulnerabilities through building capacities The most developed programs among the network are emergency response, rehabilitation, preparedness and mitigation, training and education. Responses like organizational strengthening of POs, networking, public information, and advocacy are undertaken regardless of the disaster phase. For practical reasons, CDRN categorizes its responses according to the different phases of recurring disasters happening in the Philippines: pre-disaster, during disaster and postdisaster. In the following sections, we will discuss the various responses in more detail through a picture presentation accompanied with brief practical descriptions. Experiences are shared on how specific responses are linked to assessment results, their main features and results achieved at the community level.

Page 86 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 4 Pre-disaster responses: preparedness a. Disaster Management Orientation This is one of the first activities CDRN undertakes to build contact with communities and with the less vulnerable sectors. The orientation lasts 1 or 2 days and aims to increase people’s awareness on disasters and on how disaster responses can be delivered in a way that is people-centered and development-oriented. The orientation has generally four modules:

1. Philippine disaster situationer: based on community’s experiences with disasters, people recall what disaster types they know or experience. An overview of all disasters that occur in the Philippines is presented. Then, people will try to analyze why the Philippines, and their community in particular, are so vulnerable to disasters. The causes and root causes of vulnerability are analyzed and explained from the community to the (inter) national levels.

2. Definition of terms: What is a hazard? What is a disaster? What do we mean with vulnerability and capacity?

3. Presentation of ‘dominant’ and ‘alternative’ approaches to disaster management: here the CBDO-DR approach and its features are discussed.

4. Disaster response concepts and models: what is disaster response and

what is its purpose? What are the different responses and how do they interrelate? Presentation of disaster management cycle model and the pre-during-post disaster response model of CDRN. The orientation applies participatory learning methods for adults. As much as possible, visuals should be in the local dialect.

Page 87 of 171

b. Disaster Preparedness Training Disaster preparedness training is held in communities that are located in highly vulnerable areas and are exposed to current threats (flood, landslides, lahar, drought, armed conflict, land conversion). The training is used as an entry point to organize grassroots disaster response organizations in high risk areas after community members have attended the Disaster Management Orientation. The duration of the training varies from three days to several weeks (in a staggered way) depending on the community’s time availability. The disaster preparedness training has the following modules:

1. Review of disaster management concepts and CBDO-DR approach (summary of DMO)

2. Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment in the community.

People analyze the risks they are exposed to, the reasons for their vulnerability and the capacities they rely on. They prioritize which elements at risk need to be protected. A concrete output of this exercise is a hazard and vulnerability map of the community and an inventory of capacities they can use in pre, during and post disaster events. This module can be given as an orientation, while the HVCA is done afterwards, or the HVCA is completed before proceeding to the next module.

3. Identification of preparedness and mitigation measures: community

members will draft an initial counter disaster plan. Other sessions in this module are: public awareness, warning, evacuation (which includes a simulation exercise), organizing of grassroots disaster response committees, and identification of mitigation measures1 . The latter can lead to additional specific sessions like advocacy planning, community based health, leadership training, herbal gardening, and sustainable slope agriculture.

The disaster preparedness training links preparedness and mitigation activities to the strengthening of people’s organizations and ensures that the counter disaster plan and disaster awareness are institutionalized in the community’s development plan. From the disaster preparedness, training two major processes are initiated in the community. One is the formation of a grassroots disaster response organization and the second is the formulation of a Counter Disaster Plan. Both will be explained separately in the following sections. Page 88 of 171

c. Grassroots Disaster Response Organization formation Both the Disaster Management Orientation and Disaster Preparedness Training make people aware of the benefit of organized action. Organizing a community into a Grassroots Disaster Response Organization requires time that goes beyond the timeframe of one disaster preparedness training. So, follow up support is necessary like inputs on organizational development and leadership training. The range of the organizational expression of a Grassroots Disaster Response Organization (GDRO) varies from being a committee of an existing PO (disaster response committee) to being a Grassroots Disaster Response Organization which may later develop into a PO (which takes on development issues and concerns). A GDRO can also take the form of networks or alliances among various POs and NGOs in disaster response, especially for emergency operations during major disasters. Process of GDRO formation: z

z z





Building rapport with community leaders or contact persons who are respected by the community and have potential leadership skills. This can be done when the community is hit by a disaster, through the conduct of DNCA and relief operation. Initial training on DMO and DPT Creation of a working group or initial committees such as education (public awareness), warning, evacuation, health, security, finance and administration through mobilizing people with specific skills and commitment to serve the most vulnerable groups in the community Initial data gathering and HVCA, and formulation of initial Counter Disaster Plan Propagation of initial Counter Disaster Plan in community. Through education and public information drives, the whole community is made aware about disaster risks and how they can prepare as a community to reduce damages and casualties. The purpose is to get the cooperation and motivation of the vulnerable and less vulnerable sectors in the community to join the disaster response committees. Actual formation of the Grassroots Disaster Response Organization: formation of committees and agreement on their roles and responsibilities General Assembly and election of officers Page 89 of 171



Deepening of the HVCA, improving the Counter Disaster Plan, and integrating this in community’s development plan Follow up capability building activities like leadership training, disaster management related training, and organizational strengthening support.

Activities of a functional GDRO z z

z z


z z z


z z

Share Counter Disaster Plan with all community members Monitor disaster threats, conduct drills, and draw lessons to improve the counter disaster plan Expansion of membership Networking and coordination with the Barangay and Municipal Disaster Coordination Councils, churches, NGOs, other communities, etc. Mobilize resources that the community can not produce or access on its own Issue warning and manage evacuation Involve community members in search and rescue Conduct DNCA and report damages and needs to disaster agencies for assistance Coordinate, plan, and implement relief delivery operations with aid agencies Advocacy/lobbying regarding disaster response related issues Facilitate the identification, selection, and implementation of disaster response activities (rehabilitation, mitigation, etc.) with the community

The aim of a GDRO is to enable communities to become better prepared for impending disasters and to become resilient in the long term. Strengthening of PO’s organizational capacity is combined with enhancing its skills and knowledge on disaster management. If needed, training to develop leadership skills like facilitation, planning and assessment skills, negotiation and conflict resolution skills is provided together with training on human rights, advocacy and lobbying. In this way, communities will be able to undertake actions to address their vulnerabilities to disasters. These actions are laid down in the community’s Counter Disaster Plan. A recent external evaluation measured that 79% of all communities that underwent the DMO and DPT formed a disaster response structure after the training. Box 4.2: How presence of GDRO in community can save lives; the experience from Central Luzon (Delica, 1998) Manibaug-Libutad was considered as one of the high-risk areas for lahar flow coming from Mt. Pinatubo. In July 1995, CONCERN conducted a training combining DMO and DPT. The content was: Disaster update from Central Luzon, Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis, Disaster Response Management (includes hazard monitoring), Hazard mapping, Damage-Needs-Capacity-Assessment, Evacuation drill, Counter Disaster Planning, CBDO-DR framework. Output of the three-day training: community members formulated an evacuation plan, identified key-people and agencies they could tap in case an evacuation is needed, and designed a warning system, particularly how the warning information would flow to inform Page 90 of 171

everybody in the community. A Barangay Disaster Response Organization (BDRO) was set up with five committees: the Evacuation Committee, Warning Committee, Health Committee, Information and Education Committee, and Relief and Rehabilitation Committee. It was the responsibility of the Warning Committee to monitor the lahar situation and warn the people of impending disaster. Each committee immediately recruited volunteer members from the village residents and oriented them in their responsibilities. Three days after the training – it was still monsoon season – there was news of a typhoon expected to enter the area. Dark clouds were approaching the village and a light drizzle started at 4:00 pm. The villagers started looking for the barangay captain but he had left the village. No word came from the municipal authorities. The BDRO Warning Committee had posted men along the dike to keep watch on the rising lahar flow. The other barangay officials were glued to their two-way radio waiting for the instruction to leave the area. The BDRO Warning committee informed the residents that water in the creek was rising and that they should prepare for an evacuation. The BDRO chairman returned from work at 5:30 pm , instructed his son to cook for the volunteers monitoring the lahar flow, and went to the dike for briefing with the volunteers. At a little past 6:00 pm, rain was falling heavily and lahar mingled with the water in the creek which rose higher. Suddenly, the upstream portion of the dike started to erode. The BDRO Chairman instructed the Warning Committee to evacuate the villagers immediately. The Warning Committee volunteers blew their whistles. They immediately mobilized the foot patrols who went from house to house to inform residents to leave their houses and to gather at the marketplace or in the school building (which were identified during the training as a pickup point for evacuation). The villagers were transported to a safe evacuation site. The situation in the community deteriorated very fast within two hours. At 7:00 pm, about one kilometer of the dike collapsed. One foot of lahar swept through the northernmost houses but the residents were already on higher grounds. Only some of the Warning Committee volunteers stayed behind, witnessing the rising smoking, hot lahar. They were the last to evacuate after being sure no resident was left behind. At 8:00 pm, more than one meter of lahar had covered the upstream houses while two meters covered the downstream houses of the Manibaug-Libutad village. No one was killed or hurt. The community depended on their strength and capacities. If they had waited for the official warning announcement of the government, they could have been killed.

Page 91 of 171

d. Counter Disaster Planning

A Counter Disaster Plan or a community-level contingency plan helps to consolidate the community’s efforts to prepare for coming hazards. The plan provides guidelines for operation and clarifies roles and responsibilities before, during and after disasters happen. A Counter Disaster Plan links preparedness, mitigation and rehabilitation efforts with development initiatives of a PO or GDRO in the short- and long- term. Based on the results of the Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment, the PO formulates a Counter Disaster Plan. This plan contains the following elements: z



Identification of pre, during and post disaster community requirements to address vulnerabilities Identification of available resources and capacities the community can build on or has to mobilize from outside (boats, vehicles, communication equipment, evacuation site, volunteers, etc.) The organizational structure of the people’s organization/grassroots disaster response organization


Roles and responsibilities of the PO leaders and committees


Policies, decision-making mechanisms and operational guidelines


Warning system


Evacuation and evacuation center management plan


Mitigation measures like reinforcement of houses, improving drainage, additional maintenance on footbridges, or crop diversification can be included in the counter disaster plan. More mitigation measures, supported by CDRN, are explained in this chapter.

The Counter Disaster Plan also contains the following particularities or annexes: Page 92 of 171



Timetable of activities to implement the plan or schedules to conduct drills to test the efficiency and effectiveness of the plan. Master-list of community members (names, family composition, age, gender)


List of volunteer teams


HVCA summary and hazard map



Directory of key-people, NGOs, local officials, church groups that can be contacted Organizational structure and functions and responsibilities of all committee.

Box 4.3: Feedback from community members on community’s Counter Disaster Plan In an urban community in Metro Manila, several women appreciated the community’s Counter Disaster Plan. It includes taking care of children whose mothers are at work. The women no longer had to stay at home and forego income while anticipating the floods or rush home in case of a disaster alert (Core Donors, 1999). e. Design a community specific warning system Warning is a positive actionoriented stimulus to alert people about an impending hazardous event or circumstances in their location, which may threaten their safety and security, and which requires an adaptive response (Southern, 1996). Very often, public official warning signals from the national level do not reach communities or if they do, they are rather late. A community-based warning system will contribute to people’s safety. The hazard assessment provides information that the community uses to design a warning system. Important here are the warning signs or indicators that a hazard is about to happen. These will be used to activate the alert levels. The period mentioned Page 93 of 171

under forewarning is the time span the community has to warn and evacuate the village. In general, there are three or four alert levels: z




alert level 1: first warning received, people prepare for evacuation (food, clothing, valuables, animals, etc.) alert level 2: people get set for actual evacuation and gather at assembly points alert level 3: actual evacuation, people move from the danger zone to a safe place alert level 4: hazard hits community while people are in the safe location

This is to avoid panic and to enable villagers to prepare for evacuation in an orderly manner. The duration of the hazard determines how long community members have to stay in the evacuation center and what they need to prepare. The vulnerability assessment identifies the most vulnerable groups in the community. Warning to these groups should be given first. Further, the medium to relay the warning message should be appropriate to these groups. The Capacity Assessment identifies the resources and skills that can be used in warning the community: e.g. existing organizational structure, means to relay warning (drums, gongs, firecrackers, runners, megaphone, etc.), available communication equipment, coordination with local disaster coordinating councils, etc. Box 4.4: Community level warning system Ms. Imelda Macara, a member of the PO’s Disaster Response Committee in Fabrica, Camarines Sur in the Bicol region explains their community warning system designed for typhoons and floods “It was emphasized in our counter disaster plan that the typhoon signals2 through the radio are warnings to be heeded and that if the rains continue unabated for twenty-four hours, we should be ready to evacuate. We also agreed that when the floods on the roads overflow the sidewalks, we should proceed to the pre-designated evacuation site, the village chapel. Women and children first bringing personal belongings, followed by the men bringing with them the farm animals in boats” (Delica, 1999) A community-specific warning system will be effective if: z z



z z

warning is hazard specific warning is target group and location specific (focus on most vulnerable) warning is timely to enable people at risk to take appropriate decisions (consider ‘forewarning’ determined during hazard assessment) warning is issued by a credible source (from national to community level) warning message is short and clear community members are oriented about the warning system and Page 94 of 171






understand the warning signals and their meaning warning from the national level (technical/scientific) is explained and translated into community- defined warning (laymen terms/practical) warning is done in phases to avoid panic; timely information is given to community members about changes in warning and risks involved community-level information committee exists that is responsible for warning, hazard monitoring and info dissemination. Roles and responsibilities are agreed upon. regular drills are to be conducted to keep community updated and prepared warning system and related preparedness and emergency measures are evaluated to identify deficiencies and required improvements.

f. Design an evacuation plan and conduct drills Evacuation is an organized movement of people from an area at risk to a safe place. Not all hazards require evacuation to protect life and properties. Evacuation is needed in case of floods, typhoons, fire, volcanic eruption, landslide, earthquake, or armed conflict. Evacuation does not happen all at once but is designed in stages following the alert levels of the warning system. This to avoid panic. CDRN promotes five evacuation stages: (1) Warning about impending hazard, meaning that people should prepare for evacuation; (2) Order to move to assembly/pickup points; (3) Actual evacuation from area at risk to safe location; (4) Stay at Evacuation Center; (5) Return to former or relocate to a new place. The community, led by the Evacuation Committee, designs a plan for actual evacuation as follows:

1. Identify a safe place for the evacuation center (see Table 4.2 for the 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

criteria in site selection) Identify shortest and safest route Identify and prepare alternative routes Identify pick-up points or assembly points for people Place ‘road signs’ along evacuation routes Prepare master list of evacuees and check at each pick-up point if group is complete Prepare evacuation schedules and groupings in case transportation will be use Set provisions and plan evacuation of animals and other properties of evacuees Organize an Evacuation Management Plan and form committees among community members Page 95 of 171

10. Identify and prepare requirements during evacuation (transport,

gasoline, food, water, medicine, road signs, communication system, etc.)

While in the evacuation center, the community members participate actively in all aspects of camp management (see Table 4.2 and Evacuation Center Management under Emergency Response). Table 4.2: Tasks of Evacuation Committee


z z


BEFORE Define criteria for evacuation center selection, such as: Availability of water Accessibility Topography and drainage Available space (people, animals, communal services, etc) Safety Soil type (drainage / farming) Land rights Site assessment Site planning (latrines, cooking, animals, etc.) Ensure access to site thru approval of site/center









DURING Registration and monitoring of evacuees Space assignments to evacuees Evacuation Center Management orientation to new arriving evacuees Maintain order (people, health, sanitation, garbage disposal, cooking, etc.) Coordinate delivery of services (relief, medical missions, etc.) Provision of information Training and education (long term evacuation) Networking and resource generation






AFTER Ensure that return is safe or find alternative place Repair damages in community Clean evacuation site Return to community If this is not possible, networking, negotiation, advocacy will be necessary to find alternative

g. Emergency Response Training The Regional Centers apply different strategies to increase the preparedness capacity of communities at risk. The strategy depends on the kind of hazard threatening the community, the accessibility of the Page 96 of 171

community, and on the existing organizational capacity of the PO. Training on Emergency Response is particularly conducted for communities that encounter recurring hazards, are exposed to multiple hazards, become inaccessible to outsiders during the emergency period, or do not receive much outside assistance but have an existing PO. CDRN experienced the advantage of prepared communities in emergency response in areas of recurring floods, typhoons, Mt Mayon eruptions, and armed conflict. The Emergency Response Training can be a separate training or be integrated in the Disaster Preparedness Training. The training has basically two modules:

1. Damage Needs Capacity Assessment: what is the purpose of

conducting DNCA?, what kind of data has to be collected, methods for data gathering, guidelines for reporting information to aid agencies

2. Planning and conduct of Relief Delivery Operation in the community or

evacuation center: prepare master-list, identify relief items, design distribution and accountability (tickets/coupon) system, plan schedule, location and physical arrangement for relief operation, mobilize volunteers to secure orderly distribution, make a program for the relief operation, tasking.

The aim of the Emergency Response Training is to enable community members to respond systematically to the aftermath of an emergency situation and to identify the nature of assistance (what and when) they need from outside. From the community’s perspective, the preparedness training helps them in timely evacuation to a safer place. The emergency response training helps them to assess the impact of the disaster in their community, to identify the kind of aid they need, and where to get it. This speeds up the delivery of emergency relief tremendously. Relief assistance is possible within three to seven days. Also, the appropriateness of relief is guaranteed, as well, because needs assessment is more accurate, regularly updated, and faster than when outsiders have to come. This is especially true for areas that have become inaccessible due to the disaster. Community members, who are more knowledgeable and experienced with the terrain than outsiders, always find a way to contact CDRN and to provide them with the DNCA results. CDRN can validate the DNCA results based on existing community profiles drafted during the HVCA exercises.

Page 97 of 171

Table 4.3: Effects of community capacity building on emergency response (Core Donors, 1999:17) Indicators Assessment



Organized Community z Based on DNCA z Takes into account differences in vulnerability among affected families and prioritizes accordingly z Needs are validated against baseline data z Community able to conduct assessment z Large part of the Relief Delivery Operation done by community itself z Relief operation carried out systematically and orderly as a result of preset tasks and responsibilities z Reporting and accountability facilitated due to proper record keeping by community z Quick response possible (within 3 to 7 days) as a result of quick and reliable

Unorganized Community z Based on numbers z Does not prioritize the most vulnerable z Does not identify particular needs





CDRC/N has to carry out assessment Relief Delivery Operation draws heavily on CDRC/N staff and volunteers from network Sometimes difficult to distribute relief goods in an efficient and orderly way, when distribution mechanisms or principles are not understood or accepted by community Response is much slower because initial damage, needs and capacity assessment Page 98 of 171





damage, needs and capacity assessment within few days (ranging from same day to at most 3 days after disaster hit) As a rule, assistance is appropriate to the extent possible because more accurate needs assessment to start with, and considers relief provided by other Low cost, due to considerable use of community resources and appropriate targeting

takes longer and requires validation by CDRC/N



Assistance is less appropriate, especially in case of relative long period between disaster event and response, if DNCA is not updated Higher cost, due to higher input of external human resources

Page 99 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 4 Pre-disaster responses: mitigation Most of the experiences shared in this section are made possible through the Food Security and Nutrition Improvement Program. In general, a combination of the various mitigation efforts, as described in this section, is implemented in one community. They reinforce people’s existing livelihood and coping strategies to reduce disaster risks. a. Diversification of crops according to different planting season Upland communities in Panay region, Western Visayas, practice “kaingin”, a rotating slash and burn system, to grow corn. They can plant and harvest corn (which is their main source of food) only once a year. The area is very prone to drought and rat infestation, destroying the only crop they have. As a result, they regularly face acute food shortages and people are forced to depend on seasonal out-migration. The area, however, has the potential to be developed into permanent rice paddy or contour farms. Existing capacities like available water sources that can be tapped for irrigation, available labor, the motivation to learn new farming techniques, and the PO’s land use management plan can be built upon. To mitigate the effects of crop failure due to drought and rat infestation, i.e. acute food shortage, the PO (with the support of CRREED) identified the need for working animals, farm implements (like plough and shovel), seeds, and training on various sustainable agriculture techniques appropriate to the area. Through these inputs, a shift in farming systems could be realized, making farmers less dependent on the ‘kaingin’ system (which is no longer sustainable) and increasing the number of harvests through diversification of crop production over different seasons. In a period of two years, most farmers developed ½ to 1 hectare of rice paddy and could establish eight to twenty contour lines on suitable slopes in accordance with the PO’s land use plan. Within this period, they again experienced one crop Page 100 of 171

failure; the first rice crop in the paddies was eaten by rats. Farmers expressed that the biggest achievement of this mitigation response is that the risk of crop failure has been reduced. If one crop fails, you still can harvest products during the two other seasons. As a result, the number of months people face food shortage has been reduced. Diversification of livelihood sources can mitigate the effect of disruption of the people’s main livelihood. Some livelihoods are extremely vulnerable to particular hazards. The mussel culture of fishing communities in Manila Bay and in Maqueda Bay, Samar can be seen as a prime example of this. Every rainy season, they experience a period of red tide that makes shellfish poisonous and inedible. Nobody will buy shellfish. Even when there is no warning for red tide, the general public hesitates to buy shellfish in the market. For several months, these fishing communities have no income. Shellfish collectors are the most vulnerable groups among fishing communities because they have no access to boats and fishing gear. To reduce people’s vulnerability, CDRN members RESPOND and CONCERN supported these communities with alternative livelihoods that match the people’s capacities and that are not sensitive to red tide. The provision of boats and nets enabled affected families to fish beyond the seashore and to earn an income during the time that mussel production was down. In the urban setting of Manila, people opted to start a sari-sari store or pedicab driving business to earn additional income. However, one should be conscious of gender roles and responsibilities when selecting an alternative livelihood. The examples above are mainly about men who are involved in mussel culture and affected by the loss of livelihood. But they are also the ones finding new employment through the alternative source of livelihood. Only in a few cases were women involved in taking on alternative livelihood, like the sari-sari store. c. Propagation of disaster resistant crops Old people in the community remembered the time the Japanese occupied the Bicol Region. They suffered from the consequences of the war: farming was disrupted and they had little to eat. For food, they depended on wild crops like certain beans, leaves, and root crops. These crops can still be found in the region although some of them have become scarce and are gradually disappearing. So, some sense of urgency was required to propagate these, especially among the younger generation, who was hardly aware about the existence of these crops. TABI heard this story and decided to tap the old people’s knowledge and skills regarding these plants for their promotion of mitigation measures. Page 101 of 171

The re-introduction of the already forgotten indigenous crops (named by TABI as ‘disaster resistant crops’) and the campaign to cultivate them, awakened and reminded local residents of the importance of such crops. They are easily grown and do not require a lot of inputs. Disaster resistant crops and other indigenous crops can serve as a stable food source in times of disasters. Viable crops identified include indigenous root crops like arrow root, sweet potato, cassava, ‘gabi’ or ‘bongkokan’, ‘linsa’ and various kind of yam (‘ube’, ‘camiguin’, ‘borot’ and ‘nami’). Then there are vegetables and legumes like ‘kulis’, ‘kadios’, ‘perkules’, winged beans or ‘poropagolong’, traditional string beans and ‘bush sitao’. The staff of TABI sorted out seeds and planting materials and planted these in community nurseries / demo-farms to propagate them. Then, they developed reading materials for publication and conducted campaigns and education sessions at the community level while distributing the planting materials to households. Some crops are resistant to drought, while others can withstand strong winds and floods. Several root crops can be planted and harvested all year round, making them an ideal reserve stock of food during times of crisis. d. Seed banks and nurseries Seed banks and nurseries at the community level are established to ensure a stable supply of seedlings, seeds, cuttings and, other plant materials. Seed stocks can be used in times of emergency for rehabilitation of damaged croplands. Most seed banks focus on traditional rice and corn seeds, which are more resistant to pests and less sensitive to changing climatic conditions. These varieties are slowly disappearing because hybrid varieties are promoted in the market. This highlights the importance of community-based seed banks. Nurseries propagate fruit trees, forest trees, forage trees, bamboo, and other plants useful for people in times of crisis. Cultivating utility trees around homes and land, maintaining forest reserves for food, animal feed and cash, improving watersheds, and protecting water sources are long term interests of vulnerable people (see h.). Materials propagated in nurseries are locally found, although sometimes specific rare varieties come from other communities or forestry-related education institutes. It is mostly the PO’s agriculture committee that manages the community’s seed bank and nursery. They receive training on seed bank and nursery management, record keeping. They also formulate policies for the approval of the farmers regarding repayment of seeds, operation and maintenance of the nursery, and the sustainability of the seed bank and the nursery. Page 102 of 171

Community members are given seeds with the support of CDRN with the condition that, from their harvest, they would pay two equivalent amounts of seeds to the seed bank. In this way, the community accumulates seeds in preparation for any disaster that may occur. The members in charge of the seed bank check the quality of the seeds before storing them and ensure that quality is maintained. Seed banks and nurseries aim to strengthen people’s existing livelihoods and to increase the presence of fall-back resources in the community. While nurseries serve a long-term interest and achievements are still difficult to measure, seed banks generate different success rates. In drought-prone areas, it is very difficult to sustain a seed bank. Farmers can hardly repay seeds and people pressure the PO to use the stored seeds for consumption instead, hence undermining the basis for future production. In case the communities are hit by floods, typhoons or pests, repayment might differ among community members depending on timing of hazard in relation to the growing stage of crops, location of fields, etc. However, since affected farmers are organized, it is the PO that will look for solutions to help its hardest hit members. Seed bank policies can be adjusted to circumstances. e. Production of different nutritional value crops To increase the ability of vulnerable groups (particularly children, pregnant and lactating women) to withstand disasters, attention is paid to their health and nutritional situation. When people are frequently exposed to negative effects of disasters, they often get ill because of their low resistance to diseases. To reduce this vulnerability, cultivation of crops with different nutritional values is promoted. This entails inter-cropping, multicropping, or seasonal planting of cereals (rice, corn, wheat), legumes (mung beans, peanuts, cow peas, string beans), vegetables (green leaves, tomatoes, onions, pumpkin) fruits, and root crops. Production of a variety of crops alone, however, is not sufficient to improve the nutritional status of the most vulnerable groups (children between 0 and 6 years old are prioritized). This activity is accompanied by activities like training on inter-cropping and making farming calendars, seeds (re-) Page 103 of 171

dispersal, organizing farmers groups, training on basic health and nutrition, preparing menus and improving cooking techniques appropriate to culture and local context, safe drinking water, and sanitation. f. Post harvest facilities Marginalized communities can not always enjoy the benefits of a harvest. After paying the landlord back, they face problems of inaccessible and expensive grain mills, storage problems (attacked by rats and insects, or rotting due to damp conditions), or they have to sell seasonal perishable crops at a low price. Several Regional Centers help communities to address post-harvest problems to reduce losses, to reduce expenses for milling, and to maximize the availability of vegetables, fruits and root crops by processing and preserving them for times that they are less abundant. In this way people’s coping strategies are strengthened. In the Cordillera, Northern Luzon, farmers have designed an appropriate storage facility to avoid rats from entering and eating the rice grains, the main problem in times of drought. Seeds can further be protected from insects and damp conditions by adding charcoal and pinewood splints. In remote areas in Mindanao, BREAD and Halad-Davao supported farmers in getting access to portable corn mills. The mill is 1.80m by 60 cm, and can be dissembled, transported and assembled by community members. Also, the operation of the mill is done by assigned villagers. In Manurigao, Compostela Valley, 460 families make use of one mill. They now save a lot of time: seven hours walk to the nearest village where they used to mill their corn and another seven hours walking back. The mill is now managed collectively by the PO, and lower prices are charged for milling compared with previous expenses. However, the PO ensures that sufficient income is generated to maintain and repair the mill, and to pay the operator for the work. Further, milling of corn no longer depends on weather conditions, the condition of the trail, footbridges and the water levels in the river that need to be crossed. This improved the availability of food in the rainy season. In areas of armed conflict, prepared communities can take the portable mill with them to a safer place. In other regions in the Philippines, it is mainly the burden of women to mill corn manually. The portable community-mill will reduce their workload. Hence, it is expected that corn will become a more attractive substitute for rice, encouraging the production of corn, which is easier to cultivate than rice. Page 104 of 171

Food processing and preservation is not yet widely applied in communities supported by CDRN. Traditional foods like corn and root crops are believed to be inferior to rice and are not considered meals, but snacks. Junk food like crackers, chips and candies are believed to be better, and where available, people buy it even if it is expensive. As a start, in several FSNIP areas, households are encouraged to prepare attractive and nutritious snack foods from local traditional crops, like crisps, cakes, biscuits, candies, etc. TABI organized contests to come up with new ‘fast’ recipes for nutritious snacks to replace junk food. MRRS promoted techniques for jam and jelly making, vinegar preparation, drying of fruits, and making sweetened delicacies. Some ideas might provide the basis to generate a small additional income for women. g. Encourage proper land use management and sustainable agriculture practices Indigenous people in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao have community policies on how to use common resources, especially forest products. However, in most areas, these policies need a lot of help, since the environment is deteriorating fast due to outside pressures (logging, mining, multinational plantations, and encroaching settlers). Therefore, CDRN supports tree planting activities to rehabilitate watersheds, mitigate soil erosion, and replenish forest reserves. The community-based nursery serves as the source of seedlings. In addition, TABI organizes a yearly tree-planting campaign on International Earth day to raise awareness on environmental issues among a broader public. In the uplands where indigenous people practice ‘slash and burn’ to cultivate corn and upland rice, people have formulated land use policies. These indicate where remaining forest should not be touched, where ‘slash and burn’ can still be practiced, where permanent farms can be established applying contour lines, and where water sources can be tapped for irrigated farming. In times of crisis, forest products can be used to a limited extent. In this way, local people try to control and manage their direct surroundings for future generations. However, their insecure land rights remain a big risk. This is one of the root causes of their vulnerability. Advocacy, lobbying and negotiation with government and more powerful parties are therefore integrated components of disaster mitigation3 .

Page 105 of 171

h. Community health workers Communities supported by CDRN often experience inability to bring their sick relatives to hospitals, due to either inaccessibility of town centers where medical facilities are, or because of the high cost of hospitalization and medicines. The presence of capable Community Health Workers who can provide first aid, and who are knowledgeable on mother and child care, preventive health, nutrition and sanitation, can make a big difference in the community. Among community members, people are selected who have skills related to health and nutrition, or who are motivated to learn these, and who have sufficient time and commitment to serve as Community Health Workers. On an average, there are six Community Health Workers present in a community. They have to go through various training programs like Basic Health and Nutrition, Advanced Health Training (diagnosing, cures, minor surgery), First Aid & Home Remedies, Acupressure, Disease Prevention related seminars, Pharmacology (on correct use and storage of western and herbal medicine). After a period of three to four years capability building and practice, Community Health Workers can confidently perform the following tasks: - Provide first aid - Growth monitoring of children 0-6 years - Conduct wet feeding sessions for malnourished children - Hold general clinic - Supervise herbal garden and prepare herbal medicines - Facilitate mother’s class on child care - Facilitate children’s class on personal hygiene - Facilitate community education activities on health, nutrition, sanitation and environment - Organize cooking class to demonstrate how to prepare low-cost but highly nutritious food A big achievement is that through orientations, parents have become more Page 106 of 171

aware on how to prevent and treat diseases like dengue, diarrhea, skin diseases and common colds. The presence of capable Community Health Workers and the orientations and assistance they provide to households contribute to safer conditions at the community level. Basic health needs can be fulfilled locally, although for serious cases, Community Health Workers need to make referral to district or provincial hospitals. In times of emergency, or when the community needs to evacuate, the presence of Community Health Workers ensures immediate available medical assistance and reduces the risk of casualties and epidemics. i. Village pharmacy and medicinal / herbal garden A village pharmacy aims to make medicines and first aid immediately available to communities which have no access to government basic health services. The pharmacy is managed by the Health Committee of the people’s organization. They produce herbal medicines but also purchase the most common and basic (western) drugs. As an incomegenerating venture, the medicines are sold to PO members for an affordable price to be able to replenish the pharmacy. The pharmacy also has a first aid kit for emergency purposes and can only be accessed by the trained Community Health Workers and the Health Committee members. The Health Committee together with members of the Executive Committee formulate policies to manage the pharmacy. These relate to the maintenance of the herbal garden, production/purchasing of stock and process, pricing of medicines, opening hours and schedule of responsible sales-persons, and conduct of inventory and audit. They also acquired an official permit from the local government unit to operate the ‘botika’. To have a secured supply of herbal plants, the Health Committee establishes a herbal / medicinal garden at a site close to the pharmacy or place where clinics are held. Plants which can be found there can be used to treat common ailments, like colds, fever, various skin diseases, diarrhea, infection of wounds, high blood pressure, headache, arthritis and stomach disorder. Preparation of the herbal medicines is done regularly to maintain sufficient stock to fulfil demand, but not too much to avoid expiration of medicines.

Page 107 of 171

j. Functional literacy classes Having no access to education and being illiterate add to the vulnerability of at risk communities. This manifests itself in a vicious cycle of povertyilliteracy-absence of vocational skills-no access to informationunemployment-poverty-etc. and repeating itself from generation to generation (MRRS, 1997). Functional literacy classes enable illiterate and semi-literate community members older than 15 years not only to read and write, but also to develop positive attitudes towards their roles as individuals, family and community members. Learning to read and write happens through discussing issues like family and community life, health and nutrition, customs and traditions. The aim of these classes is to increase the people’s capacity to acquire and process information vital to their survival.

k. Improve mobility during disaster situation Disasters can greatly hamper the mobility of community people, affecting their livelihood. Mitigation efforts to improve mobility can range from simple solutions to more expensive and technically more complicated structures. In urban poor areas where people experience floods for weeks or months, elevated foot paths improve mobility: children can keep on going to school, and vendors can keep on selling their home-made products. In remote mountainous areas, communities become inaccessible during typhoons and after earthquakes and landslides, footbridges and safer trails Page 108 of 171

can enhance mobility of people. Also, livelihoods are more secure: fields are located at both sides of rivers, farm inputs and products can be transported easily and continuously. l. Collective marketing of products To escape from the unscrupulous practices of middlemen and the dependence on exploitative loan facilities of usurers, cooperatives are formed. In Kalinga Province, Cordillera, MRRS supports farmers to set up a marketing cooperative for white beans, “sayote�, and watercress. In another community, MRRS assists the women in forming a credit cooperative for weavers. The formation and success of the cooperative requires advanced organizational and management skills of the people’s organization.

Page 109 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 4 Response during disaster event: emergency assistance a. Search and rescue Organized communities with a functional disaster response committee can benefit from the presence of a communitybased search and rescue team. This is exemplified in the case of Buklod-Tao (meaning People-BondedTogether), a people’s organization in Sitio North Libis, San Mateo, Rizal, inhabiting an area that is surrounded by two rivers joining each other and a high wall protecting a middle class subdivision from floods. Since the construction of this wall, the area of the much poorer community has become more vulnerable to floods. In 1995, a super typhoon passed Sitio North Libis and the people lost a lot in this disaster. Some children almost drowned after being carried off by the floodwaters. Blamed for the flood was the protective wall of the sub-division that effectively acted as a dam, causing the water to rush in other directions, like towards the community in Libis. Buklod-Tao decided to form a disaster response committee composed of 33 members who underwent a disaster management orientation. They formed three search and rescue teams: one was assigned to the northern part of the community, one for the southern part and the third serves as back-up and can be assigned to the area where extra people are needed. The organization formulated its counter disaster plan, and practiced rescue maneuvers in the river. From the Barangay Council, Buklod-Tao was able to secure one life jacket. From other sources, the organization was able to tap funds to purchase flashlights, batteries, ropes, megaphones, first aid kits and materials to build three rescue boats (capacity: 10 adults per boat). Two months after the disaster management orientation, a typhoon hit the community again. Several houses were swept away by the waters. No one was killed and many people were able to save their belongings. Since then, when typhoons hit the area everybody can be brought to safety. Word of Buklod’s activities have circulated and neighboring vulnerable communities requested assistance in training and formation of their own disaster response committee (Victoria, 1999)

Page 110 of 171

Box 4.5: Capability building towards a resilient community After the 1995 disaster in Sitio North Libis, CDRC provided relief assistance to the typhoon and flood survivors, followed by a Disaster Management Orientation and Disaster Preparedness Training. Here the rescue teams were formed and a counter disaster plan formulated. After CDRC’s intervention, Buklod-Tao undertook the following activities on their own: z


Echoed the training to the community Submitted a request for the construction of rescue boats to the Dutch Embassy


Constructed three rescue boats after approval of request


Conducted rescue drill in the river


Finalized counter disaster plan and a community hazard map


Monitors the water levels in the river when it rains






Defined system for Evacuation Center Management (food, health, daycare, etc). Organizes community kitchen for people in evacuation center during flooding Participates in different environmental concern activities at the municipality and national level (increased flooding is caused by quarrying (cement and marble) in the watershed of the river) Updates counter disaster plan regularly Networks with Local Government (Barangay Council), Holy Cross Parish, CDRC, and Haribon (environmental NGO)

b. Relief delivery operation Based on the Damage Needs and Capacities Assessment, CDRN and the community members identify the relief items vis-a-vis available resources budget. For food items, CDRN has come up with a standard relief pack for a family of six people: Rice Sugar Dried fish Mung beans Sardines Cooking oil Salt

6 - 10 kilo ½ kilo ½ kilo ½ kilo 3 cans ¼ liter ¼ kilo Page 111 of 171

Non-food items are given in addition like laundry soap (1/2 bar), while cooking utensils, mats, water containers, clothing, plastic sheets, nipa shingles (local type of leaves used for roofing), etc. are provided as need arises based on DNCA results. PO leaders together with CDRN staff make up the master list of recipients’ names, and the items they are entitled to receive. As much as possible relief items are locally purchased considering cultural appropriateness and low transportation costs. CDRC/N further receives a lot of donations in kind from individuals, schools, churches, companies, and support groups in the Philippines and sometimes even from abroad. Most of it is used clothing, and to a lesser extent food items like canned goods and noodles. These goods are sorted out first before they can be distributed to disaster survivors. Not all donations are appropriate like party dresses, swimming suits, worn out clothing, incomplete pairs of shoes, canned goods that are close to expiry, or contain items people are unfamiliar with. Goods that are inappropriate for relief distribution, but can still be used, are sold through garage sales. The cash earned this way is added to relief funds. After goods are sorted out, or purchased, re-packing can start. Volunteers from the affected community and from the less vulnerable sectors, mostly students, are mobilized to re-pack the food items into so-called family relief packs. Re-packing happens near the warehouse, from where the goods are transported to the distribution point. This place is selected by the community and later checked by CDRN staff in terms of accessibility, security, space, and to determine the physical arrangement for the relief operation. The PO leaders are consulted about the most convenient time for the relief operation. The People’s Organization informs the community members about the place and schedule of the relief operation. The PO is responsible for the distribution of relief coupons to the affected families whose names are on the master list. The coupons have a printed logo of the Regional Center, the family’s name and a number, which corresponds with the number on the master list. Only people with a valid ticket will receive relief assistance. Before the actual Relief Delivery Operation, PO leaders and CDRN staff make a plan that contains:

1. The program of the RDO. Before the actual relief distribution, key-

persons from the community and support organizations give an orientation on why the disaster happened, why people are vulnerable, why relief alone will not solve the problem of their vulnerability, and why the PO can play an important role in developing their capacities to cope better with disasters. Page 112 of 171

There are instances when the youth or theater groups perform songs or drama, expressing issues related to what people experienced during and after the disaster. This raises awareness on why people are vulnerable and what they can do to reduce exposure to disaster risk. The orientation ends with an explanation of the system for relief distribution. If there are few families, one distribution point can be enough. But if the number of families is big, more distribution points are needed to speed up the process. People should then be informed where they should go to receive the goods.

2. Tasking to make RDO orderly. There are various tasks that need to

be performed to make the RDO efficient. These tasks can be assigned to the community, if they have a functional disaster response committee. In all cases, however, CDRN staff monitors and assists in the operation, or conducts the operation itself if there is no capable PO. Below are the tasks to be done: - Physical arrangement: ensure that distribution point(s) are set up (tables or truck), streamers hang visibly, secure place of goods is considered, easy flow of people guaranteed (waiting, queuing, receiving, leaving), weather conditions are considered (making alternative plan in case it might rain) - Logistics: person responsible for transportation of goods from warehouse to distribution site, and from truck/jeepney to distribution table. Ensures that no goods disappear or get spoiled during transportation. - Distributors: validate coupon with master list, ensure that recipients sign master list and receive goods according to entitlement - “Marshalls�: ensure that relief operation is orderly, by assisting recipients to queue in the correct line, entertain and remove people without ticket in a friendly manner - Master of ceremonies: takes care of the program and introduces speakers - Documentation of operation by taking notes and pictures

After the Relief Delivery Operation an assessment takes place. Community members and leaders give their feedback and draw lessons for the future activities. In some cases it happens that not everybody was able to come to the relief operation. A decision should be made on what to do with unclaimed relief goods. Page 113 of 171

c. Temporary shelter Several disasters like typhoons, fire, earthquakes, landslides, armed conflict, and demolition cause the destruction of houses. In these instances, CDRN provides plastic sheets as temporary shelter. This can be provided fast (even before food assistance is distributed) because it is stockpiled and therefore immediately available. Based on the DNCA results, plastic sheets are given per affected family, or for communal purposes like community kitchen, or collective sleeping place for security reasons.

d. Evacuation Center Management Some disasters cause long term displacement (the Mt Pinatubo eruption and armed conflict). Evacuees gather from different places and often have to share a common evacuation center. This can lead to chaotic and unhealthy conditions if no management system is put in place. People might become dependent, depressed and even violent if they have nothing to do but sit and wait for support. In line with the CBDO-DR approach, the participation of evacuees in camp management is important, since it is people’s right to be involved in decisions that affect their lives and shape their environment. People’s involvement in evacuation center management is a way to rebuild people’s confidence and capacities after what they have experienced during the disaster. Life in an evacuation center is very different from the ‘normal’ life people had before they enter the camp. While being engaged in the day-to-day management of an evacuation center, people can rebuild a community and get the energy to look ahead again. Setting up an Evacuation Center Management system follows more or less the same process as the formation of a grassroots disaster response organization. Evacuees who arrive might already be organized in disaster response committees, and if not, they have their leaders. Page 114 of 171

They are selected to attend an Evacuation Center Management Orientation. Appropriate committees are formed and volunteers from among the evacuees are mobilized. The management structure largely depends on the physical lay-out of the evacuation center: is the evacuation center a sports gymnasium with one big space, or is it a school building with various floors and separate units.

The most common committees that evacuees form are the health committee, food committee, security committee, networking/public information committee, and education/training committee. These committees select their leader to represent the committee in an overall management committee. The tasks of these committees may vary among the different regions due to the particular disaster context and vulnerabilities. But generally, we can describe their responsibilities as follows: Health Committee: z




Environmental sanitation (garbage disposal, place for animals, latrines, bathing site, etc.) in the evacuation center. This also includes burial of the dead. Provision of first aid and medical assistance Referral to clinics, if possible Preparation of herbal medicines, and stockpile of basic medicines

Based on experience this committee consists of women most of the time. Therefore, this committee can develop itself into women groups for other issues (day care, violence against women, trauma counseling, alternative livelihood) Food Committee: z



Fair distribution of food relief, giving special attention to children, elderly, and pregnant and lactating women Management of cooking: place assignment, system of cooking (collectively to save firewood, reduce smoke; or family-based cooking) Stockpile basic food items

Security Committee z z z z

Ensure that everybody is safe and nobody is missing upon arrival Ensure security of evacuation center day and night Monitor whereabouts of people Negotiation with armed groups, police Page 115 of 171

z z

Authority to intervene in conflicts among evacuees Monitors situation in place of origin before returning there

Networking / Public Information Committee z

z z z z

Relate with outsiders (government, aid agencies, media) to provide necessary information about history of events, conditions in evacuation centers, needs, etc. Registration and tracing of family members Generate resources Project and lobby for evacuees’ issues Inform and update evacuees of developments regarding their situation

Training and Education z z z z

Day care center and classes for school children Psycho-social assistance Organize orientation on issues relevant for evacuees (human rights) Sport activities

Upon arrival of the evacuees it is important that people get registered, and their skills inventoried. As much as possible, we should make use of existing capacities among the evacuees themselves. People with a background in health can join the health committee, teachers and high school graduates can be tapped to conduct classes for children and daycare center. People with good communication and negotiation skills can be effective in the networking and public information committee. They play an important role in dealing with aid agencies. Evacuees often complain about so many visitors asking all kinds of questions to assess needs, but never return to provide assistance. They find it disturbing, and in the end, irritating. It is better to assign a few people to relate with outsiders. e. Medical mission Given the poor health and living conditions of vulnerable communities, the chance that they get sick when disasters strike is high. Exposure to wet and cold conditions (floods, typhoons), living in damaged houses or under plastic sheets, drinking contaminated water, having little to eat and experiencing effects of traumatic events make people prone to all kind of diseases or epidemics Health assessments, which are part of the Damage, Needs and Capacity Assessment, reveal high rates of acute pulmonary/respiratory tract infections, intestinal parasitism causing diarrhea, fever, skin diseases, Page 116 of 171

primary complex, and dental complaints. The health assessment is expressed in a master list of patients with their complaints and initial diagnosis of the disease. Based on this list, volunteer doctors and health personnel are mobilized to participate in the medical mission, evaluate the type of diseases the people suffer from, and prepare the corresponding medicines needed4. Joint consultation meetings are held to determine clinic site, schedule and tasking of PO leaders, doctors, health volunteers and CDRN. During the medical mission or actual clinic in the community or evacuation center, the following process is observed: (a) patient registration, (b) screening for health conditions like taking weight, height, temperature, blood pressure, health history, (c) diagnosing /treatment wherein patients proceed to corresponding physicians or specialists for check-up and consultation, (d) pharmacy or dispensary where volunteer pharmacist prepares and explains to the patient their prescribed medicine and proper medication. Diseases that require long term medication or treatment (like tuberculosis and primary complex) need referral to health centers through barangay health workers in case there is no communitybased health program yet. This is a limitation of medical missions. However, relief operations and medical missions can be the start of a long term partnership with the community. In some regions, volunteer health educators conduct orientations on primary health care during the medical mission while people are waiting for their turn. Emphasis is on prevention and basic curative measures for common ailments. Brochures and flyers are distributed on essential health care tips to prevent diseases like diarrhea and dengue. After the clinic, the mission group conducts an assessment and reflection session aiming to draw out experiences and views of the people, particularly the health volunteers. They belong mostly to the upper and middle class families or the so-called less-vulnerable sector. The medical mission is an eye-opener for medical students, especially for those who visit poor communities for the first time. They reflect on their situation and express their solidarity with the most vulnerable sectors.

Page 117 of 171

f. Psycho-social assistance Most disaster experiences cause stress among people, whether young or old. Some disasters, like armed conflict, earthquakes and lahar flows, cause trauma that result in disturbed behavior. Living in refugee situations further limits opportunities for children to develop themselves. The research project on Children in Situations of Armed Conflict (CSAC)5 resulted in the publication ‘Giyera Patani’, a book that focuses on psychosocial assistance to traumatized children. It contains, among others, exercises with therapeutic aspects and guidance for facilitators. The exercises can be adapted to different hazard types and people’s experiences, although priority is given to children. The games and exercises aim to develop self-confidence, understand different emotions and to share traumatic experiences. Playing facilitates learning not only on concepts but also on social relations. It exercises the body and helps the child explore motor skills. It allows children to discover different expressions of emotions while interacting with others (CDRC, 1994). Since music and movements are very popular in Philippine culture, they can be used for children at all ages. Plays can combine music and creative movements or expressions of emotions. Drawing and drama are also used to let children express themselves.

Page 118 of 171

g. Networking and negotiation Networking and negotiation become responses during emergency periods when we deal with slow-onset humanmade hazards like development aggression: z



When governmentsanctioned projects are implemented against the will of the people ü When government policies and programs directly cause damage and/or affect livelihoods of the already poorer sectors of society When “development” results in forced displacement of people and communities, with or without back-up by government’s armed forces When environment is being polluted causing health problems and loss of livelihood

In these situations evacuation is not immediately the appropriate response, although it may be inevitable on the long run if negotiation fails. Networking with support groups like CDRC/N, human rights groups, environmental groups and media is important to back up the community vis-à-vis the more powerful entity that is responsible for the hazard. A government or remote company will not entertain negotiations with a community, but will do so if their actions are projected in media and are made known to a larger public. Demolition or eviction is one of the disasters urban poor communities experience that requires networking and negotiation skills. In the Philippines, demolition and eviction notices can turn very violent, causing negotiation to be a risky undertaking. Box 4.6: Chronology of events experienced by SATAMAKA members residing in Manggahan, Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City: For 15 years, members of the “Samahang Tanglaw ng mga Maralita sa Kapaligiran” (SATAMAKA; Urban Poor Organization for Environmental Awareness) reside in a 2.5 ha government land, the National Government Compound (NGC), targeted for development of infrastructure projects and commercial lots. The area is home to 1000 urban poor families, of which 30% are members of the people’s organization SATAMAKA. March 1997: NGC representatives tried to convince residents to vacate the area. Page 119 of 171

SATAMAKA leaders and members sought meetings with local government officials to discuss the issue, but they were not open for discussion. May 1997: NGC representatives delivered a 30-day notice of demolition to the community. The PO tried to negotiate with the NGC to reconsider the notice of demolition. June 1997: 126 families accepted financial settlement amounting to P10,000 and voluntary dismantled their houses. This caused polarization in the community, which in turn created an opportunity for the NGC to gain headway in their plan to get rid of the squatters in the area. 22 October 1997: A demolition team began demolishing the housing structures, starting in the center of the community and employed the so-called ‘pocketdemolition’ tactics. Ten to fifteen houses were swiftly destroyed in this event. The PO members opposing the demolition fought and barricaded the immediate surrounding houses, forcing the demolition to stop. The PO started active networking among supportive organizations like CDRN to help them in the negotiation to reverse the demolition notice. However, real negotiation between the parties did not take place. The PO held several picket actions. December 1997: A demolition team attacked the community for the second time, but this time backed-up by the Special Weapon And Tactics Team (SWAT)/police personnel. Many were injured and hurt, while 70% of the houses were successfully demolished. The families stayed in the area and reconstructed their makeshift cum barricade shelters along the highway. CDRC provided plastic sheets to add to their temporary shelter. Further demolition was halted because of the Christmas season. 22 January 1998: The last and final assault was conducted. Immediately after the demolition of the houses, security guards were posted who instantly installed barbed wire fences. They harassed the families with vagrancy arrest since they then stayed in their rough-and-tumble shelters just five meters from the national highway, which is declared as danger zone. In response, SATAMAKA drew up their demands that: (1) building permit to be issued to reconstruct their houses in a relocation site (2) NGC should provide building materials, (3) NGC should provide water and electricity in the relocation site, and (4) free transportation of people, belongings and old housing materials to relocation site should be provided. 25 January 1998: NGC promised to fulfil the demands and the 456 families were transported to the new relocation site in Montalban, Rizal. Although the site had basic infrastructure like water and electricity, the NGC Page 120 of 171

failed to provide housing materials. The families still had to live permanently in their ‘temporary’ shelters of plastic sheets. CDRC tested the water, which turned out to be unsafe for consumption. Located in the outskirts of Metro Manila, the relocation site had no available public transport. This makes traveling very expensive, adding to the burden of breadwinners who were minimum wage earners. There were no schools yet, so most children stopped attending classes. The PO leaders and members did not give up pursuing their demands. They spent time and money to lobby with different government agencies and to follow up the agreements with NGC.

h. Mobilization of the less vulnerable sectors During emergency situations it is CDRC/N’s role to link the vulnerable affected communities with the lessvulnerable sectors. The latter gets the opportunity to participate in the development endeavors of the vulnerable sectors. CDRN maintains a directory of volunteers and groups, which can be tapped during emergency periods. They vary from students, teachers, doctors, nurses, dentists, church-based organizations, scientists and technical experts, drivers, companies, and media personalities. The involvement of the less-vulnerable sectors in disaster response is not limited to financial and technical assistance, but covers a wide range of support: Material resource generation: this can be donations in kind like food, clothing, blankets, medicines, shelter materials for relief assistance; assistance in contacting/ endorsement to potential donors; assistance in the promotion of resource-generating campaigns (benefit concerts); offering cooperation in setting up drop-stations for goods; providing services like free laundry of used clothing Financial resource generation: this refers to donations in cash through solicitation letters. Media is tapped to promote campaigns. Human power: this varies from technical assistance (driving, medical assistance, communication relay, Page 121 of 171

education) to participation in relief operations (re-packing, hauling, distribution) on a per-event basis or long-term basis. Moral support: it feels good and motivating to see many people willing to help voluntarily. Vulnerable sectors feel supported in their struggle. There are a lot of people who want to help, but not all of them are familiar with disaster response or the situation in the affected communities. Therefore, before volunteers actually participate, they receive an orientation first. This includes a briefing on the main features of the CBDODR approach, update on disaster event, situation at the community-level, planned responses, and the volunteers’ expected role.

Page 122 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 4 Post disaster responses: rehabilitation Rehabilitation responses are mainly short-term community-based projects with one single component and immediate benefits. They aim to support people’s livelihood in restoring production, and to increase PO’s organizational capacities. Many rehabilitation projects promote collective community action and management and, to a limited extent, address (unequal) production relations at the local level. Rehabilitation projects, as implemented by CDRN in the early nineties, had their successes, but CDRN realized that more comprehensive actions like preparedness and mitigation are more effective. That is why rehabilitation, preparedness and mitigation have become closer to each other and are integrated in the current practices of CDRN. Besides, from the communities’ perspective, dividing responses in pre- and post disaster event is rather artificial; restoring production after a typhoon is preparing for the next one at the same time! a. Rebuild houses After strong typhoons, housing materials are distributed to families who have lost their entire house or whose houses are not inhabitable anymore. The DNCA results are used to determine which households are being entitled for assistance and for prioritization. Housing materials are locally produced and purchased like nipa shingles for roofing and bamboo sawali for walls. Additional nails are provided. The housing materials are supplementary in nature, assuming that wooden poles or iron sheets can be re-used. In fact, CDRN provides housing materials on a modest scale, since, according to affected communities, support to rebuild livelihoods is much more urgent and a more effective way to assist vulnerable communities to cope with adverse events. The following rehabilitation responses are therefore more common among rehabilitation responses.

Page 123 of 171

b. Seed dispersal Seed dispersal is a common response after typhoons and floods, when crops in the field are destroyed. If the weather conditions and the planting season still allow replanting, seed dispersal is an appropriate response to enable farmers to overcome damages to their production. In fact they get a second change; the loss in investments in labor and inputs are minimized if seeds are provided for the second time at a minimum cost or for free. Further, seed dispersal is very effective when internal refugees return to their community and start farming their abandoned fields. Seed dispersal becomes problematic sometimes if there are no seeds available of good quality. In times of floods and typhoons good quality seeds becomes more expensive because they become scarce and are in high demand. Prices go up while CDRN waits for the funds from international donors. To remedy this problem, PO leaders should be involved in the purchase of seeds at all times to inspect the quality and variety of the available seeds, since they are more knowledgeable about this. The RCs usually distribute one sack of seeds per family. This can be corn or rice seeds (masipag rice, IR21, traditional rice varieties) depending on the farmers preference and availability in the market. Some RCs provide seeds according to land size of farmers. In earlier years, farmers used to repay seeds after harvesting, but very few farmers were able to do that, since they were already indebted when they bought seeds before the disaster destroyed their fields. Seed dispersal is most effective as rehabilitation assistance when it is combined with dispersal of farm tools and working animals like carabaos. c. Farm tools and machinery / fishing gear dispersal Boats and fishing gear is provided to fishing families whose boats and nets are damaged or disappeared during typhoons, tidal waves and storm surges. With the new boats and nets they can restore their livelihood. These equipment can also be given to families who are affected by red tide and can use these boats and nets to get access to waters that were unreachable for them before. Farm implements are seldom distributed to replace lost or damaged tools. They form more part of a ‘package’ that has almost become a standard rehabilitation formula: seeds and tools, or carabao and tools. Farm tools or machinery reinforce people’s existing livelihoods, since most vulnerable communities have no control over their farm implements. Every season Page 124 of 171

they depend on landowners to rent the tools needed to prepare and cultivate their tilled lands. Dispersal of farm tools helps them in the following way: z z







Agricultural work is made easier and faster Better access to tools results in more timely land preparation, considering rainfall Farmers can expand land area for production (if uncultivated land for farming is still available), resulting in more harvest, and in less months of food shortage Farmers can diversify production: in addition to ‘slash and burn’ practices they can explore permanent farming (rice paddies and contour farming) Tools are PO owned; conditions for rental are formulated by all members People pay for the use of tools (in kind or cash) which is used for maintenance of tools or to buy new ones Cost for land preparation is reduced, since the PO charges less than landowner. Tools are also used for vegetable gardening and for digging latrines

PO members decide the kind of tools relevant for them, and they are also involved in the canvassing and purchase of the goods. Most common tools dispersed are plough (if working animals are also dispersed), harrow, shovel, crowbar, and axe. In areas where mechanized farming is feasible, CDRN has experience with distribution of hand-tractor, water-pumps for irrigation, thresher and blower. As local counterpart, the PO members construct a bodega where the tools are stored if they are not in use. The PO also formulates policies and sanctions, and assigns a person to manage the bodega. (S)he also keeps records on schedules, names and payments regarding the use of tools. It has been experienced that both men and women are involved in this. In some communities rental charges from farm tools enabled communities to purchase additional implements. d. Dispersal of working animals and livestock In the Philippines, carabaos are the most common animals used for farm work. In rare cases, carabaos have been dispersed after many animals died from the mouth and foot disease. Dispersal of working animals is a more common rehabilitation response for internal refugees who return to their abandoned farms, to drought-prone areas to enable farmers to diversify production or to expand fields, and to Page 125 of 171

communities affected by flood and typhoons to reinforce their livelihood. Just like the farm tools, the carabaos are also PO owned. They are, however, managed in a different way. Families group themselves in small teams of four to five farmers. One of them becomes the caretaker of the animal. They draft a rotation schedule (who and when) for the use of the carabao to avoid overburdening the animals. Each farmer pays for the rental of the animal. A PO committee looks after the performance of the caretakers. Benefits of carabao dispersal can be summarized as follows: z


z z z

Due to rotation scheme everybody benefits from the animals, in terms of timeliness of land preparation and less hassle to get access to draft animals The animals are a big help to establish permanent farms and to clean abandoned fields Rentals are used for animal care and to buy ropes It is cheaper to rent the carabao from PO than from the landowner Some POs manage to breed carabaos

Box 4.7: Feedback from internal refugees in Antique, Panay Island, supported by CRREED In Paningayan six carabaos were dispersed, four in Tinabusan and two in Salde. The farmers expressed that the carabaos were a big help in establishing permanent farms, which are either rice paddies and/or upland farms, or in restoring abandoned fields. Before they evacuated, they only used ‘bolos’ and wooden plows with people serving as carabaos to prepare the lands. When rehabilitation assistance came, they got access to carabaos and iron plows, by which the soil and weeds can be turned much deeper, resulting in better yields, since rice and weeds do not compete anymore. Farmers also reported that plowing with carabaos was easier and cost less physical effort, compared to their previous farming techniques.

Livestock dispersal like goats, pigs, chicken, and ducks is appropriate rehabilitation assistance for lahar affected farmers who lost their land but can still keep small animals to earn an income. Internal refugees also stand to benefit from these mobile resources. In general, vulnerable communities benefit from livestock dispersal because of the reasons below: z z



Diversification of income sources Mobile resources so in case of evacuation you can bring animals with you Usually native breed is used for dispersal so they do not need to buy expensive commercial feeder, and animals are used to climate conditions of community (bad experience with hybrid pigs) Animals are considered as economic assets which can be sold in case of emergency, or can be exchanged for rice

Animal dispersal is generally accompanied with training on animal care and Page 126 of 171

management. Through this training farmers become able to properly feed and care for the animals, diagnose and cure common sicknesses, apply herbal medicine, care for pregnant and young animals, selection of breeders, housing and sanitation. e. Rehabilitation of irrigation works The 1990 earthquakes in northern Luzon damaged many irrigation systems that were constructed over the centuries by the indigenous people in the Cordillera. Recurring typhoons and flashfloods further weakened the canals. The communities have the knowledge and skills to repair the canals, but lack sufficient resources to rehabilitate the systems. In several cases the source of the water changed due to the earthquake, forcing farmers to tap new ones. Labor is contributed according to the indigenous dap-ay6 system. The irrigation system is considered as community property, divided in various portions for which different dap-ays are responsible for repair and maintenance. Each dap-ay assigns a lampesa, a caretaker who irrigates the fields after land preparation, monitors and cleans the canal, and who mobilizes the dap-ay in case of major repairs. The lampesa coordinates with other lampesas in case of water shortage: together they monitor the area and decide on how to take action. This division of labor and responsibilities makes it easy to monitor dap-ay performance and to spot those that do not fulfil their community duties. The rehabilitation efforts recognized and completely built on this dap-ay system. No additional project management structure was needed or formed. The results of the rehabilitated canals and intake are expressed as follows: z z



z z

Re-established continuous flow of irrigation water in canals All farmers can start land preparation at the same time. There is no longer a need to wait for each other’s turn. Land preparation can be scheduled at more convenient times Rehabilitation of intake and canals result in less time spent on maintenance Fields with sweet potato converted to rice paddy (indicator for increased water and production) Reduce the period of food shortage (two to three months shorter) All community members benefit from the assistance

Page 127 of 171

f. Rehabilitation of foot bridges and trails Footbridges and trails are lifelines of people, especially for those living in remote mountainous places. They are often damaged due to earthquakes, flashfloods, landslides due to typhoons, or a combination of these. Communities can contribute free labor, materials like stones, sand and wood to repair these. Materials like cables, clams, wire, etc. are purchased outside the village, in the nearest town to limit transportation cost and hauling. Repair of footbridges and improved trails contribute to: z z z


Improved accessibility and safety Children can reach school faster and more safely Farm fields at the other side of the river can be cultivated adding to income In case of health emergency cases, patients are easier transported, and time is saved

g. Rehabilitation of water supply systems Water supply can be disrupted by earthquakes, covered by mud and lahar flows, destroyed or contaminated by floods, dried up due to drought, or simply absent in evacuation centers. Water is the most important and urgent basic need that needs to be restored. Absence of safe drinking water has a huge Page 128 of 171

impact on people’s health. Many diseases are connected to lack of water or unsafe water. The PO is involved in site selection for water pumps or water outlets, purchase and hauling of materials, construction work. The PO also sets up a system for operation and maintenance. Community members are asked for a monthly contribution in most cases. The income is used for the maintenance of the water system. The rehabilitated or expanded water systems has the following effects: z

z z z

Addresses daily basic need of all people: drinking, personal hygiene, laundry, cleaning of house, in some cases for animal care and vegetable gardening. Less time spent on fetching water Less occurrence of skin diseases and diarrhea In several cases, the amount of water increased

Box 4.8: Feedback from community members on rehabilitated water system “We can see there is better health in our area, and people do not get sick in the way they did before, particularly after the many floods which affected us�, according to a villager in Bicol, assisted by TABI. The incidence of diarrheal diseases in CROSS assisted communities in Samar decreased dramatically due to the community filtering water from a pump through charcoal.

h. Negotiation and networking For internal refugees the emergency period can take a long time. Moving from one evacuation shelter to another, and then waiting until it is safe to go back. However, returning to their homes is not as simple as that. Before rehabilitation of their life and livelihood can start, certain conditions should be guaranteed. These conditions need to be negotiated for.

Page 129 of 171

Box 4.9: Negotiation by internal refugees to return to their farms (‘Balik-Uma’) In May 1994, 39 families who have spent nine months in an evacuation center in Salay, Misamis Occidental, held a dialogue with the Mayor, Vice-Governor, Chief of the Philippine National Police, DSWD and the military to discuss the conditions for their return. The Internal Refugees were supported by BREAD and church-based groups. Their demands were the following: z

Safe return to their former homes and land


Their rights to the land should be secured







Food assistance from the DSWD for the first months till harvest time Absence of all armed groups in their community, including Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, New People’s Army and the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units No food blockade All services from Government and NGOs should be allowed to enter the community Human rights should be respected Formation of monitoring team to look after implementation of conditions

During the dialogue the government showed reluctance to provide food assistance until the first harvest. DSWD initially promised assistance for 2 months at P25 per family per day. No family can survive on such a budget. People can not engage in alternative income generating activities, because all their efforts are needed to clear their fields, rebuild their houses, and prepare land for planting. In the end DSWD gave in and requested the refugees to make a list of their needs. The mayor promised transportation to bring the families and their scarce belongings home.

Page 130 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 4

Continuing responses The previous list of responses here are categorized in preparedness, mitigation, emergency relief and rehabilitation for practical reasons, but, except for emergency response, they can be implemented regardless of the actual disaster event. The responses do not address the disaster event itself, but the vulnerabilities of the affected communities. And in this way disaster response is developmental in nature, since the responses strengthen people’s existing coping strategies and their capacities. However, to sustain the initial gains of the long list of interventions, people’s organizations are continuously supported through activities that are not always considered disaster responses, but are essential in the process of capability building and for addressing root causes of vulnerabilities. These responses take place continuously because addressing root causes requires long-term attention. a. Continuous PO capability building Responses described previously show that POs learn to apply a lot of skills, related to disaster response, and to their livelihood and health. But none of these skills is really valuable when they are not embedded in a social or organizational structure like a PO. In times of crisis, or when vulnerable communities have to face more powerful parties, social and organizational support structures play a crucial role. In all coping strategies, kinship relations, social networks, and people’s organizations are the first line of defense. Further, to sustain the achievements of the various responses described in this chapter, the organizational and management skills of the PO should be developed as well. This is why CDRN invests in training and coaching to improve leadership skills (facilitation of meetings, conflict management, speaking in public, assessment and planning skills, etc.), and skills related to project management (monitoring system, financial management, recording, documentation, etc.). People’s Organizations that are strong enough to undertake lobbying and advocacy campaigns need negotiation skills and knowledge on human rights and other laws related to the issue.

Page 131 of 171

Box 4.10: Feedback from community on communal action During the evaluation of rehabilitation assistance to internal refugees in Antique, Panay Island, farmers expressed the big changes in their life: “we realize through our experience that the improvements in our lives are due to group-work and cooperation. We have learned to plan and to decide on issues collectively in order to achieve the goals of our community development plan. However, the organizational and management capacity of the PO can still be much improved�.

Strengthening capacities of People’s Organizations continues on various fronts so they might be able to take on the activities below together with other organized communities and link up with the less vulnerable sectors. Only then they can make an impact to address the root causes of their vulnerabilities. b. Public information activities that portray issues of disaster survivors and their situation. It is important to make the general public aware about root causes of disasters. For example, through photo exhibits, attention was given to the issues of children affected by Mt Pinatubo eruption and their situation in the evacuation centers. Some of these children served as resource persons in a series of symposia held in five schools in Metro Manila (like Ria, 9, and Karen, 11, who had to flee their old community in Pampanga when lahar engulfed whole communities). From one evacuation center to another, their families had to grapple with the difficulties of staying in temporary shelters. Evacuation centers located in the school building, gymnasium and public market place were safe grounds, but they were just not places to call home. For most students, it was the first time that they came face to face with children who had endured the Pinatubo disaster. Reactions were varied. Some asked what Christmas gifts they wanted to receive. Others probed about everyday life in the resettlement site and what dreams they had. Many understood their needs and gave their share to help lahar survivors. This information campaign was a partnership between CDRC and Teatrong Balen, a Pampanga-based NGO that conducts stress-debriefing activities for children in resettlement and evacuation centers. Other exhibits portrayed the effects of mining, and the humanitarian consequences of the war in Mindanao. CDRN regularly organizes open fora with guest speakers, appears in radio programs and writes letters to the editor of local and national newspapers. Yearly a poster-making contest among children from 6 to 12 years is Page 132 of 171

organized. The winning entries are used to compose CDRC’s calendar. The publication of Disaster Alert, providing updates on current disaster events is sent to all individuals, groups and organizations known to CDRN in the Philippines and abroad. All these efforts result in increasing disaster awareness among the less vulnerable sectors. This facilitates mobilization of volunteers during emergency periods and generation of local resources. Public information also results in CDRN becoming more visible and known among a wider public and, in times of disasters, the media contacts CDRN to get updates. In this way, CDRN can start influencing the kind of information disseminated by established media and add information that is intentionally withheld. c. Networking and advocacy Public information contributes to raising awareness and draws public attention to get support for disaster survivors. In this way, it facilitates the development of a people’s movement for disaster response. Through fora, symposia, and volunteering in actual emergency responses, a network of support groups for disaster response starts growing. Based on the disaster situation in the country, CDRN prioritized the issues of internal refugees and militarization, the increasing development aggression (mining, construction of dams, and demolition) and the ‘Pinatubo politics’ to be the subject for advocacy work. The root causes of the vulnerabilities internal refugees, urban poor, indigenous people and lahar survivors have to deal with, are situated in unfavorable government policies and in unequal distribution of power. Through networking and advocacy CDRN wants to challenges these policies and structures and to change them in favor of the marginalized sectors. The Regional Centers organize fact finding missions to visit affected POs, to get first hand information and to give motivational support to the people. These missions are usually joined by a network of support groups and individuals. After the mission, findings are published through press conferences. The POs and RCs also conduct household petition signing, lobby with local government, and raise issues over the local radio stations. IRDC uses the DMO training as a vehicle to start advocacy work from the community level to higher levels, and it prepares statements as training hand-out. Sometimes regional campaigns are launched.

Page 133 of 171

Box 4.11: Case of successful campaign: ‘Sulod Campaign’, Panay Island, Philippines z






Early December 1994, the Sulod tribe people informed the disaster response agency CRREED that 38 villages along the Tapaz and Jamindan border, (Capiz Province), would be converted into a military reservation (33,000 ha.) where the Philippine Armed Forces could exercise their operations, including bombing and firing practice. This area included the communities where CRREED supported the tribes regarding disaster preparedness and mitigation. Common hazards were drought, militarization, epidemics and typhoons. In February 1995, seven villages received a letter from the Army Camp ‘Peralta’, which informed them about the plan to evacuate them. Alarmed by the developments, CRREED convened the PO leaders from the Tapaz area, NGOs, and Human Rights Advocates, among others. They were gathered in order to discuss the appropriate responses to the issue. The output of the discussion was the formation of Task Force “Sulod” which aimed to support the Sulod tribes to defend their land and the gains of the POs regarding their development initiatives and organizing work. The priorities of the Task Force “Sulod” were close monitoring of the area, conducting a fact finding mission, and networking among Government Organizations and NGOs. CDRC was also requested to support the Task Force in their efforts. In March 1995, the military ‘practiced’ their bombing for one day, causing the evacuation of more than one hundred families for three days. Then, a coordinating body among the affected villages was formed to resist any attempt of the military to evacuate them and to make fellow Sulodnon aware of their right to defend their ancestral lands. The Task Force “Sulod” held dialogues with local government officials, and informed the public through the media about the events in Capiz Province. A conference on the situation of the Sulodnons was organized. CDRC sponsored and participated in this gathering, and facilitated further the press releases of the Task Force to the national media. The dialogues with the local Government and the publicity on the military reservation, affecting 38 villages, made the military reconsider its stand on several issues: (1) to recognize the existence of an indigenous people group known as the Sulodnons, (2) to limit their future war exercises within the “impact area”, (3) not to claim the whole 33,000 ha. as their reservation, and (4) to stop their planned exercise for summer 1995.

Page 134 of 171

d. Alliance building among communities Disasters happen locally, and in each affected community, people will organize themselves to prepare for the next disaster event and to mitigate the effects. However, many communities might be in the same situation and equally vulnerable to a particular hazard and its effects. Addressing root causes through advocacy is more effective if these organized communities join together in one alliance. Experiences are shared and can be documented and published with the help of supportive media. Shared experiences are built upon to express common concerns and demands. The Mt. Pinatubo evacuees who did not have a guarantee to be resettled organized themselves in UGNAYAN, an alliance of POs from the several provinces in Central Luzon. They lobbied, among others, at the Mount Pinatubo Commission for housing, resettlement and livelihood. Box 4.12: Alliance building among lahar-affected communities in Central Luzon In 1992, one year after Mt. Pinatubo erupted, urban residents, wage laborers, and a larger number of peasants formed UGNAYANPampanga. They had lost everything due to lahar, and had already stayed for one year in evacuation centers without a clear perspective that they will soon receive the needed support from the government. In the other provinces in Central Luzon also affected by lahar, similar alliances were formed among communities and evacuees staying in various evacuation sites. In 1994, these merged into one regional alliance called UGNAYAN-Central Luzon. Its main concern was to demand Relief, Rehabilitation and Resettlement for all lahar-affected families. Ugnayan-CL made an advocacy plan to mobilize more evacuees, create favorable public opinion and influence policy makers from the local to the national level. Local media supported UGNAYAN’s advocacy plan through press conferences and a weekly radio program.

Page 135 of 171

In Clark Airbase, one of the former US military bases and location of a big evacuation center, UGNAYAN launched a campaign to cultivate the idle land. Even in 1999, 300 families were still farming there and were negotiating with the Department of Agrarian Reform for land titles. UGNAYAN further held dialogues with the Mount Pinatubo Commission, Department of Housing, Department of Social Welfare and Development. They even went to Malacanang, the Office of the President. As of 2000, 600 families were still living in tents, and the majority of resettled families have still no land or other sources of livelihood. The government and the Mount Pinatubo Commission prioritized infrastructure projects like dikes, bridges and roads above people’s basic needs. UGNAYAN has still a long way to go.

Page 136 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Chapter 4 Endnotes (1) The sessions included in this module depend on the nature and behavior of the hazards in the community. (2) The Philippines uses four storm signals to indicate the strength of the storm and what people should do. They are released by PAGASA, the Philippine weather forecast station. (3) The same problem of deteriorating environment and available resources happens in coastal areas of the Philippines. CDRN has, however, limited experience in coastal resource management. (4) Medical missions are mostly conducted in communities and evacuation centers where no Community Health Workers are present to assist community members. Health workers are then mobilized among the less vulnerable sectors. (5) CSAC was a joint project of CDRN, UNICEF, DSWD and CRC. (6) Physically, dap-ay refers to a man’s house in the village where the elder male members of about nine to twenty households meet. The dapay is a religious, social and political center in a part of the village, where major decisions are made.

References BREAD, 1998-2000, Food Security and Nutrition Improvement Program, proposal, progress and terminal reports, Butuan City CDRC, 1994, Giyera Patani, Trainers Manual on Disaster Management and Crisis Intervention, in cooperation with Children’s Rehabilitation Center, Department of Social Welfare and Development, printed by UNICEF, Manila CDRC, 1997, Proceedings of Disaster Preparedness Training for Luzon Regional Centers, June 16-20, Zambales CDRC, 1996, Health Assistance and Community Training on Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation for Flood Victims in Metro Manila, Terminal Report submitted to Diakonisches Werk CDRC, 1997, Monitoring Report Disaster Preparedness Training Program for Regional Centers (NRRC, CRREED, CRRC), December 8-14, 1997 Page 137 of 171

CDRC, 1998, CDRC’s Annual Assessment Report 1997 CDRC, 1998, Addressing Food Insecurity and Malnutrition in the Philippines, a concept paper, pp 36 CDRC, 1998, 4B, Project Development, Monitoring and Evaluation in Disaster Situations, Manila, pp 150 CDRC, 1998, Summary Report: Post Relief Delivery Operation in Manggahan, Commonwealth, Quezon City, Direct Service Metro Manila CRRC, 1998-2000, Food Security and Nutrition Improvement Program III Proposal, progress and terminal reports, Cebu City Cunnington, et al, 1996, FSNIP External Evaluation: Findings, pp 1-52 Delica, Z.G., 1998, Community Mobilization for Early Warning, A paper presented to the Early Warning Conference in Germany on September 514, pp 16 Delica, Z.G., 1999, Practical Experiences in Preparing a Community for a Disaster, paper submitted to National Disaster Management, IDNDR publication, pp 6) DRA, 2000, Preparedness Support Programme CDRC-Philippines; Interim DRA monitoring mission report, March 10 – April 3, pp 26 Halad-Davao, 1999, Terminal Report of Manurigao Corn Mill Project, pp 31 Halad-West, 1997-1999, Food Security and Nutrition Improvement Program, Proposal and Progress reports, Ozamis City MRRS, 1997- 2000, Food Security and Nutrition Improvement Program among selected communities in the Cordillera, Project Proposal and Progress Reports, Bridgefunding Report, Baguio City Southern, R. L., 1996, Tropical Cyclone Warning Strategies, in: The Philippine Reader on Disaster Management, published by the Citizen’s Disaster Response Center, Manila, pp64-96 TABI, 1998-2000, Food Security and Nutrition Improvement Program for Camarines Sur areas, Bicol, Project Proposal and Progress Reports, Naga City Victoria, L. 1999, Activating Grassroots Community Involvement and Public Awareness and Education, Center for Disaster Preparedness

Page 138 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Annexes

1. A brief overview of the most common and frequent disasters occurring in the Philippines and their effects on people

2. Glossary of Citizenry-Based and Development Oriented Disaster Response (CBDO-DR) Terms

3. Tools for participatory data gathering 4. Damage, Needs and Capacities Analysis (DNCA) 5. Categories and factors for capacities and vulnerabilities analysis 6. Acronyms

Page 139 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Annex 1 A brief overview of the most common and frequent disasters occurring in the Philippines and their effects on people Typhoon / storm surge An average of 20 typhoons enters the Philippine area of responsibility annually. Typhoon season in the Philippines is from June to December although occasional typhoons can occur outside this period. During the early part of the season, typhoons tend to cross the northern part of the country. From October to December, the south and central Philippines are usually affected. Nearly five out of the average 20 typhoons are destructive. Strong winds, that generally accompany typhoons, can bring about death and injury, destroy structures, life-lines, crops and damage trees. Besides, typhoons bring heavy rains causing severe flooding.

term tropical depression tropical storm typhoon super typhoon

wind velocity below 60 kph 60-120 kph 12180 kph more than 180 kph

Areas most prone to typhoons are the provinces of northern and central Luzon, eastern Visayas and Bicol. This is especially true for communities located along the coast and in low-lying areas or near major rivers that overflow in times of heavy rain. Coastal communities can further be affected by storm surges. The strong winds pile up seawater and sweep it inland. This causes not only rapid flooding and destruction of buildings and crops, but also deposits of salt on agricultural land and an increase in salinity in subsurface water tables, affecting drinking water and irrigation. Heavy rain in upland communities can cause landslides, flashfloods, and soil erosion. Flood Frequent occurrence of typhoons and heavy rains due to seasonal monsoons cause severe flooding. Floods happen when bodies of water such as streams, rivers, lakes or even the sea overflow their natural bounderies and inundate surrounding areas. Water accumulates in low-lying areas due to clogged or inadequate drainage systems. Floods are aggravated by human activity like deforestation, inappropriate landuse on sloping land, rapid and unplanned urbanization, unusually large releases of water from dams, or when dams collapse. Floods lead all other disaster-types in terms of frequency. Agricultural flat land situated in valleys and along large rivers and highly urbanized areas are prone to floods. Half of the capital towns and cities in the Philippines are situated in floodplains. Floods can last several days or even weeks, causing damage to human settlements, crops and livelihood, and epidemics. Very often people are forced to evacuate to higher grounds until water recedes. Page 140 of 171

Drought / El Niño CDRN defines drought as a condition of climatic dryness causing water scarcity for the normal needs of livestock, agriculture, industry and human population. Drought is caused by unusual or changing weather conditions like El Niño and global warming. The situation is further worsened by human-made factors like deforestation, lack of government’s investment in irrigation for subsistence agriculture, and unequal distribution of water supply in urban areas. Drought has been the most common cause of the Philippines’ food shortage and famine. It further leads to secondary hazards like fire, epidemics, rat infestation and other types of pests. Since drought is a slow-onset disaster, it makes it difficult to monitor and document the exact figures of population affected and damages. The last serious drought period, caused by El Niño, was in 1997-1998 affecting more than 25 million people. Hardest hit was Mindanao. Volcanic eruption / lahar The Philippine archipelago has Most active volcanoes in the Phillipines are: more than 220 volcanoes, of which at least 21 are 1. Mayon in Albay - about 46 eruptions considered active. Volcanoes since 1616; last eruption in 2000 are vents, hills or mountains 2. Taal in Batabgea - 33 eruption since 1572; which are formed through last eruption in 1977 tectonic forces, and which can emit hot materials coming from 3. Hibok-hibok in Camiquin - last eruption within the earth. During in 1957 eruption volcanoes emit or 4. Bulusan in Sorsogon - last eruption in eject molten rock materials in 1916 the form of flowing lava, 5. Canlaon in Negros - 13 eruption since pyroglastic flows, and volcanic 1866; last eruption in 1985 ash and gases. Most damages 6. Pinatubo in zambales - dormant for 600 to structures, crops and years; last eruption in 1991 livelihood are caused by lahar flows long after the explosions. Lahar is a volcanic udflow, caused by overflowing crater lake, carrying soil and rocks from the slopes down-stream in destructive torrents. In case of Mt. Pinatubo, lahar continues to flow from slopes triggered by typhoons, burying vast agricultural land and villages in three provinces. Earthquake / tsunami Earthquakes result from sudden shifting of the earth’s crust below or at the surface, causing ground vibrations and shocks. In the Philippines two kind of earthquakes are experienced: tectonic and volcanic. A tectonic earthquake is a sudden shift of the earth’s crust along active faults. A volcanic earthquake happens near volcanoes when hot rocks or magma moves from deep within the earth. Everyday, at least five earthquakes occur in the Philippines. Since 1599 the Philippines experienced 74 damaging earthquakes. The most destructive earthquake occurred on July 16, 1990, affecting 23 provinces in six regions of Luzon. Strong shocks cause structures to collapse, destruction of properties, life-lines, Page 141 of 171

disruption of livelihood, trauma and death. Areas most prone to earthquakes are the eastern portion of Mindanao, Samar and Leyte with an average of 16 perceptible tremors a year. When the earthquake occurs under the sea, the term ‘tsunami’ is used, which is Japanese for an ocean wave caused by submarine earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The worst tsunami happened in Mindanao on August 16, 1976: 3000 people died, 1000 people missing, and 12,000 people lost their homes. Southern Mindanao is more prone to tsunamis because of its proximity to the Celebes sea where undersea earthquakes often occur. Landslides / mudflows A landslide or mudflow is a downward movement of a mass of earth, mud or rocks due to geological instability of hill or mountain slopes. It is often triggered by heavy rains, typhoons, earthquakes, eroding force of rivers, mining activities, road construction, and inappropriate landuse and deforestation. Landslides destroy and bury structures, people, farmland and roads. Their effects are death, damage to structures, partial damage or loss to livelihood, disruption of economic activities and flow of supplies. In 1999, 60 people died in Antipolo, when a landslide buried part of a subdivision. In 1990, 30 people died when mudflows covered a 38-kilometer stretch of road linking the two provinces of Nueva Ecija and Nueva Vizcaya. In 1999 and 2000, CDRC was confronted with a new type of landslide, when 234 people were reported death while 85 persons remained missing after they were buried by tons of garbage at the Payatas dumpsite in Metro Manila. More than 500 families lost their homes, livelihood, and properties. (Kadamay, 2000) Red tide Red tide refers to the presence of an extremely high concentration of microorganisms, called dinoflagellates, in seawaters. This causes the reddish color of water. Not all dinoflagelattes are toxic. The toxic ones are found in the Samar Sea, Carigara Bay, Maqueda Bay, Villareal Bay, Manila Bay, and the coastal waters of Zambales. The increase of these organisms in seawater is influenced by salinity, temperature, light, nutrients, amount of rainfall, and air temperature. Pollution contributes to the occurrence of red tide. People who eat fish or shellfish contaminated by the toxic organism can become fatally ill with paralytic shellfish poisoning. Red tide has a large effect on communities which depend on the production, harvest and sale of shellfish; they become temporarily economically displaced, eroding their capacity to earn a living. Epidemic An epidemic is a significant increase in number of cases of an infectious and easily transmittable disease in a particular area. The most common epidemics in the Philippines are measles, dengue, malaria, diarrhea, and cholera. These diseases become deadly in cases of moderate to severe malnutrition in combination with drought or floods, when clean drinking water is scarce and hygiene breaks down. Page 142 of 171

10.2 million Filipino’s are at risk of malaria, which is still rampant in 21 provinces (PDI, 1998). 6 million Filipino children, from 9 months to 15 years old, are at risk of measles. 28% of them missed their vaccination at infancy (UNICEF, 1998). Pest / infestation A pest is an attack of large number of insects, animals, viruses, etc. which are harmful to livestock, crops or human beings. Most common in the Philippines are rat and locust infestation destroying crops overnight, and foot and mouth disease causing carabaos to die. The effects of pests on people may be direct or indirect: z z

consumption of contaminated meat may cause health problems pests attacking crops and animals threaten people’s source of livelihood and food

Fire Fire becomes a disaster when combustion of carbon based materials and oxygen goes out of control, and spreads fast, threatening human life, homes and other structures. Also, crops, forest vegetation and animals can be affected by fire particularly in dry seasons. However, urban poor communities are most susceptible to fire because of congestion, poor housing materials and faulty electrical wiring. Displacement is the result. The fires in urban communities take a more political color when it is considered that these areas have been marked for demolition to give way to developments projects. Militarization / armed conflict The ongoing armed conflicts that the Philippines faces are due to conditions the country inherited from its colonial past. Inequitable distribution of the country’s resources like land, seawater and minerals, lack of self-determination of the Moro and the indigenous people in the Philippines, human rights violations, a political system dominated by the landholding elite and big business, and the widespread poverty which generate people’s protest movements. Through armed struggle these movements aim to put up a new social order where people will enjoy a credible government and their rights are recognized. The government responds through anti-insurgency campaigns or total war like the recent events in Mindanao. CDRC recognizes militarization or armed conflict as a human-made hazard, when armed hostilities involve the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). In clashes between the AFP and rebels - either from the New People’s Army (NPA), the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) or other armed break-away groups – civilians are caught in between. People uprooted from their communities but remain within the borders of their own country are called internally displaced persons, or internal refugees (CDRC, 1992). Displacement is often combined with restriction in movement and economic activities (curfew, strategic hamletting, food blockade, checkpoints, etc.) Over the period of 1986–1990, CDRC documented a total of 912,654 internal Page 143 of 171

refugees. From 1991 to 1998, the number of internal refugees numbered 955,647. These numbers cover the whole country. Since 1997, the Armed Forces of the Philippines intensified the armed conflict in Mindanao against the MILF. In 1997, 80,000 residents of North Cotabato and Maguindanao fled their homes following gunfight and bombings between the AFP and MILF. Eight towns were put under a state of human-made calamity. In March 2000, fighting intensified again resulting in 257,616 displaced individuals of which 60% are children. Internal refugees come mostly from poor communities: farmers from remote villages, indigenous people, or urban poor in slums of provincial cities. Development aggression Since 1995, CDRN was increasingly approached by communities that were displaced or negatively affected by so-called development projects of the Philippine government. They had lost their houses, land, and livelihood and had no alternative to turn to. CDRN considers this kind of displacement a disaster and gave it the term ‘development aggression’. Development is called development aggression when: z




Government-sanctioned projects are implemented against the will of the people Government’s policies and programs directly cause damage and/or affect livelihoods of the already poorer sectors of society When ‘development’ results in forced displacement of people and communities, with or without back-up by government’s armed forces When environment is being polluted causing health problems and loss of livelihood

Examples of development aggression are: z



Landconversion: prime agricultural land (>260,000 ha) is converted in residential areas, golf courses, resorts, hydro-dams, export-oriented cash crops, etc. causing displacement of farmers Demolition: since 1992, more than 600,000 urban poor have been displaced to make place for shopping-malls, business, subdivisions, etc. and no alternative affordable housing is offered. The urban poor have no choice than to live in hazardous areas (on dumpsites, flood-prone areas, landslide-prone areas, etc.). Even the government’s relocation sites are in high-risk areas (on fault lines and on landslide prone slopes) and far away from people’s livelihood sources. Mining: The Mining Act of 1995 allows foreign-owned and Filipino-owned mining corporations to mine areas of 81,000 ha per application. Before applications are fully approved, the mining companies get the right to explore the mineral resources in an area for two years. During the exploration time, communities, mostly indigenous people, are harassed and even displaced from their land. Mineral resources are extracted Page 144 of 171

through open-pit mining, which affects forests, water systems, and farming. In march 1996, toxic mine tailings from the Marcopper-owned mine polluted the Boac River in Marinduque. The grey, cement-like mine tailings destroyed river life, affecting livelihoods of farmers and fisher folk downstream, as well as their health. Although the Marcopper case is the most devastating mining disaster, it is not an isolated case. Toxic waste from other mines in the Cordillera, Negros, and Mindanao, spill into the environment everyday. References CDRC, 1992, Disasters, The Philippine Experience, pp 127 Kadamay and Task Force Damayan, 2000, Payatas: The Story of a Tragedy, A Primer on the July 10 Payatas Tragedy, pp 9 Philippine Daily Inquirer, 1998, Malaria stalks tribal groups, 13 July Unicef, 1998, The Progress of Nations 1998 Report

Page 145 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Annex 2 Glossary of Citizenry-Based and Development - Oriented Disaster Response (CBDO-DR) Terms Hazard is an event or occurrence that has the potential for causing injury to life or damage to property, livelihood and the environment. Hazards may be natural (e.g. earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption), humanmade (e.g. armed conflict, environmental pollution, development aggression) or a combination of both (e.g. floods, landslides, drought). Disaster occurs as a result of a hazard that strikes a vulnerable community or group whose inherent capacity is not enough to withstand or cope with its adverse effects and impact. The result is a general disruption of community functions, damage and loss to life, property, livelihood and the environment. Vulnerabilities refer to long term factors and conditions which adversely affect the ability of the community or society to protect itself, to cope with or recover easily from the damaging effects of disaster events. These factors precede the disaster event, contribute to its severity and may continue to exist long after the disaster has struck. People’s vulnerabilities are determined by social, political and economic structures and relations. At the level of local communities, vulnerability is a difficult term to grasp. Instead, terms like ‘weaknesses’, ‘problems’ and ‘constraints’ are used. Capacities refer to the strengths, coping strategies and resources that exist within the people and their communities used to mitigate, prepare for, cope with damaging effects of hazards or quickly recover from a disaster. Capacities and vulnerabilities can be categorized into three categories: (1) physical/material; (2) social organizational; (3) attitudinal/motivational. Physical/material capacities/vulnerabilities refer to environmental, productive resources, skills, infrastructure and basic services existing in a community that enable (capacity) or hinder (vulnerability) it to prepare for, mitigate, withstand or recover from a disaster. Social/organizational capacities/vulnerabilities refer to the manner society is organized, its internal conflicts and how it manages them. These factors include family structures, leadership qualities and structures, patterns of decision making, participation levels, social division and conflict, community organizations, relationship to government, government policies and legislation. Motivational/attitudinal capacities/vulnerabilities refer to how people in society view themselves and their ability to affect their environment. Factors include attitude toward change, sense of ability to affect environment and get things done, religious belief, ideology, fatalism, dependence/self-reliance, unity/solidarity, cooperation. Page 146 of 171

Disaster risk is the likelihood or probability of a hazard striking a vulnerable community, causing injury, damage and loss. CDRC/N uses disaster risk interchangeably with disaster situation or disaster threat. The community usually assesses its disaster situation or disaster risk through the Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (HVCA) in the predisaster period. CDRC/N uses more the term HVCA for disaster risk assessment. The Damage, Needs Capacity Assessment is the tool used to assess emergency situations. The Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis is the tool used to assess post-disaster situations to identify rehabilitation and mitigation interventions. Citizenry-Based Development-Oriented Disaster Response (CBDODR) is an alternative disaster management approach promoted and implemented by CDRC/N since 1985. CBDO-DR aims to reduce people’s vulnerability and increase their capacity to prepare for, to cope with and to mitigate the adverse effects of disasters. The main distinguishing features of the CBDO-DR approach are: (1) it looks at disasters as a question of people’s vulnerability; (2) it recognizes people’s existing capacities and aims to strengthen these; (3) it contributes to addressing the roots of people’s vulnerabilities and to transforming or removing the structures generating inequality and underdevelopment; (4) it considers people’s participation essential to disaster management; (5) it puts a premium on the organizational capacity of the vulnerable sectors through the formation of grassroots disaster response organizations; and, (6) it mobilizes the less vulnerable sectors into partnerships with the vulnerable sectors in disaster management and development work. Vulnerable sectors (VS) of Philippine society are the poor peasants, fisherfolk, urban poor, workers, indigenous people, women, elderly, children and disabled who are also commonly referred to as the marginalized sectors. The vulnerable communities and groups are considered as the main actors in CBDO-DR. These vulnerable groups and communities are also called at-risk communities. Usually they earn income below poverty line. Less vulnerable sectors (LVS) are segments of society whose capacity to cope with hazards and recover from disaster situations is greater than that of the vulnerable sectors. These include professionals (e.g. teachers, doctors, dentists, nurses, media personnel), students, small scale merchants and entrepreneurs, etc. CBDO-DR mobilizes the LVS into partnerships with the VS in disaster response and development work. Disaster response is a collective term for all activities that contribute to the process of community capacity building and will lead to the reduction of people’s immediate and long-term vulnerabilities to disasters. Disaster response includes pre-, during and post-disaster activities. Preparedness refers to measures that ensure the ability of at-risk communities to forecast and take precautionary actions in advance of a potential threat. Essential are the formation of a Grassroots Disaster Response Organization (GDRO) and the formulation of a Counter Disaster Plan (warning, evacuation plan, securing of resources, organizational arrangements and policies, evacuation drills and training of community leaders and members). Page 147 of 171

Mitigation refers to measures that ensure the ability of at-risk communities to address vulnerabilities and the factors that generate them. Mitigation mainly focuses on reinforcing people’s livelihoods, coping strategies and continuous capability building of the GDRO or people’s organization to reduce disaster risk. In many communities, mitigation measures are incorporated in the Counter Disaster Plan or Community Development Plan. Emergency response refers to measures that ensure the ability of affected communities to respond and cope with the immediate effects of a disaster. This includes community-level search and rescue, medical assistance, evacuation center management, conduct of damage needs capacities assessment, planning and conduct of relief operations, networking and negotiation. Emergency response ensures the immediate survival of affected communities and focus on practical needs of survivors. Rehabilitation refers to measures that ensure the ability of affected communities to rebuild livelihoods and community facilities through restoring production, small infrastructure activities and increasing the communities’ organizational capacity. Resilient community possesses the capacity to cope with hazards, both natural and human-made. CBDO-DR contributes to the process of transforming vulnerable or at-risk communities into resilient communities. Pro-people development places the vulnerable or marginalized sectors at the heart of the development agenda as its main force as well as primary beneficiary. It refers both to the end result and the process of reducing vulnerabilities and increasing capacities of the marginalized sectors of Philippine society. People’s Organizations refer to sectoral and community organizations whose members share common interests and are committed to work together for pro-people development and social transformation Non-governmental Organizations refer to institutions or organizations that give various support services to people’s organizations. Grassroots Disaster Response Organization (GDRO) refers to organizations at the community level who are in charge of planning and implementing various disaster response activities embodied in the Counter Disaster Plan or Community Development Plan. The task of the Grassroots Disaster Response Organization includes sharing of the Counter Disaster Plan with all community members, monitoring disaster threats, networking and coordination with Barangay and Municipal Disaster Coordinating Councils, issuing warnings, managing community-wide evacuation, search and rescue, planning and conducting relief delivery operations with aid agencies, and implementing mitigation and rehabilitation measures in the community. The range of organizational expression of the GDRM varies from being a committee of an existing People’s Organization (PO) to being a community organization. GDRM can also take the form of networks or alliances among various POs and NGOs in disaster response, especially for emergency operations during major disasters. Page 148 of 171

Hazard Vulnerabilities and Capacities Assessment (HVCA) involves a participatory analysis of past patterns of hazard and present threats at the community level (hazard assessment) combined with an understanding of the underlying causes why hazards become disasters (vulnerability assessment) and of the available resources an affected community uses to cope with the adverse effects (capacity assessment). The HVCA is particularly designed to identify disaster preparedness and mitigation measures at the community level. Damage Needs and Capacity Assessment (DNCA) involves a participatory analysis of the disaster event, damages, the immediate needs and priorities of the affected community, and the remaining capacities people use to cope with the adverse effects. The DNCA is an instrument designed to assess the situation in a community right after a disaster and to identify appropriate emergency assistance. Capacities and Vulnerabilities Analysis (CVA) involves a participatory analysis of post-disaster situations from the community to the national level expressed in terms of capacities and vulnerabilities. The CVA helps to identify appropriate rehabilitation and mitigation measures that not only address the physical and material needs of the community, but also the organizational and attitudinal aspects. Elements at risk are people, animals, crops, houses, tools, infrastructure, but also social networks, livelihoods, communication mechanisms, attitudes, and anything that can be negatively affected by the hazard. Counter Disaster Plan (CDP) provides guidelines for operation of the GDRO and clarifies roles and responsibilities before, during and after the disaster event. The CDP is formulated based on the results of the HVCA. Some communities call this their contingency plan while others incorporate the CDP in the Community Development Plan. Advocacy are activities undertaken to propose alternatives or to effect changes in legislation, policies, programs and development approaches with the aim to clear out the factors and conditions that generate vulnerability at the community level. Public information is timely dissemination of relevant information to the general public on the disaster situation and responses for the purpose of warning, resource generation, social mobilization and coordination. Networking is building rapport and cooperation with NGOs, POs, GOs and other agencies for the purpose of awareness raising, resource generation, training and education, and broadening the base of support for CBDO-DR.

Page 149 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Annex 3 Tools for participatory data gathering a. Secondary Data Review


Concerns collection of existing data & information about: · relevant background info on community (census, research findings, reports, etc · possible threats to the community · scientific info about hazards / threats · case studies about hazards / threats in other communities · relevant legislation and government policies regarding human-made hazards


To get an overview of the situation and context; to save time; to learn from experiences elsewhere


Team; community members can validate information


Visit libraries, government offices, universities, research centers, collect newspap clippings, maps, etc.

Page 150 of 171

b. Direct Observation


Systematically observing objects, people, events, relationships, participation, and recording these observations.


1) To get a better picture of the (disaster) situation, especially of things that are difficult to verbalize (2) To cross-check verbal information. Observations are analyzed afterwards (for instance how men and women participate in community meetings).




Think about the purpose of why you are in the community, and identify indicator which you can assess through direct observation. These will make up your check

c. Semi-Structured Interviews (SSI)


Semi-structured interviews are discussions in an informal and conversational way They do not use a formal questionnaire but at the most a checklist of questions a flexible guide. There are different types of semi-structured interviews: (1) group

Page 151 of 171

interview (2) focus group discussion (3) individual interview (4) key-informant interview Why:

To get info (general and specific), to analyze problems, vulnerabilities, capacities perceptions, to discuss plans, etc. Each type of semi-structured interview has its specific purpose: z




group interview: to obtain community level information, to have access to large body of knowledge, not useful for sensitive issues individual interview: to obtain representative, personal info. May reveal differences / conflicts within community key-informant interview: to obtain special knowledge about a particular top you interview a nurse if you want to know more about epidemics, a farmer cropping practices, a village leader about procedures and policies focus group discussion: to discuss specific topics in detail with a small grou persons who are knowledgeable or who are interested in the topic. People also be grouped according to gender, age, owners of resources


Team of 2 - 4 people


(1) prepare key issues in advance (2) select one person to lead the interview (3) ask questions in an open-ended way (what, why, who, when, how, how do yo mean, anything else?) (4) ask for concrete information and examples (5) try to involve different people (if present) (6) pay attention to group dynamics (7) ask new (lines) of questions, arising from answers given (8) make notes in a discreet way

d. Historical Profile


Gathering information about what happened in the past


(1) To get insight in past hazards, changes in their nature, intensity and behavio (2) Understand present situation in community (causal link between hazards and vulnerabilities)

Page 152 of 171

(3) To make people aware of changes When: At initial phases How:

(1) Plan a group discussion and ensure that key-informants (old people, leaders, teachers) are present. Invite as many people as possible, especially the young on for them to hear the history of their community (2) Ask people if they can recall major events in the community, such as: · major hazards and their effects · changes in land use (crops, forest cover, etc.) · changes in land tenure · changes in food security and nutrition · changes in administration and organization · major political events (3) The facilitator can write the stories down on a blackboard or craft paper in chronological order Life histories: another method is to ask individual informants to give a detailed account of their life or regarding a specific issue from a historical perspective History tracing: ask individuals or group to begin with current experiences and to back in time. Purpose is to find reasons / causes which contributed to the occurre of a certain experience.

Example of historical profile of a coastal village in Southern Philippines

Page 153 of 171

Example of historical profile of a village in Northern Philippines 1920 Construction of highway 1940 Eleven families from the village settled in a nearby place, where conditions were more favourable for raising pigs (more water and stones to construct pen). 1943 The Japanese set up camps in the village. The forest was burned by the military when pursuing the Japanese during the liberation war 1948 Construction of communal irrigation system in order to maximize the wate sources for rice production to feed thew growing population. Fishponds we converted into rice fields. 1960 Barangay system was introduced in the area. Originally there was only one barangay, which resulted in a concentration of government projects along highway. To spread the projects, four separate barangays were formed 1981 Villagers went into small scale mining. Since this time cogon houses were converted into two-storey houses made of iron sheets. Mining activities contributed to development of farm implements 1987 Two unusual typhoons struck the area. crops were destroyed and and irrigation canals weak ened because of landslides 1988 People’s Organization was formed after a period of struggle against the Ch Dam project. 1988 Militarization started in the area. 1990/1991 Two earthquakes occurred in the area. The 1991 earthquake caused a lot o damage: three persons died due to land slides and falling stones, the scho was destroyed and the irrigation system weakened

Page 154 of 171

e. Mapping


Making a spatial overview of the area’s main features


Maps facilitate communication and stimulate discussions on important issues in t community. Maps can be drawn for many topics: · spatial arrangement of houses, fields, roads, rivers, and other land uses · hazard map, elements at risk, safe areas, etc. · resource map showing local capacities · mobility map

When: In initial phase when you enter community, and during community risk assessme WHo:

Community members


(1) Decide what kind of map should be drawn (2) Find men and women who know the area and are willing to share their exper (3) Choose a suitable place (ground, floor, paper) and medium (sticks, stones, se pencils, chalk) for the map

Page 155 of 171

(4) Help the people get started but let them draw the map by themselves

f. Transect walk


Systematic walk with key-informants through the community to explore spatial differences or land use zones by observing, asking, listening and producing a tra diagram


(1) Visualizes interactions between physical environment and human activities ov space and time. (2) Identifies danger zones, evacuation sites, local resources used during emerge periods, land use zones, etc. (3) Seeks problems and opportunities

When: In initial phase when you enter community, and during community risk assessme WHo:

Team with six to ten community members representing the cross-section of the a


(1) Based on map, select a transect line (can be more than one) (2) Select a group of six to ten people who represent the cross-section, and expl purpose (3) During walk, take time for brief and informal interviews at different places in transect (4) Focus on issues like land use, proneness to particular disasters, land tenure, even changes in the environment to draw a historical transect

Page 156 of 171

g. Seasonal calendar


Making a calendar showing different events, experiences, activities, conditions throughout the annual cycle


(1) Identify periods of stress, hazards, diseases, hunger, debt, vulnerability, etc. (2) Identify what people do in these periods, how they diversify sources of livelih when do they have savings, when do they have time for community activities, w are their coping strategies (3) Identify gender specific division of work, in times of disasters and in normal t


Team and community members; have separate sessions for men and women


(1) Use ‘blackboard’ or craft paper. Mark off the months of the year on the horizo axis. Ask people to list sources of livelihood, events, conditions, etc., and arrange these along the vertical axis. (2) Ask people to enumerate all the work they do (e.g. ploughing, planting, weed etc.) for each source of livelihood / income by marking months and duration, add gender and age (3) Facilitate analysis by linking the different aspects of the calendar: how do dis affect sources of livelihood? When is workload heaviest? Ask for seasonal food in period of food shortage, out-migration, etc. (4) You can continue the discussion on coping strategies, change in gender roles responsibilities during times of disasters, or other issues you think are relevant

Page 157 of 171

Page 158 of 171

h. Resource mapping What:

Making a map showing local resources and capacities, and gender differences in to and control over resources


(1) Identify available local capacities and resources people rely on in times of dis (2) Identify which resources are easily affected by disasters (3) Identify resources accessible and owned by community, or individuals


Team and selected individual households belonging to different income groups


(1) Ask persons to draw a map of their household and resources / capacities on w they depend for their livelihood / survival (remember material/physical, social/organizational, motivational/attitudinal capacities) (2) Ask household how they contribute to / support other households, community larger economic/ social environment (3) Ask people to use arrows to indicate flow of resources to and from household (4) Ask household member(s) who uses and controls resources (consider gender class, ethnicity, religion, age) (5) Ask questions to accompany the making of the maps, and put answers on the

i. Institutional & Social Network Analysis

Page 159 of 171


Making a diagram that shows key-organizations, groups and individuals in a community, nature of relationship and level of importance


(1) Identify organizations (local & outside), their role/importance, and perception people have about them, (2) Identify individuals, groups, organizations that play a role in disaster respons can support community


Team and community members


(1) Become familiar in advance with the names of the organizations (2) Ask people to determine criteria for the importance of an organization and to them according to these criteria (3) Ask people to what extent organizations are linked to each other; note kind o relationship (4) Draw circles to represent each organization or group; size of circle indicates importance (5) Continue focus group discussion on history of organizations; activities undert in community; how well do they function; how good is coordination; which organizations, groups, individuals are important in times of disasters, community decision making mechanisms, etc.

j. Livelihood / coping strategies analysis


Combination of individual household interview and making diagrams presenting different income or food sources


To understand livelihood strategies, behavior, decisions and perceptions of risk, capacities and vulnerabilities of households from different socio-economic backgr


Team can split up in smaller teams to conduct individual household interviews Page 160 of 171

simultaneously How:

(1) Review hazard map, seasonal calendar, and resource map, and determine cri to select households belonging to different socio-economic groups (sample shoul be at random) (2) Decide how many and which households in particular you will interview (3) Conduct the interview (1 hour); introduce yourself and reason for interview (4) Start with getting to know household members, composition, age, gender, fo by questions about livelihood and coping strategies (5) Draw block or pie diagrams to facilitate discussion on livelihood sources (6) Continue discussion on how the household copes in times of stress (materialsocial-motivational)

k. Problem tree


Flow diagram showing relations between different aspects


Identify local major problems / vulnerabilities as well as root causes and effects

When: During later part of situational analysis or community risk assessment Who:

Team facilitates community members’ meeting (optional to have separate meetin men and women)


(1) From other tools and interviews, various concerns and problems are identified (2) Give all people small pieces of paper and ask them to write one major proble each card, and to put these on the wall (people can draw problems in case they d Page 161 of 171

know how to write and read) (3) Ask two or three volunteers to group the problems according to similarity or interrelationship (4) Now the making of the ‘problem tree’ can start: the trunk represents the problems; the roots are the causes; the leaves are the effects · Ask why issues on the cards are problems. Ask ‘but why?’ after each explanation to arrive at the root causes · To arrive at the effects, ask for the consequences of each problem

l. Assessing Capacity Of People’s Organization


Tool for organizational analysis


To determine the kind of organizational support a people’s organization needs to address problems and risks, and to gradually build up its management capacity


Team facilitates discussion with community members and leaders


(1) Conduct semi-structured interview with guide-questions like: · What is the history of the PO? When was it formed? For what purpose? · How many members are there? Active? Passive? increasing or decreasing in number? Attendance during meetings

Page 162 of 171

路 How are decisions made? 路 Does the PO have a community development plan? 路 Are committees functioning? 路 What did PO contribute to community so far? (2) Conduct a SWOT-analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) (3) Identify measures to address weaknesses and threats, while using strengths opportunities

Page 163 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Annex 4 Damage, Needs and Capacities Analysis (DNCA) I.

Name of People's Organization: ____________________________


Description of the Disaster Event Disaster Event : ________________________________________ Date of Occurrence : ________________________________________ Duration : ________________________________________

III. Affected Area _________________________________________________________ (Address: Barangay / City Province / Region) Total Land Area : _______________________________________ Total Population : _______________________________________ Total No. of Families : _______________________________________ Total No. of Families Affected : ________________________________ No. of Children Below 15 Years Old : ___________________________ No. of Women Affected : _____________________________________ No. of Missing Person : ______________________________________ Usual Family Size or No. of Children Per Family: __________________ IV. Damage to Structures No. of Families Who Own Their Houses : ________________________ No. of Families Who Lease : __________________________________ Structures Affected


No. Partially Destroyed

No. of Completely Destroyed

Damage to Livelihood Sources of Livelihood in the Area A. Men Type of Economic Activity

Regular Income (Monthly / Daily)

No. Engaged in Livelihood

Page 164 of 171

B. Women Type of Economic Activity


Regular Income (Monthly / Daily)

No. Engaged in Livelihood

Present Location of the Survivors Did the afected families evacuate or do they remain in their respective homes? _________________________________________________________ (If the answer to the above is yes, answer section A or B below.) A. Evacuation Centers (Specify name, location, distance from place of origin) _________________________________________________

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

When did the families move to the evacuation center? _________ How large is the evacuation center (square meter)? ___________ How many are staying in the center? _______________________ Is there enough ventilation? ______________________________ Are there beds to sleep on? ______________________________ If none, where do the people sleep? ________________________ How are waste and excreta disposed of? ____________________ Are there enough latrines? _______________________________ Are there sources of potable drinking water? _________________

B. In the absence of an evacuation center, please specify present location of the survivors and give brief description of the physical condition of the place _____________________________ VII Organizations Where the Target Beneficiaries are Members 1. Name of Organization


Total No. of Members

No. of Members from Survivors

2. Can these organizations help in the relief operation?_______________ In what way can they help? __________________________________ ________________________________________________________ VIII Assistance Received from Other Organizations

Page 165 of 171

Name of Organization

Assistance Extender


Quantity / Estimated Amount


Survivors' Coping Mechanisms What are the survivors' means of survival in the disaster / evacuation / relocation site: _______________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________


Identification of Needs of Target Beneficiaries A. Medical 1.

Present Type of Illnesses

No. of Cases Per Age Group 0-5

6 - 15

16 - 65

Over 65

2. Causes of Death

No. of Cases Per Age Group 0-5

6 - 15

16 - 65

Over 65

3. Nature of Injury (indicate severity)

No. of Cases Per Age Group 0-5

6 - 15

16 - 65

Over 65

Page 166 of 171

4. Are these people suffering from psychological disturbances? If yes, please state observed abnormal behaviors and how many are exhibiting such behavior. ____________________________________ 5. Are there medical personnel who can help in the treatment of ill persons? If yes, how many and what are their field of expertise? Where is the nearest hospital of medical facility (private & public)? ________________________________________________________ 6. How many need professional medical treatment? _________________ 7. How many need to be hospitalized? ___________________________

B. Water 1. Source of water for drinking and household use (NWSA, others) _____________________________________________________ 2. No. of water pumps - Potable : _________________________ - Not Potable : _________________________ C. Food 1. Who and how many should receive food relief? Why? __________ _____________________________________________________ 2. Are there food stocks available locally? How long will these last? _____________________________________________________ 3. When will food rations be used and until when? _______________ D. Clothing 1. Are there survivors who are in need of clothing assistance? If yes, how many? ____________________________________________ 2. Clothes that need to be supplied For


Children Women Men

E. Other Items Needed 1. Kitchen Utensils : what, how many and why? _________________

Page 167 of 171

2. Sleeping materials : what, how many and why? _______________ _____________________________________________________ 3. No. of families in need of materials for temporary shelter (plastic Sheets) _______________________________________________ XI

Additional Information on the Area Describe the physical features of the area and the disaster threats / hazards. (e.g., near the riverbank, low-lying, fire/toxic hazard from factory, narrow/congested streets, etc.) Place this at the back of this form. DATE OF INTERVIEW : _______________________________________ RESPONDENT/S : _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ INTERVIEWER : _______________________________________

Page 168 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster R Annex 5 Categories and factors for capacities and vulnerabilities analysisยน Physical / Material Economic activities: means of livelihood, productive and other skills Land, water, animals, capital, other means of production (access and control Infrastructure and services: roads, health facilities, schools, electricity, comm transport, housing, etc. Human capital: population, mortality, diseases, nutritional status, literacy, n levels Environment factors: forestation, soil quality, erosion Natural hazards: drought, flood, earthquake, cyclone/hurricane, etc. and sys with them (or lack thereof)

Social / Organizational Family structures (weak/strong) Leadership qualities and structures Decision-making structures (who is left out, who is in, effectiveness) Participation levels Divisions and conflicts: ethnic, class, caste, religion, ideology, political group groups, and structures for mediating conflicts Degree of justice, equality, access to political process Community organizations: formal, informal, traditional, governmental, progr Relationship to government, administrative structures Isolation or connectedness

Motivational / Attitudinal Attitude towards change Sense of ability to affect their world, environment, get things done Initiative Faith, determination, fighting spirit Religious beliefs, ideology Fatalism, hopelessness, despondency, discouragement Dependent / independent (self-reliant) Consciousness, awareness Cohesiveness, unity, solidarity, cooperation Orientation towards past, present, future (NOTE: in all categories, ask WHO has these things, WHO does not? Men only? Women? One class / Break it down)

______________________________________________ ยน

This list was distributed by Mary Anderson and Peter Woodrow, during their workshop in Manila in

Page 169 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Annex 6 Acronyms ADPC

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center


Armed Forces of the Philippines


Alyansa ng Magbubukid sa Gitnang Luzon


Barangay Disaster Response Organization


Bread for Emergency Assistance and Development

CBDO-DR Citizenry-Based and Development-Oriented Disaster Response CDP

Center for Disaster Preparedness


Counter Disaster Plan


Citizens’ Disaster Response Center


Citizens’ Disaster Response Center-Central Luzon


Citizens’ Disaster Response Network


Central Luzon Aeta Association

CONCERN Central Luzon Center for Emergency Aid Rehabilitation CRC

Children Rehabilitation Center


Center for Research and Epidemiology of Disasters


Cebu Relief and Rehabilitation Center


Center for Relief and Rehabilitation Education and Economic Development


Center for Relief and Rehabilitation of Samar


Center for Relief and Rehabilitation Services - Cagayan Valley


Children in Situations of Armed Conflict


Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis


Disaster Response Center


Disaster Management Orientation


Damage Needs Assessment


Damage Needs and Capacity Assessment


Disaster Preparedness Training


Disaster Response Committee


Department of Social Welfare and Development


European Commission Humanitarian Office


Food Security and Nutrition Improvement Program Page 170 of 171


Grassroots Disaster Response Organization


Government of the Republic of the Philippines


Humanitarian Alliance Against Disasters Foundation


HALAD-Central Mindanao Region


Hazard Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment


IBON Databank Philippines


Ilocos Region Development Center


Leyte Center for Development Education


Less Vulnerable Sector


MAI Welfare and Development Foundation


Moro Islamic Liberation Front


Montañosa Relief and Rehabilitation Services Foundation


National Disaster Coordination Council


Non Government Organization


National Land Use Committee


New People’s Army


Negros Relief and Rehabilitation Center


Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration


Presidential Decree

PHIVOLCS Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology PO

People’s Organization


Participatory Risk Assessment


Regional Center


Relief Delivery Operation

RESPOND Rehabilitation Services of People Organized Against Disasters RDRM

Regional Disaster Response Machinery


Social Investigation and Class Analysis


Southern Tagalog Relief and Rehabilitation of Disaster Victims


Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats


Tabang Para sa Mga Biktima sa Bikol


Tri-People Development

Page 171 of 171

Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response  

Experiences and Practices in Disaster Management of the Citizens' Disaster Response Network in the Philippines