The role of civil societies in managing climate risks after Yolanda

Among the first responders after the Yolanda onslaught were organized citizens' groups on the ground who weren’t seriously impacted. Groups and NGOs in nearby locales were likewise in the affected areas a day after the typhoon. This illustrates the civil society capacity to mobilize its own resources immediately after each disaster. Seemingly, it is a stark contrast to the more-structured and well-funded machinery of the government. 
 

The civil society evolves time and again, in response to prevailing political, social and economic conditions. Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation are now buzz words in multitude initiatives. This time however, global conditions are compounded by natural and man-induced risks disrupting and threatening commerce, resources, and lives. 
 

In the Yolanda-devastated areas, a number of local government units have undergone some form of DRR capacity building prior to the typhoon. Mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation are already familiar terms. Weather information updates, evacuation plans, rescue and recovery teams were in place. However, the magnitude and intensity of the typhoon was so unlike any other previous disaster ever experienced by the communities. 
 

This is where we explain the link between extreme weather events and climate change. Natural disasters are part of the Philippine context and geography. Historically, deadly earthquakes, super typhoons, tsunami, storm surges, landslides, flooding have wrought havoc in many places around the country. However, these risks are now intensified by climate trends that show increasing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere disrupting weather and the climate system. It does not help that the Philippines has a poverty incidence of 19.7%, wherein 1 in every five families (with 5 household members) survive with less than PhP5,513 a month. Marginalized communities with no land tenure live in vulnerable areas such as the coasts, riverbanks and slopes. 

NDRRM Act and CCC Act
 

The civil society lobbied for the passage of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (NDRRM) Act of 2010 or RA 10121. RA 10121 establishes disaster coordinating councils (DRRMCs) from the barangay, all the way to the national (NDRRMC) government structure. Under the law, the NDRRMC is tasked to prepare the country and respond to natural disasters including emergencies and conflicts. The civil society has four representatives from the academe, faith-based groups, NGOs, and community-based organizations. Ideally, CSOs are given preferential consideration in joining local DRRMCs. 
 

The Climate Change Act or RA 9729 was passed in 2009 in response to typhoons Ketsana (Ondoy and Parma (Pepeng). RA 9729 created the Climate Change Commission, providing for a civil society and an academe representation in its Advisory Board. To date, unlike the NDRRMC, CSO representation in the CCC remains unresolved. Under RA 10174, which establishes the People’s Survival Fund and amends the Climate Change Act, a CSO representative currently sits in the PSF Board. The biggest challenge now however is that the PSF remains unfunded since its passage. One billion pesos was mandated by the law, and around P500 million was allocated from the GAA’s unprogrammed funds. However, PSF cannot be operationalized without the necessary funds. 
 

CSOs in DRR and CCA
 

The civil society understands that addressing DRR and CCA is not two separate processes. Though risks and hazards caused by disasters may vary from those induced by climate change, impacts on communities are now amplified with warmer temperatures, higher precipitation, sea level rise and more extreme weather events. 
 

Identifying the underlying risks and hazards that may lead to a disaster, mitigating these risks, preparing communities and effectively responding to disasters are among the steps required for DRR. CCA on the other hand requires analyzing risks and hazards based on climate trends and projections. Impacts may not be immediately evident such as the case with disasters. Climate change also results to slow onset events (SOEs). Sea level rise for instance takes years of observation before its impacts are felt. From a climate risk assessment, adaptation options are proposed. In CCA, actions are taken to anticipate potential harmful effects of the changing climate, or actions may also take advantage of potential benefits from a changing environment. 
 

Notable CCA civil society programs include the Climate Resiliency Field Schools (CrFS) established in Gerona, Tarlac and Irosin, Sorsogon by the Rice Watch and Action Network (RWAN), in partnership with the LGUs of Gerona and Irosin, and PAG-ASA. RWAN together with PAG-ASA train municipal agriculturists and farmers in understanding weather and climate information, and how these climactic factors affect their agricultural crops.

Another CCA approach is the Ecosystems based Adaptation (EBA), implemented by Conservation International in the Verde Island Passage (VIP), covering Miindoro Oriental and Occidental, Batangas, Marinduque and Romblon provinces. Mangrove and sea grass conservation, ecotourism projects, establishment of No-Take Zones, Fishery Management Areas and Marine Protected Areas comprise the EBA initiatives in the VIP. 
 

The NDRRM Act and CC Act both require the national and local governments to develop the National/Local Disaster Risk Reduction Plans (N/LDRRMP) and National/Local Climate Change Adaptation Plans (NLCCAP). These provisions are readily complied with nationally, but locally, they pose serious challenges to the local government units. There are already 26 or so local plans required from LGUs, the LDRRMP and LCCAP are two additional impositions on the cash-strapped and technically challenged local bureaucracies. Recognizing the limitations of LGUs in complying with these two new laws, Aksyon Klima Pilipinas together with the Building Disaster Resilient Communities (BDRC) Learning Circle and the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG), have published the toolkit on mainstreaming DRR-CCA in local development planning and budgeting processes. The toolkit is designed in such a way that it utilizes current processes mandated by the Rationalized Planning System of the Philippines and tools that local government units commonly use.

 

Yolanda reconstruction and rehabilitation
 

More than 100 CSOs met in Cebu in March this year to discuss actions for Yolanda rehabilitation and reconstruction. Most of these civil society groups have commenced on various degrees of rehabilitation and reconstruction projects in the affected areas. Multi-million investments for housing, livelihoods, WASH, food security and education have been expended to this date by CSOs, both local and international.
 

In comparison, the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery (PARR), the government’s newly created- coordinating arm, is just starting to expand its structure and define its actual role in the rebuilding process. PARR requires LGUs to submit rehabilitation plans for funding consideration, while quite perplexingly, DILG Sec. Mar Roxas is already handling out close to a billion of rehab money to several LGUs. NEDA, on the other hand, had recently concluded its Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA), the results of which should feed into the government’s own framework for rebuilding, called Reconstruction Assistance for Yolanda or RAY. NDRRMC meanwhile grapples with a new head at its helm, and with the similar task of coordinating the horde of responses in the Yolanda-affected areas. 
 

How do we make sense of all these parallel efforts? A unifying call made in the CSO Cebu meeting states that the rehabilitation and reconstruction process should not build further risks, rather it should be carried out to build the country’s resilience against future disaster and climate change impacts. It is time to consider and actually put in place sustainable models in all levels of rebuilding such as climate proofed structures, climate resilient farming and fishing, climate friendly energy sources, and climate sensitive plans, budgeting and policies. 
 

Proposals such as these are already evident in many CSO-pilot projects around the country and in many parts of the globe. What the government and the rest of the private sector can improve on is to harness the working effects of these good practices, forge institutional partnerships with CSOs and allot the necessary funds to sustain such endeavors. Both the NDRRM Act and the CC Act provide mechanisms for collaboration among the different sectors involved. The next key step is operationalizing these existing provisions with the mandatory fund allocations to make them function. 
 

Also crucial to the rebuilding efforts is the role of the LGUs and communities concerned. Any national initiative must take into consideration the local requisites in its existing context. What may work in some areas, may not be applicable with the rest. It is always vital to do assessments and consultations first before projects are prescribed. 
 

The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) in its 2013 yearend report underscored Yolanda’s effect on the local economy, with the typhoon reducing the country’s capacity to meet its MDG goals, specifically poverty reduction at 16.6%, by 2015. ESCAP now urges Asian economies vulnerable to climate change, to mainstream DRR-CCA in their own development strategies. 
 

It is now time to re-think existing development standards that further erode the Philippines’ capacity to cope with disasters and climate change. Certain economic activities exacerbate the vulnerabilities of a particular ecosystem. For instance, black sand (magnetite) mining along coastal barangays increases the communities’ risk against storm surges and sea level rise. Unmitigated construction of coal plants contributes more GHG in the atmosphere. Immediate impacts are witnessed in the air and water quality and in agricultural production. More disturbing are the lingering effects of the harmful gasses as they accumulate and disrupt climatic patterns in the long run.
 

Furthermore, in this adversely challenging milieu, the government above all must provide the leadership. Participants at the CSO meeting emphasize the importance of the government’s central role in leading the rebuilding process—a leadership that consults stakeholders of what they need to rebuild their communities, a leadership that asserts sovereignty over donor conditionalities, a leadership that adheres to transparency and accountability for its own actions. 
 

The world rejoices at the Filipinos’ display of social resilience. We must now work towards building our own economic and ecosystems resilience. Filipinos love inclusions in almost any global list, yet being in the top lists of studies on vulnerabilities to disasters is no bragging matter. Yolanda may have presented the country with so many challenges to hurdle, but CSOs, with their ever critical nature, treat Yolanda’s impacts as opportunities as well. Foremost is the opportunity to rebuild better, that is, if CSOs’ contribution will be rightfully acknowledged and integrated in the government’s own schemes.

 

The author was the national coordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas, a network of 40 local, national and international organizations concerned with climate change and disaster risk reduction, from March 2009 to March 2013. She also works as consultant on climate change and environment, to various groups. She managed the Environment Defense Program of the Department of National Defense under then DND Secretary Orlando Mercado.