Every year, the Philippines, due to its geographical location along the typhoon belt in the Pacific, is visited by an average of 20 typhoons, five of which usually bring great devastation to the country. And every year, despite awareness of our vulnerability to extreme weather effects and seismic hazards, with each calamity that hits, we are left wondering why the damages are still as severe as the last.

The Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act of 2010 should have equipped us better in facing calamities. The law, after all, reoriented the country's disaster management system from responding to disasters to reducing risks brought and worsened by calamities. But in the 10 years since its passage, the magnitude of our losses has not changed by much compared to before the implementation of the law. From 1999 to 2010, an average of 10,800 deaths were recorded, but from 2011 to 2022 when the policy was in place, there were about 16,000 casualties.

That there does not seem to be much improvement even with the passage of the DRRM Act shows that the government has been largely negligent in keeping Filipinos safe amid calamities.

Wherever the Wind Blows

In the first few months under the term of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., two typhoons entered the country, causing an estimated P6 billion worth of damages to infrastructure. In September and October, the Philippines was struck by Karding and Paeng in Central Luzon and South Luzon, respectively. Both typhoons displaced millions in two consecutive months, and most damages were found in the agricultural sector, resulting in losses amounting to P3.41 billion, affecting the livelihood of 89,142 farmers and fisherfolk. 

Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama blamed the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) for failing to give accurate information regarding the typhoon, which led to huge losses. Marcos said that his government should have done better in preparing.

But the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) responded that they have released flood advisories, and PAGASA forecasted Paeng to hit the Visayas region and move toward Metro Manila. Whether people do evacuate after getting that information or not is another matter.

Aside from passing the blame, for the longest time, the Philippines's disaster management focused on actions after typhoons have already wrecked the country—after they have already damaged properties, ravaged crops, displaced families, and even caused casualties. Indeed, agencies, and the local and national governments were generally reactive to disasters. The Philippine disaster response was always focused on the provision of relief goods after the storm had passed, and on building flood control after rains have already submerged towns.

Pressure Area

Politicians actually had already recognized the country's lack of proper disaster management plans since the early 1990s. Back then, the Philippines's disaster management system was governed by Presidential Decree 1566 of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., which followed a traditional approach of focusing only on emergency relief measures. Local government units (LGU) were permitted to use calamity funds only for quick response activities without any allocation for preparation. 

The passage of the DRRM Act in 2010 was supposed to mark the country's paradigm shift in terms of disaster management. But the occurrence of huge losses and casualties during typhoons and other calamities shows we are still failing in mitigating disaster risks.

“Sa batas and perspectives, we’re good. Pero sa implementations, mukhang may hindi tama,” said Jake Cadag, a geographer and associate professor at UP Diliman who specializes in disaster studies and risk reduction. 

In 2012, the Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazard (NOAH) project was launched. Among its functions are to identify landslide-prone areas, detect flood and other hazards present in the area, and measure wave surge, wave refraction, and coastal circulation. But former President Rodrigo Duterte defunded Project NOAH in 2017. In 2020, Duterte also cut the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council’s budget by P4 billion, and this year, Marcos plans to slash DOST funds by P900 million.

The DRRM Act mandates LGUs to allocate five  percent of their revenues for disaster preparation, mitigation, and response. Of this amount, 70 percent should go to preparation efforts, such as training volunteers and buying equipment. The remaining 30 percent, meanwhile, will be allocated for quick response funds for relief and recovery programs for those affected by disasters.

Some advocates, however, argue that the law gave city heads greater discretion over the use of the local calamity funds. In a study on the country's disaster management paradigm, researchers shared an informant's report that politicians prefer being seen handing out relief goods to calamity-stricken communities, rather than opening new evacuation centers.

Despite economic losses from disasters, calamity funds, both of national and LGUs, are not being spent. The Commission on Audit flagged the Davao City LGU for not utilizing its P711-million disaster funds. Several agencies also failed to implement projects for Yolanda and Marawi Siege victims. For Cadag, who also served as a consultant for LGUs for their DRRM plans, this underspending of funds could mean that LGUs and agencies do not know how to use the funds or they just do not have any disaster preparedness activities.

"Meron talagang issues that restrict the use of funds, pero sa palagay ko, they are issues that can be solved. Hindi naman talaga na malaking problema yan, need lang ng additional effort to really implement the programs," said Cadag.

And some cities did exert effort. According to Cadag, the Metro Manila Development Authority, along with other government units, is prepared for the Big One, a hypothetical large earthquake that could hit cities situated along active fault lines in the country. There had been drills, training, and projects to prepare communities for this.

But Cadag cautioned that even if authorities were prepared for such a disaster, it would still not be enough if too many people are in need of help all at once. The best measure in mitigating the effect of calamities is to decrease the risks faced by people.

Beyond the Storm

The state's emphasis only on response, instead of preparation, could be rooted in its perception of disasters and their effects. The government views disasters as setbacks to development plans, leading them to invest more in activities to return to a state of normalcy, according to a study on the politics of disaster risks. This manifests in authorities simply placing affected communities in their prior conditions, instead of assessing why they were victims in the first place.

When severe monsoon rains caused flooding in Metro Manila in 2012, 125,000 people living in informal settlements were the main victims. In mitigating disaster risks, these displaced individuals should have relocated to a place where they are out of harm's way. But when families were supposed to move out, it turned out that their supposed relocation site had also been flooded. And the additional proposed site was also flooded.

"Sa tingin ko ang solusyon ay nasa ating mga development programs. Hindi lang mga disaster preparedness programs—kumbaga yung solusyon mas malawak pa sa disaster,” Cadag said.

Damages from disasters, aside from being a result of calamities themselves, are brought on by unsolved social issues. Poverty or homelessness, for example, influences people to live in hazard-prone areas.

Mitigating disaster risks, therefore, means going beyond thinking only of the consequences of typhoons, earthquakes, and other calamities. Proposed development programs must be in line with ensuring that all individuals are provided a place that would not be submerged in water or soil, and that they are given their basic needs so they would not move to places with higher hazard risks.

There will always be storms, earthquakes, and other calamities that may strike anytime. But integrating community-based policies and determining solutions to the system’s deeply rooted problems help reduce the damages from disasters. ●