New administration, same faces, same shortsighted proposals. 

Motions have reemerged in the 19^th Philippine Congress for establishing a Department of Disaster Resilience (DDR). Despite being named a priority of the previous leadership, bills proposing its creation ultimately failed to be passed in both houses of the legislature.

Its proponents keep insisting that the DDR should be the institution that strengthens our country’s capacity to address disasters. Per the current set of nearly 30 bills in the House of Representatives, it would be equipped with a more centralized authority and more resources to implement policies and programs to deal with “natural disasters” and enhance coordination between local government units (LGUs) and non-government stakeholders. 

However, a closer look shows that the DDR as currently constituted has many flaws that would not result in the improvement of disaster risk reduction management (DRRM) in the Philippines.

The ‘climate’ picture

In some of the DDR bills, the Climate Change Commission (CCC) would be abolished, and its functions would be transferred to the department. While the version that was passed in the lower House two-plus years ago removed its dissolution, the reemergence of this provision in recently-filed bills is nevertheless concerning.

The climate crisis is more than just about disasters. It is not just about responding to the loss and damage that typhoons, droughts, flashfloods, and other extreme weather events inflict on communities around the country. 

It is also foolish to simply let climate change adaptation be subsumed into the paradigm of DRRM through this proposal, especially when DRRM itself can be considered as being within the adaptation context. This makes another provision of the bills, to transfer the jurisdiction of the adaptation-oriented People’s Survival Fund to the DDR, an ill-advised one. 

Just as important to consider in this equation is climate change mitigation, or reducing the pollution emitted from the burning of fossil fuels (i.e., coal, gas) that causes the climate crisis. This is quite different from disaster mitigation, which refers to reducing risk to peoples and properties from the impacts of natural hazards.

Should CCC be absorbed into the DDR, this key aspect of climate action would likely not receive the focus that it should get. This is a timely reminder that six years after ratifying the Paris Agreement, the government still has not publicized a comprehensive decarbonization plan aligned with the self-determined goal of reducing pollution by 75% within the current decade.

The ‘local’ picture

Once again, the current DDR bills propose the abolishment of the Local DRRM Councils (LDRRMCs), which effectively eliminates the right of non-government stakeholders to have direct influence in local decision-making processes. These would be replaced instead by offices that would merely consult these groups that are not only among those at highest risk to potential disasters, but also whose voices are not always accounted for by other policymakers.

It must be reiterated that a strong localized approach is at the heart of any effective disaster management, as reflected in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and existing national laws. LGUs and communities are the first line of defense and responders against potential impacts that will vary in each community, so building their capacities to address disaster risk is needed to avoid or minimize costs and impacts.

Given this context, LDRRMCs are truly essential for empowering communities to become more active participants in every step of DRRM, from prevention to rehabilitation and recovery. Its removal is actually detrimental to the very same “whole-of-society” approach that proponents claim the DDR would exemplify.

DRRM should not be the mandate of just one department or any other entity. Instead of centralizing disaster-related functions that would simply be impractical in an archipelagic nation, the government should instead focus on improving existing community-based DRRM systems and practices that are suitable to the local context to which they are situated. 

Without strong evidence-based policymaking, consistent political will, proper use of available funds and resources, and a truly inclusive approach, whatever system is designed to address disasters would end up being ineffective.

The ‘resilience’ picture

It is no secret that the term “resilience” is now receiving a more negative reaction within the nation, especially when politicians themselves are over-glorifying it. Millions of Filipinos deserve so much better than to be expected to simply withstand any problem or threat thrown their way.

Always remember that this toxic culture of resilience must be ended quickly for the sake of current and future generations of Filipinos. For so long, it has been an excuse by many policymakers to evade accountability for their failures to properly address disasters, among many other governance and development issues. 

We are all stakeholders in dealing with disasters. We have the right to demand from our leaders to enforce solutions that reduce the effects of disasters of all kinds and aid our pursuit of sustainable development. We also have the right to directly participate in decision-making processes to protect our well-being and ensure a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

Instead of consolidating power even more, it should be LGUs that would be further empowered through financial and technical support from the national government agencies and other sectors. Capacity-building measures must also be implemented for the benefit of local stakeholders in reducing disaster risks and enhancing preparedness. 

This November marks the 10^th anniversary since Super Typhoon Yolanda made landfall on Philippine soil. That incident triggered the calls for improving the nation’s DRRM and climate strategies, with some leaning into scrapping the National DRRM Council for a department. Yet these proponents of the DDR are still missing the point.

This has been said before, and it is worth repeating: there is no such thing as “natural disaster.” At its core, a disaster only occurs when we fail to properly avoid or prepare for a potential hazard that inflicts significant loss and damage that disrupts the normal living in an area.  

All these years, the same words of wisdom remain true: “Prevention is better than cure.” – Rappler.com

John Leo Algo is the Deputy Executive Director for Programs and Campaigns of Living Laudato Si’ Philippines and a member of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas and the Youth Advisory Group for Environmental and Climate Justice under the UNDP in Asia and the Pacific. He is a climate and environment journalist since 2016.