Draft Paper Learning from Yolanda (a.k.a. T/S Haiyan) Eric Garcia Velandria SJ RCE Northern Mindanao Dean, School of Education, Xavier University Philippines E-mail: [email protected] INTRODUCTION The UN World Disaster Report 20121 ranked the Philippines as third most disaster-prone country in the world (Beck, et al., 2012). Annually, about twenty typhoons strike the country. In the Philippines, sea levels, sea temperature and weather patterns are expected to be disproportionately altered by the effects of climate change. Other geographic features combined with widespread poverty put the country and its 98 million people at extreme risk from climate change. Located on the Ring of Fire and in a main alleyway for typhoons, the Philippines will never be disaster-proof; but, experts say it can cut the risk. Tropical Storm (T/S) Yolanda tested the Philippines’s ability to cut the risk of disaster. At 4:40 a.m. of November 8, 2014, typhoon Yolanda made its first landfall over Guian, Eastern Samar; it was a category 5 typhoon. With peak winds of 315 kilometers (195 miles) an hour, the storm howled and made its 2nd landfall over Tolosa, Leyte at 7:00 a.m. Unrelenting, its 3rd landfall was over Daanbantayan, Cebu at around 9:40 a.m. An hour later, it struck Bantayan Island, Cebu. By 12:00 noon, it felled Concepcion, Iloilo. It maintained its strength all through the afternoon as it approached the Calamian Group of Islands. Then, at 8:00 p.m., the storm made its 6th and final landfall over Busuanga, Palawan before slightly weakening and moving towards the West Philippine Sea. A total of five provinces were fatally struck by its six successive landfalls before it finally left the Philippine Area of Responsibility the following day at 3:30 p.m. (National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, 2013). Consequently, crucial lifelines like, electric power supply was cut off in seven regions nationwide. Telecommunication lines were also severed. With the breakdown of power and communications system, no one knew the extent of destruction. Cut off from the rest of the archipelago, the five provinces directly hit had no access to first aid medication and relief operations at the most critical hours. The impasse continued for several days. People who initially survived the storm but needed urgent medical attention eventually succumbed to death; all other survivors became increasingly desperate. 1 The World Disaster Report 2012, a collaboration among the United Nations University’s Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU- EHS), the German Alliance for Development Works (Alliance) and the US-based environmental group, The Nature Conservancy, rated the disaster risk of 173 countries using “globally available data” on their individual exposure and susceptibility to disasters, as well as their coping and adaptive capacities in the event of natural calamities, rated the Philippines as third most disaster-prone country in the world. 1 Typhoon Yolanda was a very strong tropical storm and it dramatically revealed the Philippines’s vulnerability to disaster. Disaster management experts described T/S Yolanda as a super typhoon with a class of its own. “Even the best-prepared nation would have a hard time bracing itself against the effects of such a storm,” Kathryn Hawley, a disaster management expert from Asia Foundation told Rappler’s Marites Vitug (Ranada, 2013). The magnitude of its destruction was immense. On December 13, the UNOCHA reported that significant humanitarian needs still remained despite signs of recovery in some areas. Over three million people continued to be displaced from their homes with nearly 102,000 living in evacuation centers (UNOCHA, 2013). Six weeks after the storm, the civil defense director announced that the number of casualties, placed by the government at 6,057 dead and 1,779 missing, was almost certain to rise (Frances-Presse, 2013). By then, authorities were reportedly still collecting bodies at an average of 8 to 10 additional cadavers daily. The director also expressed doubt that many of the missing would be found alive since so much time had elapsed since the killer typhoon flattened and flooded whole towns mainly in the central islands of Samar and Leyte, particularly, Tacloban City. Human life is priceless. And with thousands of human lives lost, rebuilding communities becomes even more daunting.2 Plus, the financial cost of rehabilitation is staggering. President Aquino said the country would need 8.59 billion dollars for rehabilitation efforts alone for damage due to typhoon Yolanda (Dacanay, 2013). RATIONALE With so many lives lost, countless persons scarred by psycho-emotional trauma, and the staggering cost of disaster response and rehabilitation, lessons ought to be drawn from typhoon Yolanda’s wrath. What can be learned? How can hazard risks be mitigated and managed? This paper is an attempt to learn from the Yolanda disaster through a review of what happened before, during, and after the super storm struck the Philippines. Insights drawn from this reflection process hopefully can contribute to building a culture of preparedness against hazards and resilience from disasters. Specifically, it is hoped that recommendations can be offered to Xavier University so that it may, as an academic institution of higher learning, continue to help promote sustainable development in the Philippines through the reduction and management of risks associated with hazards. METHODOLOGY News clippings, interviews, researches and other archival materials were studied to make meaning of the impact of the typhoon. The Comprehensive Disaster Management Framework for comprehensive disaster risk management was principally used as basis for reflecting on the events that transpired. The basic components of the framework reviewed were mitigation and preparedness for pre-event; and, response and rehabilitation for the post-disaster phase. Additionally, data from the Hyogo Framework Agreement was reviewed to determine the Philippines’ progress in efforts towards disaster risk reduction and management. In 2005, the Philippines adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2 Post-disaster recovery takes time and can be very costly. In December of both 2011 and 2012, two typhoons named Sendong and Pablo struck the Philippines’s southern island of Mindanao. Each typhoon killed more than 1,000 people. Areas hit by these typhoons were still in the recovery phase when t/s Yolanda struck. Moreover, three weeks prior to typhoon Yolanda’s landfall, on October 15, 2013, an intensity 7.2 earthquake shook the central Philippines, particularly Bohol and Cebu islands. It was the deadliest earthquake in the Philippines in 23 years. According to official reports by the National Risk Reduction Management Council (NDRRMC), 222 were reported dead, 8 were missing, and 976 people were injured as a result of the earthquake. More than 73,000 structures were damaged, of which more than 14,500 were totally destroyed including heritage buildings such as centuries old churches (Wikipedia, 2013). 2 2011). The Philippines evaluated itself as has having made significant progress in each of the HFA priority areas; the range of its self-ratings were from 3/5 (institutional commitment attained) to 4/5 (substantial achievement attained on the priority area). The Philippines’s self-ratings on the HFA Monitor were validated in the aftermath of T/S Yolanda. DISCUSSION In 2005, the Philippines adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) to guide its efforts in the area of disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM). On March 27, 2011, the Philippines updated its national progress report on the implementation of the HFA. The Office of Civil Defense’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council supplied self-ratings that signified substantial progress in reducing and managing hazard-related risks. These self-ratings were validated in the aftermath of T/S Yolanda’s destruction. HFA Priority 1: Prioritizing DRRM The first priority area of the HFA asserts the need to ensure that disaster risk reduction and management is both a national and local priority. The indicators of this priority include the following measures: establishment of policy and legal frameworks for DRR; allocation of adequate resources for implementing DRR plans; participation by the community itself and decentralization of authority; and the existence of a functioning national multi-sectoral platform for DRR. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing minor progress and 5 for comprehensive achievement, the Philippines gave itself a self- rating of “4/5”, indicative of “substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources”.3 DRRM’s Policy and Legal Frameworks The Philippines already has risk reduction laws that the United Nations calls among the best in the world—at least on paper. In 2009, the Climate Change Act (CCA) or, Republic Act 9729 was legislated. Then, in 2010, Republic Act (RA) 10121 created the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC). Section 22 of said law specified that disaster risk reduction, prevention and preparedness should be the primary mandate of the NDRRMC. The CCA complements and supports the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the DRRM Act. Given these legal frameworks, the responsibilities and authority for implementing DRR measures were decentralized to local governments. The establishment of the twin laws on DRR and CCA empowered local governments and their respective communities to enforce measures to prevent disasters. These laws affirmed the importance of pre- disaster activities to substantially reduce the devastating effects of typhoons and other calamities. DRRM Resource Requirements In terms of financial budget, the DRRM Act allocated a specific budget for DRR. It stipulated that 70 percent of disaster spending shall be used on long-term steps pertinent to pre-disaster preparations. Only 30 percent shall be used for quick response and emergency aid. It was a radical shift from the previous practice that put emphasis on military-led relief operations after disasters hit (Harlan, 2013). The ISDR reported that the Philippines allocated five billion pesos (approximately $111 million) for National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund for 2009-2011. But, in 2011, the government retracted from its funding commitment. 3 Forty four percent of UN member states joined the Philippines in this self-rating. Australia, Bangladesh, Cook Islands, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Samoa, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. 3 On November 19, 2013, the online news portal of TV5 recalled that “President Aquino vetoed a provision in the 2011 budget that allocates money for disaster preparation under the 5 billion peso calamity fund.” Aquino decided that the 5 billion peso calamity fund should be mainly used by the NDRRMC for “actual calamities” and not for the preparation of relocation sites/facilities, and training of personnel engaged in direct disaster. Sadly, the President’s veto of the DRR budget impeded both disaster mitigation and preparedness initiatives; it rendered the country more vulnerable to hazards and had to spend more for relief and recovery operations in the aftermath of recent typhoons and calamities. In 2012, the President reversed his attitude towards disaster preparedness. More funds were allotted for disaster risk reduction and mitigation than for relief and rescue operations. Malacañang allocated P7.5 Billion for calamity fund and P14.2 billion for disaster education and management. But, such commendable change in outlook did not seem to have positively impacted the mindset of local government officials. For example, Tacloban’s local officials were reportedly unprepared for T/S Yolanda. Tacloban city councilor Cristina Gonzales-Romuladez’s narration of how their family was trapped and almost died due to the storm surge in their beach-front property alluded to the unpreparedness of Tacloban’s local executives (Paula Hancocks,Anna Corren,Andrew Stevens,Ivan Watson, CNN, 2013). Incidentally, the city councilor was the city mayor’s wife. Such unpreparedness suggested that local executives lacked appreciation of hazards data and tools such as inundation maps which had already been provided them by risk assessment teams like the AusAid’s Project READY (refer further to subsequent discussion on HFA 2 regarding risk assessment). Consequently, one also doubts the strength of the evacuation plan, if there was any at all, which the mayor had for his own family and for his constituencies. Ultimately, one wonders how much budget—in terms of money, time and capacity building—was set aside by the local government for pre-disaster planning and quick response measures. On December 20, 2014, President Aquino signed into law the P2.265 trillion national budget for 2014 (Gutierrez, 2013). In the same report, Gutierrez quoted President Aquino: “We will not allow the mistakes of the past to be repeated…we will equip the government with the wherewithal to respond to any situation confronting our country.” It was also reported that the approved annual budget included a P100-billion lump sum rehabilitation fund for calamity-hit areas. Of the 100 billion peso lump sum rehabilitation fund, P80 billion was allocated for the government’s rehabilitation plans. The remaining 20 billion was to be divided among various local government units and agencies. Apart from the lump sum rehabilitation fund, it was reported that P16.9-billion quick response fund was to be distributed across different line agencies. Given the budget breakdown and the President’s avowal to learn from “mistakes of the past,” one wonders however, why no budget line item specifically for disaster risk reduction and management was clearly specified; preparedness against disaster does not appear to be a priority. Community Participation in DRRM In terms of decentralization, civil society was found playing an increasingly active role in DRR. NGOs, Civil Society Organizations, private corporations and private individuals however, dealt largely with relief operations. A pattern of confusion and the absence of quick response during the first critical hours were experienced in the aftermath of three recent typhoons (Sendong, Pablo, and Yolanda) that hit communities like Cagayan de Oro, Iligan, Cateel, Tacloban, etc. The prolonged disorder or impasse after a hazard event suggested the lack of local government leadership and the absence of a functional Incident Command System (ICS) on the ground. Thankfully, civil society assumed leadership in organizing relief and recovery operations. 4 Thought leaders Dean Tony La Vina and Kristoffer Berse were all praises for citizens’ organizations in disaster response as well as in planning for reconstruction and rehabilitation (La Vina & Berse, 2013). Commended were various citizens’ organizations such as Balay Mindanaw, the Ateneo de Manila DREAM Team and churches of all denominations and faiths. Ordinary Filipino citizens as well as citizens from all over the world responded with record amount of donations to support relief operations. Various local government units, foreign governments and international organizations like the UN Habitat, World Food Program, Plan International, Caritas “descended to the affected areas bringing needed expertise, equipment, and funds” (La Vina & Berse, 2013, p. 1). Multi-sectoral Platforms for DRR Business firms, notably PLDT-SMART Foundation, UnionBank, May Bank, and even small corporations committed their corporate social responsibility cause to DRR particularly in the aftermath of T/S in Cagayan de Oro. The academe like the Department of Education, Xavier University, Ateneo de Manila University, etc. cooperated vigorously with other civic organizations for relief operations and rehabilitation efforts during the T/S Sendong disaster. These were signs that the establishment of functioning national (or at best, regional) multi-sectoral platforms for DRR were taking shape. The same was reportedly the case in the aftermath of T/S Yolanda. The Department of Science and Technology led Project Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards (NOAH) and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid) Project on Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community Based Disaster Management were examples of collaboration among sectors of society that prepared for hazards. But much more can be done in terms of institutionalizing DRR at national and local levels and in engaging both NGOs and civil society groups in crafting and implementing community- based DRR plans and activities. In sum, the Philippines’s self-rating (“4/5” or, “substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources”) was fairly representative of the progress it had made on DRR. Legislation allowed for the establishment of DRR as a national and local priority. Budget for DRR had significantly improved over the years despite the Chief Executive’s tendency to vacillate about prioritizing disaster preparedness over response and relief. Community participation was found commendable albeit limited largely to response and relief operations. Multi-sectoral platforms were found evolving; this encouraged civil society’s greater engagement in DRR beyond relief operations. HFA Priority 2: Risk Identification, Monitoring and Early Warning Systems The second priority area of the HFA prioritizes the identification, assessment, and monitoring of disaster risks and the enhancement of early warning systems. Its indicators include the following: availability of national and local risk assessments; creation of systems to monitor, archive and disseminate data on hazards and vulnerabilities; establishment of early warning systems for all major hazards; and the careful consideration of regional cooperation and risk reduction. Again, the Philippines rated itself “4/5” in this area to indicate that it had attained substantial achievement albeit with “recognized limitations in capacities and resources.”4 Risk Assessment The Philippines had taken up specific initiatives on risk assessment. The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid) through the United Nations Development Program, funded project 4 Similarly, Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, PDR Lao and Sri Lanka gave themselves the same self-rating as the Philippines did. 5 “READY” (also known as “Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community Based Disaster Risk Management”). The project provided hazard identification and risk assessments on 27 high risk provinces of the country (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2011). It was a three year collaboration of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (Philvolcs), National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) and the Mines and Geoscience Bureau (MGB) that furnished local executives with inundation maps in 2011. In its website, PHILVOLCS reported that project READY had three components: 1) Multi-hazard and risk assessment, 2) community-based disaster risk mitigation through development of community-based early warning system (CBEWS) and conduct of information, education and communication (IEC) campaigns and 3) mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into local development. Thus, storm surges, severe flooding, and inundation maps were supposedly not new concepts for local executives and residents of Leyte. Note that back in 2011, two years prior to T/S Yolanda’s landfall, Project READY already warned local officials about the possibility of severe flooding in Leyte’s coastal communities due to storm surges reaching as high as 12 meters (39.37 feet). If scientific data and recommendations provided by the study had been clearly understood and considered by the city’s decision makers, then the risk of disaster brought about by T/S Yolanda could have been mitigated (Flores H. , 2013). Another project to evaluate Tacloban’s vulnerability to disaster was led by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); it specifically studied the impacts of climate change on the city. From 2011 to 2013, WWF’s project entitled “Business Risk Assessment and the Management of Climate Impacts” assessed Tacloban and 11 other Philippine cities (Cagayan de Oro included) for disaster (Ranada, 2013). The project gathered historical data of 20 years to forecast disaster scenarios in 30 to 50 years. The project provided Tacloban with a document to help local government leaders, city planners, and the business sector create strategies to ensure the city’s survival and to strengthen its economy in the face of disaster. The WWF project assessed Tacloban on three main variables: its climate or environmental exposure, social economic sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.5 One day in September, 2013, the group of environmentalists and residents of Tacloban conducted a scenario building exercise (Ranada, 2013). Environmental exposure, climate, temperature and rainfall were considered. It was foreseen that a super typhoon would wreak havoc in Tacloban in the year 2020. The group never expected the storm to come seven years early; T/S Yolanda came way before the stakeholders could prepare all the solutions to reduce the risk of disaster. But it certainly cannot be claimed that Tacloban leaders and residents were never warned beforehand about their vulnerability to hazards like storms and storm surge. Hazards Information and Early Warning Systems The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAG-ASA) made significant progress in putting up a system to monitor and disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities. But T/S Yolanda disaster suggested that people, particularly local leaders and those in rural areas, have yet to be properly educated about hazards, risks and vulnerabilities. Information dissemination, its clarification, and call to swift action especially at the local levels, could be done better. 5 Social economic sensitivity looks at demographics, tourism, export, water, energy, land values, agriculture and fisheries. Adaptive capacity is measured by crime solution efficiency, local government performance, family savings and city savings. 6 The guidance, education, and stronger participation of local communities (given their distinctive local knowledge) in designing the early warning systems still need to be addressed. The experience that was T/S Yolanda exposed the need to ascertain warning messages for clarity, understandability, and timeliness. Two days before typhoon Yolanda made landfall, officials rolled through Tacloban city with bullhorns, urging residents to get to higher ground or seek refuge in evacuation centers. Warnings were also broadcast on state television (Pitman, 2013). A day before T/S Yolanda made landfall, President Aquino appeared on national television to appeal for everyone’s cooperation and coordination with disaster risk reduction and management authorities; residents of Ormoc, Ginayangan Ragay Gulf in Albay and Lamon Bay in Atimonan were warned about storm surges that may reach up to five to six meters high. Everyone was advised to monitor the websites of the PAGASA. The President also assured the public about the government’s readiness to face super typhoon Yolanda (Sabillo, 2013). The early warning systems were given once the storm path had been ascertained. In that sense, early warnings were quite timely. The use of broadcast media and bullhorns were commendable. But the implications of the warning messages were not fully understood. Residents of Tacloban prepared for the storm’s wind and rain by stocking on food and by staying indoors; but they had no idea what a storm surge meant and they had no preparation against it. The following accounts attest to this. Linda Maie, stayed in her one-bedroom house more than half a kilometer inland: she had heard the warnings but said her Tacloban neighborhood “has never even flooded in my 61 years.” Her family stocked up on canned food, water and candles and covered their TV, laptops and appliances in plastic bags. But when (they) awoke at 5 a.m., Friday to howling winds and heavy rain, it was clear that Haiyan was not a typical storm” (Pitman, 2013). “Everybody knew a big storm was coming,” said Mark Burke, an American native of Washington State who lives in Tacloban with his three small children. “But I had no idea it was going to be this hell…nobody imagined what was about to happen” Burke and his kids hid in a bedroom until a wall of mud came through the doors. The master bed was floating. “Then we all got on the piano, and it started floating through the hallway,” he said, “the water kept rising, and we eventually climbed up into the attic and stayed there for a day and a half” (Pitman, 2013). Television, internet, social media, radio, print, and bullhorns were the most common media used for early warning preparedness against Yolanda’s hazard. But, were at-risk communities made aware of the severity of the hazard? How were these vulnerable groups empowered to act in a timely manner? One wonders what efforts were made to reach communities with limited infrastructure and communications systems. How did local officials deal with the disruption of services like electric power and telecommunications in providing early warning to communities-at-risk? Regional Cooperation The sharing of satellite images and data from international weather stations (e.g. Joint Typhoon Warning Center; Japan Meteorological Agency, etc.) indicated the presence of regional or international cooperation. The Philippines’ Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Project Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards (NOAH) provided a good portal serving such information exchange. The sharing of information proved very helpful also in advocating for human solidarity in the aftermath of T/S Yolanda when the overwhelming support and cooperation of the international community was most palpable. The prediction, information management and sharing in disaster management ought to be continually fostered. In sum, the Philippines’s self-evaluation (“4/5” or, “substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources”) did not appear reflective of its progress on HFA 7 Priority 2. Risks assessments were milestones in addressing hazards and evaluating existing levels of exposure. Project READY had intangible benefits in terms of increased awareness and preparedness of vulnerable communities. Unfortunately, data provided through hazards mapping were not put into good use by local executives particularly in terms of local government policy formulation. Evidently, Tacloban’s local government leaders did not plan carefully for disaster risk management using available scientific data. For one, numerous people failed to understand, and take appropriate action on, the early warning messages issued. HFA Priority 3: Building a Culture of Safety and Resilience The HFA’s third priority area concerns the development of disaster information management systems, research, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels. Indicators include availability and accessibility of relevant information on disasters to all stakeholders; the inclusion of DRR and recovery concepts and practices in school curricula, education materials and relevant trainings. Other indicators pertain to the development and use of research methods and tools for multi- risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis; and country-wide public awareness strategy to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience. In this priority area, the Philippines rated itself “3/5” which signified the attainment of “institutional commitment but, achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial.”6 Availability and Accessibility of Information Quick access to information about hazards, risks, and disasters remains to be a huge challenge in the Philippines. PAG-ASA has a website or portal that collates and disseminates information on hazards. The NDRMC, DSWD, Manila Observatory, Rappler.com, etc. are examples of other portals that provide relevant updates on vulnerabilities to hazards and disasters. Updated information on weather forecast and bulletins are also available through social network sites such as Twitter. However, bringing the information to communities-at-risk with no internet connectivity, especially those in rural areas, is a serious concern. Limited internet connectivity and the likely chance of electric power failure during a calamity ought to be considered too. T/S Yolanda taught us that the availability, accessibility, and understandability of information to all stakeholders remain to be issues of concern. Research Methods and Tools Research and raising public awareness to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience are significant means to positively transform public consciousness and build a culture of preparedness and resilience. Government agencies like PAGASA, DOST, and Philvolcs can coordinate with private universities to either promote research on disaster risk reduction or to help communicate research findings to stakeholders. There was no data to ascertain if higher education institutions in Tacloban had done DRRM-related research prior to T/S Yolanda. How were universities and colleges in Tacloban involved in the conduct of either Project READY or WWF’s “Business Risk Assessment and Management of Climate Impacts? Government-led researches and its methods and tools on community hazard, multi-risk assessment, vulnerability and capacity could have been better coordinated with civil society organizations so that more communities could have been helped. School Curricula The Department of Education has a project on “Prioritizing the Mainstreaming of Disaster Risk Reduction Management in the School System and Implementation of Projects” as mandated by Department Order 6 Thirteen other countries in the Asia Pacific region—Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cook Islands, Fiji, Indonesia, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, PDR Lao, Samoa, Solomon Islands, and Vietnam—share the same self-perception as the Philippines. 8 No. 55, series of 2007. The curricula of public elementary and secondary schools supposedly incorporate DRR. Were mock evacuation drills systematically conducted in schools? Were school teachers and students part of efforts to mainstream DRR? One wonders whether these practices were actually observed in Tacloban prior to T/S Yolanda. The absence of a sense of urgency among residents shortly before the super storm made landfall, the community’s ignorance about storm surge, and the ensuing chaos and confusion after the storm had passed all indicated a limitation in implementing the desired school curriculum. Was DRRM simply a planned, but not implemented, curriculum of schools? Trainings This phase refers to efforts for capacity building of local officials, deputized coordinators, auxiliaries, and volunteers. The conduct of trainings on DRR appeared to be uneven nationwide. No accounts were read about disaster risk management training in Tacloban. But the names of two persons kept appearing when searching for initiatives in education and training on community based disaster risk management. One was Albay Governor Joey Salceda. (His account is presented in the section on HFA 5, Disaster Preparedness.) The other was Camotes Island Former Mayor Al Arquillano who, for years systematically trained local leaders and residents on disaster preparedness through mock drills and other evacuation exercises. Before T/S Yolanda made landfall, Arquillano promptly evacuated 1,000 families to prevent a catastrophe for the residents of Tulang Diyot, San Francisco, in Camotes, an island east of Cebu Province and west of Leyte. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) recognized San Francisco, Camotes Island as role model of prompt evacuation. “Years of work to strengthen community preparedness and reduce disaster risk saved the entire population” according to the local leader. “Because we’ve done so much work on disaster risk everyone fully understood the need to move to safety,” Arquillano added (Umbao, 2013). Advocacy Advocacy pertains to the raising of people’s consciousness through mass media, information dissemination and conduct of disaster management forum. Programmed and ongoing efforts, instead of sporadic initiatives, are crucial in raising awareness to effect change in people’s attitudes towards hazards and risks. For example, the regular observance of disaster consciousness month can influence change in people’s sense of preparedness for hazards. A day before T/S Yolanda’s landfall, the President appeared on national television to appeal for everyone’s cooperation with disaster risk reduction and management authorities. The President’s appeal was followed through by text blast sent by the Philippine Information Agency; information was instantly sent to local officials down to the barangay level and key officials of various government offices. (Gazmin tells Eastern Visayas LGUs, response agencies to do 'final check' on preparations for 'Yolanda' , 2013). But these two examples were emergency information dissemination activities and not advocacy initiatives. The researcher has yet to find information about the government’s implemented advocacy program—those that are pre-emptive and ongoing in nature—pertinent to disaster preparedness. In sum, the Philippines’s self-rating (“3/5” or, “institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial”) appeared to be a fair estimate of its progress on HFA Priority 3. Availability and accessibility of information remained to be challenges particularly in remote areas nonetheless, remarkable progress had been made in the identification, tracking, and sharing of information about hazards. Mandating the integration of DRR in school curriculum was a milestone but a 9 gap appeared to exist between planned and implemented curriculum. Trainings on DRR appeared to be isolated rather than common practice nationwide. Advocacy schemes to raise country wide public awareness on DRR was a practice not commonly heard of. HFA Priority 4: Reducing Risk Factors The fourth priority area of the HFA aims for the reduction of underlying risk factors. Linking climate change policy and DRR are initiatives under this area. Poverty and social development concerns, rapid urbanization, weak enforcement mechanisms, and constraints in capacities and resources are pressing issues of this priority area. The integration of DRR in environment related policies and plans, land use, natural resource management, and adaptation to climate change is an indicator. Another indicator pertains to the reduction of vulnerability of populations most at risk through the implementation of social development policies and plans. Likewise, the implementation of economic policies and plans to reduce the vulnerability of economic activities is an indicator. The following are its other indicators: incorporation of DRR elements, including the enforcement of building codes, in the planning and management of human settlements; inclusion of DRR measures in the post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes; establishment of procedures to assess disaster risks of major development projects, especially infrastructure. The Philippines had a self-rating of “3/5” indicating that “institutional commitment (has been) attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial.”7 Integration of DRR in Environment Policies and Plans The HFA’s fourth priority area establishes DRR as an integral objective of environment related policies and plans, including land use, natural resources management and adaptation to climate change. The passage of both RA 10121 (DRRM Act) and the Climate Change Act (RA 9729) into law signified progress at combating the challenges of climate change as well as environment protection. Hazard risk assessments like Project READY and the WWF project, “Business Risk Assessment and the Management of Climate Impacts” provided essential data for contingency planning to reduce risks and mitigate disaster. But in the aftermath of T/S Yolanda, one doubts that Tacloban’s local executives made contingency plans at all. Moreover, the local government’s enforcement of regulations on land use, issuance of environment clearance certificate, adherence to building codes, etc. appeared doubtful. Social Development Policies The implementation of social development policies and plans to reduce the vulnerability of populations most at risk is another area of concern. One wonders how concepts like population size, densities, and poverty had been considered Tacloban’s development plan. Furthermore, this researcher has yet to encounter data or news materials indicating that mechanisms such as insurance coverage for life, livelihoods and property (agriculture and livestock) are part of disaster risk reduction efforts in Tacloban (or any Philippine locale). Economic Productivity The formulation of productivity policies and plans to reduce the vulnerability of economic activities is another concern. Examples are initiatives like crop diversification for agriculture and drought proofing for fisheries. Contingency planning for critical infrastructure and essential services such as water, electricity, transport and financial services are other examples to consider. No news articles about planning for all this were found pertinent to Tacloban. 7 It is joined by 11 other countries, namely, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cook Islands, Fiji, India, Maldives, Pakistan, PDR Lao, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam in this self-rating category. 10