emi

Experts have always warned that preparedness activities should be tested against extreme events and to take a pro-active approach to prepare and mitigate the effects of natural hazards instead of waiting for them to take place and then respond.  These were also among the primary concerns that organizations and local stakeholders involved in disaster risk management (DRM) sought to address with the formulation of the Disaster Risk Management Master Plan (DRMMP) for Metro Manila in 2005 and 2006 (www.emi-megacities.org), based on the earthquake scenarios undertaken in the MMEIRS Study.  The Metro Manila DRMMP pinpointed ten priority elements that would lead to the establishment of a sound institutional and legal framework for an effective DRM system, and fully integrate DRM into the ongoing governance, and developmental processes in the metropolis. These key points are:

1. Strengthening the Metro Manila Disaster Coordinating Council;
2. Promoting the adoption of disaster management ordinances by each city and municipality;
3. Promoting the revitalization of barangay disaster coordinating councils in each city and municipality;
4. Institutionalizing DRM within local government framework and financing;
5. Enhancing lateral and vertical inter-agency and inter-governmental communication and coordination;
6. Enhancing the legal basis for DRM at the national level by updating/replacing Presidential Decree 1556;
7. Promoting policies that encourage implementation of DRR and developing mechanisms for mainstreaming DRR within local government functions;
8. Promoting local government mitigation planning through existing planning tools;
9. Conducting training needs assessments and developing capacity building programs;
10. Strengthening the level of barangay preparedness for disaster response and relief.

The organizations and stakeholder groups that participated in the DRMMP process also identified objectives and specific action items corresponding to each of the ten key areas, which were further distilled into 5 implementation work outputs (IWOs).  Each of the IWOs describes a thematic area of cooperation and also specifies which local partners will take the lead in each area.  These IWOs are:

1. Develop and institutionalize technologies for risk communication and preparedness;
2. Incorporate risk reduction criteria in land-use and urban planning;
3. Training needs assessment and capacity building for DRM;
4. Mobilizing resources among NGOs, professional organizations and private sectors in the DRM agenda;
5. Improving legal and institutional arrangements for improved DRM delivery.

For the most part, the recommendations for the theMetro Manila DRMMP were not put into operation because priorities were focused on provinces that had experienced recent disasters such as Albay and Southern Leyte.  Since the completion of Phase 1 of the DRMMP project in 2006, EMI has consulted with various government organizations and development partners to stress the importance of a concentrated effort in Metro Manila.  The recent floods have underscored the importance of working towards the achievement of the objectives and priority actions stipulated in the DRMMP.  The study also needs to be updated by adding the flood hazard and the effects of climate change, so that a comprehensive approach is taken to build a hazard resilient Metro Manila.  Other megacities in Asia are engaged in similar exercises.  In particular, EMI is working with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and other institutions and stakeholders in Mumbai to develop a multi-hazard DRMMP for Mumbai.  Mumbai experiences regular floods including extreme flooding in 2005.  Experience from Mumbai and other megacities can be relevant to Metro Manila.

 

EMI will continue its advocacy efforts for disaster risk reduction in Metro Manila, by working constructively with all relevant agencies and stakeholders. However, the message from Ketsana is clear.  The risk to Metro Manila cannot be ignored anymore. We need to bring together all the relevant stakeholders to determine how best to accelerate progress towards reducing exposure to extreme natural hazards, so that both the governments and their constituents are better prepared for disasters similar to the one wrought by tropical storm Ketsana.