Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Introduction
The World Risk Report 2011 assessed the vulnerability of 173 countries to natural
hazards and their ability to handle the aftermath of natural disasters based on
exposure, susceptibility of the population, coping capacity and adaptation strategy.
This report from the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human
Safety (UNU-EHS) revealed that the Philippines was the third most vulnerable
worldwide because of the frequency of calamities, such as typhoons, floods,
landslides andearthquake, combined with the countrys ineffectual disaster
preparedness programs (Mucke, 2011).
Being one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, the Philippines had long
experiences in dealing with, responding to and managing disasters. Since the
1970s, the country has shifted its approach from disaster preparedness and
response to disaster management in the 1980s to disaster risk management in the
1990s and disaster risk reduction in the years 2005 and beyond. This evolution
paved the way to the paradigm shift in the way people, communities and
government think, act and respond to the current and emerging risks that
continually face them. In 1978, the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC)
was established through Presidential Decree (PD) 1566 as
the highest policy making body and the focal organization for disaster management
in the country. This law also provided for the establishment of regional, provincial,
city, municipal and barangay disaster coordinating councils. These DCCs were
formed primarily to advice the President and/or the local chief executive on all
natural disaster preparedness and management plans; recommend the declaration
of state calamity and the release of calamity funds for relief and rescue operations,
among others. (PD. 1566; NDRRMF, 2011) In 2005, President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo approved the implementation of the National Disaster Coordinating Council
(NDCC) Four Point Plan of Action for Preparedness (4PPAP)
and Pasig River), the drainage lines within the City of Pasig have a total aggregate
length of 104 kilometers consisting of open canal, covered canal and underground
reinforced pipes. This represents the drainage facilities installed in private
subdivision which are mostly underground reinforced concrete pipes. Almost all
thoroughfares and residential areas have underground drainage facilities, while
most high density residential areas are provided with open or closed canal to
relieved the city of storm flooding. In
total, sixteen (17) other creeks serve as the citys
drainage outfall. A total of 26 km. of creeks runs through the territory and periphery
of Pasig. At present, Pasig has three (3) pumping stations located on both ends of
the Parian Creek in Ilugin, Pinagbuhatan and Kapasigan and at San Agustin creek,
Barangay Pinagbuhatan with combined pumping capacity of 10 gallons/minute
(Pasig City Profile, 2010). The City of Pasig created a Comprehensive Land Use Plan
that identified the existing flood situation and listed the current status of creeks
within the city which Table 3 shows. The status of seventeen creeks reveals one
reason for the flood on the last typhoon Ondoy of September 2009 and Habagat of
August 2012. Most of the creeks were dried-up, silted or totally lost due to
infrastructures built within, such as houses by squatters or illegal settlers,
commercial establishments etc. the development of the city paved way to look for
vacant place that shall be utilized for industrial, business or houses occupation.
Hence, since the city is highly urbanized vacant area for commercial consumptions
are very limited. As result, water ways was converted and sacrifice. For instance,
the Parian creek (Bitukang Manok) that serves as outlet of water within the city to
Marikina river which was culvert and filled, from Plaza Bonifacio to Marikina River,
400 meters and occupied by structures of Rio de Pasig Linear Park, Brgy Out-post,
Brgy Multipurpose Hall, San Jose Barangay Hall, commercial establishments, and
houses which eventually in absence of water ways resulted to flooding in Sto.
Tomas, Sta Cruz, and City hall and other parts of the city. Bautista et al. (2011)
summarized Dr.
Lagmays presentation entitled
Flood Risk
Mitigation: Learning from Ondoy
presented during the NDRRM planning workshop conducted by OCD that there is a
consensus that the intensity and volume of Ondoy was unusually high; it was
beyond the capacity of existing drainage systems, natural or man-made, in Metro
Manila. However, events of greater magnitude may have happened in the past.
According to Taiwanese experts, typhoon Morakot brought three times as much rain
as Ondoy delivered. There are also human activities contributory to the mishap. One
is groundwater subsidence. There are areas in Valenzuela, Rosario, Las Pias, and
Dasmarias showing land subsidence which are believed to have been caused by
Bambang, Caniogan, Kalawaan, Malinao, Palatiw, Pineda, Sagad, San Joaquin, Sto.
Tomas, Santa Cruz, and Ugong. Also the key personnel of the planning division,
Committee in Disaster Management and Department of Engineering of LGU-Pasig
City Hall that are directly in task in disaster management implementation shall also
be included as participants of the study. These respondents sought to answer the
questions and framework of PDRRMF on national policy for disaster management
pursuant to
Republic Act No 10121 also known as
Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of
2010
and to other mainstream policy context for disaster management program
specifically the Philippine Development Plan, Millennium Development Goals (MDG),
Hyogo Framework for Actions (HFA), Asean Agreement on Disaster management
and Emergency Response (AADMER), International Disaster Response Law (IDRL),
Kyoto Protocol, and United Nations (UN). All policy context and DRRMF focuses in
disaster risk management on (1.) prevention and mitigation, (2.) emergency
preparedness and risk reduction, (3.) emergency response, and (4.) rehabilitation
and recovery. These four areas will be the key assessment areas of the study for
disaster management preparedness of Pasig City. The study utilized the descriptive
method of research employing quantitative and qualitative approach. Hence, a
researcher made questionnaire is used employing purposive sampling to gather
data from respondents and interview schedule was employed to collect data from
groups of respondents. Likert scale was utilized to interpret the data and
Percentage, Weighted Mean, Chi Square, and F test was employed to treat the data
gathered. Henceforth, the study is collaborated by the literatures, records, and data
examined by the researcher and the observation conducted to the places affected
by the floods. Out of the 180 survey questionnaires, only 151 were retrieved,
considered and used in the study. The study is collaborated by the literatures,
records, and data examined by the researcher and the observation conducted to the
places affected by the floods.
Summary of Findings
1. The respondents are predominately males mostly affiliated with the barangay
with the position of barangay councilors and had been serving as officials for
4 to 7 years. More than 1/3 of the respondents have ages 46 years old and
above while only 6% have ages as young as 18 to 25 years old. 2. On the
overall the respondents assessed the Flood Disaster Risk ManagementDisaster Risk Reduction (DRM-DRR) programs of the Pasig City as effective. 3.
There is no significant relationship between the variables government
affiliation, position, and length of service and the respondents on the overall
assessment of the flood DRR-DRM. 4. The respondents disagree that they
encounter problems in lack of disaster management plan, lack of coordination
between LGU, NGO,NG & other agency, and delayed implementation of
project. However, the respondents moderately agree that they encounter
problems in budget, Awareness thru education & information, Community
participation, Political will (Leadership of Officials), Community resistance,
manpower, poor implementation of law, and insufficient assistance from
National Government. 5. Flood Disaster Risk Management- Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRM-DRR) program. 5.1. In terms of program objectives, the
respondents assessed the flood DRR- DRM program to be effective. 5.2. Flood
DRR-DRM Program Resources 5.2.1. In terms of program resources, the
respondents assessed that the city has a sufficient physical resources in the
life savings jacket, life saving buoys, rescue boat, search light, water proof
battery, generators, diving suit, ambulance, vehicles (transportation), early,
warning device, portable toilets, evacuation area, fire alarm system,
telephone services, and health facilities. 5.2.2. The respondents assessed
that the city has a sufficient funding in prevention and mitigation, emergency
preparedness and risk reduction, emergency response, rehabilitation and
recovery. 5.3. Flood DRR-DRM Program Activities 5.3.1. In terms of program
activities in prevention and mitigation, the respondents agree that the
needed plans are hazard mapping and urban planning, education and
awareness, sufficient shelter food & cloths, antibiotics and medical kits,
transportation to help the effected people, community involvement and
participation, infrastructure, de-clogging of water ways and canals, dredging
of rivers, and early warning mechanism. 5.3.2. In terms of program activities
in emergency preparedness and risk reduction, the respondents assessed
that the community level are responsive and aware of the disaster risk
factors. First, the communities organize themselves to monitor potential
disaster. Second, there are warning systems in place to the community level.
Third, communities are ready and understand official warning and react.
Fourth, community vulnerable has evacuation plans/maps. Fifth, there are
training, simulation exercise, or local drills conducted, at the community
level. Sixth, the training conducted at the community level is relevant. Lastly,
there is disaster awareness and public information projects or programmes
being undertaken to the community 5.3.3. In terms of program activities in
emergency response, the respondents assess that the plan for life
preservation and supply of the basic needs of affected population during the
actual and immediate after the disaster are responsive and effective. The
program for relief operation, search and rescue, dissemination/information
sharing of disaster related information, development/provision of temporary
shelter, health service, psycho social support, early recovery mechanism,
management of dead and missing, evacuation management, social protection
intervention, and civil & uniformed services coordination are responsive.
6
6. Significant Difference between the Responses Per Barangay and DRR-DRM
Program. 6.1. There distinction on responses per barangay and the objectives of
flood disaster risk reduction-risk management program. Hence, the null hypothesis
regarding the assessment by the officials of different barangay in terms of program
objectives is rejected. 6.2. There is disparity on the assessment of flood DRM-DRR
programs in terms of program resources for staff, physical resources, and budgetary
allocation and the officials of different barangay of Pasig City. Therefore, the null
hypothesis regarding the assessment by the officials of different barangay in terms
of program resources is rejected. 6.3. There is divergence on the assessment of
Flood DRM-DRR programs in terms of program activities and the officials of different
barangay of Pasig City. A
ll computed Fs for
prevention and mitigation, emergency preparedness and risk reduction, emergency
response, and rehabilitation and recovery are exceeding the critical value thus the
null hypothesis is rejected.
Conclusions
Based on the above findings, the following conclusions are stated:
1. The respondents are predominately males mostly affiliated with the barangay
with the position of barangay councilors and had been serving as officials for 4 to 7
years. More than 1/3 of the respondents have ages 46 years old and above and 6%
have ages as young as 18 to 25 years old. 2. The Flood Disaster Risk ManagementDisaster Risk Reduction (DRM-DRR) programs of the Pasig City for prevention and
mitigation, disaster preparedness and risk reduction, emergency response, and
rehabilitation and recovery are effective. 3. It found out that there is no significant
relationship between the variables of government affiliation, position, and length of
service, and the responses of barangay officials on the overall assessment of the
flood DRM-DRR. 4. It resulted that respondents moderately agree that they
encounter problems in budget, awareness thru education & information, community
participation, political will (Leadership of Officials), community resistance,
strategic areas are encouraged. Most especially on those low lying barangays near
the main water ways. 7. The purchased and installations of disaster management
medical kits and box to barangays are suggested. 8. The continuous programs of
the city in reclogging of canals, drainage and sewerage systems should be
encouraged. 9. The rehabilitation and reclamation of Bitukang Manok River are
strongly suggested or the creation of new water ways connected to Marikina river
are suggested to reduce the impact of floods within the city. 10. Activation,
formation and empowerment of BDRRCC, BDRRCO, and volunteers are strongly
suggested to each barangay.
Emergency Preparedness and Risk Reduction
11. Encourage the community to build their own capacity by establishment
community disaster group link to barangay and LGU that will monitor disaster in
their area. 12. Conduct more trainings, seminars, and drills to the community base
about the disaster risk reduction. Information dissemination of leaflets, journal,
caricature, and cartoonist is significant. 13. Encourage the community to participate
in the activities and training conducted in the community level. Most likely required
member (at least one per family) to undergo training on first aid and basic life
support. 14. Encourage the people to volunteer in disaster risk reduction and
disaster risk management. 15. Develop a policy of coordination among departments
and agency involved in LDRRMC. Emphasize a bottom up decentralized approach
about DRM-DRR program. 16. Build a coordination capacity from the Pasig City local
government to other neighboring cities, communities and national government. We
remember that Local government code give local autonomy to each LGU, these
hampered the coordination due to different policies and strategies imposed in each
city. However, links between the cities is very important in order to notify each other
of the
plan about DRR. No one can stand on their own disaster needs a multi sectoral
and
partnership approach in order to lessen the vulnerability. 17. The flood management
plan must specifically identify the source of fund and the process how it should be
tap.
Emergency Response
18. Secure of master list of areas families and individuals that are in high risk or
prone to disaster. 19. It is suggested to have an annual inventory of physical
resources and capacity of all barangay to determine their needs in disaster
response and preparedness.
10
NDRM, (2000)
Natural Disast
er Risk Management in the Philippines: Enhancing Poverty Alleviation
through Disaster Reduction
33822 Vol. 1, The World Bank East Asia and pacific Region Rural Development,
National Disaster Coordination Council, republic of the Philippines NDRRMP (2011)
National Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Plan 20112028
DILG-Resources-2012116-420ac59e31.pdf (PDF Downloadable @ DILG Website)
Romero, Alexis (2012)
Monsoon death toll hits 65
The Philippine Star, Vol XXVII No. 15, August 11, 2012. Rabonza Glenn J (2009)
NDCC UPDATE FINAL Report
on Tropical Storm Ondoyand
Typhoon
Pepeng, Glide No. TC
-2009-000205-PHL and Glide No. TC2009-000214-PHL,(September 24-27 and
September 30-October 10, 2009) National Disaster Coordinating Council. National
Disaster management Center, Camp Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City
Philippines. Pasig City Profile (2010) Pasig City Hall.
C. Online Database/Internet Website
Abat, Crispina B. (2006) Asian Conference on Disaster Reduction 2006, Manual
[Online] Available PPT, March 15 to 17, 2006. (Date Retrieved November 2012)
http://www.adrc.asia
/acdr/2006seoul/documents/006bcountry_presen/Philippines.pdf Ceph.org (2012)
Outcome Assessment for School
and Program Effectiveness: Linking Planning and
11
http://www.tgci.com/magazine /A%20Basic% 20Guide%20to%20Program
%20Evaluation.pdf NDRRMC Website (2012) National Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Council Portal Update, http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/ NCBI Resources
(2012)
Monitoring Unit
-Based Innovations: A Process Evaluation
Approach
(Date retrieved October 2012) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /pubmed/8345878
Macaraig, Mynardo (2012)
NEDA Board approves 11 projects for flood control, bridges, transportation, &
energy
Philip pine Information Agency, Media Center Building, Visayas Ave, Diliman, Quezon
City, Philippine http://www.pia.gov.ph/news/ hazzard. php?
geomap=pasig®map=NC Philippine Development Plan (2011) 2011-2016.
(Online) Available at Adobe Reader http://www.neda.gov.ph/PDP/rm/pdprm20112016.pdf
Public Affair Branch (2012) Program evaluation
Methods: Measurements and Attribution of Program Results. Third Edition, Review
Practice and Studies Government Review and Quality Branch Treasury Board of
Canada, Secretariat, Minister of Government Service http://www.tbssct.gc.ca/cee/pubs/meth/pem-mep-eng.pdf REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9729 (2009)
12
World Health Organization. (2013)
Flooding and
communicable diseases fact sheet Risk assessment and p
reventive measures
http://www.who.int /hac/techguidance/ems/flood_cds/en/