The Partner for Resilience (PfR) is an alliance of five Netherlands-based humanitarian, development, and environmental organizations, and our local and national partners. We possess varied expertise: disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, and ecosystem management and restoration. We strive to combine our individual expertise to bring lasting improvement in the lives of the most vulnerable in society – these include the communities who are at high risk of being affected by natural hazards, as well as those who live in conflict areas.

In the full document, you will also be able to read about PfR’s:

 

View, read, and download the full briefer here.

Partners for Resilience

Disasters have strongly increased in both frequency and impact, with climate change as one of the main contributors to more extreme, frequent, and unpredictable weather. Degradation and loss of ecosystems intensify natural hazards. Combined with the high vulnerability of communities in the Global South, this leads to increased disaster risk. Despite these many challenges, there are solutions to create a sustainable future. When provided the necessary resources, communities mobilize to adapt to and prepare for increasing risks. In Partners for Resilience, CARE works to reduce disaster risk by increasing community resilience – enabling people to bend and not break in the face of adversity.
The poorest people in the most vulnerable countries suffer disproportionately from disasters and climate change impacts. Disasters wipe out
hard-won reductions in poverty, and communities are caught in a vicious circle where poverty creates vulnerability, and disasters and climate change impacts increase poverty. To ease this situation, the Partners for Resilience program reduces the impact of hazards on vulnerable communities in the South.

Partners for Resilience (PfR) is an alliance of the Netherlands Red Cross, CARE Nederland, Cordaid, the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre and Wetlands International. The name originates in the fundamental belief of its five members in the central role of resilience as the way to deal effectively with disasters. PfR uses an integrated approach, called Integrated Risk Management (IRM), to mitigate disaster risk and enhance livelihoods, particularly by addressing climate change and ecosystem management and restoration. PfR is supported by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Integrated Risk Management

CARE defines Integrated Risk Management (IRM) as the systematic process of reducing disaster risks through anticipative, absorptive, adaptive, and transformative actions, taking into account the effects of climate change and the role of ecosystems. It addresses the drivers of risk, the capacities and assets of communities and individuals, and their enabling environment.

This Publication

In this publication, CARE aims to highlight how the implementation of an Integrated Risk Management approach leads to social transformation and more resilient communities that are well prepared to deal with a diversity of shocks and challenges. The protagonists are the people themselves, sharing how their lives and the lives of members of their communities have improved. These stories are expanded upon with examples of CARE’s work within PfR in each country.

 

View, read, and download the full document here.

Excerpt: Introduction

Climate change is increasing the risk of extreme events and disasters.1 While disaster risk reduction (DRR) offers an important opportunity to adapt to current climate variability, in order to be successful, DRR efforts must also take into account changing climate‐related risks in the medium to long term. Many national climate change adaptation plans consider the need to plan over various timescales and acknowledge the essential role of local communities2 in addressing these changing risks. The Minimum Standards for climate‐smart disaster risk reduction were created to serve as an essential bridge between national climate policy and local capacities for DRR. The standards are not idealized solutions, but rather practical approaches to implementing climate‐smart DRR activities in a way that is achievable by many communities with relatively limited external support.

The Minimum Standards are presented in two tables: The first table outlines standards meant to guide local leaders, oftentimes selected by their community (e.g. Red Cross local disaster preparedness volunteers), to inform and facilitate resilience building across the wider community. The second table focuses on the role of national and provincial civil society organizations (CSOs) in providing supplemental guidance for improving the flow of information between various types of scientific ‘knowledge centres’ and vulnerable communities, to enable implementation of climate‐smart DRR. For local actors and their counterparts in CSOs, the Minimum Standards are intended as a practical tool, allowing them to integrate changing climate risks into their efforts to support communities reduce risk to extreme events and disasters. When the Minimum Standards are met, local DRR actions can be considered to be climate-smart and contribute to climate change adaptation. This lends importance to the Minimum Standards for national actors as well, who may use the standards to guide integration of community‐level action on DRR into national adaptation and climate risk management strategies. National strategies that consider these standards will be able to go to scale, knowing that they are realistic and achievable. Overall, these standards provide assurance that DRR goes beyond business as usual and truly addresses changing climate‐related risks.

The minimum standards are based on ample local experience and consultation, including lessons learned during the first years of the Partners for Resilience program, the largest program of its kind focusing on local‐level climate‐smart DRR. The Minimum Standards are a living document that should continue to be
discussed, tested, revised and validated through local‐level activities around the world.

 

View and download the full document here.

This document is a compilation of various inputs to the Sunset Review of Republic Act 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction Management Act of 2010.

The Partners for Resilience (PfR) Alliance has been working since 2011 to reduce the impact of natural hazards on vulnerable people in nine countries globally by the Netherlands Red Cross, CARE Nederland, Cordaid, Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre and Wetlands International, and our many local partners.

In the Philippines, PfR is being implemented by the Philippine Red Cross, Assistance Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development (ACCORD), Afri-Aqua DEvelopment Coalition (AADC), Cordillera Disaster Response and Development Services (CorDisRDS), and Corporate Network for Disaster Response (CNDR) in at least 44 barangays across 8 municipalities and 2 cities; in 4 provinces; in 3 regions. Technical support is also being provided by the IIRR, Wetlands International, and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre.

The PfR approach, methodology, and tools are being applied by implementing partners in other programming initiatives including relief and recovery projects in Yolanda-affected areas and disaster risk reduction initiatives in other high-risk areas in the country.

We are one with the national government and with all our partner communities and LGUs in advancing the national and local DRRM strategy. We are prepared to assist the governing agencies in developing the most appropriate strategy for the country. Together with all those who work for national and community-level resilience, including the community members themselves, we aim that this review will establish the long-term strategy for an integrated DRR in the Philippines.

 

Successes of RA 10121

It helped strengthen the country’s DRRM system and provide a national DRRM framework and institutionalize the national DRRM plan

It has guided the country’s paradigm shift from being reactive towards proactive approaches and strategies in addressing disaster and climate risks

It had spurred local government units to better prepare for emergencies and steered them towards a course that equitably gives importance to response, rehabilitation and recovery, preparedness, and mitigation and prevention.

Read more about key propositions, specific recommendations, and suggested texts in the complete document.

View and download the full document here.

In 2016, the world generated approximately 2.01 billion tons of waste (World Bank, 2018), or the equivalent in weight of one billion average-size cars. In the Philippines, solid waste generation was estimated at 13.48 million tons in 2010 and is expected to reach 18.05 million tons by 2020 (DENR, 2018).

As populations grow, so will the amount of waste. Proper solid waste management (SWM), thus, is an urgent undertaking.

This is a critical issue in disaster-prone countries like the Philippines – ranked third most at-risk to disasters in the 2018 World Risk Index – and where poverty levels are high. This is because ecosystem degradation and disasters disproportionately affect the poor. They will also bear the brunt of climate change impacts, which may be aggravated by increased greenhouse gas emissions brought about by improper disposal of waste. In the context of waste management, they are “often unserved or have little influence on the waste being disposed of formally or informally near their homes” (World Bank, 2018). Many also work in the informal waste sector, relying on meager, volatile incomes, and exposed to unsafe working conditions.

However, urban poor communities and informal settler families are typically characterized as polluters and waste generators, citing their tendency to buy products in sachets, i.e., in smaller, cheaper quantities. These claims are made despite the fact that, around the world, consumption patterns point to higher spending capacity being positively correlated with higher waste generation. Still, they are usually seen as part of the problem. This study argues that they are also a vital part of the solution.

Good Practice:The Waste Warriors of Barangay Potrero

Barangay Potrero’s Waste Warriors is a good example of an SWM practice that supports the case for increased community participation.

Prior to 2015, Barangay Potrero’s solid waste was unsegregated, and collection was mostly uncoordinated and conducted only twice a week, using trucks that would pick up bags of trash discarded by residents by the side of the road. Because of this collection schedule, and because some roads are too narrow for the trucks to pass through and some areas are only accessible by foot, piles of garbage would often accumulate by the curbside.

It was only in 2015 that their SWM practice took on a more formal, structured process. The Waste Warriors is a group of waste collectors and waste monitors from the local community in Barangay Potrero, Malabon City, whose participation in SWM was made official by the barangay in 2015. Currently, it is composed of 40 waste collectors and 15 waste monitors. The group receives an allowance from the local government – PHP 120 a day for 3-4 hours of work, Mondays through Saturdays – and waste collectors get all the profits from selling the recyclables they collect – which can range from PHP 400 to PHP 2,000.

To date, Barangay Potrero’s compliance with R.A. 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, is at 95%, according to Potrero Councilor Khate Nolasco. The barangay is a recognized leader in SWM, having won the Best in Solid Waste Management Award at the 2015 Barangay Power contest hosted by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA). In the same year, Potrero also received the Gawad Kalasag Award for Best Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction Committee from the Office of Civil Defense.

Findings: The Benefits of Engaging Communities in Solid Waste Management

By presenting the good practices of Barangay Potrero in the area of SWM, as embodied by the Waste Warriors, this study highlights how engaging, capacitating, and mobilizing local communities to participate in SWM benefits the environment, the individuals, and the community as a whole. This study found that several interrelated factors contributed to the success of Barangay Potrero’s SWM.

1. Their noteworthy SWM practice is a good illustration of what concerted, well-coordinated action between the government, civil society organizations, and communities can achieve. Because there was proper coordination, the process of managing the barangay’s solid waste became more efficient.

2. It shows that strong LGU support and prioritization is an important factor in the success of any program.

3. It highlights how enabling community participation in SWM creates a sense of ownership among community members, which in turn contributes to the sustainability of SWM programs and lets the barangay widen its reach as community members become advocates for proper SWM themselves.

4. It not only leads to improvements in environmental conditions but also improves the livelihoods and social positions of communities who have traditionally been excluded from formal programs and processes. This, in turn, makes their community a more just, inclusive, and resilient one overall.

Particularly for those who have been historically disadvantaged, the formalization of community members’ participation in SWM facilitates social inclusion, or the process of “improving the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society – improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity” (World Bank, 2018). The program does so by giving them improved livelihoods and thus better access to basic services, opportunities for participation and integration into the formal sector, and an overall higher chance of living a more dignified life. Community members get a sense of accomplishment and improved self-worth, and a sense that they have a voice in their community. Through the related capacity building opportunities, they also become more aware of their rights and are able to assert them, especiallywhen faced with discrimination.

Barangay Potrero’s approach is consistent with the principles of Integrated Risk Management (IRM). Because IRM stresses that people are a vital part of ecosystems, protecting the environment must also mean protecting people. In the area of SWM, as the case of Barangay Potrero shows, this could mean tapping and enriching local capacities and allowing for the formal participation of the most vulnerable. This not only ensures the protection of the environment but also increases the resilience of the community members individually and their community as a whole.

However, in the MBSDMP, there is scant mention of programs, activities, or projects that involve tapping and strengthening the capacities of local communities, particularly the urban poor and informal waste workers, or even of consultations with communities in order to arrive at problem definitions and solutions that are grounded in the reality of the targeted localities. But as the case of Barangay Potrero illustrates, there are many benefits to encouraging the participation of community members in SWM initiatives. Moreover, increased community participation in SWM respects the vital role that people play within ecosystems and recognizes them as a crucial part of the solution. Thus, this study argues that the MBSDMP would do well to draw from the good practices of Barangay Potrero and incorporate SWM programs that enable community participation and maximize their capacities.

View and download the full document here.

 

Malabon City is in Metro Manila, the National Capital Region of the Philippines. It is part of a sub-region called CAMANAVA (composed of the cities of CAloocan, MAlabon, NAvotas and VAlenzuela) located in the northern part of Metro Manila Bay and situated in the estuary of several river deltas. Malabon is one of the most densely populated cities in the country and its low-lying, flat terrain makes it prone to frequent flooding, especially during high tides, heavy rains and when river and dams overflow. The four
cities in CAMANAVA are commonly affected by interconnected rivers, one of which is the Tullahan River.

The river system used to be navigable and fishing was the major livelihood activity in the area. The river used to be wider, deeper, had better quality water, and was a regular source of different species of fish, which were an important food source for local residents. Also, trees and crops like palay (rice) and vegetables used to be grown along the riverbanks. However, these agricultural plots have been replaced by industrial yards, which also became home to thousands of informal settlers who built makeshift
dwellings without legal claim to the land.

In recent years, floods have worsened, occurring more frequently and reaching levels of several feet deep. Most affected are families in the communities that are along or near the riverbanks. The river has become narrower and shallower over the years, and its capacity to hold water has decreased. With more frequent, intense rains, the riverbanks flood regularly, and flooding reaches farther into low-lying and densely populated areas of the city.

View and download the full Inside Story from the Climate Knowledge & Development Network here. 

To extend the RILHUB’s reach, we launched the Resilience and Knowledge Exchange Series (RKES) last June 2020 – monthly webinars where stakeholders and key decision-makers can share experiences, best practices, lessons learned, ideas, and innovations. 

In this session entitled “Planning for Typhoons During a Pandemic: A Practical Guide”, we held discussions on gaps and challenges of existing Contingency Plans for Typhoons in light of the current pandemic as well as replicable typhoon response practices. We also formulated a practical guide that aims to help communities update their current contingency plans.

A contingency planning checklist was developed from the inputs of more than 600 registrants. The document below was the one used during a special session of the RILHUB Resilience Knowledge Exchange Series for National Disaster Resilience Month. A more detailed and comprehensive checklist will also be uploaded after completion to include additional inputs from attendees and partners.

View and download the full contingency planning checklist here.

Barangay Tanza is an urban coastal community in the northern portion of Navotas City.

The majority of the barangay is composed of fishponds, reducing the total habitable land area.

It is divided into two territories: Tanza 1 and Tanza 2.

In the north, it is bordered by the ponds that traverse Obando and Binuangan. In the east are the ponds of Dampalit and Batasan, along with the ponds of Chungkang and the barangay of Flores in Malabon. In the west is the Manila Bay, while the Malabon-Navotas River runs in the south.

This factsheet contains the following information:

  • Quick Figures
  • Location and General Description of Community
  • Economic Activities
  • Educational Institutions
  • Infrastructure
  • Ecosystem
  • Disasters

View and download the full factsheet here.

Tangos is an urban coastal community located in the northern portion of Navotas City

On 25 July 2018, Tangos is divided into two barangays: Tangos North and Tangos South.

It is bordered by San Roque to the South, Tangos River and Barangay Tanza to the East, and Manila Bay to the West and North.

The factsheet below includes:

View and download the full factsheet here.

Navotas is a flat and narrow strip of highly urbanized coastal areas located in the extreme northwest shore of Metro Manila.

The total land area includes the reclaimed area currently being utilized by the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority.

It is bordered by:

The facts sheet below includes the following information:

View and download the full factsheet here.