Research and Auxiliaries Archives - Page 3 of 6

(Building back better and safer by mainstreaming DRR in shelter project)

Ni Cristita Villablanca

Bgy. Macaalang, Dagami

Magandang umaga sa inyong lahat. Ako si Cristita Villablanca isang residente ng Brgy. Macaalang, Dagami, Leyte at isa sa mga napiling miyembro ng roving team sa shelter project ng CARE at ACCORD. Noong hindi pa tumatama ang bagyong Yolanda, masasabi ko na maayos ang pamumuhay sa barangay namin sa kadahilanang marami pa ang nakukuhang produkto sa niyog tulad ng copra na siyang pangunahing kabuhayan ng karamihan ng mga residente. Masasabi ko rin na sa mga panahon na iyon ay medyo nakaka-angat ang mga tao dahil marami pa ang nakakapag-aral ng high school sa poblacion ng barangay. Napansin ko rin dati na sa paggawa ng bagong bahay ay walang sinusunod na mga pamamaraan sa pagtayo o pagkukumpuni. Basta makagawa lang ng bahay ay tama na.

Sa pagtama ng Bagyong Yolanda ay naranasan namin ang pinaka matinding pagsubok na nangyari sa barangay namin. Halos naubos ang lahat ng pananim. Natumba halos lahat ng mga niyog. Nasira lahat ng mga bahay namin. Nagutom, naghirap at nagdusa kaming lahat. Nawala ang pangunahing pinagkukunan namin ng ikinabubuhay – ang mga niyog. Nagresulta ito sa paghinto ng mga anak namin sa pag aaral at lalong tumindi ang paghihirap namin.

Dumaan ang ilang buwan bago namin nakilala ang CARE at ACCORD. Noong Pebrero 2014, nagdala sila ng pagkain sa aming barangay na nagpagaan ng konti sa aming kalagayan. Lumipas ulit ang ilang buwan, bumalik ang CARE at ACCORD noong Agosto. Sa panahon na ito, ay hindi na food kung hindi ay shelter repair kits naman ang dala nila sa aming barangay. Dito na sa shelter project ako ay naging aktibong nakibahagi sa proyekto ng ACCORD bilang community mobilizer ng Shelter Roving Team.

Ang shelter roving team o SRT ay binubuo ng dalawang panday na lalaki at isang community mobilizer na babae na taga-barangay din. Nabuo ang SRT bilang isang pamamaraan na masiguro na nagagawa ang mga itinatayo o kinukumpuning mga bahay ayon sa mga tinurong mga teknik sa BBBS.

Nagkaroon kami ng mga pagsasanay para sa mga panday para ituro ang ibat ibang pamamaraan na mas mapatibay ang aming mga tirahan. Dito ko nalaman ang ibat ibang estilo sa pagpapatibay tulad ng 3 feet dapat ang minimum na lalim ng mga poste at dapat ay may ginawang ankla sa ilalim nito para hindi madaling madala ng hangin ang bahay pag bumagyo. Ang maganda pa dito ay kahit hindi panday ay maaaring sumama sa training upang matuto.

Marami akong natutunan sa pagiging community mobilizer ng roving team. Bilang community mobilizer, responsibilidad ko ang pag-monitor sa mga ginagawang mga bahay. Tinitignan ko kung nasusunod nga ba ang mga tinurong pamamaraan ng pagpatibay ng bahay. Sinusundan ko ang pagsimula at pagtapos at ang mga may problemang paggawa. Ang mga bagay na dati ay mga lalaki lang ang may alam sa barangay namin ay nagbago na. Alam ko na din ngayon, at ng iba pang mga nanay. Kailangan kong malaman ng mabuti upang alam ko din ang mga hindi tama ang pagkakagawa. Umabot din sa punto na habang isinasagawa ang proyekto sa barangay, ang mga nagpapanday na mismo ang nagtatanong sa akin kung eksakto at tama ba ang ginagawa nila. Minsan din hindi maiwasan na pinapaulit ko ang ginawa nila. Kinakailangan ng masinsing pag papaliwanag at pagpapaintindi na dapat maayos ang pagkakagawa ng mga bahay dahil kami din mismo ang titira at makikinabang.

Naging bago rin para sa akin at sa buong barangay ang naging paraan ng pagpapatupad ng shelter repair project ng ACCORD. Ang pagtatayo ng mga bahay ay isinasagawa sa pamamagitan ng bayanihan. May mga grupo o cluster na binubuo ng 10 pamilyang magkakalapit/magkakatabi. Inuunang pagtutulngang itayo ang mga bahay ng mga bulnerableng pamilya –mga bahay ng senior citizen o mga bahay na nanay na lamang ang nagtataguyod sa kanilang pamilya, at mga bahay ng mga PWD. Naging mahirap sa umpisa pero nagawang tapusin ng mga tao ang proyekto gamit ang pamamaraan na yun. Masasabi ko na maraming naging magandang resulta ang nagawang shelter project sa aming barangay. Nagawang magbayanihan para sa barangay na nagpakita na may napakalaking kapasidad pala kami. Nakita namin na ang pagtutulungan pala ay makadulot ng mas mabilisang paggawa at mas mura nguni’t maayos na paraan sa pagtayo ng mga matitibay na bahay.

Napakalaki ng pasasalamat namin sa CARE at ACCORD lalo na sa mga staff na pabalik-balik sa barangay kahit na mahirap ang daan. Ipinapangako ko, at namin sa barangay na hindi masasayang ang mga nadalang tulong sa amin at lalo na sa mga naiturong pamamaraan sa paggawa ng bahay na hindi na namin malilimutan.

Ika-26 ng Nobyembre 2015

to view and download a copy of this story, please click here.

by Cherrylyn A. Libatique, Bgy. Caltayan, La Paz

Ako si Cherrylyn A. Libatique, dalawampu’t anim na taong gulang, naninirahan sa Barangay Caltayan, La Paz, Leyte. May asawa at apat na anak, dalawang babae at dalawang lalaki. Simple lang kaming namumuhay, mahirap ang buhay namin. Ang bahay namin ay munting kubo lamang at ang kinikita ng asawa ko ay kulang pa sa aming pang araw-araw na pangangailangan. Mas lalo pa kaming lumubog sa hirap nang dumating ang unos na bagyong Yolanda. Nawasak ang aming munting kubo at nawalan ng trabaho ang asawa ko. Naranasan naming matulog sa tangkil-tangkil* na bahay at magutom. Akala ko hindi na kami makakaahon sa hirap dahil wala na kaming mapagkukuhanan ng pagkakakitaan dahil sa kawalan ng niyog na siyang pangunahing hanapbuhay namin.

Malaki ang pasasalamat ko nang dumating ang NGO na ACCORD. Una, nagbigay sila ng pagkain at pangalawa ay ang shelter repair kit. Hindi ko inaasahan na makuha ako bilang myembro ng shelter roving team. Sa General Assembly sinabi ng ACCORD Staff na kailangan ng tatlong volunteer para sa team, dalawang karpintero o panday at isang babae na community mobilizer. Lahat ng tao sa barangay ay nagturuan, walang may gustong mag-boluntaryo. Nakita ako ng aming kapitan at sinabihan ako na ako ang mag-volunteer. Agad ko ding tinanggap ang sabi ng kapitan dahil hindi matatapos ang general assembly kapag walang magboluntaryo at gusto ko rin naman ang tumulong sa aming barangay. Nang makumpleto na ang shelter roving team saka sinabi ng ACCORD staff na may allowance ang tatlong volunteer, na ikinagulat ng lahat at pinanghinayangan. Hindi ko rin naman inaasahan na may allowance pero malaki ang pasasalamat ko dahil ang nakuha kong allowance ay nagamit ko upang maipaayos ang aming bahay at nakabili ng kaunting gamit para sa aking pamilya.

Dahil dito, malaki ang pasasalamat ko sa ACCORD sa oportunidad na ito kung saan nagsimula akong maging aktibo sa aming barangay. Sa mabuting palad ay sumusunod rin at nakikinig ang aking mga ka-barangay sa akin. Lumabas na may kakayahan naman pala ako at masaya ako na nakita ito ng ACCORD. At ang kakayahang yun marahil ang nakita nila upang kunin akong maging isang Community Facilitator (CF) sa susunod na phase ng proyekto nila. Sa aking pagkaunawa, batay sa paliwanag ng ACCORD, ang isang CF ay pangunahing magbibigay ng suporta sa kanila sa pagsagawa ng mga aktibidad sa barangay. Bilang isang CF, tutulong ako sa paglilinaw sa mga tanong ng ACCORD tungkol sa aming lugar at ako din ang magpapaliwanag o maglinaw sa mga kasamahan ko sa barangay kapag may hindi maintindihan sa mga sinasabi ng ACCORD.

Napakalaki ng naitulong ng oportunidad na ito upang maipalabas at mapalakas ang aking mga kakayahan o skills. Hindi na ako mahiyain at marunong na akong gumawa din ng mga gawaing pang-opisina (paper works) tulad ng training preparation, liquidation, pag-organisa ng mga nakuhang datos sa komunidad at iba pa. Nahasa din ang aking pagsasalita sa harap ng maraming tao at hindi na ako natatakot at nahihiya, tulad sa pagbibigay ng training sa disaster risk reduction (DRR). Bilang CF, tungkulin ko ding mag-aral ng mabuti upang magampanan ko ang aking papel na maglilinaw o makatulong sa pagpaunawa sa aking ka-barangay.

At isa sa pinakamatingkad kong natutunan ay ang tungkol DRR. Ngayon ay naiintindihan ko na kung ano ang hazard, bulnerabilidad, kapasidad, risk, climate change, resilience atbpa. Nakita ko din paano maghanda para sa community drill at ang mismong kondukta ng drill.

Nagustuhan kong mag-volunteer dahil sa dagdag na karanasan at kaalaman. Ang mga natutunan ko ay madadala ko hanggang sa aking pagtanda. Patuloy akong magiging actibo sa aming komunidad dahil sa nakuha kong mga kaalaman at mga natutunan sa ACCORD.

*Tangkil-tangkil – bahay na gawa sa kahit anong material na pinagtagpi-tagpi lamang

View and download a PDF version of this article here.

This Manual was originally published in Filipino in 2009, bearing the title Pagsasanay sa Disaster Preparedness at Contingency Planning. The publication in Filipino was intentional. The targeted users of the manual were high-risk communities and local authorities in the Philippines. Moreover, the choice made by CARE and the Corporate Network for Disaster Response to propagate the community-based approach to disaster risk reduction dictated that the manual be published in Filipino.

Much has transpired since the manual’s publication in 2009. The manual was a product of the Strengthening Assets and Capacities of Communities and Local Governments for Resilience to Disasters (ACCORD) project. Two follow-up community-based disaster risk reduction projects have since been completed, also supported by the European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO). A five-year community-based disaster risk reduction programme was also started in 2011, with funding from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands. These projects have served to enrich the content of the training manual.

Aside from the foregoing explicit DRR projects, other projects implemented by CARE and partners CNDR, Cordillera Disaster Response and Development Services (CorDisRDS), Agri-Aqua Development Coalition (AADC) and Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development (ACCORD Inc.) have used Pagsasanay sa Disaster Preparedness at Contingency Planning. Five emergency response projects since Ketsana (Ondoy) and a food security and livelihood project funded by the EuropeAid have used the manual as a means for mainstreaming DRR in emergency response. This experience likewise contributed to the enrichment of Pagsasanay.

Over three years of practical experience later, frameworks, approaches and concepts have clarified and evolved. Tools and learning methodologies have vastly improved. These developments required that Pagsasanay be updated. An updated Pagsasanay would feature the addition of sessions on climate change adaptation and ecosystem management and restoration. This is in recognition of present realities – that disasters are becoming more frequent and more destructive because of climate change and environmental degradation. These aspects were not present in the original manual. Other additions are the sessions on relevant DRR and CCA laws and the organization of functional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Councils (DRRMCs). There were two push factors for these inclusions. One is the passage of the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act and the Climate Change Act.

The second factor is closely linked to the first: village, municipal and school authorities wanted to know more about the new laws and are requesting assistance for them to be able to comply with the provisions of the laws. So then why an English edition? Early on, there was already a demand for an English edition from those who do not read and speak Filipino. The lack of an English edition prevented the dissemination of the manual on a wider scale, within the Philippines and beyond.

Training on Disaster Preparedness and Contingency Planning is the response to the oft-received request for an English translation of the manual. Updating of the original manual in Filipino, and its translation and publication in English are a fulfilment of the obligation of CARE and partners to share what has been developed from experience and collaboration amongst high-risk communities and local authorities.

View and download the first module here.

Training on Disaster Preparedness and Contingency Planning is the response to the oft-received request for an English translation of the manual. Updating of the original manual in Filipino, and its translation and publication in English are a fulfillment of the obligation of CARE and partners to share what has been developed from experience and collaboration amongst high-risk communities and local authorities.

View and download the first module here.

As the spread of COVID-19 has forced people indoors, life has become even more dangerous for women experiencing domestic violence, especially for those who are most marginalized. Not only are women experiencing this violence, but many children, who are also home from school, are witnessing and potentially experiencing domestic violence themselves. According to the UNFPA, six months of lockdowns could result in an additional 31 million cases of gender-based violence. The Metro Manila RGA COVID-19 findings (Sep 2020) also reported the following:

There is an exponential increase in GBV risk and incidence due to COVID-19 and its interventions; a “shadow pandemic” that is severely underreported
PNP data reported (15 March to 02 April): 391 cases of VAWC, 42 cases of rape
There is disruption of services for VAWC survivors due to overburdened offices/facilities during COVID-19

As such, coming together to support women in this crisis is critical.

This month’s webinar is in line with CARE’s global anti-GBV campaign Together for Her, a call to action to stand in solidarity with women and girls around the world by supporting the global response against domestic violence during the time of COVID-19.

The project endeavors to address COVID-19’s “shadow pandemic” of gender-based violence in vulnerable communities in the Philippines. It will:

Lessen GBV risk in households and provide social safety nets if women are GBV survivors through multi-purpose cash assistance;
Raise awareness and strengthen local capacity to establish GBV referral pathways and community-based GBV monitoring; and
Advocate for GBV services as essential, life-saving interventions in COVID-19 response on the local and national level.

In the Philippines, the Together for Her anti-GBV campaign is implemented by CARE and local partner ACCORD in Partners for Resilience communities in Malabon, Navotas, and Caloocan and with Pambansang Koalisyon ng Kababaihan sa Kanayunan (PKKK) in Salcedo, Eastern Samar, Basey, Western Samar, and Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental.

This pamphlet was used to disseminate information and highlight the necessary information for communities and stakeholders to progress the prevention of Gender-Based Violence, particularly in the barangay level.

View and download the full document here.

As the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) draws to an end and disaster-related loss and damage continues to increase, an important opportunity arises to shape and agree upon a successor framework that will enable management of the risks that threaten to reverse vital development gains. These risks are driven by a variety of factors (UNISDR 2013) including climate variability and change, economic and financial crises, environmental mismanagement, demographic change, rapid and unplanned urbanization, and failed governance; they disproportionately impact vulnerable and exposed low-income households around the world.

As the HFA Priority area 4 refers to disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies integrated with climate change adaptation and lists among the “critical tasks for states” to promote the integration of DRR with climate variability and climate change into DRR strategies and adaptation to climate change, considerable effort has been made by agencies to work towards convergence of the DRR and the climate change adaptation agendas. However, despite the obvious overlap, these two agendas have evolved independently and in parallel (Mitchell & van Aalst 2008, Mitchell et al. 2010, Mercer 2010) and have faced different challenges (e.g. Schipper & Pelling 2006). In terms of practical programming, there has perhaps been some risk of “relabelling” classical DRR efforts addressing weather-related risks without consciously incorporating concerns for the change in risk patterns, extreme events and vulnerability partly induced by climate change. In addition, there has been a tendency to initiate stand-alone climate change adaptation (CCA) projects disregarding existing vulnerabilities, in effect “overstating” the adaptation aspects of the project rather than integrating adaptation measures into existing approaches, as recommended in the HFA.

Since the HFA in 2005 more compelling evidence about how climate change has – and continues to – influence disaster risk has emerged (including IPCC AR4 and AR5 and SREX). At the same time, many implementing agencies, in particular civil society organizations, have developed and tested various approaches and tools to integrate climate aspects in (participatory) assessments and planning (IIRR Cordaid 2013, CARE 2009, Wiggins 2012) and considerable effort has been made to bounce ideas and share knowledge across agencies about tools and methods for integrating changing climate risks into DRR through for example, the Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change Conferences, and Development & Climate Days held in the context of the annual UNFCCC Conference of Parties (Bachofen et al 2014, Suarez et al 2013). Through these iterations, some common denominators for climate-smart community programming have started to emerge.

Pilot projects across the world have shown that addressing changing climate and disaster risks at the local level is highly effective for building resilience. Strong capacities and robust institutions at the community level can maximize the impacts of climate-smart disaster risk reduction. Yet for this to happen, it is essential that communities and the organizations supporting them all know how to integrate changing risks into their activities.

While empowering communities and the local organizations that support them to become better at managing their risk, the disaster risk reduction community faces increasing pressure to deliver on a greater scale, and help local actors steer their development trajectories upwards. At the same time, policymakers seek clarity and guidance from practitioners on the standards to set for local climate change adaptation efforts – a crucial component of national adaptation planning. Taken together, these demands call for a simplified set of criteria to ensure community-based DRR programming, as well as broader resilience-building efforts, can guide communities and the organizations supporting them.

To address this growing demand, the Minimum Standards for Local Climate-smart Disaster Risk Reduction (hereafter referred to as “Minimum Standards”) have been developed to provide a ‘good enough guide’ to help local community leaders, DRR practitioners and policymakers ensure DRR efforts are geared to more uncertain future risk patterns induced by a changing climate. The Minimum Standards are meant to serve as a useful guide for planners and donors as well so they may ensure DRR programming is meeting CCA needs and that DRR actions are going beyond business as usual by truly addressing changing climate-related risks. Indeed, recognizing that the Minimum Standards are realistic and achievable, national strategies that consider them will be able to go to scale, also in facilitating the use of climate adaptation finance for local efforts to reduce the rising risk of disaster in a changing climate.

This paper presents the Minimum Standards for local climate-smart disaster risk reduction and details how they can help trigger action on climate change under the post-2015 HFA framework. The first section provides an overview of the Minimum Standards and their relevance for guiding climate-smart action at the community level and at the civil society organisation (CSO) level. The second section presents experience of community level application of the Minimum Standards in the Philippines, Indonesia, and India in the context of the Partners for Resilience Program. To illustrate how the Minimum Standards have been used to strengthen CSO’s capacity to become climate-smart, the third section details the experience of the Vanuatu Red Cross and suggests for this approach to be replicated by other CSOs. In addition, the process by which Australian Red Cross has expanded the Minimum Standards to include gender dimensions of DRR is presented in a final case study. The paper concludes with a discussion of the way forward for maximizing the opportunities to use the Minimum Standards to inform the development of the post 2015 HFA.

View and download the full document here.

Originally Written: October 1, 2014

By Amian Tauli

Ti daga ket biag. Land is life.

This quote is a truism that the indigenous people of the Cordillera have asserted time and again as they struggled to develop and live in the mountainous terrain that has been their homeland since time immemorial. By living closely with their environment, they have been able to accumulate indigenous knowledge and practices that guide every aspect of their lives. These practices and knowledge such as the appearance of a certain animal or plant, the behaviour of pets, the color of the sky and many others that signal the occurrence of a certain phenomena have also been pivotal in helping them cope with and bounce back from hazards and disasters they have faced throughout the years. However, the changing climate has made it difficult for the communities. They have struggled to apply the knowledge that has served them well for a long time. Today, very rare is the instance where the appearance of a certain migratory bird can signal the onset of strong rains or a typhoon.

Sitio Mangagew is just one of the 12 communities in the Cordillera where the Partners for Resilience (PfR) programme is being implemented. From the town proper in Bokod, Benguet, it can be reached by a two hour hike or an hour’s drive through a muddy, rutted road that is impassable during the rainy season. It is mainly inhabited by the Ibalois, one of the major ethno-linguistic groups in the Cordillera.

The community members derive their livelihood from planting rice and other vegetables, the majority of which are rain-fed. But recently, the community has reported a steady decline in rice and vegetable production due to the lack of rains leading to reduced water supply especially during the summer months. Based on climate projections for the region, or the years 2020 and 2050, rainy seasons will be wetter, summers will be drier and the whole year will be hotter 0.9 degrees Celsius. Climate change has also escalated the uncertainties in the communities’ agricultural production as the increased occurrence, intensity, and length of rainfall events—which consequently increase erosion rates, trigger landslides, and make certain crops susceptible to diseases—have impacted crop production in the community.

These climate projections, in combination with the indigenous knowledge and practices of the community and ecosystem information have been the starting point for the Cordillera Disaster Response and Development Services (CorDisRDS), a local partner of CARE Nederland, in implementing the PfR programme. The approach by CorDisRDS has been to supplement scientific information with local knowledge in all steps of implementation from the community risk assessment to contingency planning at the local government level in order to gain a comprehensive picture of the local situation. The climate projections in particular have been especially important in designing small-scale mitigation (SSM) projects for the communities. SSM projects are interventions that aim to reduce vulnerabilities through strengthening, diversifying or protecting livelihoods.

For Sitio Mangagew, due to the observed decrease in water supply and long-term projection of drier summers, CorDisRDs and the community agreed to build a communal water system as their SSM. The aim of the project was to provide a steady supply of water that can be used for both irrigation and domestic purposes thereby strengthening agricultural production. After consultations and planning with the local government unit and peoples’ organization, work began. A site was carefully selected ensuring that no damage will be done to the environment.

Community members of Sitio Mangagew working together to construct the distributor tank for their water system.

Materials were carried four kilometres and the whole community relied on their traditional practice of “gamal” or cooperative endeavour to provide labour.

Since the water source was located two kilometres away and one had to pass through a river to reach it, the plastic pipes needed to bring the water to the community were fastened to steel cables that stretched from the water source across the river to the sitio center. The community worked steadily for one month while balancing their economic activities in order to complete the project. Even the families who were not direct beneficiaries pitched in. Finally, on September 2014, the community installed the final plastic pipe. It took two months of hard work but the hope of having a steady water supply was closer to reality.

Today, the community is enjoying the benefits of their hard work. The water system is fully functional and is being used for irrigating the newly planted rice.

“We are very thankful to CorDis RDS and CARE through the PfR programme for providing us support to construct our water system. Our sitio is rarely visited by other people. At first we were hesitant to participate in the project because we had a hard time understanding the concepts being introduced. We felt that our practices were enough to protect us from disasters but we soon came to understand the importance accepting new ideas because our traditional knowledge may not be applicable all the time. ” said Victorio Agustin, a village leader, while proudly showing the completed tank full of water to be distributed to the different households.

It is always a challenge when working with a community that has a deeply-rooted belief system because they may be hesitant to accept new ideas and concepts thinking that their own traditional knowledge is sufficient. But Sitio Mangagew is an example of how the scientific data including climate projections and ecosystem data in conjunction with indigenous knowledge and practices can be effectively used to build safer and resilient communities.

View and download a PDF version of this article here.

Originally Written: September 30, 2014

By Omer Mejia

Arsenio came in the front door of the two-storey barangay hall. He is searching for a familiar face in the reception area where we sit casually waiting for respondents to be interviewed. The tall and dark man with a strong physique, extended his arm for a handshake as we introduce ourselves as the team who will conduct interviews for the shelter assistance evaluation. He smiled gently, slightly moving the stitch marks of an inch long scar on his right lower right cheek. Arsenio Degamo is the barangay chairman of the local government of Barangay Nahawan, Clarin, Bohol province.

ACCORD’s team in the Bohol Earthquake Response sought the barangay LGU’s help in identifying respondents for key informant interview session. He came to ensure that we were able to find the people we need for the interviews, even to the extent of fetching them from their houses with his motorcycle. Barangay officials that were in the barangay hall were also equally helpful.

During an informal sharing of some lessons learned from the entire emergency response, the team shared about various kinds of interaction that we experienced with barangay LGUs.

Barangay Nahawan LGU stood out as one of the most supportive and active LGUs that the team worked with. The barangay officials are actively providing suggestions and support in conducting the house damage assessments, shelter materials and cash distributions, and house repairs.

There are more examples of outstanding local governments and their officials that have dedicated significant efforts, time and resources in responding to emergencies or reducing disaster risks in their communities. Of course, there will always be examples of local governments that may have not yet realized the importance of implementing an inclusive and participatory DRR. Some leaders may have narrow personal interests. Some may also be overwhelmed by the competing priorities and resources.

Nevertheless, public authorities, in general, are integral and primary actors in disaster risk reduction (DRR) and emergency response (ER). Humanitarian and other civil society organizations (CSO), on the other hand, provide valuable support in building the capacities of communities against disasters. Both are duty-bearers, entrusted with power and resources, to provide the required services from them in upholding the rights of the vulnerable and disaster-affected populations.

Many of the DRR and ER projects engage with the local governments. Usually, in the general logic of the project which starts from the activities (for example, “conduct community risk assessments”) which will then result to the desired outcomes (“communities have increased safety from climate-related hazards”), some good governance practices of LGUs, at least favorable to the project, are usually assumed from the very start of the project.

A post-distribution monitoring survey in session. ACCORD ensures that communities are actively involved in the evaluation of and improvements in implemented programs, thereby empowering them to demand better governance from their leaders.

They are part of the “Assumptions and Risks” on which the whole logical intervention chain hangs (“Local government units are cooperative and willing to conduct disaster risk reduction”). Nevertheless, in all phases of all DRR or ER projects, a certain degree of good governance practice is assumed from local governments. LGUs are involved disaster risk reduction activities such as community risk assessments, trainings, contingency planning, hazard mitigation activities, public awareness, and mainstreaming of DRR into the local development plans. In emergency contexts, LGUs are involved in the selection process to identify direct beneficiaries of emergency assistance, and the facilitation and monitoring of various relief and recovery activities.

DRR and good governance are separate but mutually supportive objectives. Increasing the capacity of local governments and community members in DRR contributes, albeit indirectly, to the practice of good governance. On the hand, DRR provides a concrete context on which good governance principles can be applied. On the other hand, good governance is important, if not necessary, in making DRR successful, together with other development objectives. One can find in ACCORD’s set of training manuals on DRR that good governance practices are also incorporated in the principles, methods and procedures, such as the use of rights based approach as a framework and lens for DRR, inclusive and participatory methods in risk assessments, and so on. As UNDP puts it, “Governance is the umbrella under which disaster risk reduction takes place.”

Thus, it is also important to increase knowledge and capacity for governance. It should also be clear that governance not only involves local governments, but it also equally involves civil society and marginalized citizens.

It follows that governance objectives and its corresponding performance indicators should be carefully monitored and evaluated, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Monitoring and evaluation of DRR projects, on the other hand, focus on the impact, including both outcomes and outputs, of the projects on the beneficiary communities as a whole. However, one would notice that some, if not many, of the governance objectives, which are general in nature, coincide with DRR ones. For example, a governance indicator on awareness of citizens on their rights, such as the following, “Marginalized citizens’ understanding of their own rights and the challenges or vulnerabilities they face,” is done by CSOs, including ACCORD as a strong adherent, in training sessions on rights-based approaches, that recognizes the capacities of vulnerable communities to know, understand and assert their rights for proper and adequate services in reducing their risks against disasters. There are various and appropriate methods that can be used for monitoring DRR and governance: qualitative interviews and focus group discussions, quantitative surveys, community audits, etc. It is important to remind ourselves that what gets measured gets managed. Understanding the results of our interventions, it is necessary to do monitoring and evaluation of DRR and governance. This will contribute to a possible eventual institutionalization of good DRR and good governance practices. Of course, there are other fundamental factors in society that affect governance and risks to disasters of communities, such as technological backwardness, great economic disparity, narrow political interests, and cultural subservience. Nonetheless, stories like that of Barangay Chairman Arsenio will not remain as isolated cases of good individuals doing the right things because there will be, at least, a possible influence of the institutionalized DRR and good governance practices to public authorities, civil society, marginalized and other stakeholders.

View and download a PDF version of this article here.