From a distance

One of this century’s strong earthquakes struck Cebu while I was out of town on my way to India. My sister, Nenen, immediately called to share the harrowing tale she and everyone in Cebu and Bohol and other provinces in Central Visayas experienced.

Thankful that everyone was safe, from a distance, I thought of our vulnerable sectors who are always the first victims of any natural or man-made disasters: the children, women, elderly and the persons with disability, especially if building the resiliency of our people to disasters is not prioritized. If Oct. 15 had not been declared a national holiday, the death toll could have been higher.

It is traumatic to know that many lives had been lost, to see the magnitude of the destruction and to feel the aftershocks which came one after another. The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology recorded 1,213 four days after the event.

I understand classes remain suspended until the tremors stop and the buildings go through a thorough assessment of their safety. Hearings were suspended in the Cebu Palace of Justice because of cracks in its walls.

The Cebu provincial government and family and friends in Facebook immediately uploaded guidelines in the event of earthquake.

Social media was abuzz with the sharing of angst and ordeals from the netizens. One is grateful indeed for the social network sites as they were not only a significant source of information but also served as an outlet for expression.

After a disaster, always the immediate question that comes to mind is “Are the people prepared and able to effectively cope during and in the succeeding days and months after the contingency happens?”

RA 10121, the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Law of 2010 defines “preparedness” as pre-disaster actions and measures being undertaken within the context of disaster risk reduction and management and are based on sound risk analysis as well as pre-disaster activities to avert or minimize loss of life and property such as, but not limited to, community organizing, training, planning, equipping, stockpiling, hazard mapping, insuring of assets, and public information and education initiatives. This also includes the development/enhancement of an overall preparedness strategy, policy, institutional structure, warning and forecasting capabilities, and plans that define measures geared to help at-risk communities safeguard their lives and assets by being alert to hazards and taking appropriate action in the face of an imminent threat or an actual disaster.

The said law provides for ”the development of policies and plans and the implementation of actions and measures pertaining to all aspects of disaster risk reduction and management, including good governance, risk assessment and early warning, knowledge building and awareness raising, reducing underlying risk factors, and preparedness for effective response and early recovery.”

Let it not be forgotten that DRRM is a service that is now devolved primarily to the local government units (LGUs).

My students in the course Environmental Law, as a class project, recently conducted a survey among LGUs in Cebu to assess their level of compliance with RA 9729, otherwise known as the “Climate Change Act of 2009 and the DRRM Law. Their study was aimed at “gaining knowledge on the LGUs level of compliance with climate-related laws as frontline agencies in the formulation, planning and implementation of climate change action plans in the areas of responsibilities as mandated by Climate Change Act of 2009 (RA 9727) and lead in preparing for, responding to and recovering from the effects of any disaster pursuant to Disaster Risk Management Act (RA 10121).” They presented the result of their study in the UC Youth for Environment Summit 2013 on Oct. 9.

Out of the 53 LGUs sent the questions, only a measly 19 responded, and all stated positively on their self-rated knowledge and awareness of both laws. Another question posed was the preparation of the required Climate Change Action Plan and DRRM Plan. Twenty-three percent said that they have such Plan, while 27.4 percent answered that there was participation of the constituents in the planning and the assessment of the risks and hazards.

While the result of the survey was not representative of the actual state of preparedness of our LGUs, it gave us a glimpse of the urgent steps needed to mainstream DRRM in the policies, plans, projects and program of the government. One such measure is capacity building trainings of stakeholders.

The Oct. 15 earthquake was another test of the capacity of LGUs and the local residents to appropriately respond to the emergency. No LGU can ever go wrong in planning for preparedness actively conducted with the constituents. Our country is not only situated in the Pacific Ring of Fire, it is deemed a natural laboratory for disasters and the third country in the world considered highly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

Do we just leave everything to chance, to the “Bahala na” mentality or comply with our climate and DRRM laws, encourage the involvement of our people and partner with nongovernment organizations and stakeholders, as exemplified by the municipality of San Francisco in Cebu, the 2011 UN Sasakawa awardee for Disaster Risk Reduction?

Hopefully, the disaster will now awaken and impel more LGUs to respect our laws and prioritize the safety and welfare of our people and for more Filipinos to take ownership of the responsibility to build our nation’s resiliency, irrespective of the government’s action or gross neglect. After all, our future is in our hands.