Time to be serious with DRRM
The state of uncertainty was vividly felt once the plane touched down. I did not know what to expect, eleven days after the Great Earthquake struck Cebu and Bohol. But, there was nothing unusual when I saw the streets and reached home, for which I am most grateful. Spending my first night, from a trip to India, I was wondering if I would get my first dose of the aftershocks which family and friends had been talking about. I was soon fast asleep before getting the answer in the negative. It is not that I relish the experience.
It is difficult to imagine how communities who are as yet unreached by rescuers or families who have yet to unearth their loved ones from the rubble, are coping. From a report, children constitute nearly one third of the fatalities. The process of grieving and rebuilding life anew is a most difficult task, and we commiserate with them for their unimaginable loss.
It is heartwarming to know about the surge of renewed sense of compassion and generosity among our people and even those from other countries for those badly devastated by the earthquake. The sense of community was also readily apparent in past disasters as when typhoons Ondoy, Sendong and Pablo devastated communities. Indeed, Filipinos can always be counted upon to lend a hand in times of tremendous trials.
I would want to see this active citizen engagement manifested during “normal” times as well and not just during elections. Our system of government demands deep involvement and sense of responsibility of citizens in nation-building. Corruption and lack of prioritization of essential services such as health, sanitation and environment happen because of public apathy and of course, greed by a handful. It does take two to tango, right?
Allowing officials to act as if they alone have the discretion to determine where and how public funds are to be spent should be a thing of the past. This practice does not jell with our State-guaranteed right to participate at all levels of decision-making. The decision of a congressman to allocate his PDAF for road widening in the southern part of Cebu, with public agencies choosing to fell down century-old trees that stand in the way, is a concrete example.
If we are to follow and respect the Constitution and our laws, and focus on responsive governance, the constituents of a congressional district would have preferred as potential projects for the highly unpopular PDAF, those related to delivery of health services, sanitation, livelihood, education and restoration of the degraded ecosystems and even mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change and DRRM. Who would relish projects that increase pollution in an already-polluted area and the likelihood of devastation from landslides and climate change?
If a national lawmaker or his representative is actively involved in each of the component barangay, municipal and city development councils, known as local development councils (LDCs), where his membership is mandatory under the Local Government Code, he certainly would begin to feel the pulse of the people. But, how many congressional representatives and local chief executives have even complied with the Code by activating genuine LDCs?
As reiterated several times in this column, a non-functioning barangay development councils spells disaster for communities, because under RA 10121, the DRRM law, the BDC is considered the barangay disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) council. Without a functioning DRRM body, how can plans be crafted and response institutionalized by the people themselves?
Disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) is not a service that can be delivered door-to-door or willed solely by political authorities. In a disaster epicenter like the Philippines, disaster preparedness requires collective action.
It is possible that the unfortunate controversy that erupted between the Red Cross and the Maribojoc mayor could have been avoided if there was a clear mechanism for disaster response, as required by RA 10121 and the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (the “Plan”). It is apt to quote the Plan which notes that, “Building resilient communities cannot and should not be done by a single agency or organization. Its success is highly dependent on the close coordination and collaboration of different stakeholders. Building effective and mutually reinforcing partnerships and evolving networks ensure the multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral participation of the different players in DRRM.”
Being in a state of enmity during disasters is a disaster by itself. Partnerships should instead be encouraged.
The DRRM training ideally should start when the kids are still kids, like what Japan is doing. We have seem how the people managed to be calm and so dignified after the 9.2 earthquake destroyed Fukushima in 2011 where tens of thousands died and caused the destruction of the nuclear power plant.
Had the earthquake and tsunami happened in a developing country, more lives would certainly have been lost. Last Saturday, another earthquake of 7.3-magnitude occurred in the area, with not much destruction and perhaps, anxiety. The people’s resilience had been tested, time and again, and that fortitude has been a great source of strength for the Japanese.
It is time to be serious about DRRM and building our people’s capacity to cope with disasters. The family should be the starting point for the training. Emergency kits and bags should be part of the essentials in the household, apart from holistic planning. Schools should seriously integrate DRRM in the curriculum. Offices must have contingency plans as well. DRRM and climate change should be integrated in development plans and land use plans, and policies, of local government units and duly participated in by all stakeholders.
More importantly, government should finally be very stern in implementing our laws. Authorities found wanting in performing their duties should be held accountable and sacked, if necessary.
