Mitigating is vital key to avoiding disasters
are projected to increase in the next few decades without interventions.
This makes the lack of attention on climate change mitigation in the proposed inclusion of CCC into the new department perplexing. This is further compounded by the fact that the CCC was created under RA 9729 or the Climate Change Act of 2009, a “legacy” law of then-President Gloria Arroyo who may be now advocating for its abolishment as House Speaker.
Meanwhile, disaster mitigation itself is not highlighted in the proposed bills. It is one of the four thematic pillars under the current DRRM framework, yet only the other three aspects are specifically included in the pending legislation: preparedness, response, and recovery and rehabilitation.
What this demonstrates is the continuing ailment that has been prevalent in the national government for decades: the lack of a proactive attitude to disasters. Instead of taking a strong stance on preventing disasters by directly addressing the immediate and long-term causes of extreme natural hazards, the proposed new framework is focused on actions to be taken after disasters already happened.
There is no question that there is a need for a stronger DRRM framework in the Philippines. Not only would the country remain highly exposed to tropical cyclones, droughts, and monsoonal rainfall in the future; these hazards would become more extreme due to climate change. A strong inclusive and collaborative framework needs to be established by the government to empower all sectors to effectively deal with disasters.
However, that is only half of the story. Creating the DDR is simply not enough of a solution. Increasing our resilience and adaptive capacity is not enough. Disasters brought by typhoons Ondoy and Yolanda occurred not only because institutions and communities were not prepared to deal with the impacts.
They happened because residents lived in areas at high risk to flash floods and storm surges. They happened because communities were unfamiliar with how to avoid calamities from taking place, let alone cope with losses of property and resources.
Ultimately, no restructuring of the current DRRM framework in the Philippines is as effective as the one solution this country needs: effective leadership. Public officials at the national and local level must enact policies that empower communities to not simply anticipate disasters, but rather use all means to avoid them altogether.
It is imperative that a proposed DDR would strengthen the capacity of LGUs to respond to potential and eventual disasters, considering they are at the forefront of natural hazards. Allocation of sufficient funding and manpower should be oriented towards mitigating disasters just as much as responding to them.
Proper land use should also be a priority at the local level. This would not only strengthen natural ecosystems necessary to mitigate impacts of hazards, but also reduce the exposure of communities by being positioned away from high-risk areas. The passage of the National Land Use Act can complement the proposed DDR, although changes must be made with the latter.
Furthermore, not recognizing our obligation to lower carbon emissions paints the country in a negative, twofaced light. Considering other developing yet vulnerable nations have