Jean C. Tayag and Sheila I. Insauriga
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
ABSTRACT
The response of government and non-government organizations to the July 1990 Luzon earthquake disaster was assessed from three viewpoints--those of the media, government disaster management officials both at national and local levels, and the affected inhabitants. Press coverage of the earthquake disaster clearing the three weeks after the earthquake was reviewed; key informant interviews were conducted among national and local disaster management officials and NGO leaders; and a household survey was undertaken to gather the affected inhabitants' views.
The three viewpoints agreed can at least two points: that the government (both national and local) response left much to be desired: and that non-government and private organizations exhibited great initiative and played an active role during the disaster. Both media and the national disaster management officials assessed that the local bodies in charge of dealing with disasters-the Disaster Coordinating Councils (DCCs)-were incapable of promptly responding to the situation. Acting on this assessment, the President created Disaster Relief Coordinating Teams to coordinate rescue and relief activities the hardest hit areas. These teams were headed by Cabinet officials and superimposed can the local DCCs. Implicitly assuming a similar assessment of the local DCCs (in)capability, numerous NGOs rushed to the disaster areas and directly distributed relief goods/assistance to the victims without coordinating with the concerned government units, adding to the confusion and resulting in duplication of efforts, disproportionate distribution of relief and other problems.
Local disaster management officials interviewed acknowledged their lack of preparedness plans, resources and authority to deal with a major earthquake. However, the local organizations were not totally incapacitated. After recovering from the initial shock, they moved, though not always as DCCs but as individual DCC member organizations. A majority of the local DCCs were able to mobilize 34 days after the event. Several DCCs did not meet but their leaders and some of their member organizations were in the front tine. The respondents among the affected inhabitants likewise recognized the role played by government units, specifically the Department of Social Welfare and Development and barangay leaders although the DCC was not a known entity to them.
Organizational experiences in the 1990 disaster underscored several issues which need to be resolved to prepare the country for similar occurrences in the feature: 1) the most appropriate and effective organizational framework for disaster response; 2) division of disaster management responsibilities among: the various levels of organization -- national, regional, provincial, municipal, barangay, and household; and 3) the role of NGOs in disaster management.
INTRODUCTION
The strongest and most destructive earthquake to hit the Philippines in the last two decades struck on 16 July ,1990 with a magnitude of 7.8 on the Richter scale and a maximum felt intensity of VIII in the Modified Rossi-Forel (MRF) scale (VIII- IX in the Modified Mercalli scale). The epicenter of the event was located at near the town of Rizal? Nueva Ecija, at a depth of 28 km. This major earthquake and its attendant geologic processes--surface faulting, liquefaction, landslides and debris flows-- exacted a toll of 1283 dead, 2786 injured, 321 missing (NDCC, Nov. 14, 1990) and more than P18.7 Billion in actual damages to public infrastructure and facilities and private properties (NEDA, Nov. 1990). Four regions in north and central Luzon suffered the heavy damage and casualties with the cities of Baguio, Dagupan, Cabanatuan and San Jose bearing the brunt of the disaster.
In the first days and weeks after the disastrous event, governmental and non-governmental organizations or institutions were hard-pressed in undertaking tasks brought about by the disaster-the rescue and recovery of trapped or isolated victims; the provision of food, clothing, medical attention, and temporary shelter to the displaced; and repair and restoration of function of power, water and other utility systems, transportation and communication.
A report of the United Nations Disaster Relief Office (UNDR0, 1986) pointed out a number of myths about or popular images of organizational response in emergencies which have been found to be often incorrect, leading to negative consequences or administrative difficulties in meeiing disaster needs and managing relief and recovery operations. Among the popular assumptions is the myth of overwhelming impact on local leadership- according to which local organizations in a disaster area are overwhelmed, rendered ineffective, lacking both leadership and personnel. Logical moves based on these assumptions are: 1) the imposition of strong centralized leadership by some unaffected outside person to cope with the confusion; and 2) direct distribution of relief and assistance from donors to recipients, resulting in inappropriate relief, superfluous volunteers and duplication of efforts.
How applicable were these popular images of organizational response in the areas hit by the 1990 earthquake? Were the local organizations overwhelmed and incapacitated? How did the local disaster concerned organizations particularly the DCCs measure up to the tasks of coping with the disaster? How did the national government and private and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) respond?
The aim of the study was to assess the response of organizations and institutions to the July 1990 earthquake disaster in Luzon, from at least three viewpoints-- those of the media, the government disaster management officials and the affected inhabitants. It was hoped that in the process, the lessons imparted by the experience could be underscored and alternative solutions explored.
PROCEDURE
To gather data on media assessments, articles, columns and editorials on the earthquake in eight major dailies during the two weeks after the event were reviewed. For the government's self assessment, available reports of government disaster management oganizations were content analyzed and key informant interviews ere conductd among national sand local disaster management officials and NGO leaders. To get the views cat the affected inhabitants, the survey instrument. of the household d community survey part of the project was made it) carry several questions relevant to organizational response. Data gathering and summing up of assessments were focused mainly can the rescue and relief aspects of disaster management activity.
FINDINGS
Media Assessments
The media, broadcast and print, played a very active role during the disaster period. Mediamen were in the frontlines, documenting and reporting rescue-relief operations, attending to the information needs of affected inhabitants as well gas disaster management units, pointing cut areas that needed attention, generating sympathy and assistance for the victims and providing alternative communication links when public facilities broke down. It was therefore understandable that the reports of media people influenced subsequent responses of disaster management organizations.
Most of the columns reviewed pictured the disaster as widespread and described the rescue and relief efforts as disorganized, uncoordinated, slow, inadequate, unprepared, and ill equipped. These also claim that it was the non-government sector which took the lead in performing functions which should have been performed by the government. The unsatisfactory performance of disaster response agencies was blamed on the government's lack of disaster preparedness, lack of planning, weak leadership, inadequate attention and funding support for disaster management, lack of rescue equipment and properly trained rescue manpower, lack of transportation and communication facilities, bureaucratic red tape, and a host of other factors. The extensive damage was likewise attributed either to inadequacies in the Building Code or in its enforcement.
See Appendix 1 for illustrative excerpts,
National Government Response and Self-Assessment
During her visit to the disaster areas, the president of the country observed a need for leadership and organization in the rescue and relief efforts and was quoted to have exclaimed: "Who's in charge here?". To fill in this need, President Aquino created by Administrative Orders Disaster Relief Coordinating Teams (DRTC) for Baguio City (AO 183); for Pangasinan (AO 184); Nueva Ecija-Nueva Vizcaya (AO 185); and La Union (AO 189). These teams were tasked to take charge of and coordinate all rescue, recovery and relief operations of government and non-government organizations in their assigned areas with the, Disaster Coordinating Councils (DCCs) of the regions, provinces, and municipalities or cities under them.
The Baguio Disaster Relief Coordinating Team was headed by the then Executive Sec. Jose do Jesus, the Pangasinan team by Sec. Bengzon of the Department of Health, the Nueva Ecija - Nueva Vizcaya team by Engr. Manuel Estrella of Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC); and the La Union team by DPWH Edmundo V. Mir.
In addition, an Earthquake Assistance Center was set up at the Office of the President. Headed by Elfren Cruz and staffed by the Presidential Management Staff, the Center was to serve as link between Malacanang and all other government agencies involved in rescue and relief operations and to coordinate all foreign assistance,
The President declared state of calamity in the hard hit areas and issued executive and administrative orders to facilitate and govern disaster response activities. Among these Presidential actions were: authorization of importation and donation of relief and rehabilitation supplies to the victims of the July 16, 1990 earthquake; price control can prime and essential commodities; authorization of the advance payment of one half of the Christmas bonus and the additional cash gift to all government officials and employees residing in assigned or calamity areas; review and update of the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan for 1990 to include therein the reconstruction and development program for the regions, provinces, cities and municipalities affected by the earthquake; and creation of a Presidential Task Force for the Rehabilitation of the Areas Affected by the July 16 Earthquake.
In a report to President Aquino, NDCC Chairman Fidel Ramos (NDCC, Aug.2l, 1990) stated that on the whole, the government's response to the disaster under the coordinated umbrella of the NDCC "has been satisfactory, although certain significant deficiencies were observed" which, he promised the Council will strive to rectify toward a more effective and well coordinated disaster management.
The most visible involvement of NDCC member agencies were in rescue, transport and provision of relief and medical assistance, restoration of public utilities and services.
Although the NDCC cannot claim credit for leading and undertaking rescue and recovery operations in Baguio City, the military arms of the government and which could also be considered arms of the DCCs were actively involved in rescue and recovery work in Benguet, Dagupan, Nueva Vizcaya, Cabanatuan and other parts of Nueva Ecija, although their work was hampered by lack of equipment.
The national DCC was also responsible for bringing into Baguio City medical teams of the Department of Health to assist the provincial hospital staff in attending to the victims.
While Baguio was cut off, relief was airlifted from a staging point at San Fernando La Union via a relay of helicopters provided by Philippine Air Force. Relief goods to the municipalities of Benguet were also ferried by helicopters as the Baguio-Bontoc Road was impassable.
For Nueva Vizcaya, relief goods were airlifted from Manila to Kawayan, then transported by trucks to Bagabag-Aritao where a staging center was established, manned by elements of the Philippine Army 5th Division. From here, relief goods and rescue medical teams were brought by air to the affected areas. Some of the relief goods from Cagayan were transported by land direct to Aritao.
In Dagupan City, the immediate need was water. This was partly alleviated in the beginning with 10 fire trucks from the PC/INP.
Clearing and repair were also immediately started on San Jose- Sta. Fe Road in Nueva Ecija by DPWH and AFP engineers working on both ends. On 13 August, this road was opened with load limitations which the local PC was tasked to enforce.
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), a member of the DCC, and military engineering brigades were responsible in road clearing operations and restoration of public utilities and services, especially in Baguio City. Patch up work was done on the runway of Loakan airport so that it was opened to limited traffic on 18 July, 2 days after the quake, enabling PAF planes to bring in relief goods to the city on the same day. Damaged sections of the Naguilian Road were rush-repaired by DPWH work teams assisted by AFP engineers and on 20 July, the road was partially opened and access to the city was restored.
Electric power was initially restored in some portions of the city on 18 July up to 26 July. By 2 August, power was completely restored. Water supply was completely disrupted. At the start, water was provided by 20 fire trucks brought by the PC/INP which came through on 21 July when Naguilian Road was opened. By 26 July, 14 out of the 35 pumping stations were operationalized partially restoring the city's water supply system.
Telephone communication within the city and with the outside was restored on 2 August.
In a meeting, NDCC officials (Minutes, August 10,1990) pointed out that Disaster Coordinating Councils (DCCs) had already been created all over the country and that 95% should have been operational when the earthquake struck. Moreover, the National Calamities and Disaster Preparedness Plan provides policy guidelines and SOPs in calamities/disaster operations. The NDCC issued in 1989 Memorandum Orders to lower DCC Chairmen to provide for community-based rescue, evacuation and relief operations during disasters; consolidation of all reports to prioritize release of funds; establish procedures for recommending the declaration of a state of calamity; policies and procedures in requesting, allocating, releasing and monitoring of calamity funds; and policies and procedures on foreign assistance. The national disaster management officials stressed that these policies point to the local DCCs at the regional, provincial, city/municipal and barangay levels as the backbone of the national disaster rescue-relief organization. The effectiveness and efficiency of the entire system therefore depends on these local subsystems.
NDCC officials also stressed that there are sufficient plans some of which have even been further detailed and operationalized by local DCCs. Despite the existing policy guidelines and plans, the July (earthquake disaster brought to light the following deficiencies (NDCC, Aug. 21, 1990):
- Failure of some local DDCs to react and take charge. Some local officials were caught unaware, resulting in the failure to take charge.
- Lack of coordination between and among NDCC member agencies/NGOs especially in the allocation and distribution of relief goods resulting in the slow or non-delivery of assistance in affected areas. The NGO relief agencies did not seek the advise of the government regarding the relief requirements in the affected areas. They started to distribute their relief good on their own which sometimes resulted in the disproportionate distribution of relief goods.
- Need for the establishment of effective management of relief centers and staging areas for relief goods in the matter of cargo storage, handling and packaging, etc., to insure timely relief responses in affected areas.
- Need for an effective quick response rescue/recovery capability. The rescue volunteers/teams who responded have very little capability except raw manpower.
- Need for the pre-inventory of rescue capability of private firms and harnessing them for rescue/relief operations. The disaster revealed the inability of some DCCs to immediately provide local rescue equipment/tools to responding teams despite their availability in the community.
- Need to decentralize decision-making on rescue, recovery and relief management to task agencies so as to hasten the delivery of emergency services in the affected areas.
- Need for back-up communications systems between affected areas and the RDCC and NDCC. Most often, during disasters of large magnitude, communications lines are cut off due to power failure which therefore necessitates back up communication systems powered by batteries or emergency generators.
- Need for immediate damage assessment information as basis of decision making by NDCC and tasked agencies.
- Lack of accurate knowledge of alternative routes to isolated areas, which prevented relief agencies of the government of the government and the NGOsfrom proceeding to the affected areas.
- Need to coordinate and facilittate entry of foreign assistance. The delays caused by this shortcoming may have caused the loss of some lives.
- Low level of public awareness and preparedness of Filipinos about geologic phenomena like earthquakes, volcanic activities, landslides, etc.
- Lack of measures to prevent probable cascades of disasters. The typhoon which followed the earthquake produced additional hazards that may have been avoided if our forests had not been denuded.
- Need for proper and effective land use management and inclusion of preventive measures against adverse effects of geologic hazards in urban developments;
- Need to upgrade earthquake monitoring in the country.
- Need for update and implement the Building Code of the Philippines.
Local Government Accounts
Interviews with local government officials and NGO leaders yielded the following eyewitness accounts and self assessments on local government units' response to the disaster particularly that of the local DCCs.
In Baguio-Benguet
The first organized rescue response was that of the cadets of the Philippine Military Academy, a government institution, though not a member of the local DCC. By midnight of July 16, the cadets with some miners were pulling out survivors and casualties from the collapsed buildings in Baguio.
On day 2, July 17 in the afternoon, CRECOM Commander Brig. Gen. Juanito Aquias tried to convene the Regional Disaster Coordinating Council (RDCC) but could not gather enough members to launch a full scale disaster response. Volunteers crowded at the Baguio Fire Station, the RDCC center.
On day 3, July 18, the surrounding mining communities such as PHILEX, Antamok, Lepanto and various mines under Benguet Corporation responded to the RDCC's distress call for rescue. Armed with jack hammers, stone chisels, hacksaws, acetylene torches, spades and shovels, the miners worked round the clock. Their large lifting jacks were mostly ineffective inside the rubble. Their efforts were further hampered by heavy rains and continuous aftershocks.
Volunteer doctors arrived from Manila via San Fernando airport.
On July 19, the initial batch of Japanese rescue and medical teams arrived.
On July 20, the first Regional Disaster Coordinating Council meeting was held. This was held jointly with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. In the meeting, the RDCC made important decisions/policies that were to govern the Council's and the member agencies' actions during the crisis (Minutes, July 20,1990).
On reporting, it made it SOP for barangay officials to report to Mayors who would in turn consolidate and submit reports of damage and casualties to the Provincial DCC. Said reports were to be the basis for assistance.
On relief, it designated the Department of Social Welfare and Development(DSWD) Provincial Office as the lead agency with Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC)-Benguet Chapter, and other government agencies and volunteer groups in supportive role.
Initial assistance to province like food and medicines were to be divided equally based on assumption that all 13 municipalities were affected. Later, distribution would depend on need.
Assistance to municipalities would be coursed through Municipal DCCs headed by mayors which will be responsible for distribution.
On rehabilitation, priority were the opening of roads in the following order: Naguilian, Halsema, Kennon and Benguet-Nueva Vizcaya roads. The lead agency would be the DPWH with assistance of other government agencies and private firms.
On funding, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan appropriated P900000 for mobility, repair/maintenance and food and medicines.
On other matters, the Vice Governor would coordinate road opening activities while the Executive assistants would coordinate airlifting activities; All stranded Benguet students were to be accommodated at Benguet State University gymnasium; Medicine distribution was placed under the coordination of Asst. Provincial Health Officer while use would be coordinated by Municipal Health Officers.
On the same day; the NGOs met to consolidate relief efforts at a local radio station. At the request of a Cabinet secretary, the NGO representatives to the RDCC formed themselves into the adhoc Regional NGO Coordinating Council (RNCC)
It therefore took 3-4 days to set the regional disaster response machinery into more orderly action. Meanwhile, the first 3 days were admittedly characterized by confusion and lack of direction and coordination, with volunteers, relief goods, communication equipment, vehicles, government personnel massing at the RDCC center waiting to be mobilized.
In Dagupan City
The officials interviewed acknowledged criticisms regarding the slow response of the city government.
Regarding the preparedness of the CDCC, it was admitted by the respondents that the Council had inadequate capability to cope with such a large scale calamity. The council normally meets during May and June, before the typhoon season and is prepared only to deal with typhoons and floods. Its preparedness plan is also appropriate only for these types of calamities.
Moreover, the earthquake was not localized. It had widespread impact. The CDCC had inadequate manpower, skills, equipment and authority to cope with the disaster. It did not have the authority to order DPWH to give its resources to help Dagupan.
Nevertheless, the CDCC responded belatedly by organizing local leaders, pinpointing immediate needs, and mobilizing government officials, business and other non-government groups to restore power, telephone systems, water supply and other utility systems. The most visible national organization which helped in rescue operations was the Philippine Navy
Task Force Tulong. Relief was largely provided by NGOs and private groups/individuals. Most of the NGOs from Manila directly distributed to recipients or coursed relief through local NGOs.
In Cabanatuan
Like Dagupan, the Cabanatuan DCC had no plans for earthquake disaster response, only for typhoons. It usually meets only when typhoon signal number 1 is raised.
There was no time for the DCC to meet but response was spontaneous. First to respond were the Mayor, PC Commander, Fire Chief, Police Chief, barangay captains and the DSWD.
To rescue those trapped in the collapsed Philippine Christian College, the first to arrive, on the scene can July 16 were some 395 soldiers of the 7th division in Fort Magsaysay under Brig. Gen. Calupig. In the morning of July 17, elements from the US Air Force and Navy Seabees numbering 201 arrived from Subic escorted by Mayor Gordon of Olongapo City. These two units combined rescue efforts. A company of the AFP Engineers also came later. The Americans brought in a telescopic crane, augmented by a similar equipment from the local DPWH. A British rescue team of 16 also arrived on July I'7. In days round the clock operation, a total of 278 were rescued, 137 of whom were injured and 141 dead were recovered. Rescue operations were terminated on July 26. As in Baguio, the local rescue teams load inadequate equipment.
Two centers of action were set up--Bahay Tulungan for donations and Liwag Building for rescue. Many private individuals and NGOs assisted. Most of the NGOs, however, did not pass through the DCC or DSWD but distributed their relief goods directly to the victims. Unlike in the Baguio, the NGOs in Cabanatuan did not form an umbrella NGO organization. Their networking was described as adequate, though.
Assessment of Household Respondents
The interview schedule for the household and community survey included some questions which were intended to gather the respondents' views on the performance of organizations during the disaster.
Two questions on the seeking and receipt of assistance: showed that of those who sought assistance from outside the household (54% of the total number of respondents), about 73% sought the help of NGOs, particularly the Philippine National RedCross (PNRC). Next most sought out sources of assistance were community or barangay leaders and government agencies particularly the DSWD (both approached by 42% of the respondents). Only 10% sought the assistance of relatives and 8% went to their municipal/city or provincial officials. Most of the respondents seeking assistance were after food, one of their most pressing problems.
Average response time of the approached organizations ranged from 2 days to 12 days. Assistance from national government agencies and NGOs took longest to reach the assistance seekers (12 days and 9 days, respectively). In contrast, response of or assistance from relatives and barangay leaders took only 2-3 days (Table 1).
Most of the households received relief goods. Among those who had damaged houses only 6 % received assistance for repairs, in the form of either a loan from the Government Security and Insurance System (GSIS) or of an aid from DSWD.
The respondents were also asked to identify the organizations/persons they perceived as most active during the various phases of the disaster.
During the rescue phase, military units like the PMA (in Baguio- Benguet) and the Philippine Navy (Dagupan-Pangasinan) were the most visible, followed by NGOs and private establishments and individuals, then by foreign rescue teams (Table 2).
For the relief aspect, on the whole, the NGOs were the most frequently mentioned. The most appreciated NGO is the PNRC, followed by others like the Montanosa Relief and Rehabilitation Services (MRRS) and ABS-CBN Foundation; International Lions Club, Jaycees, DWZN, Rotary Clubs, professional organizations and religious groups. In Dagupan however, the most frequently mentioned were the barangay leaders, followed by NGOs. In Dagupan, NGOs were the most ubiquitous, followed by DSWD.
In rehabilitation, the respondents merely mentioned the "Government" without distinguishing which unit or level.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
The three viewpoints agreed on at least two points: that the government (both national and local) response left much to be desired; and that non-government and private organizations exhibited great initiative and played an active role daring the disaster. Both media and the national disaster management officials assessed that the local bodies in charge of dealing with disasters - the Disaster Coordinating Councils (DCCs) were incapable of promptly responding to the situtation. Acting on this assessment, the President created Disaster Relief Coordinating teams to coordinate rescue and relief activities in the hardest hit areas. These teams were headed by Cabinet officials and superimposed on the local DCCs. Implicitly assuming a similar assessment of the local DCCs (in) capability, many NGOs converged in the disaster areas and directly distributed relief goods/assistance to the victims without coordinating with the concerned government units, adding to the confusion and resulting in duplication of efforts, unbalanced distribution of relief and other administrative problems.
The criticism of the media and disaster management officials at the national level that the local DCCs had no preparedness plans and resources to deal with a major event like the July 16 earthquake was acknowledge by the local and national disaster management officials. The local DCCs could hardly have been expected to possess the equipment needed for rescue and recovery such as telescopic cranes and sensors. But to say that the local organizations were totally incapacitated would not be accurate either. After recovering from the initial shock, they moved, not as DCCs but still as local organizations or units. The experience of Cabanatuan illustrates this. Even if the DCC did not meet, the DCC leaders and some DCC member organizations were in the front lines. The respondents among the affected inhabitants likewise recognized the role played by government units, specifically the DCC and barangay leaders although the DCC was not a known entity to them.
Organizational experiences in the 1990 disaster underscored several issues which need to be resolved to prepare the country for similar occurrences in the future: 1) the most appropriate and effective organizational framework for disaster response; ) division of disaster management responsibilities among the various levels of organization -- national, regional, provincial, municipal, barangay and household; and 3) the role of NGOs in disaster management.
On the most appropriate and effective organizational framework for disaster management
The effectiveness of the NDCC itself has been questioned--its nature as a mere coordinating body, constituted by department heads (who usually come and go with the President), headed by the Department of National Defense (DND) Secretary ; its lack of permanent and independent staff and its dependence on the lead agency-DND for secretariat work and operating resources. The local DCCs are equally or even more unstable. Each is headed by the chief local executive-governor for province and mayor for city or municipality--with the organic local officials, national officials working at the local level, together with civic, religious and professional organizations as members. The elective political leader and the officials appointed by him are with the DCC only during their elective term; the line agency officials operating in the local area are under the authority of and follow the priorities set by their respective mother departments. The setup is known to be plagued by coordination problems.
The so-called failure of the DCCs to promptly provide the leadership and machinery to harness the groundswell of volunteerism and organize the rescue and relief operations led the President to create disaster relief coordinating teams for Baguio City, Pangasinan, La Union and Nueva EcijaNueva Vizcaya Cabinet men were appointed to head the first three and the President of the Philippine National Oil Co. to take charge of the fourth. These teams were super-imposed on the local DCCs ( Fig.l). In addition, an Earthquake Assistance Center was set up at the Office of the President, headed by Secretary Elfren Cruz of the Presidential Management Staff.
Were these necessary, really and for how long? How viable an alternative is the Disaster Relief Coordinating Team set up? Could it take the place of the NDCC or higher level DCC? This question remains to be resolved. It might however, be worth pointing out that before the end of July, Sec. De Jesus of the Disaster Relief Coordinating Team for Baguio decided to decentralize relief operations in Baguio City due to criticisms that help had been slow in coming to the victims. The move was also prompted by the reported incidence of pilferage and misuse of relief goods. The decentralized system would use the existing city government structure-with a committee headed by the mayor and representatives from DSWD and NGOs as members--in other words-- the local Disaster Coordinating Councils with another name--Disaster Coordinating Committees. The DSWD would determine the allocation of relief goods to each barangay which would have its own disaster coordinating center. NGOs which had been conducting their own relief work, would also coordinate with the city committee to avoid duplication of function.
For Benguet, a Disaster Coordinating Committee was also organized with the Governor as Chairman. Relief goods would be distributed through the mayors of the 13 towns in the province. The DRCT for Benguet was thus phased out on July 30 and the local government took over the residual activity of rescue and relief.
The need for a more effective disaster management organization was also pointed out by the UNCHS (Dec. 1990) whose recommended alternative is either an improved NDCC or a new organization.
Five bills were introduced at the House of Representatives, seeking to create another organization for disaster control and management. One recommends an independent, permanent administration-type organization; three propose an authority type body to be directly placed under the Office of the president; and another one proposes a council like NDCC but with expanded functions (House Bill Nos, 22363, 31521, 31570, 32997, 31700).
At least three characteristics of the DCC set up have been blamed for its shortcomings and used as rationale for considering alternative organizational frameworks: its being a coordinating body, its ad hocness and limited disaster management thrust focused on response. But--would a specialized, permanent and all- encompassing disaster management body be more effective?
A disaster, by definition, affects all aspects of a community's life. Dealing with it therefore calls for the involvement of most if not all of the affected polity's institutions/organizations. A coordinating body, headed by the most authoritative leader of the affected area, is therefore the most logical organization for dealing with disasters.
The DRCTs superimposed by the Cory Administration on the local DCCs were even more adhoc than the DCCs while the Disaster Coordinating Committees were actually Disaster Coordinating Councils with another name. The Presidential Task Force for Rehabilitation of Areas Affected by the July 16, 1990 Earthquake was likewise more ad hoc than the DCC.
The adhoc versus permanent issue cannot be divorced from the limited versus allencompassing question. What aspects of disaster management are to be handled by the desired organization?
Disaster management encompasses a wide range of disaster-related activities that are undertaken before, during and after the occurrence of a disaster-causing event, namely: hazards assessment and zoning, disaster protection and risk reduction, monitoring and prediction, contingency planning, emergency response, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction or redevelopment. A single all-encompassing disaster management organization to handle all these aspects would practically be a superbody.
There are already existing organizations handling each of these aspects, albeit separately. Hazards assessment and zoning are done by technical agencies like PHIVOLCS (for geotectonic phenomena) and PAGASA (for atmospheric phenomena); Risk reduction in the form of land use planning and control, and adoption of appropriate disaster-resilient building design and construction are the responsibility of the NEDA and the DPWH in cooperation with local government units; the installation of disaster protection structures like sabos and dikes is the job of the DPWH; monitoring and prediction of natural disaster causing phenomena are doneby the PHIVOLCS and PAGASA; contingency planning, response and recovery have been entrusted to the DCCs; rehabilitation and reconstruction are supposed to be the responsibility of the line agencies concerned with the impacted sectors-- the DPWH for damaged infrastructure, Department of Agriculture for impacted agricultural areas, Department of Trade and Industry for impacted industrial sectors, etc. with the NEDA coordinating the planning and monitoring. During the past three years, however, the practice has been to create inter-agency task forces, committees or commissions to handle disaster response, rehabilitation and reconstruction.
A new organization for disaster management would either takeover from the existing bodies the functions related to disaster management (and in the process render the existing organizations redundant), duplicate their functions or serve as an umbrella, coordinating or integrating entity to be superimposed on the existing. But why create another bureaucratic ladder? With some upgrading and priority reorientation the existing agencies could very well take care of hazards assessment and zoning, land use planning, development and building design and regulation, and the establishment disaster protection structures. Disaster is just a temporary disruption of development or constitutes the other face of development. The most logical organizational alternative would be to integrate, into the mandates of the development planning and implementation institutions the responsibility over the long term pre-event as well as the reconstruction or redevelopment aspects of disaster management.
For the contingency planning, response and recovery aspects which appear to be the weak link in the disaster management continuum, the not-too ad hoc yet not-too permanent, and coordinating DCC set up is still a logical choice. Unless a country chooses to remain vulnerable forever, disasters should be dealt with as non-permanent occurrences. The ultimate goal of proper disaster mitigation measures like land use planning and control, disaster- resilient structure design and construction, and protective structures, is to significantly reduce, if not phase out, disasters and hence, the need for contingency planning, response and recovery. Meantime, while these long term mitigation measures are being developed, the entity for contingency planning, response and recovery would have to be provided with adequate equipment, trained manpower, funding and authority to plan for and respond to disasters.
On division of disaster management responsibilities among the various levels of organization
Hazards assessment and zoning, monitoring and prediction which require highly technical expertise and research inputs will have to remain in the hands of national technical agencies. But the enforcement and adoption of mechanisms for implementation of zoning rules and regulations as well as the transmission of warnings should be the responsibility of civilian officials. Land use control and management could be a shared responsibility between the provincial and municipal/city governments. While the setting of standards for building design and construction should be undertaken at a national level, enforcement could be best ensured at the local level.
Preparedness planning should proceed from the lowest level to the highest level applicable for each hazard. Barangays and municipalities which are disaster prone should be encouraged to adopt contingency plans.
One issue raised by the NDCC is the need to decentralize operations and to build up the capability of the lower levels to be self-reliant. This was made glaring by the experience of Baguio City which was, for several days, cut off from the rest of the world by the disaster-with power and communications knocked out, transport routes blocked by landslides and fissures and the lone airport damaged. A number of villages were also isolated and rendered inaccessible by landslides. In such situations, a self-reliant disaster response body, would be most appropriate. The logic of this seems irrefutable, but the limitations to the capability of small communities to prepare for and handle disasters, must be recognized.
Barangays and small towns could stock up and prepare for disasters to enable them to provide for the basic needs of their inhabitants for a certain period of time, say, one or two weeks. They may also be expected to do some rescue and recovery work. Households and communities at the barangay level have been found to be quite capable of rebuilding damaged houses and attending to their immediate basic needs. Disaster response organizations (government and NGO alike) have, however, tended to overemphasize and overdo the provision of relief from outside.
Where the impact of a disastrous event is widespread and extensive., rescue and recovery work (such as extraction of vicunas from collapsed structures or ravines, road clearing, restoration of communication and transportation services, restoration of power and water supply ) require the use of heavy, costly and sophisticated equipment in which small towns and barangays cannot be realistically expected to invest. Rescue and recovery work especially in earthquake-caused disasters, likewise require special skills. Hence, these tasks would be more appropriately assigned to the cities or regional capitals. In disasters involving more than one region, the national bodies would have to be mobilized.
Rehabilitation and even reconstruction or redevelopment could be left to the various local government bodies concerned with some financial and technology assistance from the national government.
On the role of NGOs
Many private and non-government organizations indeed contributed to the operations by donating and distributing relief goods, providing transportation facilities, manpower, communications, medical treatment, first aid and rescue services and assisting in rescue operations throughout the disaster area. But there were so many of them and their sudden convergence in the disaster areas as well as the practice of manys NGOs of directly distributing the goods/assistance to victims without coordinating with the DSWD or concerned government unit, added to the confusion and encouraged the unscrupulous inhabitants to take advantage of the situation.
The NDCC recorded some 85 foreign-based and hundreds of locally based NGOs that were involved in the disaster operations. In Union alone, the DCC listed more than 50. NGOs mosty Philippinebased that worked in the province, In Benguet, the council reported more than 25; in Cabanatuan and Dagupan there were as many or even more though no systematic listing was circulated by the cities* councils.
An official of the JVOngpin Foundation Inc., an NGO, recounted that the "victims" had two ways of maximizing from relief distribution; family members fanned out to the different distribution centers; and family members changed their family names when submitting themselves for distribution lists. Consequently, the more aggressive relief seekers got the most of the relief while those in the less accessible areas got little to none at all.
In a meeting of NDCC (Minute, Sept. 27, 1990), General Abat reported that during the height of the July 16 earthquake, the NGOs were not coordinating with the e government agencies.
Towards the latter part of July, however, some NGOs started getting together and coordinating with government units. In Baguio, the NGO members of the DCC formed an ad hoc umbrella organization. In La Union, the NGOs there likewise organized themselves under one umbrella organization--the PANGOLU.
Some NGOs, however, persisted in doing their own thing; and stayed outside the umbrella organizations. One year after the earthquake, some communities visited by the PHIVOLCS, survey group were still receiving relief goods from NGOs.
NGOs could be integrated into the overall disaster management function provided their role is clearly defined and mechanisms for coordination with the government would be effected so that they would not duplicate or even usurp functions that should properly belong to the public sector or to the affected communities. Also, measures should be adopted to identify legitimate or genuine NGOs from fake ones which have been taking advantage of disaster situations to make profit or advance their private interests.
The July 1990 earthquake disaster showed certain areas of disaster management activity wherein NGOs could be most effective. In coordination with the government, genuine NGOs could be made principally responsible for provision of disaster relief and assistance. The Red Cross has consistently played this vital role. As principal relief providers, NGOs should likewise be actively involved in contingency planning.
In Dagupan City, a militant NGO acted as pressure group which worked for the speedy release of rehabilitation funds and monitored the implementation of the rehabilitation projects to ensure that these were done punctually and properly. This role of fiscal monitor could indeed be effectively assumed by NGOs not only for rehabilitation projects but also for development and mitigation projects.
However, the government should think twice before turning over to the NGOs the task of implementing rehabilitation, development and mitigation projects. NGOs are becoming such as administrative and political fad that there has been an increasing tendency on the part of the government to rely on them for tasks which the bureaucracy is being paid to do and is quite capable of doing. One result is an underutilized bureaucracy. The much publicized efficiency and managerial skills of NGOs have also been put to question by the miscarriage of some projects assigned to NGOs recently.
A cursory review of the composition, leadership and actions of the NGOs that have been emerging lately reveals the growing influence of the elite and vested interest groups, belying the claim that NGOs embody or articulate popular/mass sentiment or will. Passing on development projects to such NGO fronts of vested interest groups might betray public interests which the people entrusted to duly elected government officials.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"A time to build, a time to help'". Manila Chronicle. July 20, 1990.
Aquino, Corazon C. 1990. Administrative Orders: AO 183, July 17, 1990; AO 184, July 18, 1990; AO 185, July 20,1990 and AO 189, July 30, 1990.
Benguet Regional Disaster Coordinating Council, 1990. Minutes of.Meeting. July 20,1990.
Cruz, Neal H., 1990. Lasting images of the earthquake. Daily Globe. July 23, 1990.
Editorial. Malaya. July 19, 1990
House Of Representatives, 1990 , 1991. House Bill Nos. 22363, 31321, 315717, 32997 and 312110.
Hundreds still trapped. Philippine Daily Inquirer. June 18, 1990
National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC). 1990. Minutes of Meeting. August 10, 1990
________. 1990. Preliminary Report on the July 16, 1990 Earthquake. August 21, 1990.
________. 1990. Minutes of Meeting, September 27, 1990.
________. 1990. Final Report on the.July, 16, 1990 Earthquake. Nov. 14 , 1990
National Economic And Development Authority (NEDA). 1990. Reconstruction and Development Program.
Olivares-cunanan, Belinda, 1990. Structures must comply with Building Code. Philippine Daily Inquirer. July 20, 1.990.
Puno, Ricardo V., Jr., 1990. Are we ready for another bid; one. Philippine Star. July 1.9, 1.990.
Rescue proceeds slowly. Manila Chronicle. July 18, 1990
Sicam, Paulynn P., 1990. Tremors that rock our complacency. Chronicle Magazine. July 22, 19901
Soliven, Max, 1990. A time of crisis separates the heroes from heels. Philippine ,Star. July 22,1990.
United Nations Centre For Human Settlements (HABITAT) Expert Mission. 1990. Technical Report on Luzon Earthquake of 16 July 1990, Republic of the Philippines with Recommendations for Reconstruction and Development.
United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO). 1986. Disaster Prevention and Mitigation: Social and Sociological Aspects. Vol. 12.
Villanueva, Hector R.R. 1990. Wrong Priorities. Philippine Daily Globe. July 23, 1990.
APPENDIX 1
Some Media Comments on Government Response to the July 16 Earthquake
"Rescue efforts were disorganized...Using nylon ropes, steel bars, sledgehammers, chisels, automobile jacks and even bare hands, rescuers worked through the night and the whole day yesterday but made little progress. More sophisticated equipment and more experienced hands still had to arrive"- Hundreds still trapped, Phil. Daily Inquirer, June 18, 1990.
"Much of the rescue effort was uncoordinated and disorganized and lacked the necessary heavy equipment to shift the debris ...In Baguio, rescuers were additionally hampered by power failures ...In Cabanatuan, rescuers working can the Christian Colleges used hammers, chisels and jacks."- Rescue proceeds slowly, Manila Chronicle, July 18, 1990.
"The immediate task is the rescue and feeding of the survivors. Three days after the earthquake, the abject failure of the government on this score is appalling". Editorial, Malaya, July 19,1990,
"The most obvious fact that has come out of this major earthquake is that we are woefully unprepared for natural disasters of major proportions... Reports were filtering in of rescue operations being conducted by well meaning and highly motivated workers who were apparently poorly equipped and who didn't have too much of an idea of what to do next."Puno, Jr., Philippine Star. July 19, 1990.
"One of the impressions left by the earthquake in its aftermath was the weakness of government to immediately take control of an emergency situation . Government seemed itself too numb to respond to the gigantic crisis; it was, in fact, the private sector which initiated the initial reactions." time to build, a time to help. Manila Chronicle, July 20, 1990.
"The recent disaster, which took many lives mainly due to the collapse of concrete structures, underscored the woeful inadequacies of our country in terms of sophisticated equipment fear handling fallen concrete slabs, boring through them and detecting life buried beneath the piles. Our equipment are not only inadequate but so primitive"- . Olivares-Cunanan, Phil. Daily Inquirer, July 20, 1990.
"What dismays the nation is the mounting evidence of lack of coordination and lack of will on the part of our own clumsy government to cope with crisis ...Worry that our leaders have not led in this hour of deepest tragedy and continue to waffle in their duty'"- Soliven, Philippine Star, July 22, 1990.
"Rescue efforts were uncoordinated, evacuation shelters non-existent. There were few basic supplies, such as food and medicine. People listening to their radios got more information and advice from private stations than from government". Sicam, Chronicle Magazine, July 22, 1990.
"What is more deplorable is disorganization, lack of planning and the insufficient importance given by the government to disaster control, science and technology transfer, and basic research in natural phenomena that the Philippines is especially vulnerable to, such as earthquakes, hurricanes and volcanic eruptions" (Villanueva, Phil Daily Globe, July 23, 1990).
On red tape
"There are many people, Filipinos and foreigners ready to help with donations, but what does our government do? Put red tape in their way. You have to get permission to even ship your donations which would still have to undergo more red tape at customs before they are released for shipment to the local government officials who would distribute the relief goods to the victims". N Cruz. Daily Globe, July 23, 1990.