Crisis Management: Analysis of Disaster Risk and Governance

Introduction

Natural and artificial disasters notably affect nations, altering their socio-economic, political, and physical landscape. The Republic of the Philippines is a Southeast Asian country with more than 7,000 islands; arguably, the country is susceptible and strong due to this location. As located in the Pacific Ring of Fire and typhoon belt countries, the Philippines embraces many natural disasters, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tropical cyclones. These risks are coupled with climatic and tectonic factors, making the country, a sovereign state, one of the most catastrophically affected nations on the planet. Frequently occurring and astonishing disasters like Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) in November 2013. With a possibility of winds up to 315 kilometers per hour and a storm surge exceeding five meters, Typhoon Haiyan hugely ravaged livelihood, leaving over six thousand dead and millions without homes (World Bank 2014). This is one of the disasters that represent the nation’s major issues in disaster management.

While disaster risk reduction policies have been enhanced, residual risks, including socioeconomic divides, urbanization, and poor infrastructure, amplify the impacts of these hazards (Medel et al., 2020). Areas vulnerable to hazards, specifically the National Capital Region and coastal regions, exhibit the importance of the multi-sectoral and multisectoral approach. The Philippines has witnessed more than 300 natural disasters in the last two decades, starting in 2000, and most of these disasters have led to loss of business and lives (EMDAT, 2021). These recurring events require a strong, flexible, community-based disaster response management system (Cronk et al., 2019). Furthermore, climate change-related factors, including increased sea levels and frequent devastating typhoons, add a further dimension to the proposition (García-Herrera et al., 2020). Therefore, this paper addresses the Philippine country’s risks, threats, and disaster risk management. Using Typhoon Haiyan as an example, it highlights the best and the worst of current DRR frameworks and stresses the need for increased resilience. Thus, this paper aims to provide sound recommendations for preventing future risk disasters after analyzing similar cases and adopting the best practices from other countries.

Overview of the Selected Disaster

Background of Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda)

Typhoon Haiyan, also known as Yolanda, slammed into the central Philippine province of Samar on November 8, 2013, and is one of the strongest recorded tropical cyclones in history. Typhoon Haiyan was a Category 5 typhoon that hit the central Philippines, most especially the Eastern Visayas; it impacted more than 14 million people in 44 provinces. of people it took more than 6,000 lives, more than 1,000 people were missing, millions of people were displaced (World Bank, 2014). The typhoon brought a high-speed wind of about 315 km/ per hour and a storm surge, which affected groups of people from the coastal areas. Tacloban City in the province of Leyte was the most brutal hit, with flattened communities and essential facilities beyond use. The size of the damage affected people and their economy, business, and delivery of services on which communities depend for survival, causing them to go into a recovery mode for a considerable time.

The intensity of this storm is primarily due to meteorological and ocean climatic conditions such as warm sea surface temperatures and lack of vertical wind shear. However, the loss caused by the typhoon was not only the result of natural forces the world had never seen before. The exposure to risks was caused by human-related factors, including poverty, poor urban planning, and lack of disaster preparedness, which all helped exacerbate the disaster’s impact. For example, most people in the affected region resided in thatched houses that crumbled when faced with the might of the typhoon. Also, the lack of early warning systems and evacuation measures placed communities before full-scale typhoon consequences. This underscores the rationale for including socio-economic factors into the disaster risk reduction framework for strengthening community resilience.

Root Causes of the Disaster

The disaster has its origin in socio-economic and institutional frailties. Poverty continues to be one of the most burning problems in the Philippines, and 23.5% of the population still existed below the poverty line in 2013 (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2013). This economic disaster prohibits using what one would need to build up, such as good homes and emergency products. Vulnerabilities are worsened by dynamic pressures such as weak institutional frameworks and corruption. For instance, failure to invest in disaster risk reduction at the local level and ethical issues in urbanization made many communities susceptible to the effects of the typhoon (Dangcalan et al., 2020). Other challenges that worsened the disaster included poor standards. For instance, informal structures in risky areas like flood-prone areas were also occupied. The above reconstruction settlements are typical along the coasts where people live in probable danger due to tsunamis and floods. They also attributed some areas’ poor drainage systems, roads, and infrastructure development to slowing emergency response efforts. Moreover, the lack of disaster risk reduction measures by local government is evidence that systemic vulnerability is continuously fostered (Ventura, 2022). These conditions resulted in the disaster in which the natural hazard of Typhon Haiyan evolved into a humanitarian catastrophe. Such challenges call for a shift in disaster governance thinking, culture, and practice from a reactive, exclusionary, and disasters-for-disaster approach to a proactive, participatory, and disasters-as-part-of-development approach (Ayeb‐Karlsson et al., 2019).

Roles of Key Stakeholders

Governmental Interventions

The Philippines’ reaction to this calamity was mainly through its official institution, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC). Nevertheless, the initial response was heavily criticized for being uncoordinated and delayed. Another problem area was communication and transportation infrastructure; for instance, telephone and telecommunication networks were affected, and some access roads were impassable. Besides, shortcomings of pre-disaster preparedness provided a basis for advocating for a more forward-looking approach to disaster decision-making (Hilhorst et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the thrust was the government’s attempt to assemble military assets for search and recovery, the provision of evacuation centers, and international relief. When the Philippine government passed Republic Act 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010, such measures were intended to institutionalize its DRRM initiatives but, in doing so, exposed challenges in implementing measures at the local level. One of the most noteworthy factors in the response was the performance of local government units (LGUs), which cannot be considered uniform. Some LGUs heaved up and moved quickly to show leadership and community participation, while some LGUs limped due to technical inexperience and lack of equipment. For example, the government officials of Tacloban City were heavily criticized for not preparing the public for the typhoon, hence, vulnerable the people of the city to the calamity (Baybay & Hindmarsh, 2019). This disparity calls for an increased need to strengthen capacity-building interventions, financing, and management to support LGUs in file-prone areas (De et al., 2020).

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and International Aid

Non-governmental organizations (INGO) and civil society partners were crucial in facilitating operational and humanitarian response. Non-governmental groups like the Philippine Red Cross, Oxfam, and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (United Nations OCHA) could deliver emergency laboratories, food, and medical needs. These were supported by donor communities that offered substantial financial and material support to the initiatives. For instance, entities such as the United States and the European Union provided millions of dollars in cash; others, such as Japan and Australia, dispatched disaster relief teams (Medel et al., 2020). However, as extensive as these contributions, governmental organizations and NGOs’ performances were found to be frail in these disaster relief activities mainly because of the poor cooperation among different government agencies. Some of the key problems that organizations operating at the ‘Implementation Interface’ identified included: Despite having the same or similar goals and objectives, there were considerable overlapping of roles and missions such that there was loss of time and needless repetition. This again calls for stakeholder mapping and creating structures that would improve disaster response within the organization. Moreover, it is more effective to strengthen the positions of community-based organizations in the response framework as it enhances the contextual practicality and long-term development of measures based on the reflection on the successful grassroots practices of livelihoods and infrastructure restoration after obtaining the Haiyan catastrophe.

Relevant Policies for Disaster Risk Reduction and Governance

The Philippines has developed an adequate legal basis for DR P through the act on the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management System (RA 10121). This legislation focuses on preventive measures and devotes much attention to community incorporations on disaster prevention, disaster risk reduction, and disaster risk reduction. RA 10121 operationalizes its goals through the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP), which adopts a comprehensive approach to addressing disaster risks via four thematic areas. Additionally, there is a consensus on different categories: prevention and Mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery and rehabilitation, as noted by Hilhorst and others (2020). The policy engages various local governments and communities in the framework of disaster governance since proper risk management demands such an approach (Baybay & Hindmarsh, 2019). Nevertheless, RA 10121 and the NDRRMP have their weaknesses in their implementation. Because of bureaucracy and inadequate funds, implementing the DRR measures at the LGU level usually tends to be inconsistent due to varied capacities. Due to insufficient technical capacity and funding, risk reduction processes are often implemented with serious gaps, leaving many risks unmitigated in LGUs in rural and coastal areas (Ramalho, 2019). Also, political instability hinders the coordination of political stakeholders, adding to the gaps in non-uniform policy dissemination and implementation (Carrasco & Egbelakin, 2022).

Involving international cooperation has been very useful in filling some of these gaps, as Porio and See (2023) pointed out. International collaborations with organizations have improved the capacity of the LGUs through skills, resources, and training offered by international affiliations (Chaiya et al., 2022). They also enhance the incorporation of improvement technologies, such as early warning systems, that enhance the preparedness for disasters in the nation (De et al., 2020). However, some negative impacts of these initiatives, such as scope overlap, lack of coordination, and lack of a functional reporting structure, still hamper the optimal utilization of these agencies or organizations (Bankoff, 2019). In conclusion, the Philippines’ DRR policies have a progressive and systematic outlook, but significant shortcomings prevail in implementation factors. Eliminating these weaknesses demands steady enhancement of local capabilities through capacity-building and promising governance innovations, as well as enhancing public-private/ International partnerships/ and sound insurance risk improvement for increasing long-term disaster resilience (Ventura, 2022).

Strengths and Weaknesses of DRR Policies

The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (RA 10121) is praised for its policies as a coherent structure of disaster risk management. One of the essential advantages is its focus on the organization of volunteers and cooperation with locals during disasters, which increases the disaster resistance of the region (Ramalho, 2019). By addressing risk reduction instead of posing reactions to a disaster, RA 10121 also complies with the universal concepts in disaster management (Baybay & Hindmarsh, 2019). Moreover, many institutions under the said Act, including the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), enhance co-partnership and operating structure drawn from SA’s sectors to manage and respond to disasters effectively (Dangcalan et al., 2020). They also involve international organizations that have offered helpful support, including devising and enhancing the local government units’ capacities (Chaiya et al., 2022).

Nevertheless, those policies are associated with specific weaknesses. Among these considerations, the major one remains a financial and technical constraint, which remains acute, if not more keenly so, at the LGU level. Hybrid profit-motivated organizations: Most LGUs fail to implement national policies at the local level as plans because of poor funding and resourcefulness (Carrasco & Egbelakin, 2022). Hilhorst et al. (2020) also noted that redundancy implies that different agencies work with duplicate mandates, which hinders the effective implementation of DRR measures. Such coordination failures are compounded by political processes that may hamper the achievement of disaster risk reduction objectives (Chmutina & Von Meding, 2019).

Another major impediment to DRR initiatives is social inequity. Due to socio-economic inequality, this threatens vulnerable sections of the people, especially the rural and coastal dwellers (Porio & See, 2023). For example, although cities would enjoy better early warning systems and physical development, some small towns and villages cannot afford such tools and structures and, as a result, are at a very high risk of natural disasters (Su, 2019). This inequality increases the call for better disaster governance by deviating resources and services among societies (Ventura, 2022).

Regarding these weaknesses, it is therefore essential to enhance local institutions’ capacity and training personnel through special training and the provision of resources (Ventura, 2022). Furthermore, improved coordination between government and policymakers, non-government organizations and other stakeholders, and private sector partners define the overall improvement of the disaster risk reduction vulnerability, focusing on reaching out to the most vulnerable groups in society (Medel et al., 2020). Regarding these system deficiencies, the Philippines can better implement its DRR policies and create a stronger society (Villanueva, 2020).

Recommendations for Future Disaster Management

There is an urgent need to develop a better disaster risk reduction strategy in the Philippines that is transcendent from several sectors. First, an extension of the Local Government Unit (LGU) to enforce structures at the local level must be developed. These observational findings could build the LGU’s potential to create and implement good DRR plans (Hilhorst et al., 2020). This is because a community’s preparation and response strategies are only realized when local officials first obtain the competence for disaster management (Dangcalan et al., 2020).

Second, there is potential for enhancing results by integrating innovative early warning systems into the existing paradigm of disaster management. Thus, such systems should employ modern technologies like GIS, real-time data analyses, and processing technologies to assess timely data for the targeted deprived groups (De et al., 2020). Thus, it involves efficient communication mechanisms so that dissemination of early warning messages targets the vulnerable and challenging-to-reach populations (Porio & See, 2023).

Third, enhancing PPPs can source other working resources and skills for the programs in DRR (Bankoff, 2019). Private sectors can support such government efforts in improving supply chains, technology implementation, and infrastructure development to enhance disaster preparedness, as noted by Medel et al. (2020). For instance, PPPs can help build disaster-resilient houses and address the primary health need of creating community-based DRR initiatives (Villanueva, 2020).

Urban resilience planning should also be considered integral to disaster management (Javier et al., 2020). The accordance of sound building codes and standards, as well as zoning and land use laws, helps minimize risks and hazards in vulnerable zones (Dulal, 2019). These should be supported by community engagement activities, including mapping and assessment of risks to enhance complimentary community ownership of disaster risk reduction strategies (De et al., 2020).

Finally, strengthening the identified regional networks related to managing disasters can positively impact Southeast Asia’s overall preparedness level. Other dangerous risks threatening the region’s countries are typhoons, floods, and earthquakes, regularly affecting the states with borderless effects. Thus, nations can contribute their significant capital, information, and experience to create sturdy partnerships for addressing these cross-country threats. These capacity-building measures include developmental cooperation training measures, a plethora of analyses, and joint simulation training exercises that help increase the OSCE’s and participating agencies’ disaster management capacities and are guaranteed to result in harmonized responses (Chaiya, Pal & Pinthong, 2022). Furthermore, many disaster responses that entail using people and equipment for rescue, recovery, and provision of necessities can be done concurrently if organizations share equipment and people, thus reducing the time to deliver aid. Collaboration is another aspect that regional bodies can deliver well; it means that several countries’ information harmony can help achieve an accurate warning system with efficient data disbursement to the member countries. Such cooperation enhances the capability level of regional preparedness, brings solidarity among nations, and makes the world more united to face future disasters.

The government of the Philippines can build up its disaster governance systems, improve community preparedness, and reduce the devastating socio-structural effects of future disasters when it implements the above recommendations (Chaiya et al., 2022).

Conclusion

The experience drawn from the calamity pulled off by Typhoon Haiyan also revealed the disaster management program’s effectiveness and inefficiency in the Philippines. Although the country has established a sound legal framework for DRR, such as the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (RA 10121), implementation still has a problem. In this regard, the following challenges accelerate the vulnerability of the people: The availability of resources and coordination is insufficient, and social inequalities increase the vulnerability of specific population groups. Solving these problems implies the involvement of many players, including local, national, and international ones. More so, irrespective of the level of national integration or decentralization, governance structures need to be strengthened to enhance the implementation of the indicated and other DRR measures on the ground. Additional approaches that might supplement or improve existing capacities include increasing support for capacity-building, developing even more sophisticated early warning mechanisms, and enriching urban resilience planning. This includes more support for public-private partnerships and increased grassroots participation in DRR through community-based organizations. Last and foremost, it is high time to state that making the Philippines disaster resilient can only be solved with a comprehensive and non-selective approach that would not disregard the essential needs of the most sensitive and endangered population groups. Suppose the existing problem areas that have led to the current vulnerability are fixed, and the resource endowment and structures that provide some immunity to future shocks are strengthened. In that case, human and economic losses in the country will be minimized. Disaster response management in the Philippines demonstrates its commitment and persistence with the coordinated effort to intensively govern disaster risk reduction and management in hazard-prone areas across the globe.