POLICY COHERENCE IN TACKLING INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT (CLIMATE CHANGE

ADAPTATION, DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND

RESTORATION) IN THE PHILIPPINES

CARLOS O. TULALI
cjtulali@gmail.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Philippines’ existing DRR and CCA laws, policies and principle guidelines are aligned with most of the
bilateral international agreements, conventions, frameworks and action plans. In the Philippines, each
LGU is mandated to prepare their Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), and Comprehensive
Development Plan (CDP) to comply with Republic Act No. 7160, An Act Providing for a Local Government
Code of 1991[17], Local Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP) under Republic Act 9729 or the Climate
Change Act of 2009 and Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Plan (LDRRMP) under Disaster Risk
Reduction Management Act No. 10121.

As provided for in RA 9003 and in relation to the Local Government Code 1991, or RA 7160, the local
government units (LGUs) are given the power to enforce laws on cleanliness and sanitation, solid waste
management, and other environmental matters. Thus, the different LGUs across the country, and in
partnership with several private institutions, are making efforts to efficiently provide a system for solid
waste management.

In 2015, the international community adopted three major global policy agreements, which brought
forward the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. The first of these global agreements was the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) which was adopted at the Third World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan, in March 2015. The SFDRR now serves as the global framework
to guide disaster risk reduction efforts over the next 15 years (2015-2030) and succeeds the Hyogo
Framework for Action (HFA 2005-2015). In the same year, in October, the UN General Assembly
endorsed the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which will guide national and local
development agendas until 2030. In December 2015, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change was
adopted and resulted in firmer commitments to reducing carbon emissions globally as well as in
articulated principles for climate change adaptation.

A number of international environmental conventions, namely the UN Convention to Combat

Desertification (UNCCD), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands, also reached key decisions on disaster risk reduction and actions on climate change. A
common thread running through all these global policy agreements in 2015 is a clear recognition of the
role that ecosystems play in safeguarding development gains, and in building resilience against disasters
and climate change.

In response, the Philippines became a signatory to the SFDRR that runs from 2016 to 2030 and aims to
provide continuity in global disaster risk reduction cooperation while recognizing the complex
dimensions of risk and the presence of global and national platforms. On 14 March 2017, the Philippine
Senate ratified the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which frames the goal of 196 countries to cap
the increase in global temperature. The country is also a signatory of the UN Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands. A common thread running through all these global policy agreements in 2015 is a clear
recognition of the role that ecosystems play in safeguarding development gains, and in building
resilience against disasters and climate change.

The term Integrated Risk Management (IRM) was first used in 2014 by Partners for Resilience (PfR) and
refers to a holistic, multidisciplinary way of managing risk and increasing community resilience, building
on the strengths of traditional DRR work and integrating key elements from Climate Change Adaptation
(CCA) and Ecosystem Management and Restoration (EMR). The SFDRR provides explicit recognition of
the role of sustainable ecosystems management for reducing disaster risk and building resilience.

Partners for Resilience (PfR) is a collaboration of five Netherlands-based organizations – CARE

Netherlands, Cordaid, the Netherlands Red Cross, the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, and
Wetlands International – aims to strengthen the resilience of communities dealing with increased
disaster risk and the effects of climate change and environmental degradation. By integrating climate
change adaptation (CCA) and ecosystem management and restoration (EMR) into disaster risk reduction
(DRR), the program aims to build resilient communities. PfR’s Philippine program for 2016-2020 aims to
strengthen the capacity for IRM dialogue, to embark on distinct trajectories within the three domains
(policy, practice and investment) to ensure that the needs of vulnerable people are incorporated in
policies, investments and practice. It will focus on IRM dialogue towards local, national and regional
stakeholders to institutionalize the IRM concept that consider DRR, CCA and EMR in a wide range of
institutions.

Harmonization and integration of the country’s DRR, CCA and EMR policies however, faces the following
institutional and policy challenges: government capacity for proper resource management is wanting;
implementation is confused by overlapping and conflicting policies; enforcement of environmental laws
and policies is inadequate; and a financing strategy for DRR, CCA and EMR programs not yet available.

Additional gaps are in the development and transfer of knowledge, the low public awareness, and
inadequate investments and financial resources for incorporating IRM solutions at the local level.
Despite the DRR and disaster management link with CCA in the policy formulation, no systematic linkage
between DRR and CCA has yet been established to advance sustainable development in practice and
integrate specific aspects of EMR.

DRR and CCA policies in the country have focused more on efforts around disaster preparedness and
response and not so much in identifying other environmental factors which contribute to people’s
exposure to disasters and incorporating risk analysis to development plans.

One major hindrance to DRR, CCA and EMR integration into local plans is the technical capacity of LGUs
to cope with numerous sectoral and local plans being mandated by other laws. Aside from the absence
of a standardized planning guide for integrating DRR, CCA and EMR in local plans, the most critical need
or limitation for such process is the absence or limited access to a simplified, science-based but localized
or contextualized CCA and DRRM risk and vulnerability data or projections. LGU access to scientific data
and information normally available from national government technical agencies is restrictive and
prohibitive.

The People’s Survival Fund (PSF) amends the Climate Change Act of 2009 to finance local climate
adaptation initiatives. However, as of end 2017, only two proposals have been approved in total by the
PSF Board. The rest of the proposals were either approved in concept pending the submission of more
technical details, or returned to the proponents for revisions and reconsideration. This has led to
generalizations that the PSF is too difficult for the LGUs to access because they do not have the capacity
to formulating and implement climate change plans. Thus, there is a need to empower LGUs and
communities which are at the front lines of climate change impacts.

Critical to the roll‐out of the PDRRM Act at the local level is the establishment of local DRRM Councils,
DRRM offices with dedicated staff, and DRRM Plans. One of the impediments is that under the Local
Government Code, LGUs are not permitted to use more than 55% of their budget on salaries and other
‘personnel services’. Many LGUs have already reached their 55% cap, and as such are unable to appoint
the staff required by the PDRRM Act. Thus many resort to designating existing staff to take on the roles
required by the Act on top of their existing responsibilities with obvious implications for the
effectiveness of the local DRRM office.

Also, under the Act, DRRM offices are responsible for facilitating risk assessments, consolidating local
disaster risk information, organizing trainings on DRR, operating early warning systems (EWS),
formulating local DRRM plans, and a range of other tasks. These cannot feasibly be achieved utilizing
only existing expertise available at the local level. Support is thus required from the national
government, but this is also limited.

Assessment and communication of the potential contributions of wetlands to reducing the impacts of
hazards can strengthen the case for the integration of wetland management into DRR planning.
Although the DENR- Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) is charged with the management of
the national system of protected areas, several other government agencies have control over important
wetland areas. As a result, wetlands which, because of their natural values, should logically be managed
by a nature protection agency are being managed by agencies with a variety of interests generally far
removed from nature protection.

Improper solid waste management practices may also lead to disastrous events. Human lives may be at
risk from these malpractices as they can lead to massive flooding and storm surges. Open burning,
dumping in bodies of water, non-segregation of waste, disposal of biodegradable wastes in landfills, and
operation of dumpsites are among the waste management practices that result in GHG emissions. To
effectively mitigate climate change, solid waste management should therefore shift to more sustainable
approaches such as waste prevention, recycling, and composting.

Disaster management systems in the mining industry must veer away from a reactive approach and
evolve to a more effective proactive approach in which disasters are avoided by appropriate land-use
planning and measures to avoid the creation of disaster-prone conditions. In coordination with the
government, the industry should also implement activities to increase climate resilience of existing
mining infrastructure and assets. A national framework for comprehensive mining disaster risk
management must be prepared and implemented with political leadership and policy support at the
highest levels, while facilitating the active engagement and implementation of all relevant stakeholders.
While entailing an additional cost to companies, the government may also require sufficient trust funds
(e.g. sovereign wealth fund) from and increase the premiums and contributions required of mining
companies to ensure environmental safeguards and community benefits, and compensate for improper
mining operations or unforeseen mining accidents.