Implementationof HyogoFrameworkforAction inMakatiCity, PhilippinesYuki MatsuokaUNISDR Ofce in Kobe,United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR),Kobe, Japan, andYukiko Takeuchi and Rajib ShawGraduate School of Global Environmental Studies,Kyoto University, Kyoto, JapanAbstractPurposeThe purpose of this paper is to review the challenges for disaster risk reduction (DRR) bylocal governments and local implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) as the globalDRR guideline.Design/methodology/approachBased on a survey on 20 tasks identied in Aguide forimplementing HFA by local stakeholders, HFA implementation by local government is analyzed toidentifyprioritiesandthegaps. Thetargetgroupforthedetail analysiswastheMakaticityDRRcoordinating council (MCDRRCC).FindingsThe survey reviewed how multi-stakeholders involved in local DRR perceive these HFA20 tasks, which revealed trends and gaps within their work. The result showed that Makati currentlyplaces more emphasis on HFA 1, but revealed some gaps in the area of HFA 4. While suggesting a setof recommended actions for Makati, the analysis also revealed how these gaps were addressed in itsrecent action plan. MDRRCC demonstrated a case for local platform for DRR in terms implementingthe actions and addressing the challenges through proper coordination among stakeholders.Researchlimitations/implicationsSince local HFAimplementationis relevantlynewarea,its applicability needs to be examined further considering linkages between national andlocalgovernments.Originality/valueThispaperisuniquesincetheoriginal datawerecollectedfromthesurvey.Makati city case proposes a model of local platform for comprehensive DRR actions along with HFA,whichprovides value addedapproachcontributingtothe ISDRCampaign. The case of Makatiprovidesanon-goingmodel processofalocal platformforDRRwhichcanbeleantbyotherlocalgovernment for possible replication.Keywords Disaster prevention, Capacity, Governance, Case studies, Coordination, Disasters, PhilippinesPapertype Research paper1. Introduction1.1 Importanceon local level DRR andHFAimplementation atlocal levelAt the 2nd United Nations World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) in January2005 in Kobe City, Japan, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005-2015: Buildingthe Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (UNISDR, 2005) was adopted.The current issue and full text archiveof this journal is availableatwww.emeraldinsight.com/1759-5908.htmTheauthorsacknowledgeMakatiCityGovernmentforcooperationtothesurvey. TheGlobalCOE Program Human Security Engineering for Asia Megacities for supporting the work.Implementationof HFA23International Journal of DisasterResilience in the Built EnvironmentVol. 4 No. 1, 2013pp. 23-42qEmerald Group Publishing Limited1759-5908DOI 10.1108/17595901311298982TheUnitedNationssecretariatfortheInternationalStrategyforDisasterReduction(UNISDR)isthefocal pointwithinUNsystemtopromoteincreasedcommitmenttodisaster risk reduction (DRR) and strong linkages to sustainable development.UNISDRservedasthesecretariatforthisprocessoftheWCDRandtheprocesstodevelop the HFA.Since the inception of HFA, the international efforts on DRRcoordinated byUNISDR have begun to recognize the importance of localizing DRR activities. This isbecause impacts of disasters are most immediately and intensely felt at the local levels;therefore, the crucial and effective process in which the HFA would be implemented isalso required at the local level, adapted and owned by the citizens and ofcials of thelocal government. Through this process, the local/city governance in DRR activities isstrengthened, andstakeholderrolesandresponsibilitiesareidentied, claried, andeventuallycarriedout. Themostimportantsetofactorsaregovernmentsandlocalinstitutions. Local governments bear the ultimate responsibility for the safety of theircitizens and communities. Aid is far fromsufcient to play more than a complementaryrole in addressing the challenges of risk management (Christoplos,2003).Ashazardsusuallyoccurlocallyandmanyof themost effectivetoolstoreducevulnerability to hazards, such as land use regulation and building code enforcement are atthe local level, local governments are perhaps best-positioned to implement DRR(McBeanand Rodgers, 2010). Local level is of fundamental importance, not only because it is closerto the citizens but because it is the repository of the basic environmental managementand regulatory governance functions that is essential for effective DRR ( Jackson, 2011).These literature reviews supportedthe strongimportance of DRRat local governmentlevels, andatthesametimeidentiedseveral majorobstaclesandchallengestobeencounteredandraised the questiononhowcanthese be overcome. Duringthe year 2010,the mid-term review of the HFA implementation was conducted by UNISDR. Since theadoption of the HFA in 2005, a certain progress has been made in HFA implementationby national governments with support from international and regional agencies. At thesame time, the needfor comprehensive DRRapproach, thus HFAimplementationat locallevel, has been strongly recognized. The report for the HFA mid-term review (UNISDR,2011b) admitted that there was still insufcient level of implementation of the HFAat thelocal level. In addition, ISDR Global Assessment Report for DRR 2011 mentions that thestrong recognition to the central role of local governance in disaster risk managementacknowledge bymost countries, andalsoaddedthat afailure tostrengthenlocalgovernments andmake progress incommunityparticipationmeans that the gapbetweenrhetoric andrealityis widening(UNISDR, 2011a). These ndings clearlydemonstrate that the HFAimplementation by local governments is one of the importantareas for the international community to support and work together. Such recognitionand efforts are also being promoted through international initiatives such as the ISDRWorld Campaign for DRR Making Cities Resilient (UNISDR, 2010), which promoteslocal governments fromaround the world to take action in implementing DRRactivities.ThispaperaimsatreviewingthechallengesandidentifyinggapsforDRRbylocalgovernments and local implementation of the HFA.1.2Whatarethechallenges on local level DRR?As the above literatures reviewidentied, the major challenge is limited capacity of localgovernmentswherelocalcapacitydoesnotmatchlocalgovernmentresponsibilities.IJDRBE4,124Capacity building on DRR of local governments is the key area to enhance local DRRactions and to address challenges (UNISDR, 2011b). What are the major elements andobstacles in termsof capacity of local governments? It was pointedout that they arechallenges due to the priority issues at local levels (McBean and Rodgers, 2010).Theprimary goal of any politician is re-election. In the process of ensuring political success,however, preventativeandpreparatorymeasuresareoftenunder-emphasizedduetothe fact that they may not provide immediate results (McBean and Rodgers, 2010). Duetothispriorityissues, budget allocationisoneof thechallengesforDRRbylocalgovernments.It was noted in the mid-term review of HFA that a number of countries had passedlaws assigning local governments legal responsibility for DRR management withoutpassingbudget allocationsfor thisresponsibility. Thus, theproblemof local levelactionfor DRR remains a seriousconcern(UNISDR, 2011b).ProgressinHFAimplementationismonitoredbyUNISDRthroughthetwo-yearreporting cycle for HFAnational progress report by countries. During the reporting cycleof 2009-2011, 133countries participatedand82countries submittedtheir nationalprogress report to UNISDRby May 2011 (UNISDR, 2011b). Initial data from2009 to 2011HFAreporting cycle indicated that only 20 countries reported dedicated budgetallocations to local governments; these include most Caribbean countries. While there arefewexamples of budget allocations to local governments, many countries (65 per cent ofall reporting countries and 80 per cent of lower-middle income countries) report that localgovernments have a legal responsibility for DRR management. However, somegovernments, especiallyof high-income countries or those withverydecentralizedsystems, may not have reported budget allocations to local governments because localadministrationshaveindependent revenuesourcesfromdirect taxationandreceivelimited amounts of funding from the national level (UNISDR, 2011b). In the absence of ascal grant system that explicitly puts DRR on the agenda of local governments, it isunlikely to achieve the mainstreaming required for effective action unless local voices aresufciently strong to advocate for a prioritization of resources at the local governmentlevel in favour of DRR (Gupta and Leung, 2011).Decentralization also affects DRR by changing funding arrangements, which in turnaffecttheoveralllevelofnanceavailableforDRR. InordertomainstreamDRR, itmakes sense to incorporate it across all areas of a local budget, rather than concentratingDRR nance within a particular fund. However, evidence from Mozambique,SouthAfricaandColombiashowsthatun-earmarkedfundsforDRRarefrequentlydiverted to other areas that have a higher political prole, or where there are apparentlymore pressing needs (Scott and Tarazona, 2011). The policy literature tends to assumethat decentralization automatically increases participation which, in turn, is inherentlybenecial. There is little empirical evidence to support this view, and it is increasinglybeingquestionedbydecentralizationexperts. InrelationtoDRR, the presence ofdecentralizedgovernancesystemsdoesnotautomaticallyleadtoparticipatoryDRR.EffectivedecentralizationofDRR canbeconstrainedbylowcapacityatalocal level(Scott and Tarazona, 2011).The other key element for local DRR capacity is the coordination on DRR activities.Implementation of the HFAat local level, or lack thereof, and the capacity ofgovernmentstocoordinateitwithotherefforts,suchassocio-economicdevelopmentplans at local level, wasalsoraisedconsistentlythroughout themid-termreview.Implementationof HFA25Thebrief reviewof national-level progresssuggeststhat actionat local level wasconsistently noted as in need of improvement (UNISDR, 2011b). As DRR is across-cuttingissues, it is crucial to have a multi-stakeholder consultationamongrelevant sections and divisions within a local government fromcomprehensiveapproach. Social demand for DRR, especially at the local level, is closely linked to aneffective use of truly multi-stakeholder consultative mechanisms and the involvement ofcommunity organizations (Serra and Chibay, 2011). Limited capacity of localgovernmentsonDRR isthecentralissuetobeaddressedinthispaper,withspecicfocusontwomajorchallengeswithintheircapacity, thatarechallengesintermsofbudget allocation and coordination.2.A guideforthe HFA implementationfor local stakeholdersWhenthe HFAwas adoptedin2005, the instrument was largelyintendedas aguideline for national governments while acknowledgingthe enablingsupport ofinternationalandregionalplayers, totakeactionsothatdisasterlosses, intermsoflives, social, economic and environmental assets, are substantially reduced by 2015. Tohelpattainthatoutcome, HFAidentiedvespecicprioritiesforaction. Thevepriorities were not mutually exclusive, especially when focusing on the processes sinceeach country has different situation. HFAimplementing guideline for nationalgovernments titled Words into Action: A Guide for Implementing the HyogoFramework (UNISDR, 2007) was produced in 2007 by UNISDR together with partners.Consideringtheimportanceof local government DRRactionsandchallengesintermsoftheirlimitedcapacity, tosupportlocalgovernmentstotakecomprehensiveDRR actions, the HFA implementation guideline for local governments called A Guidefor Implementing the Hyogo Framework for Actionby Local Stakeholders (KyotoUniversity and UNISDR, 2010) was developed (Matsuoka et al., 2009). The guide is forlocal governments and other local stakeholders to implement DRR in their cities.It interpreted Words into Action to use for local level implementation bycustomizing the guidelines made for national level. By using this guideline,stakeholdersmayidentifythegapsinitsDRRplansandactivities,whichwillallowthemtothenseekappropriatepartnershipsandnetworkstoworktogetherforsafercommunities. Thus, puttingthisguidetouserequiresanarenaorforumbywhichpeopleofdifferentbackgroundsandafliationscanshareexperiences,uncertainties,knowledge, andsuccessstoriesofothers. Thisforumisreferredtoasaplatformwhich should be coordinated by a local government with other relevant stakeholders.The guide consists of introduction and ve chapters, detailing recommendedactionsand processes of local implementationfor each key priority area of HFA:.Chapter1PriorityforAction1(HFA-1): ensurethatDRRisanationalandlocal/city priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation (makingdisasterreduction a priority; governance)..Chapter 2Priority for Action 2 (HFA-2): identify, assess and monitor disasterrisks and enhance early warning (improving risk information and earlywarning; risk assessment and early warning)..Chapter 3 Priorityfor Action3(HFA-3): use knowledge, innovationandeducationtobuildacultureof safetyandresilienceat all levels(buildingacultureof safetyand resilience; knowledge management).IJDRBE4,126.Chapter4Priorityfor Action4 (HFA-4): reduce the underlying risk factors(reducingthe risks in key sectors; vulnerability reduction)..Chapter 5Priority for Action 5 (HFA-5): strengthen disaster preparedness foreffective response at all levels (strengthening preparedness for response;disasterpreparedness).IntheWordsintoAction, 22tasksareidentiedtoimplement HFAPriorityforAction. The22tasksof WordsintoActionwereadaptedtobeusedat local/citylevels, and a slightly modied version of the list of 20 tasks was used in the guide forlocal governments use. The guide provides tools for implementation, evaluation, andmonitoring at a local level.20tasksdrawnfromHFAveprioritiesforlocal governmentsandstakeholders(A Guide forthe HFAImplementationfor Local Stakeholders, 2010):(1) Local/city governance (HFA priority 1 related):.Task 1. Engage in multi-stakeholder dialogue to establish foundations for DRR..Task 2. Create or strengthen mechanisms for systematic coordination for DRR..Task 3. Assess and developthe institutional basisfor DRR..Task 4. Prioritize DRR and allocate appropriate resources.(2) Risk assessment and early warning (HFA priority 2 related):.Task5. Establishaninitiativeforcommunityriskassessmenttocombinewith country assessments..Task 6. Review the availability of risk-related information and the capacitiesfor data collection and use..Task 7. Assess capacitiesand strengthen early warning systems..Task 8. Develop communication and dissemination mechanisms for disasterrisk information and earlywarning.(3) Knowledge management (HFA priority 3 related):.Task 9. Raise awareness of DRR and develop education programme on DRRin schools and local communities..Task 10. Develop or utilize DRR training for key sectors based on identiedpriorities..Task11. Enhance the compilation, dissemination anduse of DRRinformation.(4) Vulnerability reduction (HFA priority 4 related):.Task 12. Environment: incorporate DRR in environmental management..Task 13. Social needs: establish mechanisms for increasing resilience of thepoor and the most vulnerable..Task 14. Physical planning: establish measures to incorporate DRR in urbanand land-use planning..Task15. Structure: strengthenmechanismsforimprovedbuildingsafetyand protection of critical facilities..Task 16. Economic development: stimulate DRR activities in production andservice sectors.Implementationof HFA27.Task17. Financial/economicinstruments: createopportunitiesforprivatesector involvement in DRR..Task 18. Emergency and public safety; disaster recovery: develop a recoveryplanningprocess that incorporates DRR.(5) Disaster preparedness (HFA priority5 related):.Task19. Reviewdisaster preparedness capacities andmechanisms, anddevelopa commonunderstanding..Task 20. Strengthen planning and programming for disaster preparedness.3.Research methodologyToreviewgapsandchallengesinlocal implementationof HFA, analysisof HFAimplementation from local perspectives by using a questionnaire survey wasconducted. Thesurveyaimedatreviewinghowmulti-stakeholdersinvolvedinlocalDRR perceive these HFA local 20 tasks, and identifying trends and gaps within theirwork on DRR. The survey questions canvassed the 20 tasks identied in the guide andanalysedexistingtrends andgaps in local level DRRapproaches towards HFArequirements. Thesurveywastargetedatmulti-stakeholderswhichareengagedindisaster related activities and working from local context and with local governments.3.1Surveyonthe 20tasksfor local HFAimplementationThe questionnaire consisting of two questions based on these 20 tasks were administered.Therst questionaskedcityofcialstoranktasksintermsof itsrelevancetotheirresponsibilitiesasacityofcial (Amostrelevant, Bsomerelevant, andCnotrelevant). Then, in the second question, they were asked to look at the tasks that they hadmarked most relevant, then were again asked to rank the relevance among them withintheir responsibilities (1-5, 1 being highest priority and 5 being lowest priority).Thesurveywasconductedat107multi-stakeholders. Figure1showsthediversebackgrounds of all 107 respondents to the survey. About 50.5 per cent of respondentsconsist of 54 individuals fromlocal government ofcials. About 49.5per cent ofrespondents consist of 53 individuals fromnational government ofcials (18.7 per cent);andactorsfromcivil society(15percent), international organizations(6.5percent),academicinstitutions(4.7percent) andothergroupsthatincludetheprivatesector(4.7 per cent).Figure 1.Distribution ofrespondents to thequestionnaire(total 107)National Government18.7%4.7%15.0%4.7%6.5%50.5%Local GovernmentsInternational OrganizationAcademic InstitutionCivil SocietyOthers ind Private SectorIJDRBE4,128This survey included a target group of Makati City (the Philippines) in order to exploredeeper analysis for a specic city and also to conduct comparative analysis.The description of respondents (total 107 individuals) to the questionnaire is asfollows. Inthetotalnumberofrespondents(n 107), theGroupofMakatiCityhad32 individuals (29.9 per cent), and the Group of non-Makati had 75 individuals(70.1percent)(Figure2). ThesurveywereadministeredtotheGroupofMakatiCity(n 32) and the Group of non-Makati (n 75). For the Group of non-Makati,the questionnaires were administered at several meetings and conferences focusing onDRR at local government levels.3.2 Makatias the targetgroupMakati Cityis part of Metro Manila andthe nancial capital of the Philippines.Makati City is exposed to two physical characteristics in terms of risks. First, a part ofthe valley fault system, a potential generator of a large magnitude earthquake in MetroManila, is located at the Eastern part of Makati City. Second, the Western portion of thecity is composed of former tidal ats. There are seven low-lying barangays (villages) atthis portion of the city that are ood-prone (Kyoto University, CITYNET, UNISDR, andUNU, 2009).Makati City has been active in DRR efforts and has strong recognition to HFA as aninternationally agreed DRR framework. The analysis of the survey explores the case ofMakati Groupanddiagnosesthegapsandareaswheregreaterprioritizationmustoccur by identifying the areas in which Makati City are currently placing low priority.It explores the common trends and distinctions in prioritization between Makati Groupand non-Makati Group under the assumption that Makati City has been heralded in itsDRR efforts and has been considered as relatively an example which integrates DRRinto various sectors and considers comprehensive DRR perspectives.For the Group of Makati, the questionnaires were distributed among the focal pointsof Makati City DRR Coordinating Council (MCDRRCC) (Table I). 32 ofcials respondedto the questionnaire fromthe below15 sections, which were members of theMCDRRCC. At least two ofcials from these 15 sections participated in the survey inorder to take the balance of the participationfrom various sections.Figure 2.Distribution of Makati andnon-Makati (total 107)Implementationof HFA294.Resultsofthesurvey4.1Analysisofthe Makati GroupByanalyzingtheresponsesfromtheMakati Group, it revealedgapsandmissingareas for Makati City in terms comprehensive DRR and HFAimplementation.Figure 3 shows HFA tasks in terms of relevancy and priority by the Group of MakatiCity with following major observations; a majority of tasks that Makati Groupregardedas most relevant to their workare relatedto HFA1 andHFA5. About50 per cent or more of ofcials identied all four tasks under HFA1 as most relevant,withmorethan70percentidentifyingT4(prioritizeDRRandallocateappropriateresources) as the most relevant. HFA5 was regarded as the most relevant with60percentofofcialsselectingT20andover50percentofofcialsselectingT19.HFA2 and HFA4 tasks were regarded as lesser relevance with an exception ofT18 (HFA4) which was the only task considered as most relevant by over 50 per centof ofcials under HFA4. Of the HFA4 tasks, the least relevant were T16 (19 per cent)andT17(25percent), relatingtoeconomicdevelopmentandtheuseofnancialoreconomicinstrumentstoencourageprivatesectorparticipationinDRRwererankedleast relevant. HFA4-T13(22percent), whichrelatestoaddressingsocial needsofvulnerablegroups, alsorankedlow. ThisimpliedthatgovernmentcoverageofDRRactivitiesdidnot encompassenoughall sectorsor demographics. All HFA3taskswere rankedas most relevant byover 30 per cent of respondents but withlowpriority. T9(43percent)andT10(43percent)hadrelativelyhigherrelevancythanT11(34percent)whichshowedthelowestunderHFA3relatestothecollectionanddissemination of DRR information. HFA2 tasks were dispersed with T5 (28 per cent)andT7(31percent) rankinglowerinrelevancycomparedtoT8(37percent) andT6 (40 per cent). The relative rankings of the HFA2 suggest that risk assessment andearlywarningactivitiesmayneedfurtherattention.Figure4 showsHFA tasks with rankings in priorityby Makati Group amongthetasks marked with relevant tasks. Over 40 per cent of ofcials regarded HFA5-T20 asthe high priority task. Over 30 per cent of ofcialsregardedHFA1-T1 and T4 as theCity government Budget departmentDepartment of Education (Dep-Ed Makati)Department of Engineering and Public Works (DEPW)Department of EnvironmentalServices (DES)Human Resource Development ofce (HRDO)Liga ng mga BarangayMakati C3/RescueMakati Health Department (MHD)Makati Social Welfare Department (MSWD)Ofce of the Mayor (OM)Opital (Hospital)ng MakatiPublic Employment Service Ofce (PESO)Urban Development Department (UDD)National government Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA)Private sector Manila Water, Inc.Note: Members of the MCDRRCCTable I.Compositionof MakatiCity respondents (n 32)IJDRBE4,130next tasks whichtake priority. Over 25per cent of ofcials regardedHFA5-T19(review disaster preparedness capacitiesand mechanisms) as a prioritytask.TheresponsesfromMakati Groupcanbeinferredthat workintheseofcialsdivisions currentlyrelate more to governance (HFA1) andplanningactivities fordisaster preparedness (HFA5), with less attention on risk assessment and earlywarning (HFA2), knowledge management (HFA3) and vulnerability reduction (HFA4).4.2 Comparativeanalysis between MakatiGroupandnon-Makati GroupItisalsoinformativeto comparethetworesultsastherearesomesimilaritiesinwhatofcials deem relevant, and some distinctions between the results obtained from Makatiand non-Makati Group. Figure 5 shows the comparison between the two groups accordingto the relevancy of the tasks and the tasks marked as the highest priority (highlighted withthe darkest color).TableIIshows the comparison between the two groups of ve tasks with highestrelevance and highest priorities. Both groups regarded same four tasks (T1, T2, T19Figure 3.Tasks marked as mostrelevant by MakatiofcialsImplementationof HFA31and T20) as one of ve highest relevance and priorities. There were some distinctions.Themajority(71.9percent) of Makati GroupconsideredT4(allocateappropriateresources on DRR) as the most relevant task. Among them, 37.5 per cent regarded T4 asthe highest priority task. However, in the non-Makati Group, T4 was not regarded aseither most relevant or highest priority (its rank is 7th among 20 tasks).TableII showedthat forMakati Groupthevehighest relevant orvehighestprioritytasks didnot include anytaskfromHFA3. Non-Makati GroupregardedT9 from HFA3 as one of the ve more relevant tasks, and T9 from HFA3 and T18 fromHFA4 as one of the ve highest priorities.TableIIIshowstheaverageofpercentageofFigure5accordingtotheveHFApriorities. The comparison between the two groups shows also that Makati Group hasless emphasis on HFA3.While both groups placed strong emphasis on HFA5, both groups had lessprioritization of HFA2 and HFA4, and lowprioritisation of tasks 16 and 17 under HFA4.This implies these tasks are common challenged areas. Regarding observed distinction,Figure 4.Tasks marked as mostrelevant with highestpriority by MakatiofcialsIJDRBE4,132Figure 5.Comparison betweenMakati and non-Makatiregarding the percentageof relevance and thehighest priority tasksImplementationof HFA33Makati CityofcialsweremorecommittedtoT4comparedtonon-Makati Group.Makati Cityplacedgreater relevance onincorporatingthe environment intoDRRpolicies (T12). Non-Makati Group placed greater emphasis on T13 and HFA3 in general.T13 is important in catering to the social needs of the city, which Makati Group placedmuchlesspriorityandrelevance. Fromtheresultsobtainedfromthisquestionnaire(Figure 5), it appears that Makati Group should focus more on the awareness raising andsocial needs of the residents. While the analysis was conducted under the hypothesisthat Makati City, being a forerunner in localizing DRR, would have a more well-roundedfocus on the 20 tasks, the results show that that was not necessarily the case. MakatiCity, like the other cities, prioritizes some tasks more than others.ComprehensiveDRRapproachesneedbalancedapproachbycoveringalltheveHFApriority areas. For the purpose of taking comprehensive DRRapproaches,recommended area for actions for the next ve years to Makati City can be drawn fromthe result of the 20 tasks survey. Makati City should place more emphasis and priority toHFA2, HFA3 and HFA4. In particular, below several tasks among 20 tasks shown inTable IVshould be paid more attention by Makati City, since the current understandingand situation revealed by the 20 tasks survey revealed that these tasks have not yet beencovered enough as relevant or priority tasks by members of Makati DRRCC. Not manyindividuals regard these tasks as relevant tasks or priority tasks. This implies that thesetasks could be gaps or missing areas of work within Makati City.Makati Group Non-Makati GroupTask Percentage Task PercentageHighest relevance1 T4 (HFA1) 71.9 T20 (HFA5) 60.82 T20 (HFA5) 64.5 T1 (HFA1) 603 T1 (HFA1) 56.3 T9 (HFA3) 564 T2 (HFA2) 53.1 T2 (HFA1) 54.75 T19 (HFA5) 51.6 T19 (HFA5) 54.1Highest priority1 T20 (HFA5) 41.9 T1 (HFA1) 42.72 T4 (HFA1) 37.5 T20 (HFA5) 39.23 T1 (HFA1) 31.3 T19 (HFA5) 33.84 T19 (HFA5) 25.8 T9 (HFA3) 30.75 T12 (HFA4) 22.6 T18 (HFA4) 29.7Table II.ComparisonbetweenMakati and non-MakatiGroups in terms of vetasks marked withhighest relevance andpriorityMakati Group Non-Makati GroupAverage of % Average of %Most relevant Highest priority Most relevant Highest priorityHFA1 57.8 28.15 50.6 31.7HFA2 34.4 14.8 34.3 22HFA3 40.6 11.5 47.6 28HFA4 33.6 13.8 30.0 18.7HFA5 58.1 33.9 57.45 36.5Table III.ComparisonbetweenMakati and non-MakatiGroups in terms ofaverage percentages oftasks as highestrelevance and highestpriorityIJDRBE4,1344.3 MakatiAction PlanThroughthe trainingprogramme whichwas jointlyconductedbetweenFebruaryand April 2010 by UNISDR, Kyoto University, CITYNET, World Bank TokyoDevelopment Learning Center, SEEDS, Makati City developed a set of actions by usingthe Guide (UNISDR and Kyoto University, 2010). Through the pilot training program,Makati itself developed a series of action plans using the Guide and the 20 tasks. MakatiCity developed a total number of 90 actions were developed by ensuring all the 20 tasksare covered. In the Makati Action Plan(MAP), HFA1 actions totalled 14 with emphasis onshort-termactions. HFA2 actions totalled 10 with actions dispersed by timeframe. HFA3actions totalled 6 and are also well dispersed. HFA4 actions totalled 48, with emphasis onmid-andlong-termactions. HFA5actionstotalled12withsomefocusonshort-termactions. The largest number of actions (48 actions) was developed under HFA4 (Table V).The joint training programby using the guide and the 20 tasks survey demonstratedthe case of useful combination towards the concrete action planning process to makesurecomprehensiveDRRactionsandHFApriorityareasarecovered. ThiscaseofMakati City makes the case where an internally agreed instrument like HFA can drillinto local level and support its action planning through a concrete set of guideline bypresenting these concrete 20 tasks.Tasks regarded as mostrelevant by less than30 per cent of Makati GroupTasks regarded as highestpriority by less than15 per cent of Makati GroupHFA2(risk assessmentand early warning)Task 5. Establish an initiative forcommunity risk assessment to combinewith country assessmentsA ATask 6. Review the availability of risk-related information and the capacitiesfor data collection and useAHFA3(knowledgemanagement)Task 10. Develop or utilize DRR trainingfor key sectors based on identiedprioritiesATask 11. Enhance the compilation,dissemination and use of DRRinformationAHFA4(vulnerabilityreduction)Task 13. Social needs: establishmechanisms for increasing resilience ofthe poor and the most vulnerableA ATask 14. Physical planning: establishmeasures to incorporateDRR in urbanand land-use planningATask 16. Economic development:stimulate DRR activities in productionand service sectorsA ATask 17. Financial/economicinstruments:create opportunitiesforprivate sector involvement in DRRA ATableIV.A set of tasks requiringfurther attention andactions by Makati City,considering that they areregarded as most relevantby less individuals and ashighest priority by lessindividuals of MakatiGroupImplementationof HFA355.Discussion for budget allocation andcoordinationissuesThe two major challenges identied bythe literature reviewfor local government capacityonDRRare coordinationmechanismandbudget allocation. It was also pointedout that theissueofbudgetallocationisduetothepriorityissuesanddecentralization. Completedecentralization of budgeting and reporting can also generate problems. Although it mayensure that spending is in line with local priorities, it almost inevitably leads to divisionswith national and sector policies and programmes (Benson, 2011). Therefore, the issuesrelated to coordination mechanism, budget allocation, priority issues and decentralisationare interconnected and need to be addressed in an integrated manner to overcome theirchallenges. Oneof thestudiesconductedfor theHFAmid-termreviewoneffectivenancial mechanisms at the national and local levels for DRR highlighted some of thestructural factors and hierarchical constrains within resource allocation mechanisms toexplainwhynational budgets andnancial allocations at the local level remainstubbornlydifcult to inuence when it comes to DRR ( Jackson, 2011; Nagamatsu et al., 2005). Thischallengeintermsofhierarchical structurecouldbebetteraddressedbyaneffectivecoordination mechanism which facilitates vertical coordination and overcome difcultiessurrounding the hierarchical structure.Short term Mid term Long termPriorityarea TaskBetween now andnext two years(number of action)Between next twoto ve years(number of action)Beyondve years(number of action)Total numberof actionsHFA1 Task 1 2 0 0 2Task 2 2 0 2 4Task 3 0 2 2 4Task 4 4 0 0 4Sub-total 8 2 4 14HFA2 Task 5 2 0 0 2Task 6 0 2 0 2Task 7 0 0 2 2Task 8 2 0 2 4Sub-total 4 2 4 10HFA3 Task 9 2 0 0 2Task 10 0 2 0 2Task 11 0 0 2 2Sub-total 2 2 2 6HFA4 Task 12 0 4 4 8Task 13 4 6 8 18Task 14 0 2 2 4Task 15 2 0 0 2Task 16 2 2 0 4Task 17 2 4 4 10Task 18 0 2 0 2Sub-total 10 20 18 48HFA5 Task 19 4 4 0 8Task 20 2 0 2 46 4 2 12Grand-total 30 30 30 90Table V.Makati action plan andHFA local 20 tasksIJDRBE4,136In addition to identifying specic scal and regulatory opportunities for improvingand increasing the allocation of funding for DRR at the local level, the above mentionedstudy recommends decentralizing authority and resources to appropriateadministrative levels insupport of local multi-stakeholder partnerships (includingequitablerepresentationfromthemostvulnerable)tocoordinateandmanagepolicyexecutiononriskreduction, povertyalleviation, development, andclimate changeadaptation ( Jackson, 2011).Fromthis context, efforts and support fromnational governments are crucial to supportcapacity building of local governments together with proper budget allocations earmarkedtoDRRandincrementaldecentralization. Competentandaccountablelocalgovernmentis a precondition for effective disaster risk management. Unless local governments havethecapacitiesandresourcestofull theirfunctions, decentralizationofresponsibilitiesmay be counter-productive. Therefore, in decentralization processes, more attention needstobepaidtotheappropriatelayeringoffunctions, wherehigheradministrativelevelsnancially and technically support local implementation. If the decentralization of relevantfunctions and resources cannot be fully realized due to extremely weak local capacities, anincremental approachmaybe the most effective wayforward(UNISDR, 2011a). Incrementaldecentralizationaccompaniedbyclearmandates, budgetsandsystemsofsubsidiarity,promotesownershipandimprovedriskgovernancecapacitiesatall levels. Scalingupcommunity initiatives can be enabled by local planning, nancial and investment that buildoncivil societypartnerships (UNISDR, 2011a). Effective local actionrequires humancapacity, nancial resources and political authority. Central policy responsibility for DRRmust be complemented by adequately decentralized and layered risk managementfunctions, capacities and corresponding budgets (UNISDR, 2011a).In terms of what must be added to decentralization to strengthen DRR?, the belowpoints were suggested to be in place so that decentralization can strengthen DRR (Scottand Tarazona, 2011):.incentivesthat create strongpolitical interest inandengagement withDRRissues (for example high disaster risk levels, personal liability of mayors,pressure from the electorate, media engagement, academic inuence, orconvincing nancial analysis on the cost effectiveness of DRR);.adequatetechnical capacityat alocal level, bothinrelationtoDRRandforgeneral government duties;.good levels of nancial resources generally, and also a mechanism for ensuringthat DRR funds are not diverted to other areas;.high levels of civic education and public awareness about DRR; and.strong national government leadership and enforcement mechanisms.If most of these conditions are not in place there is little reason to expectdecentralizationto improveDRR (Scott and Tarazona, 2011).Coordinationmechanismandbudget allocationissuesarebothbelongingtothepriorityareaofHFA1whichhasfourtasks(Tasks1-4). Intheresultofthe20taskssurveyfor Makati Group, Task4isregardedasthehighest relevant andsecondhighest priority by Makati Group. On the other hand, non-Makati Group did not haveTask4listedwithinvemostrelevantnorvehighestprioritiesshowninTableII.This high priority and relevance attached to Task 4 is interpreted as one of the mostImplementationof HFA37positive aspect for Makati Group. Consideringthe above suggestedelements fordecentralization which can strengthen DRR, the active function of the Makati City DRRCouncil as a coordination mechanismcontributes to these elements and led thedevelopment of MAP. The Makati case demonstrated that having a good coordinationmechanism supportaddressing the challenge of budgetallocation issues.Aspointedoutwithintheabovefthelement, itisneedlesstosaythatnationalgovernment supports for these efforts at local government levels are important.Alocal DRRis more likely when there is a strong national entity playing anoversightandenforcementrole(ScottandTarazona, 2011). InthePhilippines, 2010Philippines DRRandManagement Act makes capacitystrengtheningof its mostdecentralized administrative units a state policy (IFRC, 2011). This provides apositivegroundforaMakatiCitywhichisactiveintakingactionsonDRR. FortheprocesstodeveloplocalDRR capacity,phaseapproachis important,consideringthepointthatthepresenceofdecentralizedgovernancesystemsdoesnotautomaticallyleadtoparticipatoryDRR. EffectivedecentralizationofDRRcanbeconstrainedbylowcapacityat alocal level (Scott andTarazona, 2011). Anumber of Europeancountries noted DRR efforts at the local level going back generations. Those countrieswithmoreyearsof workonDRRwereseentobesignicantlymoreadvancedindecentralizinglocal actiononDRR, possiblyindicatingaphasedprocesswherebyDRRwasrstaddressedatthecentral level andseemstohavebeenappliedinaninstitutionalizedwayatthelocal levelonlylater( Jackson, 2011). Apossiblephasedapproachfromnational tolocal level of HFAimplementationwasalsomentionedduring some of the HFA mid-term review workshops (UNISDR, 2011b). According tothe mid-term review report, it noted that there is a process in the making in applyingHFAguidancewherebyseveral governmentshadrecentlyapproved, orwereintheprocess of doing so, DRR national policies and/or frameworks, in whichdecentralizationof DRRtothelocal level wasanimportant component that wouldlogicallyfollowintheimplementationphase. Thisis consistentwiththeobservationthat the HFA has brought about positive changes within national institutions but theprocessisstill verymuchinthemaking, aswouldbereasonabletoexpect for aframeworkveyearsintoitsimplementation( Jackson, 2011).Aplatformof multi-stakeholdersserveasanadvocacyandcoordinatingtool ofDRR in the local context. It facilitates coordination and participatory process engagedin problem solving based on evidence. Resources from various areas will be combined.Also, it streamlines the planning process so that DRR can be accepted as a public valueandbemainstreamedintocityplansaswellasday-to-dayoperationsofconstitutedauthorities andbusinesses. Alocal platform is requiredfor engagingactors indevelopingDRRstrategies, capable of deciding what newinstruments are neededto dealwith local demands and needs, and to support newkinds of interactions andcommunication channels between relevant stakeholders (UNISDR, 2011b). In particular,a local platformis required for engaging actors in developing DRRstrategies, capable ofdeciding what newinstruments are needed to deal with local demands and needs, and tosupport newkinds of interactions andcommunicationchannels betweenrelevantstakeholders. Such a platform, if well designed, could also support social learning by thecreation of a collective memory based on the accumulation of knowledge and lessonslearned frompast disaster experience into preventative strategies (Serra andChibay, 2011). Inordertoenhancelocal capacitiesaswell astofosterbothverticalIJDRBE4,138(fromthenational tolocal level) andhorizontal (amongrelevant branchesof localgovernments and also with communities and civil society) communication to deal withDRR, resourcesshouldbedevotednotsomuchtotechnicalmeans, buttolong-terminstitutional innovationandlearning. Establishingalocal platformonDRRamongrelevant multi-stakeholders and fostering its functions should present a set of solutionsto address these interconnected issues on coordination mechanism, budget allocation,priority and decentralisation issues in an integrated manner.6. ConclusionThe analysis of the 20 tasks survey demonstrated the current situation of Makati Cityintermsof itsperceptiontowardscomprehensiveDRRactionsbyrevealingmostrelevant tasks and highest priority tasks, and also less relevant tasks and less prioritytasks. The result was useful tounderstandthe current situation, andprovidedacomparative reference for analysis on the action plan developedby Makati City.The result of the 20tasks surveyrevealedthat HFA4neededmore focus andattention by Makati City. However, looking at the MAP developed; this need to focusonHFA4hasbeenalreadyrecognizedbyMakati Cityandbeingaddressedbythelargest number of planned actions (48 actions) developed under HFA4 within the MAP.Through theprocessof MAPdevelopment, the Makati DRRCC playedtheimportantcoordinatingrole. Membersof theCouncil gottogethertodeveloptheseactionsbyreferring to the guide. The process of MAP through the Makati DRRCC demonstrated apractical case for an effective function of a local platform on DRR.Reviewing further the results of the survey with the MAP developed by Makati Citycan showif MAP is trying to address these existing gaps properly or if gaps are still leftout. Through the comparative analysis, Makati City is suggested to come up with moreactions under HFA3 and HFA2, considering the fact that less relevance and less priorityareobservedinthesetwoareas. Alsothenumbers of developedactions areonlysix actions under HFA3 and ten actions under HFA2 within the MAP. HFA3 has thelowest number of actions developed among HFA ve priority areas, regardless of thegaps under HFA3 identied as the result of the survey. The importance of the area ofHFA3 (knowledge and education) goes along withone of the elements of decentralizationwhichstrengthenDRRishighlevelsofciviceducationandpublicawarenessaboutDRR, as discussed under Section 5. Makati City is suggested to follow up these actionplans and also to check the progress in a cyclic manner to monitor the progress. By doingso, the gaps and necessary actionswill befurtheridentiedtowards scaling up theircapacitiesonDRR. Thesecontinuousandsustainableeffortsareimportantandthisprocess is only effective through an active coordination mechanism, Makati DRRCC.In order to build local DRR capacity, it is important to increase the capacity of localgovernments by themselves and also to increase the societys resilience throughmeasurestakenbylocalgovernments(McBean andRodgers,2010). Alocalplatformlike Makati DRRCC is well-positioned to meet this purpose of increasing its capacity bya local government itself. Social resilience is important that effort is put into buildingcapacity in these regions. Societys ability to use their internal resources andcompetenciestorespondtodemands, aswell astheirlearnedresourcefulness, willwork in tandem with the emergency services, to ensure that there is a measure of socialpreparedness and an adequate ability to respond and recover. In addition to allowingquicker recovery and minimizing loss, creating this type of resilience prevents againstImplementationof HFA39greater damage causedbyfurther breakdowns of different systems or additionalhazards. This is especially important given that a break down in a city or region willcause faltering decision making and slowresponses, making communities morevulnerable to disasters(McBean and Rodgers, 2010).As arguedat the beginningof this paper, the literature reviewsupportedtheimportanceofDRRatlocalgovernmentlevels. Atthesametimeitidentiedmajorobstacles in terms of the limited capacity of DRR by local governments, and raised thequestion on how these can be overcome. These challenges for the limited capacity suchas budget allocation, effective decentralization, and coordination are the key areas. TheHFAprovides a set of recommendations to address these challenges by takingcomprehensiveDRRmeasuresaccordingtothesevepriorityareas. Local platformplays an important role for coordination and for collectively solving these challenges,together with the phaseapproachsupportedby a national government.ForthepurposeofbuildingcapacityonDRRbylocal governments, implementingHFAatlocal governmentlevel isrelevantandcrucial approach. Especially, HFA1isaddressing the priority areas of coordination mechanismand budget allocation issues. Aneffective local platform and efforts on DRR budget allocation provides an important basisforDRRactions.Establishingalocalplatformshouldberecommendabletoother localgovernments. As discussedinSection5, the phase approachshouldbe combinedwiththeseefforts through a proper national support to the proper decentralization. Thedeconcentration of functions without wholly devolving authorities and budgets can be apragmatic rst steptowards full decentralization. Twinningof capacity-richmunicipalitiesandregionswithpoorerormorerisk-proneones, andstrategicpartnershipsbetweentechnical centers and civil society organizations, further complement incrementaldevolution (UNISDR, 2011a). In this context, a local platformon DRRalso has a potential tofacilitate a strategic partnership for incremental devolution working together with otherlocal governments in a country.MakatiCityusestheHFAasacentral guidingtooltoimplementcomprehensiveDRRactions, combiningtheuseoftheguidewhichfacilitatedtheirconsultationandactionplanning. Makati CitycasedemonstratedacaseofalocalplatformforDRR,through MCDRRCC,which providesa basis for accelerating local DRR actions and avenue for collectively addressing challenges by ensuring vertical coordination amongrelevant divisionsandstakeholders. Thecaseof Makati Cityprovidesanon-goingmodel process of a local platformon DRR which can be leant by other local governmentfor possible replication.ReferencesChristoplos, I. (2003), Actors in risk, in Pelling, M. (Ed.), Natural Disasters and Development in aGlobalizing World, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 95-109.Gupta, S. and Leung, I. (2011), Turning Good Practice into Institutional Mechanism: Investing inGrassroots Womens Leadership to Scale Up Local Implementation of the HyogoFramework forAction, Huairou Commission and Groots International, Brooklyn, NY.Jackson, D. (2011), EffectiveFinancial MechanismattheNational andLocal Level forDisasterRiskReduction, United Nations Capital Development Fund, New York, NY.KyotoUniversityandUNISDR(2010), AGuideforImplementingtheHyogoFrameworkforActionbyLocal Stakeholders, availableat: www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id13101IJDRBE4,140KyotoUniversity, CITYNET, UNISDR, andUNU(2009), City Prole: Climate andDisasterResilience, availableat: www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id8168Kyoto University, CITYNET, UNISDR, WB TDLC, SEEDS (2010), Climate and DisasterResilienceInitiativeCapacity-BuildingProgram, availableat: www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id16723McBean, G. andRodgers, C. (2010), Climate hazards anddisasters: the needfor capacitybuilding,Wiley InterdisciplinaryReviews:Climate Change, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 871-84.Matsuoka, Y., Sharma, A. andShaw, R. (2009), Hyogoframeworkforactionandurbanriskreduction in Asia, Urban Risk Reduction: An Asian Perspective, Community,Environment andDisaster RiskManagement, Vol. 1, EmeraldPublishing, Bradford,available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn2040-7262&volume1Nagamatsu, S., Hayashi, H. and Kawata, Y. (2005), The Problem of Disaster Management Policyand Local Plan for Disaster Prevention,pp. 1-10.Scott, Z. andTarazona, M. (2011), DecentralizationandDisaster Risk Reduction, Study onDisaster Risk Reduction, Decentralization and Political Economy Analysis for UNDPContribution tothe GAR11, UNISDR, Geneva.Serra, A. and Chibay, I. (2011), Assessing the role of vertical and horizontal communication indisasterriskreductionlearningandplanning: thecaseoftheSpanishTousdam-break,1982, Integrated Risk Governance Projects, Barcelona.UNISDR (2005), Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations andCommunitiestoDisasters, UnitedNationsInternational StrategyforDisasterReduction,Geneva, available at: www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdfUNISDR (2007), Words into Action: A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework,United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, available at: www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id594UNISDR(2010), InformationKit for ISDR2010-2011WorldDisaster ReductionCampaign,United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, available at: www.unisdr.org/english/campaigns/campaign2010-2011/documents/campaign-kit.pdfUNISDR(2011a), Global AssessmentReportonDisasterRiskReduction2011, UnitedNationsInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, available at: www.preventionweb.net/garUNISDR (2011b), Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 Building the Resilience of Nations andCommunities toDisasters, Mid-termReview2010-2011, UnitedNations InternationalStrategyforDisasterReduction, Geneva, availableat: www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id18197FurtherreadingKanagawa, K. andTogo, H. (2010), TheChangingLocal GovernanceTriggeredbytheGreatEarthquake, Toulouse, France.Kazama, N. (2008), Japansdisasterreductionpolicy, PublicPolicyStudiesAssociationJapanAnnual Report (1998), Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation Institute, Key Points inDisaster Countermeasures of Local Governments, Disaster Reduction and HumanRenovation Institute, Kobe, pp. 1-25.Matsuoka, Y., Sharma, A. and Shaw, R. (2011), Linking resilience planning to Hyogo frameworkforactionatlocallevel, ClimateDisasterResilienceinLocal Governments, Community,Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 6, Emerald Publishing, Bradford.Implementationof HFA41Pelling, M. (2007), Learningfromothers: scopeandchallengesfroparticipatorydisasterriskassessment,Disasters, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 373-85.Suganuma, K. (2006), Recent trends in earthquake disaster management in Japan, Science andTechnologyTrends, Vol. 19, pp. 91-106.UNISDR(2009), Global Assessment Report onDisasterRiskReduction2009, UnitedNationsInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, available at: www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/report/index.php?id1130&pid:34&pih:2United Nations (1999), United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/54/219, available at:www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/basic_docs/GA-resolution/a-res-54-219-eng.pdfUnited Nations (2001), United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/56/195, available at:www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/basic_docs/GA-resolution/a-res-56-195-eng.pdfWamsler, C. (2006), Mainstreaming risk reduction in urban planning and housing: a challengefor international aid organisations,Disasters, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 151-77.Wisner, B. (2003), Disaster risk reduction in megacities: making the most of human and socialcapital, in Kreimer, A., Arnold, M. and Carlin, A. (Eds), Building Safer Cities The FutureofDisaster Risk, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 181-96.IJDRBE4,142To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints