Mainstreaming Integrated Risk Management
Mainstreaming Integrated Risk
AND
CARE Philippines 26 Timog Avenue, Unit 512, Quezon City, Philippines http://care-philippines.org
WRITER: Celso B. Dulce, Jr.
EDITORIAL BOARD: Erica Chester A. Bucog, Ma. Stella A. Dulce, Jennifer N. Furigay, Sindhy B. Obias, Ansherina Grace Talavera
COPY EDITOR: Grace Sucgang
LAYOUT: Justine V. Santiago
ISBN NUMBER:
This document covers humanitarian aid activities implemented with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein should not be taken, in any way, to reflect the official opinion of the European Union, and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
SUPPORTED BY:
This companion guide to mainstreaming disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA) and ecosystem management and restoration (EMR) in an integrated way is a product of many years of practice, reflection and learning. In 2012, ACCORD and CARE Nederland published a 3-volume Training on Disaster Preparedness and Contingency Planning manual. One session, on risk reduction planning, briefly touched on mainstreaming DRR, CCA and EMR in development plans. Today, we are transforming our accumulated knowledge on mainstreaming into this companion guide or handbook, with optimism that others will find value in, and learn from our experience.
CARE Nederland introduced to us the project cycle management approach to mainstreaming. The Bureau of Local Government Development of the Department of Interior and Local Government trained us on mainstreaming DRR and CCA in the Rationalized Planning System. For both, their support was crucial in the development of our mainstreaming practice.
The local government units (LGUs) that have worked with us in the mainstreaming process are too numerous to acknowledge individually, but Saint Bernard, a municipality of Southern Leyte, and Calabanga in Camarines Sur deserve special mention. Led respectively by mayors Rico Rentuza and Evelyn Yu, Saint Bernard and Calabanga enthusiastically collaborated with us in our earliest attempt at mainstreaming. Equally valuable was our collaboration with the municipalities of Maragusan, Davao de Oro and La Paz, Leyte; the Metro Manila cities of Malabon and Navotas;
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
and the Malabon-Navotas-Tullahan-Tinajeros River System Water Quality Management Area and the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
ACCORD and CARE staff who have conducted countless trainings, facilitated planning workshops and post-activity reviews were instrumental in the evolution of this companion guide. Substantive editing of this companion guide was contributed by Ma. Stella Dulce, drawing knowledge from numerous mainstreaming training and planning workshops she facilitated. Erica Chester Bucog was responsible for coordinating the various tasks entailed in coming up with this publication. Special appreciation also goes to Marije Broekhuijsen and Marieta Alcid, who made the first steps in coming up with a mainstreaming manual in 2011 and in 2018.
Most important was involvement of communities and vulnerable groups. Their participation and ownership of the process, and the resulting resilience benefits, are the foremost standards by which we measure the success of mainstreaming DRR, CCA and EMR.
Last but not least, the support for the past 10 years of The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Partners for Resilience, and of the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) to CARE and ACCORD’s humanitarian and disaster risk reduction programming has provided vast opportunities for practice, reflection and learning on mainstreaming DRR, CCA and EMR.
CONTENTS
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................34
Linking IRM with local government planning processes .... 19 Why Rationalized Planning System? ................................ 20 Why mainstream in the planning system? ........................ 20 Process of integrating IRM in the development plans of local government units ................................................ 22 Alignment and coherence of LDRRMP and LCCAP with CDP ..................................................... 31
MAINSTREAMING IN GOVERNMENT PLANS AND PROGRAMS
How to mainstream IRM? ................................................. 9 MANATUTI WQMA: A case study on mainstreaming IRM in development plans .............................................. 12 REACH: a case study on mainstreaming IRM in emergency response ........................................... 16
PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO MAINSTREAMING
Introduction to this handbook ........................................... 4 What is mainstreaming? What is IRM mainstreaming? ....... 5 Combining DRR, CCA, and EMR into one mainstreaming approach .................................................. 6 Why mainstreaming? ........................................................ 6
INTRODUCTION TO IRM MAINSTREAMING
21
AIP Annual Investment Plan
BBS Building Back Safer
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CDP Comprehensive Development Plan
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
COVID-19 Corona Virus Disease - 2019
CSO Civil Society Organization
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DENR-EMB Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Environmental Management Bureau
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DILG-BLGD Department of Interior and Local Government - Bureau of Local Government Development
DOF Department of Finance
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
ELA Executive-Legislative Agenda
HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
IDP Internally-Displaced Persons
IRM Integrated Risk Management
JMC Joint Memorandum Circular
LDC Local Development Council
LDRRMF Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund
LDRRMO Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office
LDRRMP Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan
LGU Local Government Unit
MANATUTI Malabon-Navotas-Tullahan-Tinajeros River System (MANATUTI)
MC Memorandum Circular
MOVE UP Moving Urban Poor Communities Toward Resilience Project
MTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
MTPIP Medium-Term Philippine Investment Plan
NEDA National Economic Development Authority
NGO Non-Government Organization
PCM Project Cycle Management
PO People's Organization
PPA Plans, Programs, and Activities
REACH Response to the Unmet Humanitarian Needs of the Most Vulnerable Conflict-Affected Populations in Mindanao Project
RPS Rationalized Planning System
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WQMA Water Quality Management Area
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
4
It has already been a decade since CARE and ACCORD have begun mainstreaming Integrated Risk Management (IRM) in humanitarian and development projects in the Philippines. Both organizations have worked with local government units (LGUs) and national government agencies mandated with mainstreaming disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) development plans and budgets.
This handbook is the result of this extensive experience. By documenting and sharing accumulated learnings, IRM mainstreaming work can be sustained and further improved.
IRM is the integration of DRR, CCA and ecosystem management restoration (EMR) as an approach to reducing natural disaster, climate and environmental risks, and strengthening resilience. The approach was developed through the Partners for Resilience (PfR). IRM builds resilience through a systematic process of “reducing risks through anticipative, absorptive, adaptive, and transformative actions, taking into account the effects of climate change and the role of ecosystems. It addresses the drivers of risk, and the capacities and assets of communities and individuals in their enabling environment.” 1
ACCORD, with support from CARE, has already applied the approach beyond the PfR programme. In the true spirit of mainstreaming, the approach has also been applied to all humanitarian and development project designs and implementation for almost 10 years now.
The purpose and scope of this handbook is: • To document and share the experiences of CARE and ACCORD with regards to their IRM mainstreaming work; • Provide guidance on how to implement mainstreaming, assuming that there is already sufficient experience in IRM but needs to further understand the mainstreaming process better.
The handbook is tailored to three different mainstreaming processes: 1. Development projects 2. Humanitarian actions 3. Local government planning process
INTRODUCTION TO IRM MAINSTREAMING
Introduction to this handbook
65
The handbook is tailored to the Philippine context, and uses the project cycle as a ‘mainstreaming tool.’
However, these guidelines are not: • Instructions on how to do DRR and CCA; • Mainstreaming instructions for specific contexts or projects, and only cover the general scope of the mainstreaming process.
The handbook consists of three parts. The first part explains the rationale behind mainstreaming and describes in general terms the process of mainstreaming. The second part introduces the Project Cycle Management (PCM) approach to mainstreaming. This part includes case samples on mainstreaming in a humanitarian/emergency action and in development programs. The third and final part discusses IRM mainstreaming in the planning system of LGUs in the Philippines.
Mainstreaming, from the root word “mainstream,” derives its meaning from the metaphor of a small, isolated flow of water being drawn into the larger river where it will expand to flow smoothly without loss or diversion.
IRM mainstreaming therefore means expanding and enhancing IRM so that it becomes normal practice and becomes institutionalized within an agency’s humanitarian and development agenda.2 The IRM mainstreaming process requires that DRR, CCA and EMR are systematically incorporated in policies, processes, programs, projects, activities, plans, and budgets. IRM will be treated as integral in both humanitarian and development processes, rather than an end.
This will be achieved by two complementary and inextricably linked approaches, both of which contribute to the goal of risk reduction and resilience building: (a) by implementing explicit IRM projects and programs; and (b) by integrating disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, and ecosystem management and restoration (or IRM) in humanitarian and development programs. Mainstreaming in humanitarian and development programming follows the project cycle, ensuring that IRM is incorporated in each phase of the cycle: assessment and analysis, project design (including budget preparation), implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. It involves the assessment
What is mainstreaming? What is IRM mainstreaming?
2 Tearfund, Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: a tool for development organizations (2005)
and analysis of how identified hazard events could affect the target groups and expected outcomes of a project. After the analysis of assessment results, the next step is to adopt risk reduction measures in the project design. The measures are also carefully examined to ensure that they do not unintentionally create new risks or exacerbate existing ones. Adequate financing for risk reduction measures is likewise ensured. In the course of implementing a project, changes in the risks on the community and project would be continuously monitored so that appropriate and timely adjustments can be introduced to the project design if needed, while evaluation gives insight for improving mainstreaming practices in new projects.
Disasters are becoming more frequent with increasing magnitude, with extreme weather events being the most destructive. Scientific studies, as well as the experience of affected communities, have provided incontrovertible evidence of the link between natural hazards and climate change. The unabated destruction of ecosystems meanwhile limits the capacity to provide services that will help regulate hazards, and increase the ability of vulnerable communities to effectively manage risks and respond to disasters.
The interaction of natural hazards, climate change, and ecosystem degradation, often with devastating consequences, require an integrated approach to be more effective. Disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, and ecosystem management and restoration have unique approaches that contribute to reducing overall risks. The combination of these approaches, also referred to as Integrated Risk Management (IRM), prove effective in reducing risks and strengthening resilience in countries such as the Philippines, where numerous natural hazards are becoming more destructive as a result of climate change and the unabated destruction of the environment.
Development projects do not always lead to reduced vulnerability of communities, nor spare the environment from natural hazard and climate change impacts, and ecosystem degradation. There are numerous examples of development interventions exacerbating existing risks or creating new ones. It is important to ensure that development interventions do not result in these
Combining DRR, CCA, and EMR into one mainstreaming approach
Why mainstreaming?
87
adverse effects. The pressure and release model of Wisner, et. al. (2003) is a very helpful tool in analyzing and understanding the underlying and root causes of vulnerabilities, and their cause and effect relationships. This tool can help identify appropriate options to ensure that development policies and practices do not intensify risks.
There is also the risk of ‘losing’ development investments, and development actually being set back. If appropriate risk reduction measures are not included in development policy and practice, natural hazards might damage or destroy development resources to the extent of setting back development gains. Mainstreaming IRM can help to protect these investments from natural hazards and disasters. Moreover, mainstreaming IRM in development programming can effectively reduce vulnerabilities and contribute to more sustainable development.
Mainstreaming IRM likewise aims to ensure that humanitarian interventions do not create new risks or exacerbate existing ones. It does not always follow that a response to a specific disaster eliminates the possibility of new disasters from happening. Likewise, it does not always follow that humanitarian response will lead to development. Humanitarian action that does not specifically take into account the links to development can leave communities more vulnerable to disasters, more dependent on relief, and unable or unwilling to comply with requirements for further development.3 IRM mainstreaming bridges the gap between humanitarian action and development.4
3 CARE Nederland, Strategy plan DRR (draft, May 2010) 4 See for example the experiences of ACCORD in mainstreaming IRM and resilience in humanitarian actions. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=6iCxkaAXTRw 5 UNISDR, Hyogo Framework for Action (2005): 3
In short, mainstreaming IRM makes the community, as well as humanitarian and development processes, more resilient to disasters. As early as 2005, the need for mainstreaming IRM has been globally recognized, where it was already included in the Hyogo Framework for Action as one of the principal strategic goals. There it is stated that “the more effective integration of disaster risk reduction considerations into sustainable development policies, planning and programming at all levels, with a special emphasis on disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and vulnerability reduction.” 5
PHOTO CREDIT ACCORD
109
As introduced earlier, the mainstreaming process follows the project cycle management approach to guarantee effective integration of risk reduction and resilience actions. It is important that appropriate IRM factors are included in every step of the project cycle.
The project cycle is a useful tool because it is a simple but inclusive way of looking at the whole life-cycle of a project or program. It helps visualize actions according to the phases of a project’s life cycle, and how these phases relate to each other. The phases are dependent on each other, and comprise a process of planning, action, and reflection that facilitate learning. There are many variations of the project cycle. For purposes of the mainstreaming handbook, the following will be used:
The initial planning stage of the cycle which include assessment, analysis, and project design, is the key entry point where IRM can be factored into projects. An excellent assessment and analysis of natural disaster, climate, environmental risks, and other shocks and stresses provide the solid foundation upon which a project can be designed or developed. If no risk assessment is done as a first step, or the risk assessment is incomplete or poorly done, then IRM interventions in the succeeding phases may not be able to adequately deliver risk reduction, risk-proofing and resilience-strengthening which are the goals of mainstreaming.
From the risk assessment and analysis, appropriate IRM measures can be identified for integration in the project design. Objectives, outcomes, indicators,
How to mainstream IRM?
Figure 1.1 The project cycle
Assessment & Analysis
n
and strategies of the project will incorporate IRM as appropriate. Adequate financing is also provided for the identified measures.
In the implementation phase, it is important that the input incorporated in the design will be correctly implemented.
Monitoring and evaluation is part of a project’s design. A monitoring and evaluation plan should be formulated to follow the progress of implementation, including implementation of IRM activities incorporated into the project. Monitoring and evaluation activities will start during the implementation phase, and will follow closely any changes in the project. Changes in the risks need to be continuously monitored throughout the life of the project. Monitored changes based on the assessment and analysis can be factors that could lead to timely adjustments or a redesign of the project.
Evaluation, or reflecting on the project’s actions and results in general, including IRM mainstreaming, will give insights for improving mainstreaming practices for new projects.
Monitoring & Evaluation
Figure 1.2 General overview of the different mainstreaming steps in the project cycle
Assessment & Analysis
• Natural disaster, climate, environmental risk assessment and analysis
• Implementing activities that reduce disaster risk
• Regular monitoring of risks
• Decision of role of DDR in the project, and planning of action
• Ensure the project doesn’t increase risk in society
The following flowchart explains in detail the different steps, which taken together, will ensure the systematic integration of IRM in the project cycle phases. This flow chart can be used as a check-list for easy reference.
1211
I. Risk assessment and analysis
Relevant information should be disaggregated by age, sex, and vulnerability factors (e.g. disability, chronic illness, ethnicity, religion, etc.) • Natural hazards, climate and environmental risks, conflict,and other shocks and stresses are identified and characterized. • Vulnerabilities and capacities of men and women in relation to hazards, climate and environmental risks, conflict, and other shocks and stresses are determined in communities and community groups. • Knowledge, attitude, practice, roles and responsibilities of men and women with regard to the hazards, climate and environmental risks, conflict, and other shocks and stresses are determined. • Potential stakeholders are identified with analysis of their interests and influence. • Vulnerable or most at-risk groups are identified. • Scenarios are developed based on the likelihood and severity of impact on men and women. • Dynamic pressures and root causes of vulnerabilities are identified. • Activities that create safe conditions, reduce dynamic pressures, and address root causes are identified. Applicable risk assessment and analysis tools including hazard assessment table, capacities and vulnerabilities assessment, stakeholder analysis, risk ranking and progression of vulnerability/progression of safety are made available. http://bit.ly/PFR-ITB
II. Participatory planning, designing and redesigning the project Based on results from the risk assessment and analysis, decide on what course to take to address risks and ensure participation from diverse marginalized groups. • Define goals, outcomes, activities and strategies that will be incorporated into the project to address identified risks, reduce vulnerabilities, and increase capacities. • Develop a monitoring and evaluation approach that incorporates tracking of changes in disaster risks. • Ensure adequate financing for risk reduction measures. Regular monitoring can lead to possible redesign within the project’s life cycle to make room for adjustments and/or improvements.
Assessment & Analysis
Participatory action planning
III. Ensure that project does not increase risk in the project and society • Identify elements linked to the project that may increase risks in the community or cause negative effects in society. • Design an approach to minimize negative effects. • Come up with a strategy to deal with residual risks.
IV. Implementing activities that reduce disaster risk
In the implementation phase, it is necessary that all participants are involved in decision-making, and that special needs of vulnerable groups are addressed.
V. Regular review of disaster risk
Ensure gender balance within the monitoring team. Engage the community and other stakeholders to participate in monitoring activities. • Monitor regularly changes in disaster risk and the different impacts of the project on different groups: men and women, boys and girls, older persons, persons with disabilities, etc. • If required, adapt the project and its activities to measured changes.
VI. Evaluation process
Evaluation looks at both the process and impact of the project on disaster risks. Factors to evaluate include effectiveness, the unintended impacts of the project, efficiency, coverage, relevance to local needs and priorities, sustainability, and policy coherence. Information should likewise be disaggregated by age, sex, and vulnerability factors (e.g. disability, chronic illness, ethnicity, religion, etc.).
Implementation
Evaluation
Figure 1.3 DRR mainstreaming in the project cycle SOURCE CARE Nederland
The Malabon-Navotas-Tullahan-Tinajeros River System (MANATUTI) was designated by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as a Water Quality Management Area (WQMA) in July 2018. The Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 required the creation of WQMAs to effectively enforce the tenets of the Act to improve water quality of bodies of water. The WQMAs are required by law to prepare Action Plans consisting of interventions or actions that are designed to address specific water quality issues present in the areas.
A ten-year Action Plan was drafted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) to be reviewed by a governing board which served as the planning, monitoring, and coordinating body of the said WQMA. The governing board is composed of representatives from LGUs located in the river system, relevant national government agencies, duly registered non-government organizations, water utility sector, and business sector. The Action Plan was formulated according to four clusters and corresponding outcomes related to water pollution, solid waste, informal settlements, and habitat.
In addition to the WQMA, a similar collaborative platform exists in MANATUTI, as part of the Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy (OPMBCS). The OPMBCS was borne out of a Supreme Court continuing mandamus, which required government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, preserve, and restore the water quality of the bay.
MANATUTI WQMA: A case study on mainstreaming IRM in development plans
Whereas the underlying legal mandates were different, the geographic location, program goals, duty-bearers, and stakeholders were the same. Hence, as an example of rationalization and streamlining, it was decided that a single MANATUTI Action Plan will serve both purposes of the Clean Water Act and the Supreme Court continuing mandamus. The WQMA will serve as the single platform for implementation and coordination.
The MANATUTI River System WQMA governing board and stakeholders decided to “form a more cohesive and integrated action plan with Disaster Risk Reduction-Climate Change Adaptation lens based on the current situational analysis of the MANATUTI River System.” 6 DENR-EMB and the WQMA governing board subsequently collaborated with ACCORD and CARE, through the Partnership for Resilience, in facilitating the process of mainstreaming IRM in the Action Plan.
6 Resolution Number 01, Series of 2019 “A Resolution Approving and Adopting the Action Plan of the Malabon-Navotas-Tullahan- Tinajeros River System Water Quality Management Area (MANATUTI River System WQMA), signed 24 July 2019.
PHOTO CREDIT Detsy Uy | ACCORD
PHOTO CREDIT ACCORD
1615
The following steps were undertaken: 1. ACCORD, CARE and two other CSOs were engaged in WQMA activities. 2. EMB and the governing board were convinced to expand membership to include city DRRM offices. 3. WQMA members were required to participate in a two-day training on
IRM and mainstreaming. 4. A risk assessment workshop was conducted with the crucial participation of the city DRRMOs. Risk assessment reports from various
sources were gathered and used as references during the workshops. 5. Planning workshops were conducted. For each cluster, i.e., solid waste, liquid waste, informal settlements and habitat, hazards and vulnerabilities were identified with the following guide questions: • What measures can the cluster undertake to reduce the identified
natural hazards, climate, and environments risks? • How will the identified natural hazards, climate, and environmental risks negatively impact the cluster? What measures will be introduced to mitigate the impacts? • Will the proposed activities planned for the cluster create new vulnerabilities or exacerbate existing risks? What measures will be undertaken to ensure that programs, projects and activities will “do no harm,” and ensure that no new vulnerabilities are created nor exacerbate existing ones? 6. The planning workshop outputs were presented in plenary for validation, appropriate risk reduction measures identified, as well as points for collaboration. Some risk reduction measures required collaboration among several outcome areas. It was also necessary to see that measures implemented in one outcome area did not negatively affect other areas. 7. The Action Plan with IRM integrated in the situation analysis, in the outcomes, programs, projects and activities was submitted to the governing board for review. The governing board subsequently approved the Action Plan.
A reflection meeting among the EMB, CARE and ACCORD has established the effectiveness of the mainstreaming process. Process replication in the San Juan River System WQMA was started. EMB also committed to replicate the mainstreaming process in all 33 WQMAs in the Philippines. As a preparatory step, some WQMA and EMB staff will undergo special training for IRM trainers. While these activities were overtaken by the COVID-19 pandemic, the group is exploring the use of virtual trainings, risk assessments, and meeting planning to realize the replication of IRM mainstreaming by all WQMAs in the country.
The REACH: Response to the Unmet Humanitarian Needs of the Most Vulnerable Conflict-Affected Populations in Mindanao Project is a humanitarian action that delivers life-saving emergency assistance to communities displaced by the chronic conflict in Mindanao. REACH also has a rapid response mechanism that allows it to respond to new cases of displacement. The direct beneficiaries of the action are displaced Moro and Lumad (indigenous people of Mindanao) households whose places of origin are geographically isolated. They also have very limited access to services.
A needs assessment was conducted as a first step in designing the project. Gender-balanced teams were deployed to look at the situation of the IDPs, as well as the urgent needs across humanitarian sectors, responses and capacities of government, humanitarian actors and the IDPs, and gaps in the response. Analysis of gathered information established that there were urgent humanitarian needs and gaps in food security and livelihoods, shelter, WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene), health and psychosocial services, and protection. Aside from the chronic conflict, assessments revealed there were other risks likely to affect the IDPs such as seasonal flooding, drought, and occasional typhoons.
REACH: a case study on mainstreaming IRM in emergency response
PHOTO CREDIT ACCORD
1817
The needs assessment results served as the basis for the decision to develop a project that will address the IDPs’ needs for food security and livelihoods, shelter, WASH, health and psychosocial services, and protection. It was further decided that IRM will be integrated in appropriate sectors.
Following are examples of the IRM measures that would be incorporated in the sectors: • Aside from cash or in-kind assistance to support short-term livelihoods, beneficiaries will be introduced to resilient livelihood strategies of diversification, protection, and strengthening. • For shelter, applicable building back safer (BBS) key messages will be introduced. BBS will also be demonstrated in the construction of WASH facilities. Alternative temporary shelter systems designed by the MOVE UP urban resilience project will be introduced for adaptation. • For WASH, disability-inclusive facilities will be constructed in safe
locations and provided with adequate lighting and other security features. Durable materials will be used. Pipes will be protected or buried. Where applicable, IDPs will carry out watershed rehabilitation
activities to protect their water source. • Risk communication will be incorporated in various activities such as community consultations, food or cash distribution, hygiene promotion and hygiene kit distribution, and training on resilient livelihoods.
In the course of implementation, the COVID-19 pandemic erupted. It was quickly determined that living in cramped evacuation camps and in generally poor living conditions, would expose the IDPs to high-risk COVID-19 infection. After quick consultation with the donor, the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), it was decided that some funds allocated for REACH will be redirected to COVID-19 response. The redirected funds allowed delivery of in-kind food or cash assistance, personal protective equipment, and sanitation supplies. Touch-free, inclusive portable handwashing stations were also fabricated and distributed to local government units. Risk communication activities were also extensively carried out.
Regular project activities were also refined. Food security and livelihood assistance were sped up to help address food shortage which arose from the nationwide lockdown. Shelter assistance became all the more urgent due to the need for physical distancing as an infection prevention and control (IPC) measure. The ATS systems were also introduced for possible adaptation into community quarantine facilities. WASH facilities and services became more important while hygiene promotion activities were incorporated in COVID-19 IPC messaging. The pandemic was also expected to increase mental health
concerns as well as primary healthcare needs among IDPs. In response, service delivery arrangements were strengthened. The protection service delivery mechanism was also strengthened with the expected increase of protection issues arising from the pandemic and lockdown.
Aside from displacement due to conflict amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the IDPs are also vulnerable to the onset of the typhoons, monsoon rains, and floods. In this complex situation the REACH project has collaborated with MOVE UP, Partners for Resilience, and the Resilience and Innovation Learning Hub to organize a knowledge exchange activity on contingency planning in the time of the pandemic. Partner local government units in the REACH areas of implementation, humanitarian organizations, and national government agencies were invited to the learning event.
REACH will be implemented until April 2021. Regular monitoring activities will continue to check on the progress of implementation and introduce adjustments as required by changes in the situation. As standard practice, an evaluation, that would also include a community audit and lessons learned workshop with stakeholders as inputs to the evaluation, will be conducted at the end of the REACH project.
PHOTO CREDIT ACCORD
2019
There is a favorable policy environment for IRM mainstreaming in the Philippines. In 2009, the Climate Change law (Republic Act 9729) was passed, followed a year later by the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management law (Republic Act 10121). Both laws mandate mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the national, sectoral, and local development plans within the government. In addition, there are numerous legislations related to ecosystem management and restoration that can be harmonized with DRR and CCA for a truly integrated risk management approach.
The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) which is responsible for strengthening local government capacity towards the effective delivery of basic services to the citizenry released in 2015 Memorandum Circular (MC) 2015-77 which provided guidelines on mainstreaming climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in local development planning. In 2016, the DILG issued another memorandum circular, MC 2016-102, providing additional guidelines on the preparation of local plans, specifically on mainstreaming thematic and sectoral concerns in the comprehensive development planning process, and the coherence and alignment of various plans. The relationship between the Comprehensive Development Plan and sectoral plans (including the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plans, and the Local Climate Change Action Plans); the alignment between provincial and city/municipal plans; and the coherence between a local government unit’s CDP and Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) were clarified.
The requisite of mainstreaming in long-term development, sectoral, and thematic plans can be realized by integrating DRR and CCA in the Rationalized Planning System (RPS) of local government units (LGUs), consistent with the Local Government Code. A Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC No. 001) issued by DILG and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on 19 October 2009 elaborates how mainstreaming in the RPS should take place. The circular instructs that both the result and process of preparing the CLUP and CDP must be harmonized. Mainstreaming can be achieved through integration of DRR and CCA in the process and result of the LGUs’ preparation of their comprehensive development plans. DILG further clarifies that mainstreaming DRR and CCA must be carried out through a process that is ecosystem-based, such as the ridge-to-reef approach.
Linking IRM with local government planning processes
MAINSTREAMING IN GOVERNMENT PLANS AND PROGRAMS
The rationalization of the planning system of LGUs was driven by the need “to put order to the present chaos that characterizes local planning in the Philippines. The chaotic condition owes in part to the persistence of pre- devolution practices and also the failure to implement to their full implications the Local Government Code (of 1991) provisions on local planning.” 7
Rationalization also aims to address the problem created by the 33 plans LGUs must formulate, as prescribed by national government agencies. By introducing the RPS, the number of plans LGUs must prepare will be reduced to the two comprehensive plans, the CDP and the CLUP. The sectoral and thematic plans required by national government agencies must be integrated into either the CLUP or CDP as appropriate, according to the local planning structure and structure featured by the RPS.
Another important feature of the RPS is that it aims to move planning away from the traditional technocratic form that assigns planning to the exclusive domain of experts and consultants. RPS promotes multi-stakeholder participation and consultation. Planning is no longer the responsibility of one office or a few individuals, but of a policy and problem-solving activity involving various departments and offices of the LGU, as well as other stakeholders that includes communities, people’s organizations, civil society organizations, academe, and the private sector. This change is reflected in the composition of the Local Development Council (LDC), sectoral committees, and other local committees. Processes are also simplified so that they can easily be understood by community members with no training nor experience in planning.
Why Rationalized Planning System?
7 DILG. Rationalizing the Planning System, A Source Book (First edition, 2008).
The planning process is given equal importance as having the actual plan or document. Important considerations include who will be involved in the planning and how the plan will be implemented. Implementation of the plan is expected to be easier if the proper process is followed. Planning is viewed from a system perspective.
LGU plans result in the combination of various parts of the local government planning system. The planning system has four components: (a) the planning structure, (b) mandated plans, (c) the planning process, and (d) the authority levers necessary for the LGUs to implement the plan. These parts of the planning system will be discussed further in the next sections of this handbook.
Why mainstream in the planning system?
2221
Planning in the municipal and component city level is the responsibility of the LGU. The planning system is therefore accordingly designed to the dual status of LGUs: as a political unit and as a corporate entity.
As a political unit, a “subdivision” of the national government, the LGU has powers to manage its territorial jurisdiction, including management and maintenance of ecological balance. As a corporate entity, the LGU is endowed with powers and resources necessary for its efficient and effective governance so that it can deliver basic services and facilities to enable its inhabitants to develop fully into self-reliant communities. Being a corporate body, every LGU is mandated to promote the general welfare of its inhabitants within its territorial jurisdiction.8
The DILG has noted challenges in the practice of mainstreaming in the RPS. These challenges need to be addressed in order to strengthen LGU planning, mainstream IRM (or ecosystem based DRR and CCA) in planning, and successfully implement the plan that will be formulated.
In the planning structure, it is noted that many LGUs have their respective Local Development Councils but there are no sectoral committees. These structures are also not inclusive, with membership not open to community representation. Most LGUs have their CLUPs, CDPs, Executive-Legislative Agenda (ELA), but without consideration of DRR and CCA. The Disaster Risk Reduction and Management structure is not permanent, and organized only based on project requirements.
In terms of capacities, reorientation towards the requirements of the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act is needed. LGUs lack manpower as well as financial resources to support DRR and CCA. There are dissimilarities in the appreciation and understanding of DRR and CCA, and the use of the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (LDRRMF). Application of knowledge on DRR and CCA in policies, practice and investments (budgets) is weak, and that knowledge on the range of applicable solutions to reduce disaster risk and increase resilience is limited.
Like LGUs, communities also have limited knowledge on DRR and CCA. Linkages and relationships between LGUs and communities are also weak.
8 DILG. Rationalizing the Planning System, A Source Book (First edition, 2008): ii.
The framework to guide LGUs as they mainstream thematic concerns, including DRR, CCA, gender, and disability inclusion to mention a few of the 33 themes, is provided by the DILG-Bureau of Local Government Development (DILG-BLGD). The framework identifies the entry points for mainstreaming as shown in Figure 2.1.9
The mainstreaming framework and the four components of the rationalized planning system closely resemble each other, albeit with an added emphasis on integrating DRR and CCA into existing databases. This emphasis on mainstreaming DRR and CCA in databases is no different from the project cycle management approach to mainstreaming, where premium is placed on the assessments and analyses that provide the sturdy foundation of the whole planning process and output.
The remaining entry points identified are the components of RPS: planning structure and process, documents (mandated plans), and authority levers. The entry points for mainstreaming in local planning is through integration of DRR and CCA into existing databases; incorporation in the current structure and planning process; translation into reviewable mandated documents, in particular the CLUP and the CDP; and in the provision of necessary authority levers.
Process of integrating IRM in the development plans of local government units
9 DILG-BLGD, Local Planning Illustrative Guide: Preparing and Updating the Comprehensive Development Plan (no date)
Figure 2.1 Mainstreaming Matrix of Thematic Concerns into the Local Planning Process SOURCE DILG-BLGD
Mainstreaming Matrix of Thematic Concerns into the Local Planning Process
Integrate into existing
Mainstreaming IRM in the local planning structure
The local planning structure consists of two components: the political and technical.
The political component comprises mainly of the Local Sanggunian (legislature) and the Local Development Council (LDC). These two bodies lay down policy guidelines and make decisions with regard to direction, character, and objectives of local development. They do these in their capacity as elected representatives of the people. The technical component, on the other hand, consists of non-elective officials of the LGU, heads of national agencies operating in the area, and non-government sectors. The Local Planning and Development Coordinator (LPDC) serves as the technical arm and head of the LDC Secretariat. In that capacity, the LPDC “coordinates” the different programs of the LGU departments and the national agencies operating locally. The LPDC also coordinates the different sectoral/functional committees that provide detailed inputs to the comprehensive multi-sectoral development plan and investment program.10
10 DILG, Rationalizing the Planning System, A Source Book (First edition, 2008): 2.
Political Component Technical Component
Composition:
• Local Planning and Development Office • Heads of LGU departments • Local Special Bodies • LDC Sectoral/Functional Committees • National Government Agency Office Chiefs in the locality • Private sector representatives
Functions:
Functions:
• Provides detailed information required by plans • Ensures that the correct planning process is followed • Members of the technical group are non-elective officials of the LGU, heads of national government agencies with offices in the LGU, and NGO representatives • The head of the Local Planning and Development Coordinator functions as Secretariat and coordinator of various committees
The IRM mainstreaming points in the planning structure are: • Sectoral committees that advocate DRR and CCA (LDRRMO,
MENRO, CSOs/POs) and for the concerns of vulnerable groups such as persons with disabilities, children, older people, women (DSWD, OSCA, GFPS, etc.), and indigenous peoples, among others, are properly represented in the planning structure.
• A disaster risk reduction and management office is functioning, with full-time staff that possess adequate DRR and CCA technical knowledge and skills.
• Members of both political and technical groups possess knowledge and adequate appreciation of DRR and CCA. Orientation on DRR and CCA and on mainstreaming can help increase knowledge on the subjects.
• Members of both political and technical groups understand their planning functions, and are capable and willing to help in preparing the plans.
Each LGU must create five sectoral committees: social, economic, physical/land use, environmental management, and institutional. Sectoral committees must be organized, and membership expanded to include community members coming from different sectors of society (government, private sector, academe, faith-based organizations, professionals, CBO representatives, etc.). This creates space for meaningful participation of the various sectors of society.
The functions of the sectoral committees include: • Collect data needed for the formulation of plans, programs, and
activities (PPAs); • Conduct studies and analyze collected data; • Articulate the objectives of the sector to establish targets and define
PPAs; • Conduct public consultations on the proposed PPAs; • Monitor programs and projects as well as conduct evaluation.
The DRR and CCA elements should be integrated in the various functions of the sector, from data/information collection and analysis, to formulation of objectives, targets and PPAs and monitoring, and implementation. This is the project cycle management approach to mainstreaming described in the earlier part of the handbook.
SOURCE Integrated Risk Management Training Manual, Module 4: Risk Reduction Planning
2625
The planning process of LGUs consist of: • Setting/Re-visiting the LGU vision • Analyzing the LGU situation • Determining the vision-reality gap • Setting sectoral goals, objectives and targets • Identifying PPAs and Legitimization • Investment Programming • Budgeting • Implementing the Plan • Monitoring and Evaluation
The whole planning process according to DILG is consultative, participatory, and inclusive. This ensures that vulnerable sectors are engaged in the process. The process, which is consistent with the budgeting calendar, ensures communities are able to take advantage of numerous opportunities for their participation in the planning.
In describing the LGU vision, the first step in formulating the plan, elements related to IRM can be incorporated. For example, descriptors such “ecologically balanced environment” and “resilient communities” can be included in describing how the future of a municipality or component city is envisioned. The current situation is compared with the vision. The aspiration to achieve the vision becomes policy.
The analysis of a municipality or city’s situation is contained in the ecological profile. This is the situation analysis that comes out of the assessments of problems, needs, and risks. All data from the five development sectors are consolidated and put in the LGU’s database, which also includes maps of existing and potential hazards. The Climate and Disaster Risk Assessment is the set of tools developed to assist LGUs undertake risk assessments that will be included in the ecological profile.11
The risk assessment facilitates the evaluation of disaster risks that pose threats to the municipality or component city’s population and environment. The situation analysis will be the basis of the disaster risk objectives that will form part of the plan.
From the situation analysis and the objectives set in the LGU vision, the vision- reality gap is determined. Policies will be formulated based on the identified
11 CARE and ACCORD are using a set of participatory risk assessment and analysis tools called the Integrated Toolbox (ITB). Climate change and ecosystem management elements are incorporated in the classical participatory tools used to assess and analyze natural hazards. The ITB is introduced to LGUs not to replace but to complement CDRA by providing options that will result to quality situation analysis and ecological profile.
gaps. The policies will be implemented through respective plans, programs and activities. Each of the five development sectors will make respective PPAs that will contribute to the attainment of set policies. It is essential that in the development of the PPAs, each sector will address the following questions:
• What measures can the sector undertake to reduce the identified risks? • How will the identified natural hazards, climate, and environmental risks
negatively impact the sector? What measures will be introduced to mitigate the impacts?
• Will the proposed PPAs create new vulnerabilities or exacerbate existing ones? What measures will be undertaken to ensure that PPAs “do no harm,” and ensure that no new vulnerabilities are made or existing ones are not exacerbated?
The final steps in the planning process include the formulation of the Local Development Investment Plan, preparing the budget, implementation, plus the monitoring and evaluation of the process to determine whether objectives were met through the implementation of the PPAs.
It must be emphasized that ecosystem-based DRR and CCA must be incorporated in every step of the planning process. Preparing an excellent ecological profile or situation analysis is the most important step. This will help ensure that succeeding situation analyses, formulated goals, policies, and PPAs will be relevant and appropriate to the situation and needs of the communities that comprise the municipality or component city. To guarantee that results from each step of the planning process are appropriate to the situation and needs of communities, participation in all steps of the process by vulnerable groups that include women, children, older people, persons with disabilities, is important.
Note the very strong similarity of the steps in preparing plans under RPS with the project cycle management approach to mainstreaming as presented in the first part of this handbook. The same steps are also followed in preparing contingency plans.
Mainstreaming IRM in the mandated plans
As outlined earlier, the RPS has reduced the number of plans LGUs must prepare to two plans: the CLUP and the CDP. Therefore, the 33 sectoral and thematic plans required by national government agencies must be integrated into either the CLUP or CDP as appropriate.
The CLUP and the CDP have bases in the Constitution as seen in Article XIII, Section 1 that states “…the State shall regulate acquisition, ownership, use
2827
and disposition of property, and its increments.” In relation to use of property, Article XII, Section 6 states that “property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands.”
The legal mandate of LGUs to prepare their respective CLUPs enacted through zoning ordinances is defined under Section 20 of the Local Government Code. The CLUP shall be the primary and dominant basis for the future of land resources, provided that the requirements for food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of such plans.
The CLUP has three identified functions: (a) it is the policy guide for the regulation of land use within the territory of the LGU; (b) it is the skeletal- circulatory framework for the physical development of the territory; and (c) it is the plan for the long-term management of the local territory.12
Policies on land use emanate from the CLUP such as policy on establishment of human settlements; policies on the protection and management of natural resources; policy on the type of production according to land classification; and policy on infrastructure that will be constructed within the territory.
As the skeletal-circulatory framework of the territory’s physical development, the CLUP identifies areas where development can and cannot be located to direct public and private investments accordingly.13
The CLUP designates areas that will remain protected, like rivers, forests, and mountains so that these can continue to provide ecosystem services needed by those inhabiting the area. It defines the areas assigned for human habitation, areas that are safe and fit for human settlements, areas where people can produce food and engage in economic activities and can further develop into industries and investments. The CLUP also includes planning for the infrastructure that would support the need to maintain the equitable allocation of the territory and its resources.
12 Kristine Follosco-Aspiras, The CLUP and the CDP: Nature and Functions (handout), Planning for Local Executives (School of Urban and Regional Planning, 17-21 September 2018). 13 DILG-BLGD, Local Planning Illustrative Guide, 1. 14 DILG-BLGD, 1.
SOURCE DILG-BLGD
CLUP CDP
“Comprehensive” embracing all development sectors and sub-sectors and concerns of each
Defines the policy direction for the use of land resources within territorial jurisdiction
Outlines specific application of the available land resources
Accounts for available supply of land resources Demand for land resources based on sectoral development goals
Has four (4) policy areas: production settlements, protection, and infrastructure
Covers five (5) development sectors: social, economic, physical, environmental, institutional
Diagrams the desired physical pattern of growth of the locality
Provide convergence mechanism to integrate NGA’s plans with local plans
Invariably takes a long time to carry out Short timeframe and should be used as a medium to implement the CLUP
Local equivalent or counterpart of the N/R/ PPFP
Must coincide with the MTPDP/MTPIP
The CDP, on the other hand, is the action plan utilized by every local administration to develop and implement priority sectoral and cross-sectoral programs and projects in the proper locations. Figuratively, it puts flesh on the skeleton gradually and incrementally, until the desired shape or form of development is attained over the long term. This is consistent with the definition of planning as “public control of the pattern of development”.14
The CDP likewise derives its legal mandate from the Local Government Code, which requires each LGU to have a comprehensive development plan to be initiated by its development council and approved by its Sanggunian (Sec 106).
The CDP functions as a guide to policies, programs, and other forms of intervention to promote the general welfare of all inhabitants in the LGU’s territory. The LGU needs to ensure and support the promotion of health and safety; enhancement of the right of the people to a balanced ecology; development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities; enhancement of economic prosperity and social justice; and promotion of full employment among residents, among others.
As a policy statement, the CDP demands involvement of public officials to facilitate multi-stakeholder participation. It also demands understanding of
3029
the planning process, and offers a consistent and stable guide for legislators, administrators, and courts. It provides guidance to the decision-making concerning investment funds in the annual budget, priority projects to implement, outcomes and impacts to monitor, and how the private sector can respond to interventions and policies from the local government.15
The CDP is comprehensive in the sense that it is multi-sectoral and embraces all development concerns of all sectors and subsectors, as well as all possible subject areas related to development within the LGU’s territorial jurisdiction.16 All possible matters pertaining to development planning are covered in specific sectors or a combination of sectors. This implies that all national government agencies that have plans requiring implementation by LGUs need to go through the LGU’s planning system, and incorporate said plans in the appropriate sector or sectors. In this instance, harmonization and rationalization is essential in order not to overburden LGUs in the implementation.
The CLUP Guidebook summarizes the benefits of mainstreaming ecosystem- based DRR and CCA in the long-term development plan, and as such “the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is an effective disaster risk reduction instrument which may at the same time result in climate change adaptation. It seeks to rationalize the allocation of land uses to reduce exposure of people, assets and economic activities; address vulnerabilities by providing safer places to live, sustain livelihood and ensure optimum productivity of natural resources through ecosystem-based management. Also, land use planning is a cost-effective and proactive approach in managing current and future risks considering the high costs of structural measures to address unplanned spatial development. Land use planning can also reduce hazard magnitudes by including ecosystem management approaches, such as rehabilitation of watersheds to minimize lowland flooding. Lastly, it serves as a framework to guide in the preparation of local level plans (CDP, LDIP, LDRRMP) to implement its DRR and CCA development agenda.”17
By integrating IRM in the CLUP, and closely following the process of mainstreaming in RPS, the subsequent task of mainstreaming in the CDP and other local level plans will already be half completed. The prescribed planning process, if adhered to, will result in plans that are aligned and harmonized. Integrating IRM in all five development sectors of the CDP completes the task of mainstreaming IRM in the mandated long-term development plans. It must be emphasized that integration of IRM in all development sectors must take place.
15 Follosco-Aspiras, The CLUP and the CDP. 16 Follosco-Aspiras, The CLUP and the CDP. 17 Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). CLUP Guidebook: Supplemental Guidelines on Mainstreaming Climate Change and Disaster Risks in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (HLURB, Climate Change Commission, United Nations Development Programme and Australian Government, 2015)
Incorporating the DRRMP and/or the LCCAP in only some sectors falls short of mainstreaming objectives. IRM must be integrated in all development sectors, implying the need for all sectors to work together to attain the risk reduction and resilience objectives as reflected in the LGU’s vision.
Figure 2.2: Relationship of the CLUP, CDP, Executive-Legislative Agenda and other implementation instruments. SOURCE DILG-BLGD
Multi-year, Multi-sectoral
Team Based Agenda Executive-Legislative Agenda (ELA)
Outcome • Change in Economic and Social Well-Being of constituents • Change in the configuration and quality of the physical environment • Change in local institutional capacities
Output • Improved Public Services • New or Improved Public Facilities or Infrastructure • Increased Public Awareness and Participation
• Increased Private sector investment in local, social and economic development
Implementation Instruments
Long-Term Framework Plan
Settlement Policies
Protection Policies
Production Policies
Infrastructure Policies
3231
The Rationalized Planning System prescribes that the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan and the Local Climate Change Action Plan, along with other sectoral and thematic plans, must be integrated into either the CLUP or CDP. More often they are integrated into the relatively shorter, six-year
Alignment and coherence of LDRRMP and LCCAP with CDP
CDP. Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation measures are integrated ideally into the CDP’s five development sectors.
The actual practice of mainstreaming, that at the same time ensures the alignment and coherence of the DRRMP and the LCCAP with the long term development plan, however, is often attended with difficulties. This despite DILG guidance that the DRRMP and the LCCAP must be “derivatives” of the CLUP and the CDP. In part, the difficulties are occasioned by the unsynchronized planning schedules. In other cases, the long-term development plans from where the LCCAP or the DRRMP will be derived are either non-existent or outdated. The DILG advises the reversal of the process in these instances. The DRRMPs and LCCAPs will become important inputs when the long-term development plans are finally formulated.
Fig 2.3 illustrates the linkages and alignments of key plans and planning activities, based on the mainstreaming practice of some local government units working with CARE and ACCORD. The Community Risk Assessment provides information inputs to the Contingency Plan, DRRM Plan and LCCAP. The same CRA becomes part of the Ecological Profile upon which long-term development plans are based.
Figure 2.3 Linkages of plans and key planning activities in the RPS
Ecological Profile Community Risk Assessment Contingency Plan
Social
Economic
Mainstreaming IRM in authority levers and tools for plan implementation
The fourth and final component of the RPS is focused on the measures the LGU will undertake to implement the plan. Examples of these measures are regulations, zoning ordinances, taxation, the LDIP, laws to protect and manage the environment and natural resources, programs being implemented by national government agencies, public and private incentives and investments, etc.
The integration of IRM in the authority levers or the means of implementation is especially important in reducing risks that threaten communities. A sample key result of the CLUP is a zoning ordinance. Mainstreaming IRM in zoning is important because it is long-term, and defines the measures for protecting the resource base that will support livelihoods within the territory. Zoning should also identify the areas safe for habitation, especially in the event where there is a need to expand areas for human settlement. High-risk areas will be identified as no-build zones, and appropriate measures will be strictly enforced.
Another means for supporting the implementation of plans is through taxation. For example, activities that result in the destruction of ecosystems or the environment can be penalized, which include levied fines, to strongly discourage further destructive activities. The collected payments can be used to support risk reduction actions. Implementation will not be limited to simple adherence to regulations. Implementation should be a recognized obligation by community members and other stakeholders, as well as the main duty-bearer (LGU) to support the attainment of plans with intended outcomes. A plan that has gone through the correct process with the full participation and engagement of the community and other stakeholders, will not be difficult to implement.
It is essential to closely study the measures for implementation so that it would not be contradictory to the set goals. With the correct means of implementation, compliance and acceptance of the obligations arising from a plan, as well as community ownership of the plan will not be difficult to achieve.
3433
The Contingency Plan is aligned with the DRRM Plan, in particular the plan’s response pillar. It is also harmonized with the LCCAP. Alignment and harmonization improves the effectiveness of the plans. Resource requirements of the Contingency Plan are also more assured by their incorporation into the term-based DRRMP and LCCAP. The duration of the DRRMPs and LCCAPs often coincide with the term of local public officials.
While originating from separate mandates, there is in fact an extensive overlap in the respective scopes of the DRRMP and the LCCAP. Thus, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act invariably refers DRR and CCA mainstreaming inseparably. This intersection between DRR and CCA creates the need for LGUs to ensure the harmony of the two thematic plans.
Finally, these two thematic plans are either derived from the CLUP or the CDP. In the absence of the CLUP or the CDP, the DRRMP and LCCAP become important inputs when the long term development plans are finally formulated.
REFERENCES
Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development (ACCORD) and CARE Nederland. From Disaster to Resilience: Building Back Better Communities through Humanitarian Actions (2018). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iCxkaAXTRw
Department of Interior and Local Government-Bureau of Local Government Development (DILG- BLGD). Local Planning Illustrative Guide: Preparing and Updating the Comprehensive Development Plan (no date) https://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/reports_resources/dilg-reports-resources- 2017110_298b91787e.pdf
CARE Nederland. Integrated Risk Management Explained (August 2017). https://www. carenederland.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CARE_Integrated-Risk-Management-explained.pdf
Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development (ACCORD) and CARE. Training Manual para sa Pagbabawas ng Risk at Pagpapalakas ng Resilience ng mga Komunidad, Vol. 1-4. (October 2020)
CARE Nederland. Strategy plan DRR CARE Nederland (May 2010)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Rationalizing the Planning System, A Source Book (First edition, 2008)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Memorandum Circular 2015-77 Guidelines on Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in Local Development Planning (21 July 2015)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Memorandum Circular 2016-102 Guidelines on the Preparation or Updating of Local Plans (8 August 2016)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Assessment of Comprehensive Development Plans for Component Cities and Municipalities (8 October 2018)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Guidelines on Updating of Land Use and Development Plans and Investment Programs (undated)
Follosco-Aspiras, Kristine. The CLUP and the CDP: Nature and Functions (handout). Planning for Local Executives (School of Urban and Regional Planning, 17-21 September 2018).
Hyogo Framework for Action. (UN/ISDR, 2005)
Department of Interior and Local Government, National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and Department of Finance (DOF). Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series 2007. Guidelines on Harmonization of Local Planning, Investment Programming, Revenue Administration, Budgeting and Expenditure Management (8 March 2007)
Partners for Resilience The Philippines. Achieving Disaster Risk Reduction by Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Ecosystem Management and Restoration - INTEGRATED TOOL BOX: Tools for Community Risk Assessments (Summary). (2015)
Tearfund. Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: a tool for development organizations (2005) http://www.unisdr.org/HFdialogue/download/tp2-Tearfund-Mainstreaming-drr.pdf
Wisner, Ben, Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon, and Ian Davis. At Risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Second edition (2003) https://www.preventionweb.net/files/670_72351.pdf