Rapid Assessment of the Social Impacts of of Tropical Storm Ondoy on Urban Poor Communities

7/29/2019 Rapid Assessment of the Social Impacts of of Tropical Storm Ondoy on Urban Poor Communities

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rapid-assessment-of-the-social-impacts-of-of-tropical-storm-ondoy-on-urban 1/76

RAPID ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF

TROPICAL STORM ONDOY ON URBAN POOR COMMUNITIES

Institute of Philippine Culture

School of Social Sciences, Loyola SchoolsAteneo de Manila University

July 2010



ii

Foreword

Tropical storm Ondoy devastated communities across Metro Manila in late September,

2009. Following the storm a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) was prepared by the

Government of the Philippines in partnership with the World Bank, UN agencies, other

international development partners and representatives of the private sector and civilsociety organizations.

As part of the PDNA a rapid Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was conducted in seven urban

poor communities in Metro Manila to document and analyze the effects of the storm. The

main findings of the rapid social impact assessment were immediately integrated in the

overall PDNA. (A separate assessment covering the impact of typhoon Pepeng was

conducted in rural areas.)

The longer report presented here on the social impacts of Ondoy provides more in-depth

analysis of the impacts, responses, and coping mechanisms used by urban poor

communities as they struggle to come to terms with the effects of the storm.

The report also discusses the methodological approach used in the SIA, including an annex

that provides details on the range of questions that were used during interviews with

residents of urban poor communities, their local government representatives, and other

stakeholders.

The report stands as a testament to the resilience of the women, men, and children who

faced the power of a mighty storm and who continue their efforts to rebuild their lives and

livelihoods. We can draw hope from their experience even as we reflect on the many

remaining challenges that require urgent attention.

Mary Racelis

Institute of Philippine Culture

Ateneo de Manila University



iii

Acknowledgments

The research team at the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) that prepared this rapid social

impact assessment (SIA) was led by Angela Desiree Aguirre (Project Director) and

comprised Henrietta Aguirre, Ophalle Alzona, Maria Cynthia Barriga, Dioscora Bolong, Kris

Paulette Caoyonan, Ma. Lina Diona, Patrick Dominador Falguera, S.J., Marianne Angela

Hermida, Bernadette Guillermo, Karen Anne Liao, Angelito Nunag, Gladys Ann Rabacal,

Anchristine Ulep, Jon Michael Villaseñor and Ana Teresa Yuson. Mary Racelis and Czarina

Saloma-Akpedonu participated in the study as consultants.

The IPC team would like to thank all the NGO-PO partners who participated in and

facilitated implementation of the study, and especially all the community members who

volunteered their time to share their experiences.

The team would also like to acknowledge staff from the World Bank’s social development

team in the Philippines who provided technical assistance to the research team, including

Andrew Parker, Patricia Fernandes, and Maria Loreto Padua.

Funding for the SIA was provided through the Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction as

part of its support for Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng: Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (2009),

which is available for download at pdf.ph.

The views and opinions expressed in the report are solely those of the research team from

the Institute of Philippine Culture.

Front cover – photo credits (clockwise from top left): Evangeline Pe, John Paul del Rosario, Nonie

Reyes, John Paul del Rosario

http://pdf.ph/

http://pdf.ph/

http://pdf.ph/

http://pdf.ph/



iv

Contents

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ iii

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................................. vii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Site Selection ................................................................................................................................................... ........................... 3

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Data Collection Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Data Collection Activities .................................................................................................................................................. .... 6

Initial site visits .............................................................................................................................................. ........................... 6

Profiling of FGD participants .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Focus group discussions ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

Key informant interviews..................................................................................................................................................... 6

Feedback sessions with the community and NGO-PO research partners....................................................... 6

Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

The Research Team.................................................................................................................................................. 8

The IPC Researchers ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

NGO-PO Research Partners ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Description of the Research Sites ...................................................................................................................... 8

Riverine Communities ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Lakeside Communities.................................................................................................. ....................................................... 13

Control Community ............................................................................................................................................................... 14

Changes in Livelihoods and Employment ................................................................................................... 15

Lost livelihood and the self-employed .......................................................................................................................... 16

Loss or suspension of jobs and the employed ........................................................................................................... 17

New livelihood opportunities ........................................................................................................................................... 17

Shifts in livelihood ................................................................................................................................................................. 18



v

Increased debt burden ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

Changes in everyday life ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

Responses to Changed Livelihood Outcomes............................................................................................. 19

Relief assistance ............................... ...................................................................................................................................... 19

Participating in cash for work schemes ....................................................................................................................... 20

Receiving support from family and the workplace ................................................................................................. 20

Borrowing .......................................................................................................................... ....................................................... 20

Saving more, consuming less ............................................................................................................................................ 21

Keeping the faith .............................. ...................................................................................................................................... 21

Children and youth at work ............................................................................................................................................. .. 21

Disruptions to Social Life and Mobilization of Social Relations ......................................................... 21

Displacement and disruptions in social life ........................................................ ....................................................... 21

Gender and intergenerational relations ...................................................................................................................... 22

Social support networks ..................................................................................................................................................... 24

Cracks in the collective conscience ................................................................................................................................ 25

Local Governance and Institutional Responses to the Calamity ........................................................ 25

Rescue and Evacuation ........................................................................................................................................................ 25

Relief Management ................................................................................................................................................................ 26

Recovery ................................................................................................ .................................................................................... 33

Resettlement ................................................................................................................................................... ......................... 34

Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 34

Insights and Recommendations from Communities .............................................................................................. 36

Summary Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 39

References ................................................................................................................................................................ 41

Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Annex A - NGO-PO Research Partners .......................................................................................................... 44

Annex B – Research Tools .................................................................................................................................. 45



vi

List of Tables, Boxes and Figures

Tables

Table 1 Research sites, by location and organizational arrangement ................................................................... 4

Table 2: Fieldwork schedule..................................................................................................................................................... 6

Table 3: Selected features of the research sitesa

........................................................................................................... 10Table 4: Changes observed in the employment/livelihood activities in KV1 ................................................... 17

Table 5: Key lending features ............................................................................................................................................... .. 18

Table 6: Forms of assistance provided by community groups and individuals .............................................. 27

Table 7: Forms of government assistance ........................................................................................................................ 30

Table 8: Community recommendations for disaster preparedness and prevention .................................... 36

Table 9: Community recommendations to improve relief operations of various groups........................... 39

Boxes

Box 1 Local History of Flooding .............................................................................................................................................. 8

Box 2: Daily living ............................................................................................................................................... ........................... 9

Box 3: Vending as a livelihood ............................................................................................................................................. .. 16

Box 4: Trauma from Ondoy ................................................................................................................................................... .. 17Box 5: Selling purified water .................................................................................................................................................. 18

Box 6: Taking out loans ............................................................................................................................................................. 18

Box 7: Relief Assistance in Camacho Phase II ................................................................................................................. 20

Box 8: Relief Assistance in Kasiglahan Village 1 ............................................................................................................ 20

Box 9: High prices of food ........................................................................................................................................................ 21

Box 10: Daily living at the evacuation center .................................................................................................................. 22

Box 11: Studying at the evacuation center ....................................................................................................................... 22

Box 12: Women to the rescue ................................................................................................................................................ 23

Box 13: Men doing domestic tasks ............................................................................................................. ......................... 24

Box 15: Neighbors embrace each other............................................................................................................................. 24

Box 15: Offering dry clothes ................................................................................................................................................. .. 24

Box 16: Seeking shelter during Ondoy ............................................................................................................................... 26

Box 17: The Filipino as aid recipient .................................................................................................................................. 29

Box 18: Arlene’s request for help ......................................................................................................................................... 38

Figures

Figure 1: Location of Research Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 4

http://c/Users/wb22244/AppData/Local/AppData/Local/Temp/notes96F07C/Final%20Report_Edited%2023%2003%202010.doc%23_Toc257204424







































vii

Acronyms

ADMU Ateneo de Manila University

BHW Barangay Health Worker

CARD Center for Agriculture and Development

CFC Couples for Christ

CFC-GK Couples for Christ-Gawad KalingaCIDSS Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services

CO Community organization

COM Community Organizers Multiversity

CP2HOA Camacho Phase II Homeowners’ Association

CSO Civil Society Organization

CWL Catholic Women’s League

DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government

DLSU De La Salle University

DOH Department of Health

DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GK Gawad Kalinga

GO Government OrganizationGRDC Goldenville Realty and Development Corporation

HH Household

HOA Homeowners’ Association

HUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council

HVG Highly Vulnerable Group

ICSI Institute on Church and Social Issues

INC Iglesia ni Cristo

IPC Institute of Philippine Culture

KAAKAP Kapatiran Asosasyon sa Kapiligan

KAHA Kapiligan Homeowners Association

KII key Informant Interview

KMBI Kabalikat para sa Maunlad na Buhay, Inc.

KMNA Kasiglahan Muslim Neighbors AssociationKUMRA Kasiglahan United Muslim Resettlement Association

KV1 Kasiglahan Village 1

LCE Local Chief Executive

LGU Local Government Unit

MFI Microfinance Institution

MCNA Marikina Couples Neighborhood Association

MLA Montalban Ladies Association

MLCE Municipal local Chief Executive

MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority

MMHA Mejia-Molave Homeowners Association

MRB Medium-Rise Building

MSO Marikina Settlements Office

NGA National Government AgencyNGO Non Governmental Organization

NHA National Housing Authority

NNA Nawasa Neighborhood Association

NOKRAI North Kapiligan Riverside Association Inc.

Pag-IBIG Pagtutulungan sa kinabukasan: Ikaw, Bangko, Industriya at Gobyerno



viii

PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment

PHA Pasig Health Aides

PhilSSA Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc.

PO People’s Organization

PSG Pasig Security Guards

PTA Parents-Teachers Association

PUJ Public Utility JeepneyRASYC Riverside Association of Senior and Youth Corporation

RIBANA Riverbanks Neighborhood Association

RTU Rizal Technological University

SAMAKAPA Samahang Maralita at Kapit-bisig sa Floodway, Maybunga, Pasig

SIA Social impact assessment

SK Sangguniang Kabataan

SNHA Samahang Nagkakaisang-Hanay Association

SNKF Samahan ng Kababaihan sa Floodway, Maybunga

SV 4 Southville 4

TESDA Technical Education and Skills Development Authority

TSPI Tulay sa Pag-unlad Inc.

TUPAD Tulong sa Panghanap-buhay sa Ating Disadvantaged Workers

UERMMMC University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical CenterULAP Ugnayang Lakas ng mga Apektadong Pamilya

UN United Nations

UP University of the Philippines

WB World Bank

WFM West Bank, Floodway, Maybunga

WFMNAI West Bank Floodway Maybunga Neighborhood Association, Inc.

YFC Youth for Christ



1

Executive Summary

Immediately after tropical storm Ondoy flooded large sections of Metro Manila and nearby

areas in September 2009, the Government of the Philippines carried out a Post-Disaster Needs

Assessment (PDNA) with the support of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery

(GFDRR), World Bank, UN agencies, numerous civil society organizations and academic

institutions. The PDNA included a rapid assessment of seven poor urban settlements in Metro

Manila, Laguna, and Rizal, which focused on the effects of Ondoy on the urban poor’s livelihoods

and employment, social relations, and on local governance. The study chose four riverine and

two lakeside communities that exemplified the situation in urban poor settlements affected by

Ondoy. Of the six, three were relocation sites (national government or local government

supported) while the other three were informal communities. In addition, a control site, not

directly affected by Ondoy (Marikina Heights), served as a reference point to enable the team to

better understand what social changes observed were more directly linked to the disaster. The

selection criteria tested the premise that among urban poor communities equally affected by

the storm, those having closer ties with government were more likely to have access to

resources to address their immediate welfare needs and advocate for their long-term interests.

The research employed qualitative research methods, primarily focus group discussions with

diverse groups of residents and key informant interviews with community leaders and highlyvulnerable individuals (including the elderly and the sick). These were supplemented by the

collection of secondary data, participant observation, and community walkthroughs. The initial

findings were validated through feedback sessions with the residents and NGO-PO research

partners.

A diverse mix of income-generating activities was observed in the research sites. Small

businesses and home-based livelihoods, particularly in the two lakeside communities (e.g.,

shoemaking, vegetable farming, fishing) suffered the most significant losses as a result of

Ondoy. Salaried workers, particularly those who were able to keep their jobs after Ondoy, were

the least affected as they are assured regular wages. The aftermath of Ondoy saw increased

employment opportunities for men in construction and automotive repair, as demand increased

associated with immediate recovery and reconstruction efforts.

Ondoy not only brought economic disruption but also changes in residents’ quality of life.

Purchasing power was reduced. This resulted in limited food availability at the household level

and in the lack of adequate nutrition. Some households coped with help from their immediate

family and from relatives living in the provinces or abroad. Some children and youth engaged in

pangangalakal (“buy and sell” of junk goods) or in scavenging for scrap materials. This wasdescribed as a means of helping their households to cope with reduced income. Some, usually

women, resorted to borrowing further from both formal and informal lending sources.

However, instead of financing productive activities, loans were diverted to cover basic

household needs, such as food, medicine, water, electricity, and school allowances.

The nature of livelihood challenges in the affected communities did not differ significantly fromthe one prevailing in the control site. This trend reflects the precarious nature of livelihoods in

poor urban areas. Irrespective of the impact of Ondoy, poor communities face serious economic

difficulties. The disaster was found to exacerbate these significantly. The coping strategies

observed, however, are those usually resorted to by the urban poor. These included reducing

consumption of basic items including food, taking on additional work where available, and



2

having more members of the household (including children) working, as well as incurring

further debt and relying on financial support from immediate family members.

Ondoy caught the communities in the sites visited unprepared. During the storm, residents

relied on their own families and relatives, friends, and neighbors for help with rescue. Residents

whose houses were flooded sought temporary shelter at evacuation centers often ill equipped

to handle large groups. Overcrowding, lack of electricity and water, locked washrooms, and

inadequate food were some of the complaints reported. Nevertheless, there were a number of instances observed of community solidarity and collaborative behavior as a result of Ondoy. For

example, youth (although unorganized) embraced new social responsibilities, helping to

remove debris, collect garbage, and repack and distribute relief goods.

Civil society mobilization and intra-community relationships were vital during the rescue

phase, and the immediate aftermath of Ondoy. Participants in the discussions reported that

Barangay officials were often unable to respond to community needs largely because they were

attending to the needs of their own families. In addition, officials reportedly did not receive

adequate training in disaster response. Barangays and to some extent the national authorities

were, however, active in the relief and early recovery phase that followed. In the communities

visited, there appeared to be no plans to provide longer-term assistance to affected families.

Most of residents participating in the discussions indicated no interest in leaving their present locations as they did not want to be displaced from their sources of livelihood and employment

and the social networks they established over the course of their stay in the community. A

combination of organizational factors (e.g., existence of well-organized groups within the

community) and geographical location (e.g., accessibility of the community to organizations

providing assistance) enabled riverine communities to cope better with the effects of Ondoy

than those in lakeside areas.

Residents attributed the flooding caused by Ondoy to a variety of factors, including the release

of water from dams, poor garbage management, inadequate drainage systems, poor

implementation of zoning and building laws, and the continued cutting of trees and reclaiming

of land to make way for subdivisions. Research participants across sites offered similar

proposals to prepare for and mitigate the possible impact of similar storms in the future. Most recommendations focused on introducing and/or implementing policies and programs on land

use and housing, protection of the environment, and disaster prevention, rescue, relief and

rehabilitation, and improving the capacities of local communities to respond to disasters.



3

Introduction

Immediately after Ondoy flooded large sections of Metro Manila and nearby areas in September

2009, a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) was carried out in partnership with

government institutions, the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), the

World Bank, the United Nations, civil society and academic institutions. In this context, the

Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) of Ateneo de Manila University was asked to design and

implement a rapid assessment of seven urban poor settlements in Metro Manila, Laguna, and

Rizal. The study aimed to collect qualitative data on the social dimensions of the tropical

storm’s impact on the urban poor that would complement the assessment of economic damagesand losses.

This report, presenting the results of the rapid assessment, consists of five sections. The first

outlines the objectives and methodology of the study. The second section presents the

situational profiles of the research sites which are categorized into formal and informal

settlements. The third section of the report examines the impact of tropical storm Ondoy on the

livelihoods and employment, social relations, and local governance structures in urban poor

communities. Recommendations and proposals from the communities for disaster

preparedness and relief management comprise the fourth section. The report then concludes

with the summary of the study’s main findings and a presentation of the researchers’ insights.

Objectives

The rapid assessment aimed to determine the effects of Ondoy on the everyday lives of the

urban poor in Metro Manila and surrounding areas. It focused on livelihoods and employment,

social relations, and local governance. Eliciting and listening to the views and feelings of the

urban poor, as well as their recommendations on how best to address their present situation

were crucial to achieving this objective. On the one hand, the data pertained to losses incurred

by communities. This included the loss of houses and belongings, loss of employment,

livelihood, and other assets, deaths, disabilities, illnesses, trauma, and disruption of social

bonds. On the other hand, the appraisal assessed how existing social structures worked during

the disaster and how resilient communities were. The ensuing resolve of various sectors to bebetter prepared for the next calamity offered a narrow window of opportunity to set in motion

processes toward recovery, rehabilitation, and development that recognize and consider the

voices of urban poor communities.

Site Selection

The World Bank and the IPC collaborated with the Community Organizers Multiversity (COM),

the Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PhilSSA) and the Institute on

Church and Social Issues (ICSI) to identify the study sites. The following were the site selection

criteria followed: (1) riverbank settlements; (2) Laguna Lake communities; (3) formal

(government-organized settlement/relocation communities) and informal settlements in the

locations mentioned above; and (4) a community that was not directly affected by Ondoy as the

control site (Table 1).

The selection criteria recognized that among urban poor communities, those directly located

along the shores of Laguna Lake and along the main rivers of Metro Manila and Rizal were the

most vulnerable to flooding. The selection criteria also tested the hypothesis that among urban

poor communities equally affected by the storm, those having close ties with local governments

or civil society organizations were more likely to have access to resources to address their



4

immediate welfare needs and to be better able to advocate for their long-term interests. The

control site served as a reference point to help identify the social changes in the six affected

communities that might directly be associated with Ondoy.

Table 1: Research sites, by location and organizational arrangement

LocationOrganizational arrangements

Formal InformalRiverine Kasiglahan Village 1 in Barangay San

Jose, Montalbana

Barangay Doña Imelda, Quezon City

Gawad Kalinga Camacho Phase II in

Barangay Nangka, Marikina Cityb

Barangay Maybunga, Pasig

Lakeside Southville 4 in Barangay Caingin and

Barangay Pooc, City of Sta. Rosa,

Lagunaa

Barangay Malaban, Biñan, Laguna

Non-flooded area Barangay Marikina Heights, Marikina (Control Group)c

aNational government resettlement site, bLocal government and private sector initiative resettlement site.cA mix of formal and informal settlers.

The study chose four riverine and two lakeside communities that exemplified the situation in

urban poor settlements affected by Ondoy (Figure 1). Of the six, three were relocation sites

(supported by national government or local government) while the other three were informal

communities. The first group, referred to in this study as formal communities, consisted of

Kasiglahan Village 1 or KV1 (Barangay San Jose, Rodriguez, Rizal), Southville 4 or SV4

(Barangay Pooc and Barangay Caingin, Sta. Rosa City, Laguna), and Gawad Kalinga (GK) 1

Camacho Phase II (Barangay Nangka, Marikina City). Barangay Doña Imelda in Quezon City,

Barangay Maybunga in Pasig City (West Bank, Floodway, Manggahan or WFM), and Barangay

Malaban in Biñan, Laguna comprised the informal settlements. The control community,

Barangay Marikina Heights in Marikina City, is a mix of formal and informal settlements

unaffected by Ondoy.

Methodology

The research team designed a qualitative study to ascertain the urban poor’s understanding of

their experiences of the disaster. The study recognizes that the responses and the consequences

of disaster on vulnerable individuals and groups will vary according to their social locations and

positions. It created an opportunity for these vulnerable groups to voice their own perspectives

of the event. Perceived by the community as timely and relevant, the study drew much interest

and cooperation from the residents who were still trying to make sense of their situation.

Data Collection Methods

The research employed qualitative research methods, primarily Focus Group Discussions (FGD)

with different groups from the community and key informant interviews (KII) with community

leaders and highly vulnerable individuals (including the elderly and the sick). Data from the

FGDs and KIIs were supplemented by the collection of secondary data, observation, and

community walkthroughs. The initial findings were validated during feedback sessions with the

residents and NGO-PO research partners (Annex A). Within the project’s limited preparation

time, a set of research instruments consisting of the FGD guide, KII guide, community profile

checklist, and FGD participant profiling tool was developed.2 The pre-test of the FGD guide

which was held in Barangay Payatas, Quezon City highlighted the need to prioritize topics



5

according to the type of FGD group. Key data sets that cut across topics could only be collected if

permitted by time during the two-hour FGD session. Thus, the FGD with individuals from

different occupational groups focused on collecting data on livelihoods and socioeconomic

adaptations. Assuming there was still enough time left, the researchers guided the FGD to a

discussion on social support networks (for the topic on social relations and cohesion) and relief

and recovery response from government, the community, and civil society (for the topic on

local governance). With community leaders, the FGD focused on local governance, followed by

questions on social support networks and life at the evacuation center, communityparticipation, and social accountability (for the topic on social relations and cohesion) and

coping strategies (for the topic on livelihoods and socioeconomic adaptations).

Figure 1: Location of Research Sites



6

Data Collection Activities

Given the need to generate results for inclusion in the PDNA report issued in mid-November

2009, the research team followed a very tight fieldwork schedule based on consultations with

partner-PO leaders and barangay officials (Table 2). Data collection was limited to one week,

with the researchers facilitating two FGD sessions in a day. In each site, four FGD sessions and

at least three key informant interviews were conducted. A community feedback session marked

the end of data collection in each of the areas visited.

Initial site visits

Initial visits to the sites enabled the researchers and their PO partners to orient barangay

officials and PO leaders about the study, finalize the research schedule, conduct informal

interviews with barangay and PO leaders, and gather secondary data (e.g., barangay profile, PO

profile). Community walkthroughs which allowed the researchers to observe everyday life in

the community and to take note of the communit y’s physical conditions were also conductedduring the initial phase of the study.

Profiling of FGD participants

The selection of FGD participants was aided by the use of a profiling tool which provided theresearcher with basic information on potential participants, including name, age, sex, education,

address, religion, number of children, source of family/household income, membership in any

community or barangay association, position or designation in the community or barangay

association. A primary consideration in making the final selection of participants was

representation from male and female community members across age groups, occupations, and

across all residential clusters (near and far from the community center). Care was also taken to

make sure that persons with disabilities were represented.

Focus group discussions

A total of twenty-eight FGD sessions, or four in each site were held, with four different groups

representing various livelihoods, women, youth, and community leaders. Discussions had an

average of seven participants, with women greatly outnumbering men. Inviting maleparticipants proved difficult given the timing of the sessions.

Key informant interviews

A total of twenty-five face-to-face interviews were conducted with representatives of the

barangay local government unit (LGU), community associations, and highly vulnerable groups

(as determined by the community) to provide depth to the FGD data. Among those who agreed

to be interviewed were barangay captains and kagawad (council members), and PO leaders.

Feedback sessions with the community and NGO-PO research partners

To validate the initial conclusions, the researchers facilitated on-site feedback sessions before

leaving the communities. Attendance ranged from 34 (Doña Imelda) to 310 (Malaban)participants. Sessions in non-Metro Manila sites registered a relatively higher attendance

(average of 237) than those Metro Manila sites (average of 49). The IPC also shared the initial

findings with its major research partner, COM, a month after their first meeting and shortly

before the submission of the final report. The meeting was attended by a CO trainer, two

community organizers, and thirteen PO leaders. The group confirmed the communities’observations and recommendations and provided additional information.



7

Table 2: Fieldwork schedule

Research

site

Oct 29 to Nov 4 Nov 5 Nov 6 Nov 7 Nov 8

Government relocation site

Camacho

Phase II,

Nangka,MarikinaCity

Courtesy calls to

municipal/city

officials, initialinterviews withbarangay and

community leaders,

selection/invitation/

confirmation of FGD

participants,collection of

secondary data,

research logistics,

some KIIs (BC in

Caingin; community

leader and HVI inCamacho Phase II)

KII BC FGD (Livelihoods,

Women)

FGD

(Leaders,

Youth)

Community

feedback

KV1, San

Jose,

Rodriguez

Profiling and

invitation of

FGD

participants

FGD (Livelihoods

KII (HVG, BC)

FGD

(Women,

Youth)

KII (PO)

FGD

(Leaders)

Community

feedback

Caingin,

Santa Rosa

FGD (Leaders,

Livelihoods,)Women

KII (HVG,PO, CO) FGD

(Youth)

Community

feedback

Informal settlement

Maybunga,Pasig City

Courtesy calls tomunicipal/city

officials, initial

interviews with

barangay and

community leaders,

selection/invitation/

confirmation of FGD

participants,

collection of

secondary data,

research logistics,

some KIIs (BC inMaybunga)

FGD (Leaders,Livelihoods)

KII (PO, HVG)

FGD (Women,Youth)

KII (HVG, Barangay

kagawad council

members)

Communityfeedback

Doña

Imelda,

Quezon City

FGD (Women,

Youth)

FGD (Livelihood,

Leaders)

KII (HGV,

PO, BC)

Community

feedback

Malaban,Biñan

FGD (Women,Youth)

FGD (Livelihood,Leaders)

KII (PO,BC)

Communityfeedback

KII (HVG)

Mix of formal and informal settlers

Marikina

Heights,

Marikina

City

Courtesy calls to

municipal/city

officials, initial

interviews with

barangay and

community leaders,selection/invitation/

confirmation of FGD

participants,

collection of

secondary data,research logistics

FGD (Leaders,

Women)

KII (HVG,BC)

FGD (Livelihoods)

FGD

(Youth)

KII (PO)

Community

feedback

FGD - focus group discussion; KII - key informant interview; HVG - highly vulnerable group (individual);

BC - barangay captain; PO - people’s organization; CO - community organization; GO - government; KV1 -

Kasiglahan Village 1.



8

Box 1: Local History of Flooding

Barangay Caingin, Barangay Pooc

According to people from Caingin and Pooc, the

location of Southville gets flooded almost every

six years during the months of September to

November. The first flooding they could

remember was in 1972, with Typhoon Dading.

The flood was chest-high near the lake andhead-high in the rice field, where Southville 4 is

now located. Floodwaters remained for two

months and people used boats to move around.Succeeding floods have occurred every decade

since the 1970s. At present, flooding occurs not

only because of typhoons but also due to

monsoon rains.

Barangay San Jose, Montalban

In 1929, Wawa Dam broke and water swelled inthe Marikina River, leaving San Jose

depopulated. Flooding occurred again in 1934

and 2004. In 1934, residents transferred toother areas. Despite these previousexperiences, community leaders and residents

did not take precaution. Unprepared, more than

two thousand families in KVI were affected

during Ondoy’s onslaught.

Limitations of the Study

Because of time limitations and its nature as a qualitative study, the rapid assessment does not

provide estimates of the affected population in terms of age, sex, or geographic cluster/area. It

is also unable provide data on the number of households or families temporarily or

permanently displaced, staying in other locations, or still in flooded areas, as no such data were

collected or made available by the relevant organizations (e.g., barangay LGU, NGOs).

The Research Team

The IPC Researchers

The research team was composed of seven field teams, each with a researcher and a

documenter, to cover the seven study sites. The researchers served as key informant

interviewers and FGD facilitators. They also analyzed the results of the FGDs, key informant

interviews, and observation notes, and prepared the site reports. The documenters prepared

the notes and the full transcript of the FGDs.3

NGO-PO Research Partners

An important element of the rapid assessment was the IPC’s collaboration with NGO and POpartners which provided the necessary links and facilitated the activities of the research teams

in the communities. In five of seven sites, COM 2

provided assistance to the research team. An initial

meeting which was attended by a CO trainer, three

COM community organizers, and twelve PO leaders

representing the study sites allowed the partners

to discuss the research design, plan initial site

visits, and agree on a schedule for data collection.3

During data gathering, the researchers received

support from Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

officials, mostly women, who guided them duringwalkthroughs, helped identify FGD participants,

and served as respondents themselves. The NGO-

PO research partners, in addition to providing field

support, commented on the draft report at a

meeting convened by the IPC on 28 November

2009. Findings were validated, analyses refined,

and recommendations strengthened through this

discussion.

Description of the Research Sites

The profiles below selected physical, demographic,economic and organizational features of the

research sites that would help explain why there

are similarities and differences in how Ondoy

affected urban poor communities (Table 3). Of the

six affected communities, four have a history of

flooding (Box 1).



9

Riverine Communities

West Bank, Floodway, Barangay Maybunga, Pasig City. Barangay Maybunga is home to

many informal settlements along the banks of the Manggahan Floodway. One of these is West

Bank, Floodway, Manggahan (WFM), which has an estimated population of 23,000 or around

4,400 families. Some 2,011 families among them were still in flooded locations when the

appraisal was conducted.

Even prior to Ondoy, limited livelihood and income generating opportunities were key issues

for the community. The men were employed mainly as wage workers in construction projects

and manufacturing companies in the metropolis. Some were engaged in ambulant vending and

driving public vehicles, such as tricycles and jeepneys. Whether formally employed or working

from home, many women take on part-time employment at manufacturing firms, tending of

sari-sari (variety) stores, food vending, “buying and selling” schemes, dress and crafts making,

and micro-lending. Although regarded as a secondary source of income, what they earn from

informal work augments the household income significantly.

There is a prevailing divide among the various POs in WFM and the LGU in their position on the

issue security of tenure. The Samahang Maralita at Kapit-bisig sa Floodway, Maybunga, Pasig

(SAMAKAPA), which is allied with the Pasig LGU, is amenable to relocation, specifically to a

medium-rise building (MRB) complex in Maybunga. In contrast, the West Bank Floodway

Maybunga Neighborhood Association, Inc. (WFMNAI), which is affiliated with COM, favors on-

site development of their existing community.

Barangay Doña Imelda, Quezon City. Part of District IV

in Quezon City, Barangay Doña Imelda, occupies the land

that stretches from Eulogio Rodriguez Avenue to Aurora

Boulevard. It is a community of 17,647 residents whose

informal housing structures are located on the riverbank

along Rodriguez Avenue, an area vulnerable to flooding

(Box 2). It contrasts sharply from the remaining parts of

the district and their more affluent households.

The informal settlers in the San Juan River vicinity are

found in eight areas, namely, 29 Kapiligan, 42 Kapiligan,

48 Kapiligan, 81 Kapiligan, 100 Kapiligan, 164 Kapiligan,

186 Kapiligan, and Araneta Extension. In each area, a

neighborhood association, also regarded as a homeowners’ association, is formed to further the

interests of the residents. They work in close collaboration with the barangay, city government,

non-governmental and civil society organizations with regard livelihoods and issues such as

security of tenure and eviction.

Men in the community, whether adult or young, are generally employed as security guards,

janitors, construction workers, masons, helpers, carpenters, drivers, bartenders, and sales staff.

Women are generally engaged in small businesses often owning kiosks that are located either inthe first floor of their houses or along the sidewalks. Here, a variety of goods are sold from

candies and toiletries to rice, cooked meals, barbecued meat, bibingka (rice cake) and

bananacue (skewered bananas coated in caramelized sugar). Other residents peddle pirated

DVDs and cigarettes while some, especially younger women, work as salespeople in the nearby

malls.

Box 2: Daily living

Ang baha dito sa amin ay normal na.Karaniwan na ‘yung mababa sa tuhod

ang tubig-baha. Tumaas lang ng konti

ang tubig sa ilog dahil high tide, lubog na

rin kaagad ang bahay namin. (Flooding

has become normal here. Flood that is

below the knee is a common sight. If the

water in the river rises because of hightides, our house immediately gets

flooded, too.) – GINA, 40 YEARS OLD, LIVES UNDER

THE BRIDGE



10

Table 3: Selected features of the research sitesa

Barangay Sources of incomeCommunity

organizationsDemographics

Functionaldisaster,

emergency, orrescue programs

or teams

Riverine Formal Settlements

San Jose, Rodriguez,

Rizal (Phases 1C and

1D, KV1)b, c

Small-scale business

Transport services

(jeepneys, tricycles,

pedicab)

Aircon repair/

maintenance, automotive

Laundry services

Work in beauty parlors

Government/ LGU

employment (utility

workers, street cleaners,

security guards)

Private sector

employment (factory

workers, househelp)

Action Group HOAs

(in all seven

phases)

KMNA

Citizens Crime

Watch

PTA

Parish Social

Services

Montalban Ladies

Association

280,786 residents

Barangay

emergency/ rescue

team

Nangka, Marikina

Cityd (Gawad Kalinga

[GK] Camacho Phase

II)

Sari-sari store

Construction work

Private sector

employment (factory

workers [shoemakers],

gasoline station

attendants)

NNA

CP2CHOA

287 families in GK

Camacho Phase II

Barangay disaster

and management

program and

brigade

Riverine Informal settlements

Doña Imelda, Quezon

City

(29 Kapiligan,

42 Kapiligan,

48 Kapiligan,

81 Kapiligan,

100 Kapiligan,

164 Kapiligan,

186 Kapiligan,

Araneta Extension)

Selling food and non-food

items, direct selling

Scavenging, construction

work (unskilled/semi

skilled laborers, masons,

carpenters), employment

as domestic helpers,

drivers,

Bartending, LGU

employment (street

cleaners), private sector

employment (salesladies,

security guards, janitors)

HOA in each of the

eight areas

ULAP

17,647 residents

Four to five

families in a

household

Average of four

persons per family

16-20 occupants

per shanty or

dwelling unit

No disaster

response team in

place, in the

recollection of

residents

Maybunga, Pasig City

(West Bank,

Floodway,

Manggahan or WFM)

Ambulant vending, buy

and sell

Dress and crafts making

Direct selling

Micro lending

Transport services

(jeepneys and tricycles)

Wage workers in

construction projects

Employees in

manufacturing companies

(full/part time)

SAMAKAPA

WFMNAI

SNKF

23,000 or around

4,400 families in

WFM

Fire and rescue

response team



11

Barangay Sources of incomeCommunity

organizationsDemographics

Functionaldisaster,

emergency, orrescue programs

or teams

Lakeside Formal Settlements

Pooc and Caingin, City

of Santa Rosac (SV4)

Laundry services

Transport services

(including trolley, a form

of rail transport)

Vending

Pataya sa jueteng

(informal lottery)

Farming and fishing

Collecting junk

Employment in

government and private

sector (e.g., factory in

Techno Park)

HOA

Angat Kababaihan

Anak ng Sta. Rosa

4,686 families in

SV4

No data

Lakeside Informal Settlements

Malaban, Biñan,

Laguna (Barangay

Malaban)

Shoemaking

Transport services

(tricycles and jeepneys)

Market labourers

Vending

Fishing (fish pen

operators or small

fishermen)

Vegetable farming

Sulong Kababaihan

ng Malaban,

Malayang Samahan

Kagawad Biñan,

Batang

Manggagawa ng

Malaban

PTA

CWL

FOCC

As of 2008:

41, 404 residents

8,281 households

with an average of

5 to 6 members

3-4 families

comprising a

household, in

some cases

No functional

barangay

emergency or

rescue team in

place, in the

recollection of

residents

Control Site (Riverine)

Marikina Heights,

Marikina Cityc

Food vending (barbecue,

packed snacks; sari-sari

stores

Laundry services

Regular or contractualemployment (drivers,

laboratory workers,

construction workers)

48 HOAs, including

the following three

HOAs in the focus

areas:

Mejia-MolaveHomeowners’Association,

Samahang

Nagkakaisang-

Hanay Association

Marikina Couples

Neighbourhood

Association

440 to 450 people

in 92 households

in the three HOAs

200 people in 40households

200 people in 42

households

4 to 5 members in

each of the 10

households

No data

aData largely obtained from the individual site reports.bItems in parentheses refer to the focus area or site of the rapid assessment in the barangay.cNational government resettlement site.dLocal government resettlement site.



12

A number of residents are also involved in direct selling of cosmetic products (e.g., Avon and

Natasha products). Sewing rugs and dolls, or scavenging (for scrap material) within the

community and nearby areas are other common occupations. Inhabitants often turn to formal

lending agencies such as ASA Foundation, Pag-asa, and Tulay sa Pag-unlad Inc. (TSPI); informal

lenders, and relatives from the province and abroad for financial assistance in paying debts,

meeting everyday household needs and financing small businesses (such as kiosks). It is very

unlikely to see someone here who has not incurred any debt.

Kasiglahan Village 1, San Jose, Rodríguez, Rizal. San Jose has a long history of flooding.

Kasiglahan Village 1, popularly known as KV1, was unprepared for Ondoy with more than 2,000

families affected by the tropical storm. KV1 is a resettlement project of the Philippine

government’s National Housing Authority (NHA). It was initially intended for families affectedby the Pasig River Rehabilitation Program. Over time, however, it also served as a resettlement

site for the families displaced by fire, trash slides,4 and government infrastructure projects. Only

less than half (40 percent) of the households originally relocated remain in the area. A greater

number have sold their property or property rights, rented out their units, or transferred to

other places. Because of its distant location from the barangay center, a barangay extension

office known as Barangay Annex B was set up in KV1. Other offices set up by the barangay in the

area are the emergency rescue team, waste management office, and an ecological solid

management committee.

Community-based organizations and local associations present in the area include the Action

Group,5 Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) in its seven phases, Kasiglahan Muslim Neighbors

Association (KMNA), Citizens Crime Watch, Parents-Teachers Association, and Parish Social

Services. Except for the Parish Social Services, these local organizations coordinate with the

barangay. A majority of the barangay officials and staff belong to these groups.

The residents derive their income from various sources, including working for the municipal

and barangay government and the private sector within or outside Rodriguez, engaging in

small-scale business (e.g., sari-sari stores), selling perishable and non-perishable items, driving

transport vehicles (e.g., pedicab/padyak [foot-pedaled tricycles], tricycles, public utility

jeepneys, taxis), and providing services such as appliance repair and maintenance, automotiverepair, running beauty parlours, and doing the laundry for other households.

Camacho Phase II, Nangka, Marikina City. Camacho Phase II, located just beside the Nangka

River, is in Barangay Nangka in the City of Marikina. Many of the inhabitants reside in row of

two-story houses divided by concrete pavements. The settlement began as a housing project of

the Marikina Settlements Office (MSO) in 2001. Under the supervision of the MSO, informal

settlers in the barangays of Calumpang, San Roque, Sto. Niño, and Parang were organized and

resettled in Balubad. Balubad has been the main contributing factor in Nangka’s changingdemographics. It was designated by the city government, through the MSO, as the formal

relocation site for its evicted informal settlers.6 The resettled communities became known as

NHA Balubad, New Balubad Settlement Site, Camacho, and Bayabas. This was part of the Mr.

Bayani Fernando’s vision of Marikina as a “squatter-free city” when he became mayor in theearly 1990s. At present, the Balubad population (3,014 families) comprises a third of the

barangay’s total population, according to the latest data from the Barangay Office. This number

includes the 287 families (mostly relocated from Tañong, Sto. Niño, Marikina Heights, and

Parang) that comprise Camacho Phase-II.

Gawad Kalinga adopted Camacho Phase II in 2004, when forty families from an informal

settlement in Provident Village in Tañong, Marikina relocated to Camacho. Organized under the



13

Nawasa Neighborhood Association (NNA), these families sought the help of GK for their housing

needs. Since 2005, GK has facilitated the building of two-story houses for about sixty

households, which include not only the forty NNA families but also about twenty other families.

GK, under its sweat equity program, plans to help continue this initiative of building and

renovating two hundred houses.

Before Ondoy struck the community, there was little interaction among the forty NNA families

and most of Camacho Phase II residents. Although NNA and the Camacho Phase II CommunityHomeowners’ Association (CP2CHOA) are civil to each other, many in the Camacho Phase II

community are wary of NNA families. In contrast, interactiona between GK and the MSO, and

between CP2CHOA and the local barangay, have been very positive as demonstrated by their

cooperative efforts whenever GK implements livelihood programs in the community.

Lakeside Communities

Southville 4, Barangay Pooc-Barangay Caingin, City of Santa Rosa. Southville 4 (SV4),7 is a

six-phase 70-hectare government relocation site located between the barangays of Caingin and

Pooc in the city of Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Construction has been completed in five of the six sites,

with housing in the first three blocks (or Phases) already occupied. The biggest in terms of the

number of settlers is Phase 1 (situated in Caingin), while the largest in terms of land area are

Phases 2 to 6 (found in Pooc). A young community of diverse origins and backgrounds, SV4 is

presently made up of 4,686 families, more than half of which came from the informal settlement

along the railways in Sta. Rosa. They were the first to be settled in March 2008.

SV4 is a typical resettlement area where settlers seem to have a difficult time adjusting to one

another. Groups of settlers tend to socialize based on their former places of residence. For

instance, households originally from Taguig or Sta. Rosa would tend to remain together. Their

old neighbors in their former residences are also their neighbors in SV4. While this behavior

increases intra-group unity, it tends to encourage divisions within the community. Hence, there

is little sense of cohesiveness in SV4, and limited integration of SV4 with the surrounding

neighborhood. A concrete wall separates SV4 from the rest of Caingin, symbolizing the divide

between the “insiders” (SV4 settlers) and “outsiders” (residents outside SV4). In a way, SV4 has

taken the characteristics of a private village, especially since there is a gate bounding SV4 from

the rest of Caingin. Having their own infrastructure inside the community likewise projects an

image of an exclusive settlement managed by the HOA.

When the settlers moved to SV4, they tried to find means to earn a living in formal and informal

work settings. Men took on casual employment in construction work, while some were

employed on a regular basis as drivers and machinists in nearby towns. Those who are not

employed in salaried jobs drive pedicabs or work in electrical or scrap material shops and food

stalls. A number of them go as far as Manila to collect scrap material. Women have salaried jobs

(e.g., service crew in Laguna Techno Park, an industrial zone located in Sta. Rosa, Laguna) or

provide laundry services or do domestic work in households outside SV4. Many are also

engaged in small enterprises, such as tending variety stores and selling cooked food. Despite

having regular income-earning activities, some women believe they were better-off in their

former settlements, where livelihood opportunities such as vegetable farming and livestock

rearing (pigs) were plenty. They reported that in their former settlements, they had enough

money for their daily subsistence. The nearby Techno Park provides jobs to young men and

women who work as integrated circuit (IC) technicians. Some have likewise received free

training from the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). However,



14

participation in the training is limited to a certain number of participants and not everyone who

completed the training is able to find a job.

Credit opportunities abound in SV4. Most of those who have small enterprises borrow from

“lending” organizations and “5-6.”8 Those who cannot access credit, such as the elderly and

those with irregular employment, turn to their neighbors, who also charge interest for loans.

SV4 is under the jurisdiction of two barangays, Caingin and Pooc, an arrangement that createsdifficulties in the delivery of basic services as it is unclear which barangay is responsible for

what services. The NHA-supervised HOA manages SV4. It consists of twelve elected officials

drawn from the roster of thirty-five leaders, with each leader representing a residential cluster

of one hundred households. SV4 has its own set of barangay tanod (community police, all of

which are men) and barangay health workers (BHWs, all women).

Malaban, Biñan, Laguna. Malaban is one of the densely populated barangays in Biñan. In 2008,

it had 41,404 residents in 8,281 households, with each household having an average of five to

six members. In some cases, as many as three to four families share a housing unit. It has one

health center, an elementary school, a high school and seven pre-schools and day care centers.

Shoemaking is the primary occupation of the residents. When cheaper footwear from China hit

the Philippine market, the demand for Biñan-made footwear lessened. Shoemakers then

focused on making slippers, and workers in shoe factories shifted to other occupations, such as

driving tricycles, doing construction work, helping out in the wet market, and lakeside fishing.

Others (both men and women) tried their luck abroad as contract workers. Some households

rely on vegetable farming along the side of the lake. Women usually sell the produce in Biñan

market. Still a number of residents, usually men, go to the municipality of Liliw, considered “the

slippers capital of the Philippines”, to work as “maglalapat ” (shoe factory workers). Those whoengage in fishing are either “ pante” (fish pen) operators or hook -and-line fishers.

Because it has an extensive wet market that carries wholesale offers of meat, vegetable and fish

products, Biñan is able to attract buyers and traders from nearby Sta. Rosa City and the town of

San Pedro. Consequently, selling meat, vegetables and fish products, providing market labor,

and driving transport public vehicles have become the main occupations for the people of

Malaban. As a result, more and more families have sought to establish residence in the barangay

as renters or informal settlers. Likewise, the number of people selling vegetables and fish and

operating sari-sari stores has ballooned. Barangay officials are reportedly only present during

barangay meetings and required official functions. According to the residents they have not

been very active in carrying out their tasks in the barangay. POs come and go, especially in Zone

7. Often short-lived, these POs are either created because a project is being implemented in the

barangay or because membership in a PO is a requisite for accessing loans. These projects

mostly focus on medical assistance, especially for children. Other POs assist in the social

immersion activities in marginalized communities that Metro Manila-based colleges and

universities organize for their students.

Control Community

Marikina Heights, Marikina City. Barangay Marikina Heights was established in April 1978

through a Presidential Decree signed by then President Ferdinand Marcos. The natural high

terrain of the land and its structure made it a likely choice for a control group in this rapid

assessment. The only area in the barangay that was briefly flooded was a small portion of

Champaca at Apitong Street which is situated near the creek. To date, there are seven purok

(sub-villages) in the barangay with a population of almost forty-eight thousand individuals in



15

about eight thousand households. The barangay’s elevated land area of 325 hectares is now

being used for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes. The Homeowners’ Associations

(HOAs) now total 48.9 Facilities in the area include fourteen private schools and two public

schools.

The study focused on three HOAs found along Ipil Street, Purok 1, of Barangay Marikina

Heights. Representing a total of ninety-two households with an average of four to five members

each, they are Samahang Nagkakaisang-Hanay Homeowners Association (SNHA), Mejia-MolaveHomeowners Association (MMHA) and Marikina Couples Neighbourhood Association (MCNA).

The MMHA covers two hundred individuals in forty households, of which twenty-six are

members of Gawad Kalinga (GK). Members of GK tended to have houses built with better

quality materials, when compared to those of non-members.

The SNHA covers around two hundred individuals in forty-two households who would soon

have ownership of their land through direct purchase. The leaders of the association are

actively pursuing and facilitating the settling of the land title. The MCNA is the smallest of the

three associations in the barangay. It has only ten households. Half of the members have

decided to continue paying the owner of the land while the other half have stopped, believing

that the direct purchasing scheme is in fact fraudulent.

In most households, both parents are working, whether on a self-employment, regular or

contractual basis. Men are usually employed in construction projects, while women typically

own small business ventures, (sari-sari stores and barbecue stalls). Some women also offer

laundry and ironing services for nearby households. A number of teenagers who are high school

graduates or college undergraduates have stopped schooling to help supplement the family

income. Most of them are employed in laboratories and companies in nearby cities, such as

Pasig.

Changes in Livelihoods and Employment

A diverse mix of income-earning activities was observed in the research sites. The decision to

engage in particular forms of livelihood and employment depends on the opportunities orresources available on-site and in nearby areas. This is true for all sites, whether the community

was affected by Ondoy (such as Camacho Phase II) or not (such as Marikina Heights). Most

residents draw income from small-scale home-based livelihood and employment in government

and private firms. Small-scale, home-based commercial businesses include sari-sari (variety)

stores, food vending, and direct selling. Some of the residents make a living by driving public

utility vehicles, doing air-conditioning or automotives repair and maintenance, washing or

ironing clothes for other households, or operating beauty parlors. Others are construction

workers, masons, domestic or market helpers, carpenters, or drivers. Fishing and vegetable

farming are also found to be sources of income in lakeside areas.

In most of the study sites, a number of residents were employed by the local government as

utility workers, street cleaners, or watchmen (in the case of KV1) or in the private sector ascontractual workers in factories, manufacturing plants and construction projects, or as gasoline

station attendants, salesladies, drivers, or janitors. In SV4, the youth are employed in an

industrial park as technicians or members of utility and food services crew.

Despite not having been directly affected by the tropical storm, residents in Marikina Heights

did mention the effects of Ondoy on their sources of income. On the one hand, customers were

often victims of Ondoy and were unable to pay their debts. Participants in the discussions



16

pointed out that customers could not be forced to settle their debts, considering the losses they

had incurred. In affected areas, drivers of public utility vehicles had to stop working for

approximately a week, since their usual routes were not passable due to the flood. An FGD

participant reported not being able to resume her sewing business, as her sewing machine was

submerged in water and was still at the repair shop. Other income opportunities, however,

emerged. Some young men were hired by Tzu Chi Foundation, a Taiwanese faith-based NGO, to

clean houses in affected communities. Some residents have also found alternative sources of

income, such as selling snacks and vitamins to their neighbors and nearby communities.

Lost livelihood and the self-employed

Small businesses and home-based livelihoods, particularly in the two lakeside communities

(e.g., shoemaking, vegetable farming, and fishing) suffered severe losses as a result of Ondoy.

Other affected livelihoods were the “buy and sell” business, sari-sari (variety) stores, eateries,

food stalls or ambulant selling/kiosks, and livestock rearing (pigs). The flood caused by

continuous heavy rains destroyed or washed out critical resources, including physical

structures, construction equipment, working capital, raw

materials, stocks and goods (Box 3). Those in the rug-

making business, for instance, could not take advantage of

the high demand for rugs after Ondoy due to the loss of rawmaterials. Debts remained unpaid, as goods or services

were not translated into sales. Ambulant street vendors in

WFM lost their carts. Even sari-sari store owners unaffected

by the flood incurred losses, as they could not compete with

the influx of relief goods.

In Malaban (Biñan, Laguna), those making slippers lost their

homes, which also served as their workshops. Some

shoemakers turned their rooftops into workshops. But even

as operations continued for them, sales were low as

potential customers spent whatever money they had on

immediate needs. Vegetable farms were flooded, affectingthe daily subsistence and livelihood of (mostly) female

vegetable vendors. Fisher-folk were slightly better-off, as

Ondoy brought about a large fish harvest. However, these gains were short-lived, as the waters

turned murky after a few days. Those providing services (such as driving public utility vehicles)

could not carry on with their usual economic activities, as there was no or low consumer

demand. A female resident in Maybunga (Pasig) shared that her husband, who operated a “tri-

bike” school service, lost a week’s income when classes were cancelled.

Changes in livelihood outcomes due to reduced/lost income is the common sentiment of those

engaged in “buy and sell” activities in KV1 (Table 4). For example, a slipper vendor who used to

earn PhP500 to PhP700 daily, or PhP15,000 to PhP21,000 monthly, tended to earn PhP1,800 to

PhP2,400 monthly in the aftermath of Ondoy. To supplement her household income, she beganaccepting laundry work which enabled her to earn an additional PhP2,000 per month.

Box 3: Vending as a livelihood

Ang hanapbuhay ko po ay nagtitinda ngDVD, mga salamin, charger sa bangketa . . .

naanod po lahat. ‘Yung mga paninda ko,

‘yung lamesa ko inanod. ‘Yung mga tinda ko

na mga charger, mga DVD, utang pa yun saASA, hindi ko pa nababayaran ‘yun. (I sell

DVD, mirrors, chargers on the sidewalk for

a living. The flood wiped out my

merchandise and my table. [The capital for]the goods that I sell, such as chargers and

DVDs, was just a loan from ASA [lending

agency]. I have yet to pay that loan.) – MARIA, 32 YEARS OLD, DOÑA IMELDA



17

Table 4: Changes observed in the employment/livelihood activities in KV1

Before Ondoy After Ondoy

Livelihood/ Employment Income (PhP) Livelihood/ Employment Income (PhP)

Vending slippers (outside

KV1)

500–700/day

(15,000– 21,000/mo)

Vending Slippers (outside

KV1)

150–200/day for three

days a week (1,800–2,400/month)

Laundry (outside KV1) 500/day for one day aweek (2,000/month)

Rug/bag making 200/week Rug/Bag making 200/week

Local employee (day care

worker)

5,000/month Local employee (day care

worker)

Payment delayed for 1.5

months, as parents could

not pay day care center

fees

Domestic helper 2,500/month Garlic/black pepper

repacking and vending

150/day

Loss or suspension of jobs and the employed

Salaried workers, particularly those who had been able to keep their jobs after Ondoy, were

relatively less affected as they were assured regular wages. However, their income wasinsufficient to cover the costs of recovery. There were, however, instances observed during

fieldwork where salaried workers had also lost their jobs. In some cases, employers ceased

operations temporarily or permanently, such as the shoemaking or sewing businesses in

Marikina and factories in Rizal. In other cases, prolonged absences from work (for construction

workers, domestic workers, and gasoline station attendants, for example) after Ondoy resulted

in job losses. Some of the participants in the

discussions had been unable to report for work due to

the increase in transport fares. The floods in Caingin

(Sta. Rosa), for instance, made the roads impassable.

Commuters had therefore to allocate almost a third of

their daily wages to cover transportation costs

(PhP100, up from PhP34). In addition, a number of theresidents cited trauma as the reason for not attending

work. Participants reported not wanting to leave for

work when it rained, for example (Box 4). No work

meant no pay and hence no income and food for the

family.

New livelihood opportunities

The aftermath of Ondoy saw increased employment opportunities for men in the construction

and automotive sectors, as the demand for house and car repair increased. Drivers of tricycles,

jeepneys or pedicab, who had been unable to make their usual trips because of the floods,

adapted to the situation by providing transport, oftentimes by improvised boats, to passengerswho did not want to wade in the water, collecting PhP50 as fee. They also built makeshift

bridges for which they also charged a user’s fee. Some also offered cleaning services to better

off neighbors in Doña Imelda (Quezon City), receiving PhP100 for each house cleaned, enough

to buy a day’s meals. The huge volume of junk/scrap material brought more income to peoplewho do pangangalakal (“buy and sell”) and scavenging. Scavengers are believed to have

generated higher earnings per day, at PhP1,000 than water transport operators, who earned

Box 4: Trauma from Ondoy

Pag-umuulan sasabihin, “Mama, alis tayo.”

(When it rains, she would say, “Mama let’s

leave.”) – WAWA, 9 YEARS OLD, KV1

Ayoko pong mamatay (I don’t want to die) –

JUDY, 5 YEARS OLD, KV1

Kapag mag-isa ako, umiiyak ako. Tapos ito ay

nangangatal. Bakit ganon? (When I amalone, I cry. Then this [pointing to her jaw]

shakes. Why is it like that?) – NANA PURING, 65

YEARS OLD, SV4



18

Box 5: Selling purified water

Malaki ang pagbabago, parang naging times

two , kasi yung tubig na business malakas.

Pero po tindahan ko, hindi po. Sabi ko sa

kanila iinom kayo diyan, ang dumi baka

madisgrasya pa kayo. Eh di bumibili sila sa

akin ng tubig. (There was a great change [in

the business], [the profit] seemed to have

doubled. It was because the water businessbecame stronger, but not my store [variety

store]. I told the people about the danger of

drinking contaminated water. So they boughtwater from me.) – ELSA, 43 YEARS OLD, DOÑA

IMELDA

approximately PhP300-PhP400. The higher demand for

purified drinking water also doubled the income of sellers,

partly compensating for the loss of sari-sari store profits

(Box 5).

Shifts in livelihood

In Marikina Heights, residents were forced to find otherwork when the shoemaking business closed or slowed

down in the past year – before Ondoy. Most of those who

had lost their jobs put up their own small enterprises.

Some residents also took on multiple jobs or livelihood

activities, resulting in longer working hours. Those

engaged in vending, for instance, also did laundry work

once a week. There were a number of residents in these

areas who traded during the day and worked as

watchmen at night. Similarly, in the communities affected

by Ondoy, those unable to return to their old jobs or businesses ventured into new ones. Some

examples of these transitions observed during field work were, shifting from farming to being a

market helper or from shoemaking to being a tricycle driver.

Increased debt burden

A trend across all research sites was the increasing debt burden among the residents,

particularly women. A vicious debt cycle was apparent. Difficulties in repaying existing loans

led to difficulties in accessing new loans from microfinance institutions (MFIs). Without new

loans (and without recovery assistance), those engaged in livelihood activities will be unable to

re-establish their businesses and earn income to settle their outstanding obligations. If this

remains unaddressed, the economic and social impact of

Ondoy on community life can be expected to continue in

the long term.

Even before Ondoy, procuring loans from formal andinformal sources to finance small enterprises had been a

common practice in all of the communities visited (Table

5). The women usually obtain loans from MFIs, with

interest rates ranging from 10 to 15 percent. They make

weekly repayments for six months. Others seek out

informal lending sources, including “5-6” moneylenders,who are easily accessible but charge higher interest rates

and collect repayments every day for thirty to forty days

(Box 6). The residents reported that they did not have

difficulty paying debts before Ondoy.

The effects of the storm have indeed disrupted and altered the livelihood of the residents.Lacking working capital for their business or resources to purchase a new stock of

merchandise, or having no harvest from their damaged fish pens and vegetable farms, people

do not have the income they normally use to repay debts. Compounding these difficulties is the

need to repair houses and provide for basic needs. Apparent in all sites was the concern about

how debts will be settled and livelihood activities re-established while leaving enough money

for basic household needs. The likely implications of this debt cycle could be profound. Debts

are likely to rise. There is a significant probability that residents engaged in livelihood activities

Box 6: Taking out loans

Kung wala ka talagang makukuhanan ng pera,

sa Bombay ka uutang. Pero kung ako maypera, hindi ako uutang sa Bombay kasi

magkano ang interes? Malaki, tapos uutang

ka na, kailangan mo pa bumili sa kanila ngmga items nila. (If you have no one to borrow

money from, you go to the “5-6”. But if I have

money, I will not borrow money from them.

Aside from the fact that the interest is high,

you are compelled to buy items from them.)

– NIDA, 40 YEARS OLD, 42 KAPILIGAN



19

will be unable to obtain further credit and that community economies will remain depressed

and employment opportunities reduced. The research team considered that higher levels of

migration out of these communities in search of employment or alternative livelihoods would

be a possible scenario.

Table 5: Key lending features

Lending features MFIs (formal lending) Other typesa Informal lending (5-6)

Program requirements MFI requirements

(social/client

investigation, training,

group meetings)

Business proposal None

Terms

Loan amount PhP3,000 –PhP5,000

(first cycle) b

PhP10,000 Starts at PhP1,000

Interest rate 10-15% 0% 10-20% (depending on

amount and payment

schedule)

Amortizationscheme

Weekly for six months Daily (30–40 days,depending on

agreement)

Forced savings Amount depending on

MFI

Others With 1-2 months’

moratorium (Biñan)

Purchase of

merchandise required

from borrower

Collateral (Sta. Rosa)aRepresentative Mar De Guzman’s “Roll a Business” project in Marikina Heights (control site). bMFI borrowers have to complete payments for first-cycle loans before they can avail themselves of the

second loan cycle.

Changes in everyday life

The economic disruptions brought by Ondoy also involved changes in the quality of life in the

six affected communities. Purchasing power was reduced, resulting in limited food availability

at the household level and lack of adequate nutrition. The residents had to cope with the loss of

household assets, depriving them of the comforts they used to have. Some household heads

took on multiple livelihood activities or jobs that lengthened their working hours, which also

meant less time spent with family.

Responses to Changed Livelihood Outcomes

Relief assistanceRelief and recovery assistance reached all the affected sites, albeit with varying levels of

efficiency. Support came from a wide range of providers, including government (national and

local levels), private sector, local and international NGOs, religious organizations, schools, and

private groups and individuals. Except for SV4, all sites received numerous types and varying

levels of relief aid (Box 7 and Box 8). Relief goods helped meet the residents’ immediate needsfor approximately a after Ondoy. They mostly consisted of food (e.g., canned goods, usually



20

Box 7: Relief Assistance in Camacho Phase II

GK assistance:

Food

Clothes

Blankets

Slippers

School supplies

Cleaning materials and equipment (e.g., soap,wash basins, shovels)

Medical missions (including medicines)

Free use of washing machine (limited to 5kilograms of load per family)

Tzu Chi Foundation’s “Cleaning Work for Pay”

benefited 210 of 287 households. With the

income they derived from participating in this

initiative, the residents were able to store up to a

month’s supply of food and purchase some

kitchen wares.

sardines, noodles, and rice), bottled water, clothing, cleaning equipment and non-food items,

such as blankets and towels, as well as school supplies. Health assistance was also provided in

some of the areas visited.

Participating in cash for work schemes

While the bulk of the relief provided was in-kind,

there were two instances of cash assistance observedin the study sites. Immediately after Ondoy, Tzu Chi

Foundation and the Quezon City government offered

cash for work schemes to residents of Camacho Phase

II and Doña Imelda, respectively. In Camacho Phase II,

Tzu Chi Foundation’s “Cleaning Work for Pay,”allowed residents to earn extra money (PhP400) per

day per person, which some used to purchase lost

kitchen wares. A family of five earned PhP2,000 a day,

or PhP14,000 per week. The Quezon City

government’s “Tulong sa Panghanapbuhay sa Ating

Disadvantaged Workers” (TUPAD) scheme generated

income for Doña Imelda residents (initially onlywomen but later also men) in the amount of PhP272

for a day’s work. The program lasted three days andbenefited fifteen street cleaners who were chosen by

the community leaders among those most in need of

financial assistance.

Receiving support from family and the workplace

Some households received support from the

immediate family and relatives living in the province

or abroad, both in kind (rice, temporary shelter) and

cash (remittances). Some of the interviewed salaried

workers had been given cash assistance by theiremployers.

Borrowing

A general coping mechanism among urban poor

households is borrowing. In the control site (Marikina

Heights), in spite of a minimal civil society presence

one source of financial support that women often rely

on is microfinance groups. Kabalikat para sa Maunlad

na Buhay , Inc. (KMBI) is the more prominent one and

is easily recalled by the respondents. It is the women

who, perhaps due to their traditional role in managinghousehold resources, seek out and obtain loans. To

make ends meet, residents from the affected

communities resorted to borrowing money from

formal and informal lending sources. However,

instead of financing productive activities, in the aftermath of Ondoy, loans were diverted to

cover basic household needs, such as food, medicine, water, electricity, and school allowances.

Box 8: Relief Assistance in Kasiglahan Village 1

Salvation Army Relief Assistance provided each

household member with a relief sack containing

10 kilos of rice, canned goods, one mat, one

blanket, one 5-liter bottled water, and one bottleof antiseptic.

“There are six of us in the household so we

received 60 kilos of rice, assorted canned goods,six mats, six blankets, six 5-liter bottled water and

six bottles of Betadine. The relief assistance will

provide enough food for my family for a month. Idon’t have to worry where to get money for my

family’s food needs. I have shared some of these

relief goods with my neighbors. Thanks to

Salvation Army.” – ATO, 54

“Each SA relief pack was based on humanitarian

standards that would allow each householdmember to cope with the emergency situationthey are in for a number of days or weeks.” –

BERING, 63



21

Saving more, consuming less

Even before Ondoy, residents in the control site

(Marikina Heights) reported cutting down on certain

household expenses, usually modifying the type of food

they eat and at times eating only noodles and rice .

Given the increase in the prices of food and their very

tight budget, households in the affected communitiesinstituted additional measures such as asking children

to bring food instead of cash to school, reducing school

allowances, and reducing food portions for lunch and

dinner (Box 9). Some women also reported reducing

their own share of the food so that other members of

the household would have more to eat.

Keeping the faith

With GK and other faith-based groups working in Camacho Phase II and a portion of Marikina

Heights, residents reported that a strong and constant relationship with God helped see them

through life’s difficulties. Thus, faith and prayers played a significant role in the recovery

process. Participants in the discussions in this sites reported that religious belief strengthened

their resolve to survive and not lose hope.

Children and youth at work

In Marikina Heights, out of school youth, usually college undergraduates worked in laboratories

and research companies to help in the household expenses. Children and youth were also found

to engage in pangangalakal (“buy and sell” of junk goods) or scavenging. A similar situation wasobserved in SV4 and Maybunga, were some children (mostly boys) collected scrap material as a

means of supplementing family income before Ondoy. The significant volume of junk material

generated by Ondoy was associated with younger children being observed to engage

pangangalakal probably for the first time. Parents also appeared more eager to have young

people (aged 17 years and above) find work. Graduating college students who were unable toregister for the second semester felt they had to find a job to save for their own tuition.

Disruptions to Social Life and Mobilization of Social Relations

The mediations of social capital, defined as the “features of social organization such as

networks, norms, … trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”

(Putnam 1993, 35ff) are central to the recovery of individual households and communities. The

rapid assessment thus examined forms of displacement and disruptions in social life, changes in

gender and intergenerational relationships, and the mobilization of social support networks

within and outside of the communities.

Displacement and disruptions in social life

In the six affected sites, residents were evacuated to temporary shelters at the height of the

storm. With few exceptions families managed to remain together after Ondoy notwithstanding

the overnight or extended stay at evacuation centers. Immediately after the storm, family

members reunited to clean their houses and restore normalcy to their lives. In Doña Imelda,

those who moved to nearby high-rise buildings or shelters returned to their homes the

following day as soon as the water subsided. The same situation was reported in Camacho

Box 9: High prices of food

Kasi dati nakakabili kami ng limang pisong

talbos ng kamote, ngayon sampung piso na.

Ngayon talaga mas mahirap kasi mas mahal.

Dati nakakatikim kami ng baboy, ngayon,wala na. (Before, we could still afford to buy

a stalk of sweet potato leaves for PhP5, but

now, it costs PhP10. Life is harder now

because of the high prices of commodities.

Before, we could still eat pork, but notanymore now.) – FLORY, 59 YEARS OLD, DOÑA

IMELDA



22

Phase II. Families who stayed in neighboring houses went home once the water receded. In

KV1, the evacuees returned to their homes the morning after the storm.

To make it easier to clean their houses, parents in Camacho Phase II sent their younger children

(babies and toddlers) to live with their relatives in other barangays of Marikina or towns

outside the city. To aid in their healing process,

a number of children were also reported to

have stayed temporarily with relatives in theprovinces. Such arrangements were, however,

not observed in the other study sites. In

Malaban, as the flood took longer to subside,

the families were distributed to various

locations: evacuation centers (school buildings,

concrete bridge); houses of relatives, friends,

or employers; or houses for rent. With women

and children at the evacuation centers, the men

were the first to return home or to begin

looking for work.

Adjusting to the uncomfortable conditions at the evacuation center was challenging for the

residents. Participants in the discussions

reported increased expenditures on food

(because they prepared separate meals at

home and at the evacuation centers) and

transportation (because they shuttled between

their homes and the evacuation center). In

addition, they had to queue to fetch water.

They could not do what they normally did at

home and had to be careful not to offend or

disturb the other evacuees (Box 10).

Participants in the discussion also reported

fearing that conflicts might arise, and there

were reports of disagreements about

neighbors being noisy, for example. Children

attending school had difficulties studying at

night (Box 11), while women reported feeling

uneasy about the lack of privacy and wary of

potential sexual harassment.1012

Gender and intergenerational relations

The aftermath of Ondoy further added to the

burden typically carried by women. At the

height of Ondoy, all able-bodied persons (male,

female; adult, young) in the affected sites

performed the demanding task of rescuing

people, belongings, and important documents.

In households where the men were away at

work, women took charge of rescuing family

Box 10: Daily living at the evacuation center

Malaki po. Nung andun po kami [sa aming bahay] lahat

magagawa mo, magpatugtog ka walang magagalit. Eh

diyan po hindi po pwede dahil natutulog ang mga bata. So

makikisama ka din sa mga ibang nakatira, para hindi kayo

mag-away. Hindi ka makakilos ng maayos, hindi ka

kumportable di katulad ng sa amin. (There is a big

difference between living at home and at the evacuation

center. At home you can do whatever you want. You can

play music without annoying anyone. There [at the

evacuation center], this is not allowed because thechildren are sleeping. You have to get along with the

other evacuees to avoid any fight. You are not

comfortable, unlike when you are at home.) – JOVEN, 19

YEARS OLD, MALABAN

Box 11: Studying at the evacuation center

Mahirap ho sa evacuation center kasi ho katulad ko

estudyante, nag-aaral, siyempre po bago pumasok saschool maliligo po muna . . . eh nagigising po ako mga 4 ng

madaling araw dahil po sa poso, igiban po ng tubig eh

pipila pa ho kayo bago ka makaligo kaya po minsan po late

na po ko nakakapasok.’Yung nasa amin po ako, halimbawa

may quiz kinaumagahan, nakakapag-aral po ako. Peronung dito po hindi na po ako makapag-aral ng maayos,

tulad po kanina eh periodical test hindi po ako nakapag-

aral kagabi dahil nga po mahirap ang tubig eh ako po ang

panganay so mag-iipon pa po ako ng tubig eh konti lang

ho balde namin. Kaya ho yung time ng pag-re-review kopinalit ko po sa pag-iimbak ng tubig, kesa naman po

kami’y mawalan ng tubig. (It is hard at the evacuation

center for students like me. Of course, before you go to

school, you have to take a bath. I have to wake up at 4:00a.m. to line up by the artesian well to draw water for

bathing, so sometimes I am late for school. When I was at

home, if there was a quiz in the morning, I could study thenight before. Here, I could not really study. Like earlier,we had a periodical test, I was not able to study last night

because I had to fetch and stock water because we only

had a few pails, and I am the eldest. Instead of reviewing,I fetched and stocked water; otherwise, we would nothave enough water to use.) – JOLAS, 15 YEARS OLD, MALABAN



23

members, especially children, elderly, and the sick (Box 12). In Maybunga, after the tropical

storm, women were also the ones lining up to receive relief goods. Men, nonetheless, helped in

cleaning and repairing their houses. But as they resumed work, women had the responsibility

for fixing the house. This added to their usual tasks of maintaining the home, budgeting, and

dealing with community concerns, as well as

working to augment the family income. Similarly,

in Doña Imelda, the women were the ones who

led at the height of the tropical storm, in theabsence of men. Following the immediate

aftermath it was still the women who decided on

matters concerning rehabilitation and

reconstruction. Understandably, they were in

charge of budgeting and knew the immediate

needs of their families and homes. Men were

reportedly primarily concerned with providing

the necessary income to meet the family’s dailyneeds.

Constrained by a tight family budget, there was

greater urgency for women to work or restart orengage in a small business or livelihood. In

Maybunga, the women engaged in a number of

additional jobs (informal work). For instance,

one woman compensated the slow sales of her

sari-sari store by selling cosmetic products.

There were also women, who took on jobs as

domestic helpers in well-off households within

the city. In both formal (Camacho Phase II, KV1)

and informal settlements (Maybunga, Doña

Imelda), the aftermath of Ondoy saw women

taking on additional family responsibilities. Women, responsible for daily household chores,

simultaneously undertook productive activities, such as small trading (e.g., operating sari-sari stores, vending, and rug/bag making), to add to their husbands’ income.

While Ondoy may have exacerbated the economic burden on women, it nevertheless brought

some temporary respite from the gender and generational division of labor within the

household. After Ondoy, women had more clothes to wash and cleaning up to do. Performing

household chores was harder, as they had often lost their appliances due to the flood. Because

of the extent of the damage brought by Ondoy, everyone in the family, regardless of gender and

age, generally took part in cleaning the house and in preparing meals. In Camacho Phase II,

house chores, such as cooking, doing the laundry, cleaning, and caring for the children, were no

longer deemed exclusively women’s tasks. In Malaban, women and men had to “make do withwhat the situation dictates.” Some young women rowed boats to fetch water from a well located

far from their residence. In Doña Imelda and WFM, men and women helped in washing dirtyclothes and cleaning the area surrounding their homes (Box 13). Older girls fetched water, and

young men learned how to cook rice and take care of younger siblings. Women, children, and

the elderly lined up to receive relief goods. There was also a greater desire by youth to find jobs

in order to help the family.

Box 12: Women to the rescue

Kapag nandyan na, kailangan magligtas ka, wala ngbaba-babae. Usually pag ordinaryong araw, yungmga washing machine, ref, lalaki ang nagbubuhat.

Nung araw na ‘yun ang babae kahit gano kabigat,

binubuhat niya. Wala silang pakialam basta maisalba

nila yung gamit nila kasi syempre pinundar nila ‘yun.

Isa pa, usually pag maghuhugas ng pinggan at

maglalaba babae lang, e sa kapal ba naman ng putik

na dumapo sa damit, hindi po kakayanin ng mga

babae. Kaya pati tatay, lolo at lola tulong-tulong sa

paglalaba. (If it’s there already, you ought to save

[lives], [there’s+ no female *issue+. On ordinary days,

men lift washing machines and refrigerators. But on

that [stormy] day, women, were doing the lifting, no

matter how heavy. They did not mind as long as they

were able to save their belongings which they had

worked hard for. One more thing, usually, if it’s

washing plates and doing the laundry, *that’s+ female

[work]. But because of the huge amount of mud that

stuck to the clothes, the women could not do italone. That is why even fathers, grandfathers and

grandmothers help in doing the laundry.) – CHARI, 18

YEARS OLD, DOÑA IMELDA



24

In Camacho Phase II, the chance to contribute to the household’s income through Tzu Chi

Foundation’s cash for work scheme boosted the

youths’ role in the family. Having helped save elderly

family members and younger siblings, as well as

neighbors, during the storm, young people felt more

responsible and confident in taking on bigger and

more tasks and responsibilities within and outside

the home.

However, the collective action that took place in the

aftermath of Ondoy generally did not extend to the

needs of children. Children’s places of play (e.g.,basketball court, park) in WFM, for instance,

remained flooded or muddied. The concerns of this age group were not on the priority list of

formal or informal community organizations.

Social support networks

Family members and relatives. Many of those affected by Ondoy received help in cleaning up

their houses from relatives and friends living within Metro Manila. In hard-hit Camacho Phase

II, families placed their babies and toddlers in the care of relatives for about two weeks, or until

their houses were clean. Relatives (in the Philippines and abroad) sent remittances and goods,

such as food, medicines, and money for school

allowances. A woman from WFM shared that she

requested a share of the production of her family’s

small farm in the Visayas. In a household in Doña

Imelda, financial help from relatives abroad and in

the province, which was originally intended as seed

money to restart a business, was reallocated for

hospitalization and basic necessities such as food.

Neighborhood support. At the height of Ondoy, there

were a number of instances of community solidarity

and collaborative behavior reported (Box 14 and

Box 15). Differences were set aside as community

members found themselves sharing cramped spaces

and food in temporary shelters. Parents looked after

each other’s children in evacuation centers. In

addition to taking on domestic chores, the youth

(although unorganized) helped remove debris,

collect garbage, and repack and distribute relief

goods. Community sharing of resources, such as

food and sleeping quarters (taking turns in

sleeping), extended to cover rehabilitation activities.In Maybunga (Pasig City), residents built makeshift

bridges and wooden walkways in each flooded

pasilyo (alley). They continued to work together in

maintaining these temporary structures.

Box 13: Men doing domestic tasks

Nung bumaba na ‘yung baha, sabi ng nanay ko,

“Tutal ikaw naman ang nandyan gawin mo na

lahat.”Ang ginawa ko naglaba ako ng damit,

tapos naghugas ng plato at nagsaing. (After theflood subsided, my mother told me, “Since you’re

there, you might as well do everything.” I did the

laundry, then washed the dishes and cookedrice.) – FELIX, 21 YEARS OLD, 48 DOÑA IMELDA

Box 15: Neighbors embrace each other

Praise the Lord talaga. Five years na kaming di

nag-iimikan ng kapitbahay ko. Nung bagyong

Ondoy, nagyakapan kami, di namin alam . . . na

kami na pala ‘yun . . . dahil sa bagyong Ondoy.

(Praise the Lord really. For five years, my

neighbor and I had not been talking to each

other. At the height of Ondoy, we embraced. . .we were surprised to learn we were embracing

each other . . . all because of typhoon Ondoy.) –

MERCY, 57, DOÑA IMELDA

Box 14: Offering dry clothes

Marami akong kapitbahay na hindi ako

kinakausap, pero nung time na yun basta

tumulong ako. Pagdating nila sa taas, walangdamit, papahiramin ko sila, maski kausapin mo

ako o hindi, heto damit, magbihis ka kasi basa ka.

(I have neighbors who do not talk to me, but

during that time, I just helped them. When theyarrived in my house, with no [dry] clothes I

offered them dry clothes. Whether you talk to

me or not, here’s a set of clothes, put it on

because you’re wet.) – ZENY, 38, DOÑA IMELDA



25

Cracks in the collective conscience

There were a number of examples of collaborative behaviour noted during rescue operations

and the immediate aftermath of the storm. However, FGD participants also reported instances

of theft and inequitable distribution of relief. At the height of Ondoy, family members, mostly

men took considerable risks to stay behind and guard their homes. In KV1 (Rodriguez, Rizal),

FGD participants who were residents of two flooded areas (Phases 1B and 1D) cited instances

of sari-sari stores and unoccupied homes being robbed. In SV4, there were allegations that onlythose close to the community leaders had been able to benefit from the relief assistance. A

similar concern was noted in Doña Imelda, where most residents perceived some favoritism in

the distribution of relief, with only those close to the barangay officials and pook (community)

leaders reportedly receiving help.

Local Governance and Institutional Responses to the Calamity

In this rapid assessment, governance is viewed as both process and context in which individuals

and groups take ownership or control of the management of social networks, information

sharing and other activities that enable and empower them to manage community resources

and needs (adapted from Chong 2004). In particular, the study examined the processes and

contexts of rescue relief and rehabilitation. The local government unit is the main actor in localgovernance. However, organized community groups also contribute to governing a locality.

Rescue and Evacuation

The flooding caused by Ondoy caught communities by surprise, even if in many of the study

areas, flooding and storm warnings are normal and part of everyday life. Lakeside communities

are in fact recurrently flooded, as monsoon rains also bring moderate seasonal flooding.

Believing that Ondoy was hardly threatening, since the flood warning issued was “Signal No. 1”,most residents went about their usual weekend activities, going to work, attending church or

sleeping in late. During the height of the storm, community residents, barangay officials among

them, relied on their own families and relatives, friends, neighbors, and, to some extent, HOA

leaders, to rescue them from the flood. After securing their families, the block leaders in SV4

managed to bring the sick to the hospital. In KV1, the Action Group was able to borrow private

vehicles to evacuate the residents. A female PO leader in KV1 stated that the residents’ claim

that they relied on each other, as “. . . government was not there to help us. It was only us inside[referring to KV1]. Nobody asked [for help], what happened was instant volunteerism . . .”

FGD participants and key informants reported that no systematic rescue operation was carried

out in any of their communities. One reason given was that the barangay officials had

themselves been victims of the flood. They had to secure their families and belongings before

dealing with the needs of other community members. Although three sites – the formal

settlements of Nangka and San Jose and the informal settlement in Maybunga – reported having

emergency rescue teams in place, these were not adequately mobilized to respond to the

disaster. In Nangka, the unprecedented speed and height of the flood prevented the barangay

disaster brigade from giving adequate support. Stranded by the floods, barangay officials

admitted feeling helpless as they monitored the situation from the barangay hall. Only in two

informal communities (Malaban, Doña Imelda) and one formal settlement (SV4) did barangay

officials manage to issue storm warnings which, for the residents, came too late. Using a

megaphone, two barangay councillors (kagawad ) of Malaban went around the flooded area on a

motorcycle, asking residents to evacuate, especially those living nearest the lake and already

under deep floodwater. This was after the barangay received news from municipal officials that



26

three dams located in Central Luzon and the Greater Manila Area would release water and

possibly cause further flooding in areas along Pasig River and around Laguna Lake.

Residents in barangay Doña Imelda (informal settlement) and barangay Nangka [Camacho

Phase II] and San Jose [KV1], both formal settlements reported that rescue operations had been

inadequate. In San Jose, municipal-led rescue efforts were hampered by floods at the entry to

the resettlement site in KV1 and the lack of rescue personnel and equipment. Moreover, the

barangay focused its rescue efforts on the center of San Jose, which is 8 kilometers away fromKV1. Although the municipal LGU has an extension office in KVI, the personnel assigned to the

barangay could not provide significant assistance, due to lack of equipment. Barangay officials

in two sites, one formal community and the other, an informal settlement (San Jose and

Maybunga respectively), however, disputed this claim, citing that residents refused to evacuate

in spite of warnings. In Maybunga, barangay officials deployed members of the Maybunga Fire

and Rescue Response Team to various flooded areas. The barangay provided transportation for

displaced people from the roadside to the evacuation center. Moreover, barangay tanod

requested residents to move to higher ground or to a temporary shelter. Together with other

residents, they helped evacuate people and belongings from the flooded homes.

Residents whose houses were flooded sought

temporary shelter at the evacuation centers (e.g., publicschools, day care centers, health centers, barangay

multipurpose halls). In SV4, people rushed to public

buildings for shelter. Those who could not be

accommodated in these buildings were sheltered in an

unfinished school and unoccupied housing units in

Phases 3 to 5. Evacuees to these units, however,

resented the NHA’s requirement that they sign a waiverstating that they would return to their respective

housing units once the floods receded (Box 16). Poor

conditions in the evacuation centers would later

prompt many residents of SV4 to return to their houses

a few hours after the storm even though their homeswere still flooded.

In Camacho Phase II, thirty families moved to nearby Camacho Gym Covered Court, where

“home” was a makeshift cardboard partition. Of 2,900 families living at WFM, 1,682 evacuated

to Maybunga Elementary School Annex, where they stayed for a week. Those who could still not

return to their homes were transferred to the Rosario (Pasig) Complex, where they stayed for

another two weeks. KV1 residents who stayed at temporary shelters even for a night could not

endure the living conditions there. There was no electricity and water. Space was limited, and

food was not enough. The evacuees could not use the washrooms, as these were locked. In

Malaban, where residents still could not return to their houses weeks after the storm, they had

to share one school room with as many as four families, with curtains serving as partition.

Relief Management

Schools, churches, civic and business groups, NGOs, charitable groups and private individuals

mobilized aid to the affected communities (see Table 6). Because there was no assessment

undertaken based on reliable data and no clear process of relief distribution and management,

problems emerged in the distribution of relief goods in all six sites visited. Many affected

households were unable to receive goods, particularly those whose members remained in their

Box 16: Seeking shelter during Ondoy

Hindi ito ang oras para ipagkait natin ang

kaonting tulong na masisilungan ng mga

pamayanan dito sa Southville. Kahit sino,

dapat tanggapin kasi hindi ito ang oras ng

pataasan ng ano eh, ng katungkulan. Ito ang

oras ng pagdadamayan. (This is not the time

to deprive people of the little shelter we can

provide here in Southville. Anyone should be

accepted because this is not the time toassert who has more authority. This is the

time to help one another.) – ARTEM, 40 YEARS

OLD, SV4 (BARANGAY POOC/CAINGIN)



27

homes, those living in inner/lower areas, those in areas farthest from the barangay center, and

those in severely flooded areas. Research participants noted that those with links or relations

with individual donors, facilitating, or coordinating groups were often given priority in relief

distribution. As a result, social relations were strained in some sites (KV1, formal settlement) or

deteriorated further in others (SV4, formal settlement). The types of relief goods provided were

not always adequate to meet the needs of affected people. Participants reported they received

too much of one type of good (noodles and sardines for example) and too little of other items

(insufficient relief items catering to the specific needs of women, children, and the elderly). Thiswas noted in Camacho Phase II, KV1, Doña Imelda, and Maybunga.

Table 6: Forms of assistance provided by community groups and individuals

Site Category of assistance

Organization Form of assistance

Doña Imelda Rescue Neighborhood Associations

Kapiligan Homeowners’ Association(KAHA)

Riverside Association of Senior and

Youth Corporation (RASYC)

North Kapiligan Riverside

Association Inc. (NOKRAI) Riverbanks Neighborhood

Association (RIBANA)

Bonita Compound Association

48 Kapiligan Neighborhood

Association


Association

Kapatiran Asosasyon sa Kapiligan

(KAAKAP)

Conducted rescue operations

Relief Neighborhood Associations

KAHA

RASYC

NOKRAI RIBANA

Bonita Compound Association


Association


Association

KAAKAP

Coordinated with the barangay,

LGU, NGOs and religious

organizations

Identifed indigent residents Distributed ration tickets

Cooked food (females)

Recovery

West Bank,

Floodway,

Maybunga

Rescue

Relief Neighborhood Associations:

WFMNAI

SAMAKAPA

Samahan ng mga Kababaihan sa

Floodway, Maybunga (SNKF)

Youth volunteers

Sourced, prepared and distributed

relief items to non-evacuees

Accounted for households that

needed to be covered and handed

out tickets for a systematic

distribution

Coordinated with COM for relief

sourcing

Malaban,

Biñan

Rescue Male residents Assisted in rescue operations

Relief

Recovery



28

Site Category of assistance

Organization Form of assistance

SV4, Caingin/

Pooc,

Sta Rosa

Rescue

Relief HOA Distributed relief

Recovery

Camacho

Phase II,Nangka

Recovery

Rescue

Relief Neighborhood Associations

CP2CHHOA

NNA

Devised a stub system for

distributing relief goods

Served as intermediaries and in

most cases facilitated the

distribution system in the

community

Showed accountability for

managing relief activity that

involved a huge amount of money

RecoveryKV1, San Jose,

Rodriguez

Rescue Action Group

Montalban Ladies Association (MLA)

Homeowners’ Associations

From different phases

Kasiglahan Muslim Neighbors

Association (KMNA)

Vulcanizing shops

Hardware stores

Mobilized rescue vehicles to

evacuate the affected residents,

particularly the women, children

and elderly

Relief Action Group

HOAs

KMNA

MLA

Set up an ID system/green card for

relief distributions

Coordinated with other groups for

relief assistance and distribution

Facilitated relief distribution from

external groupsRecovery Action Group

HOAs Assessed storm victims

Marikina

Heights

Rescue Residents Provided shelter to relatives and

friends who were victims

Relief Helped in the packing and

distribution of goods

Recovery Youth Helped in community cleanup

SV4 residents were reportedly dissatisfied with the distribution of relief goods, as they did not

have a clear understanding of the process. For them, the ticket stub system put in place to

manage aid distribution did not work for two reasons. Firstly, they did not like having to prove

their residency status by showing identification cards (IDs) or proof of billing at a time of disaster. Secondly, not enough stubs were distributed which raised concerns about the fairness

of the distribution. In addition to issues about prioritizing evacuees, there were allegations that

only those close to the leaders were able to receive benefits.

In SV4, which is under the jurisdiction of two barangays, Pooc and Caingin, it was the city LGU,

NHA and politicians who provided relief goods to residents. No relief assistance came from

barangay officials. Aware of the insider-outsider divide between SV4 residents and Caingin



29

residents, an SV4 settler participating in the discussions referred to the fact that the barangay

captain of Caingin would naturally give aid to his constituency first, (referring to Caingin

residents who were also badly hit by Ondoy). Phase 1 residents in SV4, on the other hand, felt

the barangay captain of Pooc prioritized their needs as he looked into their living conditions

after the storm.

Lines were long and goods were also not

sufficient in SV4. There were instances reportedof distributors throwing relief goods from the

back of trucks into the crowd, which resulted in

injuries. According to SV4 HOA officers, this

problem was caused by the inadequate supply of

relief goods (Box 17). In KV1, social relations

(between LGU and residents, among residents,

between community groups and residents,

between LGU and PO) were strained as relief

assistance did not reach all affected areas and

residents of Phases 1B and 1D. For most residents

of Doña Imelda, the management of aid was

severely deficient, as there was no systematicprocess for the distribution of goods. Moreover,

they perceived those close to barangay officials

and purok leaders as being favoured in the

distribution of relief. On the contrary, barangay

officials believed their system was efficient. They

relied on purok leaders in giving out assistance.

For them, the “insensitivity, greed and lack of

discipline” of community members was the cause of problems in relief distribution. In Malaban,

residents had opposing views about the relief operations. Those who did not leave their homes

complained that only the evacuees in the schools and the zones nearest to the barangay center

had benefited from the relief and medical assistance. Evacuees countered by saying there were

relief goods distributed to the residents who did not move to the evacuation center which theydid not get access to. However, they were unanimous in saying that those living in areas where

floodwater was deep received only a limited supply of relief goods. On their part, those still in

their houses or from the barangay claimed they did not get any food items and medical supplies.

The perception that there was “politics” involved in the relief distribution was common in thesix sites visited. “Political influence” was most felt in the two lakeside sites which received

comparably short supply of relief goods perhaps because they were farthest from the center or

source of relief (Metro Manila). Residents of three sites (two formal settlements [SV4, KV1] and

one informal settlement [Doña Imelda]) noted the way national and local politicians seized the

opportunity to advance their own agenda. Community leaders at a lakeside relocation site

observed that when high-ranking government officials came to distribute relief goods, they just

took pictures. “…[They] just used the people.” A female resident of an inf ormal settlement waslikewise critical of a local politician’s staff who asked for residents’ precinct number before

distributing rice gruel. She asked if it was necessary to “…ascertain if we are voters from his

district before help is extended to us.”

In KV1, the distribution of relief goods by the municipal LGU highlighted the political divide. A

community leader confirmed the residents’ view that they were unable to receive LGU

assistance because their block leader was allied with the suspended local chief executive.

Box 17: The Filipino as aid recipient

Ang Pilipino ang pinakamahirap i-organize sa oras ng

sabayang delubyo sa bigayan ng relief goods.

Nabigyan mo na lahat, meron pa rin talagang

masasabi at ‘yun naman ay hindi namin inaalis sa

kanila. Hindi naman kasi rin halos lahat nabigyan.

Pag may dumating rin naman kasi ang NGO,

example , ang dala lang naman nila ay 100 pieces na

relief goods. E, sa dami ng tao, mahigit isang libo ang

apektadong pamilya, isang daang piraso lang. (TheFilipinos are the most difficult to organize at a time of

massive catastrophe in the distribution of relief

goods. Those who got something still had somethingto negative to say. Not everyone was given. And wedon’t take that away from them *people complaining

for not having received anything]. If an NGO comes,

for example, they just bring 100 pieces of relief goods

while more than 1,000 families were affected.) – JUN, 40 YEARS OLD, SV4



30

Further confirmation of this perception was given by a PO leader who reported that relief goods

bearing the names of donors (a presidential candidate and a TV network) were replaced by the

name of the LGU official who replaced the suspended local chief executive.

Assistance to the six affected communities came largely from civil society organizations. NGO-

PO collaboration borne out of many land tenure/housing fora was used as a mechanism for

facilitating relief efforts in five of the visited sites. As they had good knowledge of their

community composition, including the number of families/households and the composition of each household, the leaders of HOAs and neighborhood associations, mostly women, assumed

the lead role in distributing relief goods, drawing on their own contacts or networks (Table 7).

To systematize the distribution process, each purok or cluster leader was made responsible for

his or her own cluster, identifying the most affected households and distributing ticket stubs

and relief goods. Research participants perceived the HOA-led relief operations Camacho Phase

II and KV1 to be the most organized. In Camacho Phase II, PO leaders adopted the “stub system”

for distributing relief goods, in coordination with GK, to ensure an orderly and equal

distribution. In addition, they made themselves accountable for the implementation of Tzu Chi

Foundation’s cash for work scheme. Any able-bodied family member could join by registering

his or her name with the purok leader. This program involved entrusting a large amount of

money to the alley leaders, who would disburse the payments to the volunteers. No irregularity

was noted in the handling of payments by alley leaders.

Table 7: Forms of government assistance

SiteCategory of

assistanceBarangay

City/

Municipality

Other

government

agencies

Politicians

Doña Imelda Rescue Made “simple”

public announce-

ments

Relief Coordinated with

community

leaders in

administering

relief operations

Administered

relief operations

Distributed relief

goods (DSWD)

Distributed relief

goods

Sen. Manny Villar

Sen. Loren

Legarda

Sen. Mar Roxas

Rep. Nanette Daza

Mayor Sonny

Belmonte

Recovery Launched TUPAD

West Bank,

Floodway,

Maybunga

Rescue Went around

the community

to warn people

to evacuate;

helped

evacuatepeople and

belongings

property from

flooded homes

(tanod )

Provided L300

vans to



31

SiteCategory of

assistanceBarangay

City/

Municipality

Other

government

agencies

Politicians

transport

people

Mobilized the

Fire and Rescue

Response TeamRelief Coordinated with

the LGU and, in

some cases,

directly managed

the distribution of

relief goods

Coordinated with

SAMAKAPA (PO)

and mobilized the

Pasig Security

Guards, Pasig

Health Aides, and

CIDSS volunteers

to distribute relief

items and

prepare foods for

evacuees

Recovery

Camacho Phase II,

Nangka

Rescue

Relief Gave out grocery

items

Gave out grocery

items, used

clothes, footwear

(shoes and

slippers), cooked

food, and

medicine for

leptospirosis

Distributed relief

goods or cooked

food

Rep. de Guzman

Mayor Marides

Fernando

Vice Mayor

Andres

Councilor Boy

Ponce

Tañong barangay

captainRecovery Fielded trucks/

payloader for

clearing

operations

KV1, San Jose,

Rodriguez

Rescue

Relief Assessed storm

victims (did

ocular visit,

listed number of

affected

households)

Coordinated

with

government

offices and

private sectors

for relief

assistance

Helped in the

repacking and

distribution of

relief goods (LGU-

organized Batang

Montalban

Volunteers)

Assessed

affected

families (NHA)

Distributed

grocery items

Distribute relief

goods or cooked

food

Sen. Noynoy

Aquino

Sen. Mar Roxas

Sen. Manny Villar

Recovery



32

SiteCategory of

assistanceBarangay

City/

Municipality

Other

government

agencies

Politicians

Malaban, Binan Rescue Announced the

impending

flooding using a

megaphone

(kagawad )Relief Distributed relief

cards/tickets and

relief goods from

DSWD and DO)

Conducted

medical missions,

in partnership

with the BHS and

BHWs

Recovery Distributed

bamboo poles to

construct

makeshift

bridges

(barangay

officials)

Helped partnerNGOs and

community

leaders in relief

goods

distribution

Implemented

garbage collection

and sanitation

activities

Provided medical

assistance

Assisted in the

cleanup

initiated by an

NGO

SV4, Caingin/

Pooc, Sta Rosa

Rescue

Relief Escorted

government agencies and

politicians to

SV4

Assessed the

condition of SV4

residents

(barangay

captain from

Pooc)

Gave out

grocery items,blankets, and

mats

Conducted

medicalmission

Distributed relief

goods and tents; put up portable toilets

Makati City Myor

Jejomar Binay

Sec. Joey Lina

Sen. Manny Villar

Vice President

Noli de Castro

with NHA

Former LGU

officials of

relocatees from

Taguig City and

Barangay DilaRecovery

In KV1, the Action Group was considered the most active in facilitating rescue, relief and

rehabilitation efforts. After the storm, they instituted a scheme for assessing/validating affected

households and families and distributing relief goods. Its members prepared the list of

households most affected by the storm by conducting interviews and visits. They set up a



33

system of ID cards for relief distribution, volunteer orientation, and documentation. In the other

informal settlement sites, community leaders likewise took charge of handing out relief goods.

The same NGO-PO network scheme was observed in the two other informal settlements in Doña

Imelda and Malaban. In the latter, external groups such as Open Heart Foundation, Seventh-Day

Adventist, and COM/Ateneo de Manila University linked up with their respective contacts to

coordinate the distribution of relief goods.

The main role played by barangay officials was coordinating relief efforts of city/municipalLGUs, national government agencies, politicians, and other groups (see table 7). In Doña Imelda,

which covered many informal communities, barangay officials worked closely with the

neighborhood associations in the barangay-led relief operations. In the other informal

settlements of Malaban, their role was to mobilize affected residents to avail themselves of

health services provided onsite in the different zones on different dates by the Department of

Health (DOH), Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC), Save the Children International, Care

International, and Australian Aid International – Disaster Assessment and Response Team

(AAI–DART). They also assisted in the cleanup drive initiated by Save the Children International

as part of its relief and rehabilitation program. Together with teachers and barangay health

workers, they gave out tickets to the residents to facilitate the distribution of relief goods from

the municipal social welfare and development office and DOH. They also coordinated the relief

operations of external assisting groups, such as Perpetual College, De La Salle University, ABS-CBN Foundation, and Save the Children International. Some religious groups also gave out relief

goods, albeit in smaller quantities.

Except in one of the informal settlements visited (Maybunga), at least one national government

agency was seen providing relief response to the affected communities. These agencies

included: (i) DSWD, who provided relief goods to selected households in the informal

settlements in Doña Imelda and Malaban; (ii) DOH, who carried out medical missions in the

informal settlement in Malaban and the formal settlement in SV4; (iii) NHA, who distributed

grocery items in the formal settlement in KV1, and carrying out an assessment of affected

families; (iv) and the Metro Manila Development Authority, who provided trucks and

payloaders for the clearing operations in Nangka (Marikina City).

City and municipal LGU assistance that was evident in all affected sites came in the form of

relief goods, medicines, deployment of volunteers, and the one-time cash for work scheme

implemented in Doña Imelda by the Quezon City LGU. In two barangays (Maybunga and San

Jose), leaders received help from volunteers associated with the city/municipal LGU. Alongside

the city LGU, barangay officials in Maybunga coordinated and, in some cases, directly managed

the distribution of relief goods. The Pasig City LGU worked with its partner PO, SAMAKAPA, in

mobilizing volunteers (Pasig Security Guards, Pasig Health Aides, volunteers from the

Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS) to distribute relief goods and

prepare food for evacuees. In San Jose, volunteer youth group (Batang Montalban Volunteers)

associated with the LGU joined in repacking goods for distribution to storm victims in KV1.

Together with PO leaders, LGU officials coordinated with representatives of organizations

providing relief assistance on how to proceed with these activities. They played a role indetermining target areas, number of recipients and in handling requests for volunteers.

Recovery

Beyond coordinating and assisting external groups in relief operations, barangay LGUs do not

appear to have plans or to have initiated activities to provide long-term assistance to affected

families. Nor were the national/local government recovery efforts observed in the communities



34

visited considered adequate. In Malaban, barangay officials reportedly waited for cues from the

municipal and provincial LGUs on how to assist or relocate residents who had lost their homes.

The mayor’s office raffled ownership to one hundred housing units in SV4 in Langkiwa, Biñan.This initiative targeted around 10 percent of the families staying at evacuation centers. The

provincial governor referred to providing temporary shelter (using tents) at the back of the

municipal hall, but at time of fieldwork, no structures were being put in place. In Maybunga, the

LGU took action to clear the WFM danger zones. City personnel marked the post-Ondoy water

level of the Manggahan floodway to identify the area that would be cleared of structures.However, at the time of the visit there was still no official word from government about its

plans for the residents.

There were no definite recovery plans or efforts being initiated or planned by any civil society

group in the affected sites at the time of the rapid assessment. Two exceptions were the

interventions by Save the Childern in Malaban and by the Tzu Chi Foundation in Camacho Phase

II. The recovery plan of Save the Children International consisted of the distribution of relief

goods, conducting medical missions, garbage collection, sanitation, and the establishment of a

preschool education program and a day care center. Except the last two activities, which are

long term in nature, the organization has implemented its plan in the community. Barangay

officials assisted in the cleanup, but residents did not participate actively. The focus of the Tzu

Chi Foundation recovery intervention was the cash for work program described above.

Resettlement

The damages caused by Ondoy forced the government to confront the relocation issue of

informal settlers, many of whom are already aware of government resettlements plans and

concerned about the conflicting information received. Three informal communities in

Maybunga (Pasig City), Doña Imelda (Quezon City), and Malaban (Biñan, Laguna) are expected

to be relocated. Maybunga (Pasig) and Doña Imelda (Quezon City) residents have long been

aware of government plans to resettle them. In Doña Imelda, notices to evict informal settlers

along the riverbanks were given before Ondoy. In Maybunga, the informal settlers’ awareness of

the various government options appeared inadequate to the research team, primarily because

there has been no formal dissemination of information and consultations with the people. In allcases, the renters are excluded from discussions and coverage of relocation program. They are

not aware of the options for securing land and housing tenure. When asked about their

willingness to relocate, all participants in the discussions indicated no interest in leaving their

present locations as they did not want to be displaced from their sources of livelihood and

employment and the social networks they have established over the course of their stay in the

community. Children, they say, would be taken away from the comfort zones of schools and

friends. Poor conditions in known relocation areas further lessen their desire to move. The

threat of eviction has become very real for residents in Maybunga (Pasig), who are pushing for

on-site development. The situation of informal settlers in Doña Imelda appears to be somewhat

different with tentative plans for relocation within the same barangay being discussed. 11 Some

relocation activities have started to take place with more than a thousand informal settlers from

Marikina City being relocated to Southville 5A in Sta. Rosa, Laguna by the Marikina SettlementsOffice during the period of the rapid assessment.12

Conclusions and Recommendations

In both formal and informal resettlement communities, the significant socioeconomic impact

brought about by Ondoy was the loss of resources for small businesses and self-employed

residents. Those most affected were people who relied on small home-based livelihoods



35

(mostly women), as well as those involved in fishing and farming in lakeside communities. This

was accompanied by the increased vulnerability of women, children, elderly, and the sick. The

comparative lens provided by the inclusion of Marikina Heights, does indicate that some

challenges in employment and livelihoods have long persisted in poor urban communities and

seem to have worsened in the last year.

Civil society mobilization and intra-community relationships were vital during the rescue

phase. Barangay officials were unable to respond to community needs largely because theywere attending to their own families. In addition, the assessment indicated that they did not

seem to have received appropriate training in emergency disaster responses. Barangay officials,

and to some extent national authorities, would however play a significant role in the following

phases of relief and immediate recovery.

Ondoy highlighted the general lack of government and community structures for disaster

prevention and rescue and relief. In the aftermath of the storm, there was also little or no

indication in the areas visited that LGUs and communities were putting in place measures to

avert future disasters. Residents in the study sites expressed their desire to participate in and

present their concerns and needs, particularly in what concerns relocation, relief management,

and environmental management. The knowledge of the number and location of the members of

their own community enabled intra-community groups and barangay authorities to organizeaid distribution. To cope more efficiently with the effects of any disaster, this knowledge,

however, should be complemented by demographic and socioeconomic data of affected

communities which would also be useful in rehabilitation efforts and in developing or

improving rescue and relief management systems.

Points specific to organized and linked communities. The level of organization and external

links that a community had were important factors in its subsequent ability to recover from

Ondoy. Camacho Phase II in barangay Nangka (Marikina City) and KV1 in barangay San Jose

(town of Rodriguez), formal resettlement sites, stood out for having received assistance earlier

and in greater quantities from their partners and networks. Camacho II benefited from the

immediate relief assistance of Gawad Kalinga and of Tzu Chi Foundation. GK quickly mobilized

its network of private sector partners, including a telecommunications company and privateuniversities, to deliver relief goods beginning on the day following the storm to its HOA

partners in Camacho Phase II, who then facilitated the distribution over a fifteen-day period.

Many of the respondents think that GK support greatly facilitated the quick recovery of the

community which they claimed was accomplished in two weeks’ time. In barangay San Jose, anumber of donors had direct linkages with POs operating in the community and the barangay

LGU. This included faith-based groups through their local congregations (e.g., Diocese of

Antipolo through the local Parish Social Services), Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle

University, Japanese Embassy-Christian Aid, the Salvation Army through COM-assisted Action

Group/HOAs, and the “Mango Children’s Home and Papaya School” of Asian Students’ Christian

Foundation. Civil society groups (e.g., private sector, NGO, universities) assisting the urban poor

communities drew upon their own social capital to mobilize resources for rescue and relief.

Politicians and civil society groups tended to favor their own contacts or networks. Assistanceto the four communities (one formal settlement [KV1] and three informal settlements

[Maybunga, Doña Imelda, Malaban]) being assisted by COM was also coursed through partner

POs/HOAs. These associations included Action Group in KV1, various neighborhood

associations in Doña Imelda, WFMNAI and SNKF in Maybunga, and partner POs in Malaban. The

Pasig City LGU coordinated with its PO partner in WFM (SAMAKAPA) in its relief work and

mobilized city volunteers (CIDSS, PSG and PHA volunteers) to receive and distribute the relief

items.



36

Thus, there was an overflow of assistance in areas where the communities were organized and

accessible and had close relations with the LGUs and civil society. Those that were difficult to

access and less organized remained mostly unreached, and unorganized (e.g., Southville 4 in

Sta. Rosa City [a government resettlement site with governance issues], Malaban in Biñan,

Laguna). Tensions among neighboring communities which were similarly flooded but whose

needs were addressed with varying degrees of efficiency were, therefore, observed.

Points specific to the control site. Some of the same economic issues faced in the affectedcommunities were also identified in the control site in Marikina Heights. This finding

demonstrates the nature of urban poverty, so whether or not they have been directly affected

by Ondoy, urban poor communities face some of the same challenges. Thus, while employing a

control site allowed some form of comparison between communities not directly affected by

Ondoy and those affected by it, there are limits to the research design’s power of inference. One

cannot neatly categorize life in these communities into “before Ondoy” and “after Ondoy.” Forthe individuals and families in these communities, Ondoy was one in a series of social and

economic “emergencies” that they regularly encounter and which aggravated an alreadydifficult situation.

Insights and Recommendations from Communities

Many residents attributed the flooding to several factors, including the release of water from

dams, poor garbage management, inadequate drainage systems, and the continued cutting of

trees and reclaiming of land to make way for subdivisions. In KV1, quarrying was also

mentioned alongside illegal logging and tree cutting to give way to the construction of

subdivisions and factories. These have also resulted in the narrowing of the river. The same set

of reasons was given in other study sites, whether formal or informal settlements. In SV4,

residents referred to the fact that the low-lying area they occupy used to be a rice field.

However it is now fully cemented which makes it difficult for water to be absorbed. Added to

these are poor garbage disposal practices and lack of proper drainage facilities.

Measures for disaster prevention and preparedness. Residents in the control and affected

sites gave similar proposals to avert another flooding event. Most of these relate to working

with nature and protecting the environment, increasing community awareness of disaster

preparedness and prevention, and improving local capacities to respond to the disaster. To

achieve this, the residents believe there must be active and sustained collaboration between

LGUs, government agencies, civil society and community groups, and residents (Table 8). These

are addressed to government, civil society groups, and to the communities themselves.13

Residents of WFM and Malaban (both informal settlements), SV4 (formal settlement) and

Marikina Heights (the control site) believe it is important to address issues related to

infrastructure. For WFM residents, flooding continues because the Manggahan Floodway and

Laguna de Bay have become shallower due largely to the deforestation of surrounding

mountains. Thus, they suggested dredging the floodway and Laguna de Bay so that these could

hold more water. They also suggested opening up the Napindan Dike to allow water to drain

into Manila Bay. Another proposal put forward was the construction of dikes along the

Manggahan Floodway and stopping the construction of the Laiban Dam. Participants in the

discussion see the latter as destructive to the environment and a potential cause of future

flooding in Quezon and Rizal Provinces. Dredging was similarly recommended (in the case of

Laguna de Bay) by residents of Malaban and Marikina Heights, where the only area that

experienced flooding during Ondoy was a small portion near the creek.



37

Table 8: Community recommendations for disaster preparedness and prevention

Specific recommendations Addressed to

Infrastructure

Dredge and clear the floodway and Laguna de Bay

Open water outlet to Manila Baya

Construct dikes along the Manggahan Floodway

Stop the construction of the Laiban DamResettlement/Relocation Programs

Resettle households near creeks, rivers, danger zones

For NHA to reconsider resettlement sites that are at risk and provide

the necessary structures to ensure the safety of relocatees (two-story

or multi-rise buildings instead of one-story housing units)

Institutional/ national

government/LGU

Prepare localized disaster management plans (municipal and

barangay)

Institute an advance/early warning system

Train the disaster-response teams in quick rescue and relief operations

and provide them with the necessary equipment

Conduct continuous information education among residents to

highlight vulnerability to such disaster and to keep them alert and

prevent complacency (including community initiated flood drills) Enforce local ordinances on solid waste management and land use, and

designate areas where building of houses/dwelling units is dangerous

and therefore not allowed.

Barangay, municipal, and

city LGU

Cultivate community discipline particularly on solid waste

management and proper waste disposal

Be prepared for disasters (survival kit (e.g., flashlight, rope, life jacket,

for each household)

Participate in disaster management planning process

Reconstruct/clean drainage system

Recycle waste materials, plant trees

Communities/households

aThe prevalent view in the communities is that while the Napindan Dike protects Manila from flooding, it

also keeps flood water from draining into Manila Bay. Opening outlets to Manila Bay is necessary toaddress the flooding in the Rizal and Laguna areas.

Residents of Malaban, SV4, and Marikina Heights were in favor of clearing areas beside or near

the waterways of structures to “recover the creek” and allow the water to flow. SV4 residents

recommended that the NHA allow the construction of a second floor in their housing units (in

Phase 1) and, together with the community, build a concrete wall at the back of Phase1.

During consultations, residents likewise called on local governments to prepare disaster

management plans with their inputs. Participants in the discussion from Camacho Phase II and

Malaban stressed the importance of an effective and credible early warning system to give

people ample time to evacuate. Communities in Doña Imelda and Camacho Phase II mentioned

the need to form disaster-response teams with the needed know-how and skills. Communities

also recommended that disaster-response teams should have motorized rescue boats, ladders

and materials that may be used as bridges, as well as appropriate communication equipment.

Dona Imelda and Marikina Heights residents suggested that information

dissemination/education activities be conducted among residents to keep them alert and

prevent complacency. It was further suggested that community associations partner with local

governments in conducting flood drills and similar activities. Residents of KV1 and WFM

suggested that local governments strictly enforce ordinances on solid waste management.



38

Participants in the discussions held in Malaban recommended that the barangay develop and

implement ordinances on land use, and designate areas where building of houses or dwelling

units is considered dangerous and therefore should not be allowed.

Residents in Marikina Heights, while not directly affected by the floods, mentioned the need for

assistance to enable them to improve their living conditions. This point was similarly raised by

FGD participants in the affected sites who pointed out that the response to Ondoy should take

into account the longer-term needs of communities (i.e, livelihoods). While short-term actions,such as the provision of clothes, temporary jobs, and money, could help them, a steady and

secure job, land tenure, and education would go further (see Box 18). They also called for action

at the level of the barangay through the implementation of regulations concerning

environmental management. The residents pointed to the need to clear the creek of structures

as a case in point. As one of the women interviewed stated: “There would be no need for relief if

there were no floods in the first place.”

Box 18: Arlene’s request for help

Hindi lang relief ‘yung kailangan ng mga nasalanta. Kailangan nila ng as in talagang tulong. Hindi lang nila

kailangan ng pagkain para maka-survive. Kailangan nila ng ng ano, ng tulong talagang tulong. Kailangan

natin ng aksyon para hindi na mangyari ulit yung nangyari sa kanila.” Ngayon kase sila, ‘yung mga nasa taas,sila yung may mga kapangyarihan na gumawa isang proyektong makakatulong sa amin. Akala namin itong

project na to e mas makatulong siya saamin. Hinde, paran...Naiiyak ako. Naawa ako sa sarili ko na dati hindi

kami ganito. Parang, “Ganito na ba talaga ang buhay namin?” Yung gano’n. Kase project nila ito e. ‘Yung

project na ‘yun inaasahan namin na mas makakatulong, pero parang yung project na ‘to mas nakapwewisyo

pa siya. Kase walang trabaho, tapos hirap pa sa buhay, lubog pa sa baha. Dapat na highlight ito e, kasi project

niya. Kailangan dapat gawan ito ng paraan. Hindi e. Pero nung dumaan siya dito, wala lang. Nagbigay lang ng

relief, tapos wala na. Ganon lang. Tanggap naman kase namin . . . na ano na . . . na ano ‘to, na relocation.

Pero h’wag naman sana i -ano na, “O, relocation lang yan. Tinapon kayo dyan, kaya pagtyagaan niyo.” Parang

ang sakit-sakit na, “Hay naku! Bahala kayo sa buhay niyo.” Tinapon na lang kami ng gan un. (We need more

than relief assistance here. We need real help, and not only food, to survive. They [barangay officials] need to

act to prevent this from happening again. At present, those at the top have the power to create projects that

could help us. We thought this *housing+ project would help us. But…it’s like…I want to cry. I pity myself

because our life before *SV4+ was not like this. Is this what our life really is now? This is their *government’s+project. We expected that this would help us; instead, it brought us more trouble. There is no employment.

We are hard-up to start with, and then we got submerged in flood. This should have been highlighted becausethis is his *a high government official’s+ project. Something must be done here. But no. W hen he visited here,

it was just like nothing. Relief goods were just distributed, then nothing more. Just like that. We accept that

this is a relocation area. “Hey, that is just a relocation *area+. You were thrown there, so you endure *the life

there+.” It’s so painful. “You manage on your own.” We were thrown just like that.) – ARLENE, 25, SV4

Improving relief operations. At the onset of an impending disaster, residents of the study

sites believe government institutions, LGUs, civil society groups, the private sector, and the

communities should take immediate action to mitigate impacts (Table 9). For the communities

visited, it was considered important for government and community leaders to carry out onsite

assessments of the affected sites and of those areas, that were most affected. This, together withproper coordination of GO and NGO actions at the community level, was considered crucial in

ensuring that the response or relief reaches all the affected areas, especially those in most need

of assistance. In addition, both formal and informal settlers believe that a proper assessment of

the specific needs of the affected communities, with special attention to the needs of vulnerable

groups (women, elderly, and children) will help better plan relief assistance.



39

Table 9: Community recommendations to improve relief operations of various groups

Recommendationsaddressed to

Major tasks/activities

Municipal and barangay

LGUs; community

(HOAs, other local

groups/ organizations )

LGU and purok /cluster leaders to conduct a joint assessment of affected areas to identify

the most affected groups/households/areas. Purok /cluster leaders should be involved,

since they know the conditions of their communities.

Ocular survey

House-to-house visits

Identification and listing of affected areas and groups, including highly vulnerablegroups

Profiling of communities (tagging and mapping)

LGUs, external and

community groups

Coordinate with assisting organizations (LGU, external or community groups) to:

assess specific needs of affected peoples/areas to ensure that relief goods are evenly

distributed;

set up adequately equipped evacuation centers;

consider the type/amount of relief goods needed (for example, during the immediate

emergency phase: food, shelter, healthcare needs/medicines [coughs, colds, asthma,

wounds and fungal infections]); and

implement cash for work schemes and a post-disaster strategy to replace lost income

and expedite the recovery process (cleaning) with the involvement of affected

residents; provide corresponding equipment and materials (boots and cleaning

materials)

External groups Preparations for relief distribution

Set up a systematic relief distribution scheme, including measures for transparency

and accountability

Dissemination of information on relief activities to be conducted

Distribute tickets/stubs to affected households

Prepare logistics (venue for distribution, volunteers, schedule, etc.)

Municipal and barangay

LGUs

Relief distribution

Implement a transparent and equitable relief distribution system and/or other formsof assistance to the residents affected by the calamity

House-to-house distribution through the ticket/stub system. Only community

residents with valid tickets/stubs will be allowed to receive their relief packs.

Community (HOAs,

other local groups/organizations

Ascertain whether the relief goods are being used as intended, and not being sold or

used for gambling.

Summary Recommendations

Communities’ proposals for participatory planning called for effective collaboration between

governments, civil society groups, and POs in disaster preparedness and response. To plan for

better disaster response the following are considered important to support implementation of

community recommendations:

Needs and risk assessment s: Establish a history of past disasters, and collect information

on local organizations involved in disaster management, their resources, and

capabilities, among others.

Aid effort s: Determine the specific needs of vulnerable groups such as women, elderly,

children (e.g., medicines, sanitary pads for women, diapers for infants, underwear for

men, women, and children).

Targeting aid and equity : Establish mechanisms for identifying affected individuals,

geographic areas, and groups including highly vulnerable groups.



40

Aid delivery processes: Clarify who will be involved, transparency and accountability

mechanisms, cultural suitability, and establish complaints mechanism.

Following are a summary of the key recommendations drawn from this rapid assessment of the

social impacts of tropical storm Ondoy:

For the national and local government units to review their policies, ordinances,

programs and plans on (1) land use and housing; (2) resettlement, relocation andevacuation; (3) infrastructures along waterways (e.g., dams, lakes, rivers/creeks); and

(4) disaster prevention, rescue, relief and rehabilitation to determine whether or not

these are appropriate for and responsive to social needs and are being implemented or

complied with, and if not, to revise these and enforce their implementation and

compliance.14

For the barangay LGU and HOAs to lead in the development of community-based

disaster preparedness and prevention (including the implementation of construction

and environmental management ordinances), rescue, and relief management programs,

and to link these programs to the wider programs and facilities of the municipal/city

and national government and non-government sectors.

For government and civil society groups to provide training programs that will develop

group values and leadership skills among members of community groups and the

barangay LGU, who will lead in community-based disaster preparedness, prevention,

rescue, and relief management efforts.

For local communities and affected groups to participate actively in the planning of flood

control, waste management, and relocation/resettlement programs, and for the

managers and implementers of such programs to ensure participation that is inclusive

and not just limited to leaders or representatives.

For institutions charged with disaster-related program planning and implementation to

develop a reliable community database to enable programs to address the needs of

communities, especially of children and other highly vulnerable groups, and identify

priority groups and areas.

For agencies planning and implementing relocation of urban poor communities (both in-

city and distant) to make provisions for livelihood and employment opportunities,

education, health and security needs, and basic utilities (e.g., water, electricity,

transportation) that make up for quality living.

For government and civil society groups to provide zero- or low-interest loans to enable

those who lost property and livelihoods in a calamity to restart and to cover basic

household needs as well as house repairs, and psychosocial counseling for the

traumatized.

The findings of the rapid assessment indicate that the transformation of communities – whether

or not in response to disasters – requires two lines of engagement: making existing institutions

better fulfill their functions and enabling different actors and groups to interact with one

another in new ways. The Ondoy experience has highlighted that among poor communities,

some are poorer than others. The poorest of the poor are those without functional barangay or

city LGUs, or HOAs, and are therefore unable to mobilize resources within the community (e.g.,

use of the existing organizational structures in the identification of victims and delivery of relief



41

goods) and outside (e.g., links with various groups providing relief assistance). Addressing the

economic and social needs of affected individuals and communities therefore requires a model

of community organizing that integrates local governments (e.g., barangay or city/municipal),

intra-community groups (e.g., HOAs) and external groups (e.g., private corporations,

universities, philanthropic and social development organizations) to each other. Such an

approach would help to meet the needs of poor communities for livelihoods and improve their

access to social resources.

References

http://www.comultiversity.org.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=61.

Date accessed: 2 December 2009

http://gk1world.com/ aboutus.html. Date accessed: 2 December 2009

http://www3.hlurb.gov.ph/law/FRAMEWORK_FOR_GOVERNANCE.pdf. Date accessed: 10 February

2010.

Lim, Joseph. N.d. “Impact of the Global Financial and Economic Turmoil on the Philippines: National

Responses and Recommendations to Address the Crisis.” Unpublished paper.

Chong Sheau Ching. 2004/ Empowering homemakers to become homepreneurs and e-homemakers

through a gender governance framework. A final research report submitted to Canadian Center for

Health and Safety.eHomemakers/Mothers for Mothers, Kuala Lumpur.

Putnam, Robert. 1993. The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect

13:35–42.



42

1 GK or Gawad Kalinga (translated as to “give care”) is a church-based social development program that

follows a community development model. It has been fuelled by a massive army of volunteers and

partners working together in bayanihan (cooperation) to bring about change and restore the dignity of

the poorest of the poor, through community housing programs, as shared in its website:

http://gk1world.com/aboutus.html.

2 Community Organizers Multiversity (COM) is a non-government organization based in Quezon City. As a

CO learning center, it develops, enhances and nurtures capacities of community organizers, people’s

organizations and other development organizations (http://www.comultiversity.org.ph/index.

php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=61).

3 The start of data collection was set for 3 November 2009, after the observance of All Souls’ Day, which is

a Philippine national holiday. Tropical Storm “Santi,” however, delayed the start of data c ollection

activities by a day.

4 In 2000, an open dumpsite located in Area B, Barangay Payatas in Quezon City collapsed due to heavy

rains, resulting in at least 200 confirmed deaths. Families affected by the trash slide were moved to

Kasiglahan Village 1.

5 Action Group is a community-based organization in KV1 composed of men, women and youth organized

to address the various needs of their own community.

6 Balubad used to be a large tract of idle rural land lying on the outskirts of Barangay Nangka in Marikina

City and thus was targeted by the local government as a relocation site for evicted informal communities

around the city.

7 There are five Southville communities in Southern Luzon, numbered from 1 to 5.

8 “5-6” refers to a lending system where lenders charge 20 percent interest on the loan. Those who are

selling merchandise would also require borrowers to buy from them. These range from items that can be

consumed by the borrower’s household to supplies for his/her small business.

9 A homeowners’ association (HOA) is composed of the residents in a given subdivision or housing

structure. It endeavours, among others, to “serve the interest of its members through equity and access in

the decision making process, transparency and accountability, and the promotion of security in their

living areas…, actively cooperate with local government units and national government agencies for the

benefit of the residents, and complement, support and strengthen these units and agencies in providing

vital services to its members and in helping implement local government policies, programs, ordinances

and rules.” http://www3.hlurb.gov.ph/law/FRAMEWORK_FOR_GOVERNANCE.pdf. Date accessed: 10

February 2010.

10 Examples mentioned by FGD participants included women being “stared at” by men, in particular when

“in bath towels” and having to be “watchful at all times for sexual advances.”

11 Residents of Maybunga are fearful they will be relocated and lose their claim to the land awarded them

previously by Presidential Proclamation 1160. Their worries stem from the LGU's post-Ondoy reactions

to President GMA's Directive that informal settlers inundated by flood waters should not be allowed to

return to their riverside locations pending the conduct of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Accordingly,

the LGU informed the Maybunga affected group of some 6000 households that their land Proclamation

may be revoked. People are thus very concerned not only that they will lose their already established

entitlements, but also be evicted in the process. They are currently questioning the legal aspects of

revocation. Unlike other riverside victims, informal settlers in Doña Imelda do not fear eviction because

they have started implementing their People's Plan at a relocation site within the same barangay offered



43

by the barangay captain. The Plan brings together the combined efforts of the people's organization, COM

for organizing assistance, Foundation for the Development of the Urban Poor (FDUP) for technical

assistance, Oxfam GB for funding the planning process, and the Institute on Church and Social Issues for

mapping the site. As the near relocation has the approval of the barangay and City Councils and is viewed

as a pilot project drawing on the combined resources of civil society, government, and an external donor,

the 96 vulnerable households formerly residing under the bridge are assured of secure tenure and decent

housing, and thus optimistic about remaining.The PO and COM are currently negotiating with GK on the

construction of Medium Rise Buildings as part of the People's Plan, with the occupants furnishing sweat

equity counterparts.

12 As disclosed by a staff of the Marikina Settlements Office.

13 A section of the key informant interview and focus group discussion guides were designed to collect

the views of residents, PO and barangay officials on the causes of flooding and how to avert future

disasters. These various recommendations were then validated during the IPC’s presentation of initial

findings to its major research partner, the Community Organizers Multiversity, in November 2009.

14 An example is the Marikina City’s implementation of ordinances and resolutions related to emergency

preparedness and disaster management (e.g., easement from Nangka (Marikina) River, flood control

project, site improvement, dike construction) as mentioned by the community members themselves.



44

Annex A - NGO-PO Research Partners

Name Barangay/city Organization

Abas, Moslemin Central, Quezon City COM

Almodovar, Jacinto Caingin, Sta. Rosa, Laguna CFARMC

Amon, Jessica Central, Quezon City COM

Arevalo, Belen Malaban, Biñan, Laguna Sulong Kababaihan ng Malaban

Barrinuevo, Rodolfo Caingin, Sta. Rosa, Laguna CFARMC

Bonagua, Kreeger Central, Quezon City COM

Chua, Jonathan Central, Quezon City COM

Cosino, Leonilo Maybunga, Pasig City WFMNAI, ULAP Pasig

Dinglasa, Elena Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA I-B

Francisco, Ma. Any Maybunga, Pasig City SNKF, WFMNAI, ULAP Pasig

Gipit, Rodrigo Malaban, Biñan, Laguna PINAGPALA

Labrador, Onizimo Camacho, Nangka, Marikina City Pagkakaisa

Miranda, Ricardo Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA I-C

Morales, Jose Doña Imelda, Quezon City RASYC, ULAP-Doña Imelda

Morante, Vicky Maybunga, Pasig City ULAP Pasig

Padida, Sancha Malaban, Biñan, Laguna Lingap ng Kababaihan ng Ilaya, Malaban

Quindap, Nelda Maybunga, Pasig City WFMNAI, ULAP Pasig

Real, Roy San Isidro, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA

Saberon, Teresita Doña Imelda, Quezon City RASYC, ULAP-Doña Imelda

Serrano, Vangie Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal Action Group

Torres, Sally Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA 1-D

Veslinos, Candida Caingin, Sta. Rosa, Laguna SAMAKA



45

Annex B – Research Questions

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

1. FGD Guid e for Women’s Group

Data Set Guide Questions

Personal Experience of Ondoy/Flooding

1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon Ondoy?

2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? What kind of information did you

receive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this information? How much advance warning did

you get?)3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep everyone together?

Did you have to move temporarily? How are you able to care for your children/elderly

relatives/disabled members now? Who among the family/household was most affected? Why?4. (If moved temporarily) When did you return home? What made you decide to return? Who in your

family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary

accommodation? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances?5. What caused the flooding in your area?

Livelihood and Socioeconomic Adaptations

Employment/livelihood(Priority questions in bold

font)

1. What are the main changes in employment and livelihoodopportunities of men and women (and children, youth, and elderly) in

the community since Ondoy?

a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy?

b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still thesame sources of income or have they changed? What were these

changes?

c. Are children/youth (male and female) moving out of the community

or relocating to find work? Where do they go and why? What new

types of work do they take up?d. Did people need to learn new skills for these new kinds of work or

new occupations?2. What employment or livelihood opportunities (inside or outside the

community) were lost/gained by men and women

(children/youth/elderly) because of Ondoy?

a. What economic resources and opportunities remain or are now

present for women? Men? Male/female youth, male/female

children, male/female elderly?

b. What markets were opened? Lost?

c. Whose economic activities gained or lost access to markets?

d. What new types of work/livelihood have men, women, male/female

youth/children, elderly taken up? What are the conditions of work

for each of these groups?

3. Were there changes in your daily income? Your monthly income? Are

there other sources of income?

a. Who manages and decides on how to spend the income?

b. What are the usual/regular budget items or expenses (food,



46


medicine, cigarettes)?

c. Which items are not budgeted/allotted? Or which budget items

were lessened, e.g., school allowance?4. Have there been changes in the division of domestic chores (cooking,

taking care of children/elderly/sick, washing clothes, fetching water)

among men, women, male children/youth, female children/youth as aresult of flooding or change in livelihood? In what ways?

5. With these changes in economic activities, how are the needs of

children, pregnant women/women who had just given birth, elderly

taken cared of?

6. In what ways were the livelihoods/income sources of [families of]vulnerable groups in the community (such as women, children, persons

with disabilities, elderly, etc.) affected by Ondoy?

a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy?b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the

same sources of income or have they changed? What were these

changes?

Coping strategies/mechanisms(Priority questions in bold

font)

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with thedisruptions in economic activities? By whom (women, men, children,youth, elderly)? What are entailed of them?

a. Did you receive government assistance such as cash/food for work?

b. Were there assisting groups (such as the church, private sector,

NGO/civil society, schools, OFWs, etc) who helped you? What typesof assistance did you receive from what group/organization?

c. To whom/To which group (in the community/family/household) was

the assistance or help directed to? Were female-headed households

given equal attention and help?

d. Did you receive help from your own family/relatives? Which

relatives and what types of help did they give? To those who receive

remittances (local or abroad), how much did they send before and

after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)?

2. Are there any particular groups (women, men, children, elderly, inside

or outside the area, etc.) unable to access any external support (formal

and informal)? How are they (indicate which group) coping?

3. How did you finance your business/livelihood before Ondoy? After

Ondoy?

a. How easy/difficult is it to secure business loan now after Ondoy?

What are the sources of credit/loan (formal and informal)?

b. Who (male, female) is securing, using, and/or deciding on the use of the loan?

4. Are households getting into debt to deal with loss of assets or income?

a. How much debt did they have before and after Ondoy?

b. Who among the community members have the most debt and why?c. Who do they owe to? Are these the same lenders as before Ondoy?

Have there been any changes to interest rates since Ondoy?

d. Who (male/female) are getting into debt or paying the debt?

e. How is the loan spent by whom?

5. Who is/are the most vulnerable group/s in the community? Why?



47


Among the vulnerable groups in the community, have there been

changes in daily habits, such as changes in school, work, eating habits?

a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children beingremoved from school to work)

b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more work/risky

work than before)c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per

day, type of meals served)

6. What are the additional tasks/work of families/HHs after Ondoy? Who

(female, male, children, youth, elderly) is assuming or doing the

additional task/work (indicate the particular type of task/work?

7. Are there cases/has there been a change in the number of human

trafficking cases, particularly of women and children after Ondoy?

Social Relations and Cohesion

Displacement

(Priority questions in bold

font)

1. Has there been an increase (or reduction) in HH size since Ondoy? Are

children (boys, girls) being sent to relatives/provinces? Or, Are relatives(males/females, young/old) arriving from the province/other areas inManila to help?

2. Are some people from this community still living elsewhere (temporary

shelter, evacuation center)?

3. Why did families decide to return to the neighborhood?

What made them decide to relocate? (probe for temporary and

permanent relocation)

What made them decide to evacuate or remain in the area?

4. Are there relocation/resettlement options offered by the government?

What are these? How did you know of these programs?Changes in gender and

intergenerational relations


font)

1. What are the changes in household roles and outside work roles since

Ondoy? What are the new tasks or roles of women? Men? Children?

Youth? Elderly?

2. Have men/women taken over particular duties from women/men in

some cases?

3. Have women (and the male/female youth/children) become moreactive in decision making or in group meetings in the community?

4. What did male youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What

did female youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What did

male youth think/feel about female youth after Ondoy? What didfemale youth think/feel about male youth after Ondoy?

5.

Did the additional burden and difficulties result to violence on women?Resulted to abuses on children and youth?

Social support networks,

family-based, community-based or otherwise


1. What forms of support or assistance have male/female children and

youth received from family members, relatives, neighbors, community,external groups since Ondoy?

a. What are strategies for accessing/securing support/aid?



48


font) b. What are the roles of men, women, children, youth, elderly in

securing support/aid?

Prepare 2 matrices: [a] assistance received from within community, and[b] assistance from external groups]

2. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children,

elderly) in the neighborhood/community more participative now sinceOndoy? In what ways are they helping each other? Who is helpingwho?

3. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children,

elderly) in the community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when

physical facilities such as homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? Whatforms of risks/dangers are different groups exposed to?

4. Have problems or tensions arisen in the neighborhood, perhaps in

terms of access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) forreconstruction? Which among men, women, leaders, those who are

living inside or outside the area) has access or control over the

resource/facility?

Impressions on quality of life in the evacuationcenter: food service/

ration; health, sanitation,

illness, grooming

(Priority questions in boldfont)

1. How were/are the living conditions (for women, men, children, etc.) inthe evacuation site? What basic services (water, light, health) werepresent/missing in the site?

2. What are the specific needs of women, men, male/female

youth/children, elderly etc.?

a. Were there specific needs of women, children and elderlyneglected or addressed at the evacuation centers?

b. How addressed? By whom? (or) Why neglected?

Local Governance

3. What are your recommendations to improve the living conditions for

men, women, children, elderly in evacuation sites?

Relief and recovery

response


font)

1. What institutions or groups within or outside of the community

(formal and informal) responded to the emergency?

For each group,

a. What were the main activities undertaken by each group

immediately/days after Ondoy?

b. How was the relief response implemented?

c. How quickly did they mobilize people? How mobilized?

Prepare matrix indicating name of group, activities undertaken, how

implemented, how mobilized.2. How did the barangay LGU manage aid/relief received?

a. How did the barangay identify aid recipients?

b. Which groups/individuals in the community benefited? Why them

in particular?

c. What problems, complaints, issues were encountered in identifyingaid recipients, distributing relief, etc? How were these managed?

3. Was the response/assistance from [type of group] effective,

appropriate, sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were theregroups which received more support, or received support faster?)

What concerns or issues about the relief or assistance provided were



49


raised by the community?

4. Were there specific needs of women, men children and elderly that

were neglected or addressed by the relief operations?a. How/who identified/asserted the needs?


Community contributions

to relief and recovery

response(Priority questions in bold

font)

1. Did the community participate in the relief and recovery response?

a. Who/which groups in the community were most involved? Why?

b. How were they involved?c. What facilitated the involvement of which group?

d. What constrained the involvement of which group?

Prepare matrix.

2. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recoveryresponse by GO? by civil society groups?

3. What are the immediate needs of men, women, male/female

youth/children/elderly?

4. What can the community contribute to the relief and response effort?Who (women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.) could join and

what would be the role of each one/group?Role of civil society in

responding to Ondoy(Priority questions in bold

font)

1. Who were the informal leaders/groups, or civil society or community-

based organisations that actively participated in the relief/earlyrecovery?

For each group:

a. What were the main activities undertaken?

b. How quickly were they able to mobilize?

c. Are they specific to certain neighborhoods?

d. Do they have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on

these in the response to Ondoy? For example: Did they provide

assistance directly (distribution of relief goods) and/or did they actas intermediaries between local government and the community?

Prepare matrix.2. How were men, women, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in

these community mobilizations?

3. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female

youth/children, rich, poor, etc.) was the relief/recovery response?

Community participation

and social accountability (inresettlement sites)

Community participation and social accountability

1. How was the decision made to move? Who chose this particular site?Was this a family/community decision or barangay/municipality

decision? What factors influenced the decision? Because there is space

for new housing? Because basic services are available? Because people

are able to pursue same livelihoods as before? Other considerations?Were there differences in the factors considered by women and men?

Whose interests (men, women, male/female youth/children, etc.) wereprioritized?2. What are the living conditions in this site? Provide a brief description of

basic services available and housing conditions. What is missing and

what needs improvement so that life can return to normal? (Most

pressing needs/concerns of the community (and specific groups



50


therein ) and how might these differ from those in other sites)

3. How do communities get information of the

resettlement/reconstruction process? (Who are targeted as recipientsof the information?) Who is their main interlocutor? Have they

(women, men, etc.) been consulted on their future needs in the post-

disaster phase? What is their role and what are their linkages to localgovernment?

4. Are there active CBOsin these sites? Who are their members? Leaders?

Are vulnerable groups within the community able to participate?

(why/why not? What would help them participate more actively?)

2. FGD Guide for Livelihoods Group


Personalexperience of

Ondoy/flooding

1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoonOndoy?

2.

How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? What kind of information did you receive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this

information? How much advance warning did you get?)

3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep

everyone together? Did you have to move temporarily? How are you able to care

for your children/elderly relatives/disabled members now? Who among the

family/household was most affected? Why?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you return home? What made you

decide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still

members of your family in temporary accommodation? Do you expect them toreturn? When? Under what circumstances?

5. What caused the flooding in your area?

Livelihood and socioeconomic adaptations

Employment/

livelihood

1. What are the main changes in employment and livelihood opportunities of men

and women (and children, youth, and elderly) in the community since Ondoy?

a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy?b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the same sources

of income or have they changed? What were these changes?

c. Are children/youth (male and female) moving out of the community or

relocating to find work? Where do they go and why? What new types of workdo they take up?

d. Did you need to learn new skills for these new kinds of work or new

occupations?2. What employment or livelihood opportunities (inside or outside the community)

were lost/gained by men and women (children/youth/elderly) because of Ondoy?

a. What economic resources and opportunities remain or are now present forwomen? Men? Male/female youth, male/female children, male/femaleelderly?

b. What markets were opened? Lost?


d. What new types of work/livelihood have men, women, male/female



51


youth/children, elderly taken up? What are the conditions of work for each of

these groups?

3. Were there changes in your daily income? Your monthly income? Are there othersources of income?

a. Who manages and decides on how to spend the income?

b. What are the usual/regular budget items or expenses (food, medicine,cigarettes)?

c. Which items are not budgeted/allotted? Or which budget items were lessened,

e.g., school allowance?

4. Have there been changes in the division of domestic chores (cooking, taking care

of children/elderly/sick, washing clothes, fetching water) among men, women,

male children/youth, female children/youth as a result of flooding or change inlivelihood? In what ways?

5. With these changes in economic activities, how are the needs of children,

pregnant women/women who had just given birth, elderly taken cared of?

6. In what ways were the livelihoods/income sources of [families of] vulnerablegroups in the community (such as women, children, persons with disabilities,

elderly, etc.) affected by Ondoy?a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy?b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the same sources

of income or have they changed? What were these changes?

Coping

strategies/

mechanisms

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with the disruptions in

economic activities? By whom (women, men, children, youth, elderly)? What are

entailed of them?

a. Did we receive government assistance such as cash/food for work?

b. Were there assisting groups (such as the church, private sector, NGO/civil

society, schools, OFWs, etc) who helped you? What types of assistance did you

receive from what group/organization?

c. To whom/To which group (in the community/family/household) was the

assistance or help directed to? Were female-headed households given equalattention and help?

d. Did we receive help from our own family/relatives? Who are these and what

types of help did they give? To those who receive remittances (local or abroad),

how much did they send before and after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)?

2. Are there any particular groups (women, men, children, elderly, those who living

inside and outside the area , etc.) unable to access any external support (formal

and informal)? How are they (indicate which group) coping?

3. How did you finance your business/livelihood before Ondoy? After Ondoy?

a. How easy/difficult is it to secure business loan now after Ondoy? What are thesources of credit/loan?

b. Who (male, female) is securing, using, and/or deciding on the use of the loan?

4. Are households getting into debt to deal with loss of assets or income?

a. How much debt did they have before and after Ondoy?b. Who among the community members have the most debt and why?

c. Who do they owe to? Are these the same lenders as before Ondoy? Have

there been any changes to interest rates since Ondoy?d. Who (male/female) are getting into debt or paying the debt?

e. How is the loan spent by whom?



52


5. Who is/are the most vulnerable group/s in the community? Why? Among the

vulnerable groups in the community, have there been changes in daily habits,

such as changes in school, work, eating habits?a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being removed

from school to work)

b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more/risky work than before)c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per day, type of

meals served)

6. What are the additional tasks/work of families/HHs after Ondoy? Who (female,

male, children, youth, elderly) is assuming or doing the additional task/work

(indicate the particular type of task/work)?7. Are there cases/has there been a change in the number of human trafficking

cases, particularly of women and children after Ondoy?

Data Set ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME


Social support

networks,family-based,

community-

based or

otherwise

1. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the

neighborhood/community more participative now since Ondoy? In what ways arethey helping each other? Who is helping who?

2. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the

community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when physical facilities such as

homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What forms of risks/dangers are different

groups exposed to?

3. Have problems or tensions arisen in the neighborhood, perhaps in terms of

access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) for reconstruction?

Which among men, women, leaders, those who are living inside and outside the

area) has access or control over the resource/facility?

Local Governance

Relief and

recoveryresponse

1. How did the barangay LGU manage aid/relief received, how did they identify aid

recipients? Which groups/individuals in the community benefited and why themin particular?

2. Was the response/assistance from [type of group] effective, appropriate,

sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there groups which received

more support, or received support faster?) What concerns or issues about the

relief or assistance provided were raised by the community?

Community

contributions to

relief andrecovery

response

1. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery response by GO

and civil society groups?

2. What can the community contribute to the relief and response effort? Who(women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.) could join and what would be

the role of each one/group?

Role of civil

society inresponding toOndoy

1. Who were the informal leaders, or civil society or community-based organisations

that actively participated in the relief/early recovery?2. What were the main activities undertaken by civil society groups? How quickly

were they able to mobilize? Are they specific to certain neighborhoods? Do they

have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on these in the response to

Ondoy? For example: Did they provide assistance directly (distribution of relief

goods) and/or did they act as intermediaries between local government and the



53

Data Set ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME

community?

3. How were men, women, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in these

community mobilizations? 4. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female youth/children, rich,

poor, etc.) was the relief/recovery response?

3. FGD Guide for Youth Group



1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon Ondoy?

2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? What kind of information did youreceive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this information? How much advance warning did

you get?)

3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep everyone together?

Did you have to move temporarily? How are you able to care for your children/elderly

relatives/disabled members now? Who among the family/household was most affected? Why?4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you return home? What made you decide to return?

Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary

accommodation? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances?


Local Governance

Community

contributions to

relief and recovery

response

1. Did the community (children and youth) participate in the relief and recovery

response?

a. Who/which groups of children/youth in the community were most

involved? Why?

b. How were they involved?

c. What facilitated the involvement of which group?

d. What constrained the involvement of which group?Prepare matrix.

2. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery response by

GO? By civil society groups?

3. What are the immediate needs of male/female youth/children?

4. What can children/youth (male/female) contribute to the relief and response

effort? What would be the role of male/female children/youth?

Relief and recovery

response

1. How did the barangay LGU manage aid/relief received?

a. How did the barangay identify aid recipients?b. Which groups/individuals in the community benefited? Why them in

particular?

c. What problems, complaints, issues were encountered in identifying aid

recipients, distributing relief, etc? How were these managed?2. Was the response/assistance from [type of group] effective, appropriate,

sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there groups which

received more support, or received support faster?) What concerns or issues

about the relief or assistance provided were raised by the community?

3. Were there specific needs of women, men, children and elderly that were



54


neglected or addressed by the relief operations?

a. How/who identified/asserted the needs?


Role of civil society

in responding toOndoy

1. Who were the informal leaders/groups, or civil society or community-based

organisations that actively participated in the relief/early recovery?For each group:


b. How quickly were they able to mobilize?c. Are they specific to certain neighborhoods?

d. Do they have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on these in

the response to Ondoy? For example: Did they provide assistance directly

(distribution of relief goods) and/or did they act as intermediariesbetween local government and the community?

Prepare matrix.

2. How were male/female youth/children involved in these community

mobilizations?3. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female

youth/children, rich, poor, etc.) was the relief/recovery response?Social Relations and Cohesion

Displacement 1. Are children (boys, girls) being sent to relatives/provinces? Or, are relatives

(males/females, young/old) arriving from the province/other areas in Manila

to help?2. Are some people (men, women, children, elderly) from this community still

living elsewhere (temporary shelter, evacuation center)?

3. Why did families decide to return to the neighborhood?

What made them decide to relocate? (probe for temporary and permanent

relocation)

What made them decide to evacuate or remain in the area?

What was the most important consideration in making the decision?

Who [man, woman, both] decided for the whole family?How were other members of the household involved in decision making?

4. Are there relocation/resettlement options offered by the government? What

are these? How did you know of these programs?

5. Have relations in the family and the community been affected by

displacement, separation, or migration of families? In what ways?

Changes in gender

and inter-generational

relations

1. What are the new tasks or roles (within/outside home) of male/female

children/youth since Ondoy?2. Have male children/youth taken over particular duties from female

children/youth in some cases? Have female children/youth taken over

particular duties from male children/youth in some cases?

3. Have male/female youth/children become more active in decision making or

in group meetings in the community?4. What did male youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What did

female youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What did male youth

think/feel about female youth after Ondoy? What did female youth think/feelabout male youth after Ondoy?

5. Did the additional burden and difficulties result to violence on women?



55


Resulted to abuses on children and youth?

Social support

networks, family-

based, community-

based or otherwise

1. What forms of support or assistance have male/female children and youth

received from family members, relatives, neighbors, community, external

groups since Ondoy?

a. What are strategies for accessing/securing support/aid?b. What are the roles of men, women, children, youth, elderly in securing

support/aid?

Prepare 2 matrices: [a] assistance received from within community, and [b]assistance from external groups]

2. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in

the neighborhood/community more participative now since Ondoy? In what

ways are they helping each other? Who is helping who?3. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in

the community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when physical facilities

such as homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What forms of risks/dangers

are different groups exposed to?4. Have problems or tensions arisen in the neighborhood, perhaps in terms of

access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) forreconstruction? Which (among men, women, leaders, inside or outside thearea) has access or control over the resource/facility?

Impressions on

quality of life in the

evacuation center:

food service/ration;

health, sanitation,

illness, grooming

1. How were/are the living conditions (for women, men, children, etc.) in the

evacuation site? What basic services (water, light, health) were

present/missing in the site?

2. What are the specific needs of male/female youth/children in evacuation

centers?

a. Were there specific needs of male/female children and youth neglected or

addressed at the evacuation centers? b.How addressed? By whom? (or)

Why neglected?3. What are your recommendations to improve the living conditions of children

and youth (male/female) in evacuation sites?Data Set ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME


Employment/

livelihood

(Priority questions in

bold font)

1. What are the main changes in employment and livelihood opportunities of

children and youth (male and female) in the community since Ondoy?

a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy?

b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the same

sources of income or have they changed? What were these changes?

c. Are children/youth (male and female) moving out of the community or

relocating to find work? Where do they go and why? What new types of

work do they take up?

d. Did you/young people/people in general need to learn new skills for these

new kinds of work or new occupations?2. What employment or livelihood opportunities (inside or outside the

community) were lost/gained by children/youth because of Ondoy?

a. What economic resources and opportunities remain or are now present

for male/female youth, male/female children?b. What markets were opened? Lost?



56



d. What new types of work/livelihood have male/female youth, male/

female children taken up? What are the conditions of work for each of these groups?

3. Were there changes in your daily income? Your monthly income? Are there

other sources of income?a. Who manages and decides on how to spend the income?b. What are the usual/regular budget items or expenses (food, medicine,

cigarettes)?

c. Which items are not budgeted/allotted? Or which budget items were

lessened, e.g., school allowance?4. Have there been changes in the division of domestic chores (cooking, taking

care of children/elderly/sick, washing clothes, fetching water) among men,

women, male children/youth, female children/youth as a result of flooding orchange in livelihood? In what ways?

5. With these changes in economic activities, how are the needs of children,

pregnant women/women who had just given birth, elderly taken cared of?

Coping strategies/mechanisms (Priorityquestions in bold

font)

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with thedisruptions in economic activities? By whom (women, men, children,youth, elderly)? What are entailed of them? a. Did you receive government

assistance such as cash/food for work? b. Were there assisting groups

(such as the church, private sector, NGO/civil society, schools, OFWs, etc)

who helped you? What types of assistance did you receive from whatgroup/organization? c. To whom/To which group (in the

community/family/household) was the assistance or help directed to?

Were female-headed households given equal attention and help?

d. Did you receive help from your own family/relatives? Who are these and

what types of help did they give? To those who receive remittances (localor abroad), how much did they send before and after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)?

2. Who is/are the most vulnerable group/s in the community? Why? Among thevulnerable groups in the community, have there been changes in daily habits,

such as changes in school, work, eating habits?

a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being

removed from school to work)

b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more work than before)

c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per day, type

of meals served)

3. What are the additional tasks/work of families/HHs after Ondoy? Who

(female, male, children, youth, elderly) is assuming or doing the additionaltask/work (indicate the particular type of task/work)?

4. Are there cases/has there been a change in the number of human trafficking

cases, particularly of women and children after Ondoy?

Communityparticipation and

social accountability

(in resettlement

sites)

Community participation and social accountability1. How was the decision made to move? Who chose this particular site? Was this

a family/community decision or barangay/municipality decision? What factors

influenced the decision? Because there is space for new housing? Because

basic services are available? Because people are able to pursue same



57


livelihoods as before? Other considerations?

Were there differences in the factors considered by women and men?

Whose interests (men, women, male/female youth/children, etc.) wereprioritized?

2. What are the living conditions in this site? Provide a brief description of basic

services available and housing conditions. What is missing and what needsimprovement so that life can return to normal? (Most pressingneeds/concerns of the community (and specific groups therein) and how

might these differ from those in other sites)

3. How do communities get information of the resettlement/reconstruction

process? (Who are targeted as recipients of the information?) Who is theirmain interlocutor? Have they (women, men, etc.) been consulted on their

future needs in the post-disaster phase? What is their role and what are their

linkages to local government?4. Are there active community-based organizations in these sites? Who are their

members? Leaders? Are vulnerable groups within the community able to

participate? (why/why not? What would help them participate more actively?)

4. FGD Guide for Community Leaders Group



1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon

Ondoy?

2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy?

3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep

everyone together? How are you able to care for your children/elderly

relatives/disabled members now? Who among the family/household was most

affected? Why?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you return home? What made youdecide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still

members of your family in temporary accommodation? Do you

expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances?


Local Governance

Displacement 1. Has there been an increase (or reduction) in HH size since Ondoy? Are children(boys, girls) being sent to relatives/provinces? Or, Are relatives (males/females,

young/old) arriving from the province/other areas in Manila to help?

2. Are some people from this community still living elsewhere (temporary shelter,

evacuation center)?3. Why did families decide to return to the neighborhood?

What made them decide to relocate? (probe for temporary and permanentrelocation)What made them decide to evacuate or remain in the area?

What was the most important consideration in making the decision?

Who [man, woman, both] decided for the whole family?

How were other members of the household involved in decision making?



58


4. Are there relocation/resettlement options offered by the government? What are

these? How did you know of these programs?

5. Have relations in the family and the community been affected by displacement,separation, or migration of families? In what ways?

Relief andrecovery

response

1.

Was the community warned in advance about Ondoy?a. What information was received from whom/what type of information

source/channel?

b. How was the information relayed? Through what channels?c. Who were the target recipients?

2. What institutions or groups within or outside of the community (formal and

informal) responded to the emergency?

For each group,a. What were the main activities undertaken by each group immediately/days

after Ondoy?

b. How was the relief response implemented?

c. How quickly did they mobilize people? How mobilized?Prepare matrix indicating name of group, activities undertaken, how implemented,

how mobilized.3. How did the barangay LGU manage aid/relief received?

a. How did the barangay identify aid recipients?

b. Which groups/individuals in the community benefited? Why them in

particular?

c. What problems, complaints, issues encountered in identifying aid recipients,distributing relief, etc? How were these managed?

4. Was the response/assistance from [type of group] effective, appropriate,

sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there groups which received

more support, or received support faster?) What concerns or issues about the

relief or assistance provided were raised by the community?

5. Were there specific needs of women, men, children and elderly that were

neglected or addressed by the relief operations?

a. How/who identified/asserted the needs?


Community

contributions to

relief and

recovery

response

1. Did the community participate in the relief and recovery response?

a. Who/which groups in the community were most involved? Why?

b. How were they involved?

c. What facilitated the involvement of which group?

d. What constrained the involvement of which group?

Prepare matrix.

2. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery response/toavert future disasters by GO? by civil society groups?

3. What are the immediate needs of men, women, male/female

youth/children/elderly?

4. What can the community contribute to the relief and response effort? Who(women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.) could join and what would be

the role of each one/group?

Role of civil

society in

1. Who were the informal leaders/groups, or civil society or community-based

organisations that actively participated in the relief/early recovery?



59


responding to

Ondoy

For each group:


b. How quickly were they able to mobilize?c. Are they specific to certain neighborhoods?

d. Do they have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on these in the

response to Ondoy? For example: Did they provide assistance directly(distribution of relief goods) and/or did they act as intermediaries betweenlocal government and the community?

Prepare matrix.

2. How were men, women, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in these

community mobilizations?3. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female youth/children,

rich, poor, etc.) Was the relief/recovery response?

4. What is the relationship of these organizations with local government structures?Has this changed since Ondoy? For example: Is there a history of collaboration

(on what activities?), is this collaboration new (restricted to the relief assistance

after Ondoy?) Is the role one of advocacy, or service delivery (complementing

that of government), etc.?5. How were women, men, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in these

collaborations? In what venues/levels (formal/informal discussions,

barangay/municipal/city levels) were these different groups involved?

ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME


Social support

networks,

family-based,

community-

based or

otherwise

1. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the

neighborhood/community more participative now since Ondoy? In what ways are

they helping each other? Who is helping who?

2. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the

community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when physical facilities such as

homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What forms of risks/dangers are different

groups exposed to?3. Have problems or tensions arisen in the neighborhood, perhaps in terms of

access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) for reconstruction?

Which among men, women, leaders, those who are living inside or outside the

area has access or control over the resource/facility?

Impressions onquality of life in

the evacuation

center: food

service/ration;health,

sanitation,

illness,grooming;

1. How were/are the living conditions (for women, men, children, etc.) in theevacuation site? What basic services (water, light, health) were present/missing in

the site?

2. What are the specific needs of women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.?

a. Were there specific needs of women, children and elderly neglected oraddressed at the evacuation centers?


3. What are your recommendations to improve the living conditions in evacuationsites?


Copingstrategies/

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with the disruptions ineconomic activities? By whom (women, men, children, youth, elderly)? What are



60

ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME

mechanisms entailed of them?

a. Did we receive government assistance such as cash/food for work?

b. Were there assisting groups (such as the church, private sector, NGO/civilsociety, schools, OFWs, etc) who helped you? What types of assistance did you

receive from what group/organization?

c. To whom/To which group (in the community/family/household) was theassistance or help directed to? Were female-headed households given equalattention and help?

d. Did you receive help from your own family/relatives? Which relatives and what

types of help did they give? To those who receive remittances (local or abroad),

how much did they send before and after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)?2. Who is/are the most vulnerable group/s in the community? Why? Among the

vulnerable groups in the community, have there been changes in daily habits, such

as changes in school, work, eating habits?a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being removed

from school to work)

b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more/risky work than before)

c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per day, type of meals served)

Community

participation and

social

accountability (inresettlement

sites)

Community participation and social accountability

1. How was the decision made to move? Who chose this particular site? Was this a

family/community decision or barangay/municipality decision? What factors

influenced the decision? Because there is space for new housing? Because basicservices are available? Because people are able to pursue same livelihoods as

before? Other considerations?

Were there differences in the factors considered by women and men?

Whose interests (men, women, male/female youth/children, etc.) were prioritized?

2. What are the living conditions in this site? Provide a brief description of basicservices available and housing conditions. What is missing and what needs

improvement so that life can return to normal? (Most pressing needs/concerns of the community (and specific groups therein) and how might these differ from

those in other sites)

3. How do communities get information of the resettlement/reconstruction process?

(Who are targeted as recipients of the information?) Who is their main

interlocutor? Have they (women, men, etc.) been consulted on their future needs

in the post-disaster phase? What is their role and what are their linkages to local

government?

4. Are there active community-based organizations in these sites? Who are their

members? Leaders? Are vulnerable groups within the community able toparticipate? (why/why not? What would help them participate more actively?)



61

Key Informant Interviews (KII)

KII Guide for Interviewee from a highly vulnerable group (as indentified by the community)

A. General background information and personal experience of Ondoy

Suggested questions

1. How long have you lived in this community?

How did you come to live in this community?

2. Where were you when Ondoy hit? How did youmanage to keep safe during the typhoon?

3. How is your family? Where is everyone at the

moment?

Probing questions (additional information)

1. Where are you (parents/grand-parents) originally

from? What was it about this neighborhood that

made you decide to settle here (rather than

somewhere else?)

2. What kind of information did you receive on the

storm before it hit? (Who provided this

information? How much advance warning did youget?)

3. How did you manage to keep everyone together?How are you able to care for your

children/elderly relatives/disabled members

now?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did

you return home? What made you decide to

return? Who in your family has now returned

home? Are there still members of your family in

temporary accommodations? Do you expect

them to return? When? Under what

circumstances?

B. Livelihoods and coping strategiesSuggested questions

1. How damaged was your house? Your

possessions?

2. Can you tell me what a typical “work week” was

like for you before Ondoy? What about now?

3. How do you feel about the changes since

Ondoy?

4. What kind of support have you received fromgovernment since Ondoy? (national government

or local government)

5. What about NGOs or other groups (church)?

What kind of help have you received from


1. In what condition is your house now? Can you

describe for me the main (valuable) items that

were damaged during the floods? What were you

able to recover from your possessions?

2. How far away from home do you go to find work?

(Did you/do you do any work from home?) Who

employs you? How much do you earn on average?What about other members of the family? (Before

and after Ondoy)

3. Is your/family’s earning sufficient for your basic

expenses? What kinds of expenses are you

adjusting/reducing? Does anyone else in your

family work? Who works? What kind of work do



62

them?

6. Who else has been helping you to cope? Can

you tell what kind of help you are receiving from

your family/friends for example?

7. What else are you/the family doing to deal withthe situation since Ondoy?

they do? How about the children? Are they

helping? In what way?

4. Have you thought about leaving this area? If yes,

where would you think of going? What type of

work would you do if you moved (would you beable to continue with your existing work/job?)

If the answer is yes - What do you think about thehelp you have received from government/from

other groups?

Or

If the answer is no – What makes it difficult for youto receive help?

If some help from family is being received -Do you have relatives living/working abroad? Do

they usually send you money? How much? How

much since Ondoy?

Did you get some help from friends abroad?

For example – Are you able to borrow? How much

(did you borrow before?) For what? From whom?

Are you able to make your payments?

If they had loans/were in debt before Ondoy: Were

you in debt at the time Ondoy struck? From whom?

Are you able to continue payments? What new

arrangements have been made regarding payments?

Have other members of the family taken on morework? Who and what kind of work are they doing?

How about children, how are they helping?

C. Social relations and cohesion (looking at the participation of vulnerable groups in community activities)

Suggested questions

1. Could you give me an example of activities

people in this neighborhood have been doingtogether since Ondoy?

Or Could you tell me about the activities thecommunity associations have been doing in the

last two weeks. Identify the associations. Clarify

which did what.

Or When was the last time the neighborhood did

something together as a group? Could you


1. What about before the floods? What kinds of

things did people used to do together?

What has changed/not changed in the way

neighbors behave towards each other since thefloods?

Have you participated in these activities? What

was your role? Or What made you participate/not

participate? What would have helped you to

participate?



63

describe it for me?

2. What is the security situation like since Ondoy?

Or How do you feel about the safety of your

family since Ondoy?

2. What do you think contributed to make the

neighborhood safer/less safe?

D. Local Governance and Social Accountability

Suggested questions

1. How/Was the local government before Ondoy

able to deliver basic services to the community?

If yes, how? How did it respond during/after the

floods?

2. What is your relationship like with the local

government? Did you approach barangay

leaders for assistance? Other government

leaders and offices? If yes, who/what offices?

what was their response? If not, why not?

3. How do you feel about the way in which

support was distributed after the floods? (bylocal government/by civil society organizations)


1. What structures in the barangay are in place to

respond to disaster (e.g., barangay

disaster/emergency response team), to maintain

security, provide health services, mediate conflicts

– structures which are needed after the floods?

2. What major activities were implemented by the

barangay to respond to the disaster?

3. What kind of information did you receive about

the help being provided?

Did some groups receive more/less support thanothers? If yes – which ones? Why do you think

they received more/less help?

Did you have any specific complaints? How did youhandle that (whom did you complain to? What

happened as a result?)

E. Concluding remarks and closing1. How can the local government support be improved?

2. How can the support provided by NGOs be improved?

3. What are your most pressing needs to get your life back to normal now? How can government/NGOs

help?

4. Are you aware of the government’s resettlement schemes? What information do you have about them

(from whom?)? What do you think about these schemes?

KII guide for Community Leader (Community Association or People’s Organization)


Suggested questions

1. How long have you lived in (name of barangay)?

How did you come to live in this community?


1. Where are you (parents/grand-parents) originally

from? What was it about this neighborhood that



64

2. Where were you when Ondoy hit? How did you

manage to keep safe during the typhoon?


moment?


somewhere else?)



information? How much advance warning did you

get?)

3. How did you manage to keep everyone together?

How are you able to care for yourchildren/elderly relatives/disabled members

now?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did youreturn home? What made you decide to return?

Who in your family has now returned home? Are

there still members of your family in temporaryaccommodations? Do you expect them to return?

When? Under what circumstances?

B. Social relations and cohesion (looking at the participation of vulnerable groups in community activities)

Suggested questions

1. Could you give me an example of activities

people in this neighborhood have been doingtogether since Ondoy?

Or Could you tell me about the activities the

community associations have been doing in thelast two weeks. Identify the associations. Clarify

which organizations did what activities.

Or When was the last time the neighborhood did

something together as a group? Could you

describe it for me?



family since Ondoy?

3. What are the causes of the disaster from the

point of view of the community and leaders?

What steps has the barangay taken to avertfuture disasters?


1. What about before the floods? What kinds of

things did people used to do together?


neighbors behave towards one another since the

floods?

What are the groups that are more active inthese activities?

What are the groups that have not participated?

How do you explain these differences?





65

C. Local Governance and Social Accountability

Suggested questions

1. How do you feel about the way in which support

was distributed after the floods? (by local

government/by civil society organizations)

Did you work closely with the barangay

captain/barangay councilor? Mayor’s office? The

governor’s office? National government offices

before Ondoy? Which ones and in what ways? If

not, why not?

2. What were the groups in the community that

participated in the distribution of support? What

was their role? Were there any differences

between men and women in distribution of support?

3. How do you feel about the collaboration/What is

your relationship with local government like?With other civil society organizations, local

associations, church groups, others?


1. What kind of information did you provide about

the post-flood assistance? What kind of

information did you receive from localgovernment on the post-flood assistance?

What about early warning information? What

kind of information did you/communitiesreceive? From whom?

Before Ondoy, did you have any training in

disaster management or prevention? If yes, from

whom? Was it useful? If yes, in what ways? If not,

why not?

2. Did you receive support from groups outside the

community? Who were these groups? How did

they help?

Did some groups receive more/less support than

others? If yes – which ones? Why do you think

they received more/less help?

Did you have any specific complaints? How did

you handle that complaint (who did you complain

to? What happened as a result?)

3. What was your relationship with them like before

Ondoy? How about now? What do you feel haschanged (if anything?)

D. Concluding remarks and closing

1. How can the local government support be improved?2. What are the most pressing needs of the communities to get their lives back to normal? How can

government/NGOs help?

3. Are you aware of the government’s resettlement schemes? What information do you have about them

(from whom?)? What do you think about these schemes? Are you or your association participating in anyof the decision making on this? If not, would you like to? If yes, how are your views being treated by the

Government? By NGOs?



66

KII Guide Tool for Barangay Captain


Suggested questions

1. How long have you lived in this community?How did you come to live in this community?

2. Where were you when Ondoy hit? How did you

manage to keep safe during the typhoon?


moment?


1. Where are you (parents/grand-parents) originallyfrom? What was it about this neighborhood that


somewhere else?)



information? How much advance warning did you

get?)

3. How did you manage to keep everyone

together? How are you able to care for yourchildren/elderly relatives/disabled members

now?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When didyou return home? What made you decide to

return? Who in your family has now returned

home? Are there still members of your family in

temporary accommodations? Do you expect

them to return? When? Under what

circumstances?

B. Social relations and cohesion (looking at the participation of vulnerable groups in community activities)

Suggested questions

1. Could you give me an example of activitiespeople in this neighborhood have been doing

together since Ondoy?

Or Could you tell me about the activities the

community associations have been doing in the

last two weeks. Identify the associations. Clarify

which organizations did what activities.

Or When was the last time the neighborhood didsomething together as a group? Could you

describe it for me?



family since Ondoy?


1. What about before the floods? What kinds of things did people used to do together?


neighbors behave towards one another since the

floods?

What are the groups that are more active in

these activities?

What are the groups that have not participated?How do you explain these differences?





67

C. Local Governance and Social Accountability

Suggested questions

1. What structures in the barangay are in place torespond to disaster, maintain security, provide

health services, mediate conflicts – structures

needed after the floods. How did the barangayrespond?

2. What are the causes of the disaster from the

point of view of the community and leaders?What steps has the barangay taken to avert

future disasters?

3. How do you feel about the way in which support

was distributed after the floods? (by local

government/by civil society organizations)

Did you work closely with the Mayor’s office?

The governor’s office? National government

offices? Which ones? With adjacent barangay

captains? If yes, how? If not, why not?

4. What were the main challenges you faced in

providing assistance?

5. What were the groups in the community that

participated in the distribution of support?

What was their role? Were there any

differences between men and women in

distribution of support?

6. How do you feel about the collaboration with

civil society organizations, local associations,

church groups, others?


1. What major activities were implemented by thebarangay to respond to the disaster?

2. Before Ondoy, did you have any training indisaster management or prevention? If yes, from

whom? Was it useful? If yes, in what ways? If no,

why not?

3. What kind of information did you provide about

the post-flood assistance? What means did you use?

To whom was this information targeted? How did

you reach the most vulnerable groups? What about

immediately before the floods? What kind of

information were you able to provide communities?

4. Did you receive support from groups outside the

community? Who were these groups? How did they

help?

5. Did some groups receive more/less support than

others? If yes – which ones? Why do you think they

received more/less help?

Did you receive any specific complaints? From

whom and how did you handle these complaints?

6. What was your relationship with them like before

Ondoy? How about now? What do you feel has

changed (if anything?)

D. Concluding remarks and closing

1. How can the local government support be improved?, 2. How can the support provided by NGOs be

improved?

3. Do you know what plans the government/local government unit has for this community? What are

they? What is your opinion of them? Are any leaders or members of the community participating in thedecision-making? How?

4. What are the most pressing needs of the barangay at this stage? How can government/other

stakeholders provide support?5. Are you providing communities in your area with any information about resettlement schemes? What

information are you providing? To whom and how is it being received?



Community Profiling Checklist

To understand community life before Ondoy.

Collect information through observation, secondary data (eg., barangay profile, healthor school records) and 1 or 2 key informant interview with barangay and communityleaders.

DATA SET PARTICULARS

Physical Map with boundaries; names and

number of residential clusters (sitios);

topography and natural resources

(rivers, springs, marshland, water

sources, mountains, etc)

Land area; land use

Road network

Type and number of community

infrastructure and facilities (basic

utilities, road, water system, health,

educational, recreational,communication, commercial facilities,

agricultural, etc.)

Usual mode of access; distance

to/from town center; types of

transport facilities; frequency of trips

Dry/wet season months

Existing housing arrangement

Types of housing materials used:

temporary, permanent, one floor, 2nd

floor, etc

Social

history History of the barangay: year founded

Religion, ethnicity, languages

spoken/written

educational level

means of livelihood: major source of income/occupation; other sources of

income/occupation percent of HHs in

what source of income

access to credit, microenterprise

development Sources of water; percent of HHs

obtaining (potable/domestic use)

water from what type of water source?

Means of waste disposal; number of HHs with sanitary latrines

means of disseminating informationamong the members of the community

access to electricity

Local

governance presence of community organizations;

active or inactive; HOAs, POs, NGOs,

youth

Barangay structures (Barangay council,

BDC, SK, Barangay Emergency

Response Team, etc)

Barangay plans, ordinances on solid

waste management, disaster response,

risk reduction

access to services (internal and

external): types of groups/agencies

providing what types of services

Population Total population, male/female, age groups, No. of households, average HH size

Rapid Assessment of the Social Impacts of of Tropical Storm Ondoy on Urban Poor Communities

Documents

Transcript of Rapid Assessment of the Social Impacts of of Tropical Storm Ondoy on Urban Poor Communities