“The Ring of Fire” – that is what scientists call that thin region of dynamic volcanic and seismic activities around the rim of the Pacific Ocean.
“The activity is the result of the movement of the tectonic plates, the surface crust on which our world is formed, which slowly grow and butt against one another causing cracks that allow deeper molten rock to rise to the surface through what we call volcanoes. Any movement of the plates creates seismic activity we know as earthquakes,” wrote Lindsay Bennet in her travel book entitled Philippines.
Unfortunately, the Philippines – a country with more than 7,600 islands – is located in this rim of what is sometimes called the circum-Pacific seismic belt. Disasters are not waiting to happen; they happen every now and then.
As Kathleen Tierney, director of the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, puts it: “The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone places on Earth. They’ve got it all. They’ve got earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, tropical cyclones, landslides.”
Now comes this timely study conducted by Romulo D. Tagalo and Melvin Javier. Tagalo is a former Oxfam senior policy advocacy officer and a professorial lecturer at the University of Southeastern Philippines (USEP) at the College of Development Management in Mintal, Davao City. Javier, on the other hand, is with the provincial planning office of Davao del Norte.
They are the men behind the research, “Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund Utilization Patterns and Opportunities for Improvement: The cases of Local Government Units Virac and Dolores, Philippines,” which was initiated by Oxfam, a global organization that fights inequality to end poverty and injustice.
Virac is located in Eastern Samar while Dolores is in Catanduanes.
The study looks into the disaster risk reduction and management policy framework and practice in the Philippines, particularly the budget performance of the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (LDRRMF) provided for by Republic Act 10121 or
the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (DRRM Act), which transforms the country’s disaster management system from disaster relief and response towards disaster risk reduction.
The Philippines is one of the countries vulnerable to climate change. In fact, we ranked fourth in terms of vulnerability to extreme weather events from 2000 to 2019, according to the Global Climate Risk Index (2022). We hold the first position among countries at risk with a risk index score of 46.9.
On average, there are 317 weather-related events each year. This results in approximately 859 fatalities annually. The financial losses attributed to disasters amount to $3.5 billion each year. In 2024, the estimated losses due to El Niño are around P15.6 billion.
The government admitted that budget limitations are among the reasons for not enhancing community resilience and supporting early recovery initiatives in the long term. However, the Commission on Audit (COA) has identified a consistent year-on-year underutilization of DRRM funds at both the national and local levels.
This underutilization is attributed to a “reactive type of disaster spending” or a reduction in expenditures due to concerns over potential disallowance by the Department of Budget and Management.
The study of Tagalo and Javier wanted to assess whether this conclusion from COA, which is now nine years old, remains relevant today.
One observation from the study indicated that although LDRRMF has been on the rise from 2016 to 2021, there is also a noticeable suboptimal utilization, particularly regarding the 70% allocation for mitigation and prevention initiatives.
“Local government units (LGUs) are less inclined to utilize the 70% of their LDRRMF compared to the remaining 30% funding source,” Tagalo and Javier remarked. “This reflects a tendency towards a reactive spending approach.”
Also, it was found that LGUs are addressing the general welfare requirements of their constituents; however, their programs tend to mirror a uniform perspective on the impacts of disasters.
Another enlightening discovery: Anticipatory measures are clearly integrated into the local DRR policy discussions, with the exception of pre-emptive cash transfers. The two researchers found out that LGUs have executed pre-emptive evacuations for both people and livestock, urged for the early harvesting of crops, and provided food and non-food supplies in anticipation of approaching typhoons – yet cash transfers have not been included.
Tagalo and Javier observed that, despite the rising frequency of disasters affecting the country, the DRRM policy in the country remains predominantly reactive. Furthermore, they noted that LGUs may be more inclined to utilize their 30% Quick Reaction Fund (QRF) in response to actual disasters, while they are less likely to allocate a significant portion of their 70% Mitigation Fund.
The two researchers suggested that the national policy requires reform, as it appears to be overly lenient regarding the underspending outlined in Section 19(a) of Republic Act 10121, which states: “dereliction of duties leading to destruction, loss of lives, and critical damage to facilities, and misuse of funds.”
“Exactly, how much under-spending is committed for it to be considered dereliction is not clear,” they noticed.
Another recommendation is to establish a more stringent threshold for fiscal disincentives related to underspending; if an LGU fails to meet this threshold, it should be disqualified from accessing loans. In addition, the policy should promote no-regret investments in pre-disaster scenarios.
The research was an initiative of the Strengthening Harmonized Action for Disaster Risk Reduction, Preparedness and Early Recovery (SHARPER) Project that aims to enhance disaster preparedness, response, and recovery capacities of thirty-two highly vulnerable barangays in two provinces in the country towards enabling them to co-lead future post-disaster humanitarian and recovery actions with the local authorities and other actors.
