rapid assessment of the social impacts of - Philippines Development ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Site Category of assistance SV4, Caingin/ Pooc, Sta Rosa Camacho Phase II, Nangka KV1, San Jose, Rodriguez Marikina Heights Rescue Organization Form of assistance Relief HOA Distributed relief Recovery Recovery Rescue Relief Neighborhood Associations CP2CHHOA NNA Recovery Rescue Action Group Montalban Ladies Association (MLA) Homeowners’ Associations From different phases Kasiglahan Muslim Neighbors Association (KMNA) Vulcanizing shops Hardware stores Relief Action Group HOAs KMNA MLA Recovery Action Group HOAs 28 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 Mobilized rescue vehicles to evacuate the affected residents, particularly the women, children and elderly Set up an ID system/green card for relief distributions Coordinated with other groups for relief assistance and distribution Facilitated relief distribution from external groups Assessed storm victims 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
esidents, 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 reported of 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 systematic process 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 they did 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 the six 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 informal settlement was likewise 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. 29 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. (The Filipinos are the most difficult to organize at a time of massive catastrophe in the distribution of relief goods. Those who got something still had something to negative to say. Not everyone was given. And we don’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
Page 1 and 2: RAPID ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL IMPA
Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgments The research team a
Page 5 and 6: Increased debt burden .............
Page 7 and 8: Acronyms ADMU Ateneo de Manila Univ
Page 9 and 10: Executive Summary Immediately after
Page 11 and 12: Introduction Immediately after Ondo
Page 13 and 14: according to the type of FGD group.
Page 15 and 16: Research site Government relocation
Page 17 and 18: Riverine Communities West Bank, Flo
Page 19 and 20: Barangay Sources of income Lakeside
Page 21 and 22: Nawasa Neighborhood Association (NN
Page 23 and 24: about eight thousand households. Th
Page 25 and 26: Table 4: Changes observed in the em
Page 27 and 28: will be unable to obtain further cr
Page 29 and 30: Saving more, consuming less Even be
Page 31 and 32: members, especially children, elder
Page 33 and 34: Cracks in the collective conscience
Page 35: homes, those living in inner/lower
Page 39 and 40: Site Camacho Phase II, Nangka KV1,
Page 41 and 42: system of ID cards for relief distr
Page 43 and 44: (mostly women), as well as those in
Page 45 and 46: Table 8: Community recommendations
Page 47 and 48: Table 9: Community recommendations
Page 49 and 50: goods) and outside (e.g., links wit
Page 51 and 52: y the barangay captain. The Plan br
Page 53 and 54: Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) 1. F
Page 55 and 56: Data Set Guide Questions Displaceme
Page 57 and 58: Data Set Guide Questions Community
Page 59 and 60: Data Set Guide Questions Coping str
Page 61 and 62: Data Set ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME
Page 63 and 64: Data Set Guide Questions Social sup
Page 65 and 66: Data Set Guide Questions livelihood
Page 67 and 68: Data Set Guide Questions responding
Page 69 and 70: Key Informant Interviews (KII) KII
Page 71 and 72: describe it for me? 2. What is the
Page 73 and 74: Suggested questions 1. How do you f
Page 75 and 76: Suggested questions 1. What structu

rapid assessment of the social impacts of - Philippines Development ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?