Implementing the DRMMP in Metro Manila - Pacific Disaster Center

Implementing the DRMMP in Metro Manila

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ OwnershipNGOs, business sector, mediaand the academe participated.The daylong activity led to theidentification and adoption often (10) DRMMP elementsfor Metro Manila (See Box 2),based on the recommendationsof the Metro ManilaEarthquake Impact ReductionStudy (MMEIRS) fundedby the Japan InternationalCooperation Agency (JICA).To support the implementationof these elements, EMI hasdeveloped five ImplementationWork Plans (IWP), whichcapacity building programshave to be carried out by localstakeholders, under the overall response and reliefsupervision and coordinationof PHIVOLCS as Local Investigator for the Philippines (See Box 3).Box 2. Elements of the Metro Manila DRMMP1. Strengthen the Metro Manila Disaster CoordinatingCouncil (MMDCC)2. Promote the adoption of disaster managementordinances by each city and municipality3. Promote the revitalization of city/municipalityBarangay Disaster Coordinating Councils4. Institutionalize DRM within local governmentframework and fi nancing5. Enhance lateral and vertical inter-agency andinter-governmental communication and coordination6. Enhance the legal basis for DRM at the national levelby updating/replacing Presidential Decree 15667. Promote policies that encourage implementation ofDRR and develop mechanisms for mainstreamingDRR within local government functions8. Promote local government mitigation planning throughexisting planning tools9. Conduct training needs assessment and develop10.Strengthen barangay preparedness level for disasterSubsequently, five focus groups (FGs) have been created corresponding to the fiveIWPs of the DRMMP for Metro Manila (See Box 4). The focus group approachhas been adopted as a mechanism to continually engage local stakeholders in an allinclusivedialogue, and, ultimately, support the DRMMP implementation process inthe metropolis.Box 3. IWPs of the Metro Manila DRMMPNo. Description Local Lead Partner1 Develop and institutionalize technologiesfor risk communication and preparedness2 Incorporate risk reduction criteria in landuse and urban planning3 Conduct training needs assessment andcapacity building for DRM4 Mobilize resources among NGOs,professional organizations and privatesector in the DRM agenda5 Improve legal and institutionalarrangements for DRM deliveryPHIVOLCS, MMDAMMDA PlanningOffi ce, Marikina CityOCD, MMDAPHIVOLCS, MMDA,PICEMMDA, NDCCThe Fourth Field Trip in December2005 involved two separate seminarworkshopsfor MMDA and localgovernment officials, with a unifiedtheme of “Mainstreaming DisasterRisk Reduction in Metro Manila.”Five months later, in May 2006, twomore workshops were organized aspart of the Fifth Field Trip. One wason mainstreaming DRR in land useplanning, and another, on MEGA-Index, a Megacity Indicators Systemdeveloped by EMI and its partners3

Introductionfrom the National University of Colombia,Technical University of Catalonia, and PacificDisaster Center (PDC). A separate trainingworkshop on the usage of MEGA-Viewor the Megacities Map Viewer, an Internetbasedrisk communication tool developed byEMI and PDC, was also conducted.FG1FG2FG3FG4FG5Box 4. Focus Groups in Metro ManilaInformation and Communication TechnologyLand Use and Urban PlanningTraining Needs Assessment and Capacity BuildingRole of Civil SocietyLegal and Institutional ArrangementsNote: An additional focus group (FG6) has since beencreated to deal with the application of indicators.EMI conducted the Sixth Field Trip inMetro Manila on 11-17 October 2006. FouadBendimerad, EMI Chairman, came over to the Philippines to discuss and work with theEMI Secretariat, PHIVOLCS and other local partners, to consolidate local ownershipof and support to the DRMMP process (See Box 5). Partnership opportunities werefurther explored with key decision-makers and organizations.The Sixth Field Trip is the last field trip under the prepratory phase (Phase 1) ofthe 3cd Program in Metro Manila. This report, therefore, not only documents andsynthesizes the activities that took place during the said field trip, but also takes stockof the accomplishments and remaining tasks of the Metro Manila DRMMP in thepast two years.Box 5. Objectives of the Sixth Metro Manila Field TripIn the fi rst two years of the 3cd Program, much of the effort of EMI and its partner organizationsand partner cities have been poured into engaging and mobilizing local stakeholders in theparticipatory process of DRMMP, promoting inter-agency and multi-sectoral collaboration, andensuring institutional commitment to the implementation of the DRMMP of Metro Manila.As the second phase of the 3cd Program in Metro Manila draws near, the fi eld trip aimed toconsolidate the accomplishments of the program to date. To this end, the activities of this fi eld tripaimed to further move forward the implementation of the DRMMP in Metro Manila by:1. Further ensuring that disaster risk reduction becomes a national and local priority by buildingconsensus and supporting key stakeholders and organizations.2. Continue developing local institutional capacities in disaster risk management through thedevelopment of training and tools for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction appropriate to localconditions.3. Sustaining the momentum gained in terms of mainstreaming disaster risk reduction in theregular management, planning and development functions of the government.4

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ Ownership2Consultative Forum on theConsolidated Disaster RiskManagement Bill13 October 2006, 0900H - 1700HPHIVOLCS Auditorium, Quezon City, PhilippinesBackgroundOne of the major outcomes of the Fourth Field Trip in August 2005 wasthe constitution of focus groups corresponding to the five IWPs of theDRMMP for Metro Manila. One of these groups was the Focus Groupon Legal and Institutional Arrangements (FG5), whose role is to explore ways onhow to further strengthen the the legal and institutional framework for DRM in thecountry, that would be supportive of the DRMMP concept and process in MetroManila, particularly in relation to IWP No. 5.To this end, several focus group discussions were conducted to review both existingand pending legislation on DRM in the Philippines and other countries. This wasundertaken within the context of “providing the platform and framework” toensure that the Philippines has the capability for managing an emergency of nationalsignificance, as well as to appropriately support local crisis. Through this process, theFG5 members arrived at a consensus that that there is a need for a more comprehensiveand integrated legislation, rather than one which covers only some aspects of DRM.The National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC), one of EMI’s local partners,took the lead in reviewing and consolidating the various versions of DRM billsWritten by Antonio Fernandez and Asteya Santiago, based on the proceedings prepared by NDCC/OCD.5

Consultative Forum on the DRM Billpending in the Philippine Congress. In mid-2006, FG5 member Priscilla Duque of theOffice of Civil Defense (OCD), proposed to hold a consultative forum to discuss andfine-tune the consolidated DRM bill. Upon P. Duque’s suggestion, Esteban Masagca,chair of the Committee on Victims of Disasters and Calamities of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC/VDC) under the Office of the President, was invited tojoin the organizing committee for the forum. Later, PHIVOLCS became a member ofthis committee. Five meetings took place to set things in motion and in one of them,Roger Rigor, Secretary of the House of Representatives’ Congressional Committee onNational Defense, to which bills pertaining to disaster management are referred fordeliberation, awas invited for feedback and suggestions.ProceedingsThe Consultative Forum on the Consolidated DRM Bill took place on 13 October2006 at the PHIVOLCS Auditorium, Quezon City. Co-organized by the NDCC,PHIVOLCS, NAPC/VDC and EMI, the forum attracted a wide cross-section of theDRM community. One hundred nine (109) participants from LGUs, international andnon-government organizations, NDCC Technical Management Group, OCD, NAPC/VDC and EMI attended the said forum. Twelve of 17 LGUs in Metro Manila (71 percent) were represented, includinga few from the provinces ofPampanga and Southern Leyte.R. Solidum opened the forum witha welcome message, highlightingthe need for a comprehensiveDRM legislation that is foundedon a holistic, proactive approach.E. Masagca, NAPC/VDC, thenexplained the rationale for havinga new DRM law and the objectivesof the forum. He specificallyunderscored the importance ofincluding provisions involving the communities in DRM planning and programming,and posed the challenge on how to monitor the status of the bill and ultimately lobbyfor its passage.At the initial plenary, P. Duque, OCD, traced the history of past disaster-related lawsand the major developments within the last five years that led to the forum. Ma.6

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ OwnershipBox 6. Objectives of the Consultative ForumThe daylong activities consisted of two plenary sessions,one panel discussion and one workshop. Through thisprocess, the organizers aimed to review and re-examine theoutput draft legislation and, based on it, craft an amendedone, incorporating the invaluable inputs of the invitedstakeholders. Specifi cally, the forum sought to achieve thefollowing:1. Firm up improved national policies and strategic directionsfor disaster risk management;2. Coordinate DRM across other legislation impacting onemergency management, and link it operationally withnational development planning and poverty alleviation;3. Streamline and strengthen national, regional and localorganizations concerned with DRM and their respectiveroles and those of other stakeholders, for the effectiveimplementation of the DRM Program;4. Make the DRM consistent with the enhanced roles andcapabilities of central government, local government andthe private sector and other stakeholders; and5. Strategize how the revised bill could be approved andsigned into law by the legislative body and the President.7Corazon Alma de Leon, Secretary General ofthe Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC)expounded on the disaster-developmentframework, stressing the need for preparednessand mitigation. She noted that poverty is one ofthe vulnerabilities facing both rural and urbansettlers which, when combined with existinghazards, would result in disasters. R. Rigorthen explained the nature and dynamics of thelawmaking process based on his experiencein the House of Representatives. To mobilizesupport from legislators, he pointed to the needfor presenting practical data that would showthe advantages of the proposed bill over theexisting law.The last presenter for the first plenary, VictoriaBannon, coordinator of the Asia PacificProgramme of the International Federationof Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies(IFRC/RCS) highlighted the need for countriesfrequented by hazards to have a sound legalframework for handling disasters, especiallywhen external assistance would be required. She presented the International DisasterResponse Laws, Regulations and Principles (IDRL) Programme, whose goal is to ensurethat legal and regulatory frameworks are optimized to enable international disasterresponse to be provided expeditiously, effectively and in compliance with the highestpossible standards. She also shared realities on the ground and issues encountered byinternational relief workers when responding to countries affected by disasters.In the open forum that followed, Clarita Carlos, former President of the NationalDefense College of the Philippines (NDCP) and currently working at the Office ofCongressman Michael John R. Duavit, expressed her opinion that the proposed billshould be shorter, and details of what needs to be done during disasters should beincorporated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). She stated that inlobbying for its passage, it is important to highlight the significance of preparedness,and the devastating effects of disasters in the country.On the other hand, Southern Leyte Governor Rosette Lerias suggested the issuanceof a memorandum from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and

Consultative Forum on the DRM Billother relevant agencies to furtherclarify the use of local calamityfunds (LCF) for preparednessand mitigation initiatives. Shealso mentioned the importanceof organized and systematiccommunication to carry out DRMactivities, and expressed satisfactionthat because of the recent disastersin the country, more localities arenow taking a proactive stance.In the panel discussion, HectorReyes of Makati City and TomasAguilar, Jr. of Marikina City presented their respective city’s ongoing initiatives relatedto DRM, and provided valuable insights on how to make the legal framework moreeffective at the local level. R. Lerias also shared her experience, particularly in dealingwith the landslides that befell Southern Leyte in recent years. She briefly outlinedthe rehabilitation plan of the province and described the commitment of differentorganizations like Gawad Kalinga (GK) in making the plan work.To provide international perspective, Neil Britton, former facilitator of FG5 andcurrently with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), shared his experience with andknowledge of the DRM laws in New Zealand. He opined that the DRM bill shouldbe complete in itself, including the delineation of functions of each particular agencyinvolved in it.In the afternoon session, the participants were divided into four groups, correspondingto four themes, namely, policy and strategies, institutional and organizational structure,empowerment and participation of LGUs and communities, and implementation andlegal/financial mechanisms, tools and resources. Each group dealt with a common setof questions to guide the discussion:1. What are the strong features of the proposed bill and what provisions needimprovement?2. What specific improvements can you propose?3. With what other thematic areas in the bill is your area related to? Specifically, whatprovision in your area and the other thematic areas are related and should be considered8

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ Ownershiptogether?4. How adequately does the legislation address the different stages of the disastercycle?The groups’ outputs were later presented in the plenary session (See Box 7). Some ofthe common concerns they identified were as follows:9Box 7. Some Issues Raised by the GroupsGroup 1: Programs and Srategies- preparation of local DRM plans, based on the national DRM plan- inclusion of gender sensitivity provisions- wider information dissemination on DRM- regularupdating of multi-hazard mapsGroup 2: Institutional and Organizational Structure- formulation of a national DRM framework as guide for themainstreaming process- inclusion of Housing and Urban DevelopmentCoordinating Council (HUDCC) among agenciesconcerned- creation of National Disaster Management Council (NDMC) localoffi ce, instead of regional offi ces- clear delineation of roles of OCD, NDMC and other involved agencies- transparency and accountability in governance- delineation of composition of new bodiesGroup 3: Local Empowerment and Community Participation- clear delineation of roles, including local legislative bodies and theDisaster Management Offi ce (DMO)- inclusion of specifi c functions in the IRR- empowerment of local DILG, including monitoring of fund disbursementsGroup 4: Implementation and Legal/Financial Mechanisms- identifi cation and management of fi nancial resources (e.g., how to dealwith funds from private sector; recognition of private sector contribution)- inclusion of details of compensation of victims in the IRR- expansion of provisions on declaration of “state of calamity”- inclusion of provisions on codes of conduct, standards and procedures1. The consolidated bill istoo lengthy; some detailsshould be mentioned inthe IRR, not in the lawitself;2. The composition andfunctions of the variousagencies and stakeholders,including the privatesector, must be clarified;3. Some key terms need tobe further defined to reflectboth the internationaltrends and local contexts;and4. The implementationand enforcement of thebill must trickle down tothe local level.Asteya Santiago, EMIGeneral Manager and oneof the regular membersof FG5, presented herinsights and observations on both the procedural and substantive aspects of theproposed DRM bill. She said that the legislative process is, as a general rule, a lengthyprocess, more particularly where it involves a subject matter of national interest andsignificance. The next steps would be the incorporation of the pertinent inputs of theproceedings into the bill, and, later, the aggressive lobbying for the bill to be certified

Consultative Forum on the DRM Billby the President as a priority bill. The same lobbying should be conducted with theconcerned legislators in the Senate and the House of Representatives.F. Bendimerad closed the forum by expressing his gratitude to the participants andorganizers, observing that the bill appropriately incorporates disaster managementin national development and poverty reduction. He added that while no piece oflegislation could ever be perfect, what is more important is the process by which theconsolidated bill has been formulated.Next StepsThe DRM Bill was one of the outputs of FG5 to address the need for improvingthe legal and institutional arrangements for DRM, as identified in IWP No.5 of theMetro Manila DRMMP.Under the leadership of NDCC/OCD, FG5 will continue theadvocacy to build consensus among key stakeholders towards the eventual enactmentof the bill. To facilitate the promotion of the bill, a draft IRR and other supportingdocumentation explaining the provisions and rationale of the bill will be prepared. Thecomments and suggestions obtained from the consultative forum will be integratedinto the consolidated DRM bill by the NDCC, before re-filing it in the House ofRepresentatives. In the deliberation of the bill, members of FG5, with the support ofother FGs, can actively participate and provide further inputs.10

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ Ownership3Round-Table Discussionon MEGA-Index16 October 2006, 0830H - 1200HPHIVOLCS Auditorium, Quezon City, PhilippinesBackgroundOne of the main objectives of the 3cd Program is to empower localgovernments on DRR and to enable them to incorporate it in their dailyactivities. Generally, local governments and communities need to have abetter understanding of available risk reduction and risk management options, and theprocess that will lead to a successful implementation of these options.In the context of the 3cd Program, EMI, together with its partners at PDC, theNational University of Colombia-Manizales, and the International Center of NumericalMethods in Engineering (CIMNE) of the Technical University of Catalonia, initiatedthe investigation, development, testing and pilot application of the Megacity IndicatorsSystem (MIS) or MEGA-Index in Metro Manila.MEGA- Index consists of two composite indices, the Urban Seismic Risk Index(USRi) and the Disaster Risk Management Index (DRMi). The USRi measure seismicrisk not only in terms of the expected physical damage, number of casualties, andeconomic losses but incorporates impact factors that account for socio-economicfragility and level of capability to cope and recover from earthquake disasters. TheDRMi, on the other hand, measures the performance and effectiveness of disasterrisk management policies of a local government unit in four policy areas: riskidentification, risk reduction, disaster management, and financial protection. The indexWrittenby Antonio Fernandez and Marqueza Reyes.11

Round-Table Discussion on MEGA-Indexprovides qualitative measures of DRM based on predefinedbenchmarks. MEGA-Index has been conceived to serve asone of the tools to institutionalize DRM in government, anobjective of Metro Manila’s DRMMP.One use of MEGA-Index is as a communication tool. Itcommunicates the degree of risk the city faces due to itsexposure to seismic hazards. As such, MEGA-Index expressesavailable scientific information on urban seismic risk and DRMpractices in a digested but uncomplicated manner, facilitatingthe comprehension of seismic risk for government officialsand policy makers.As a risk monitoring tool, MEGA-Index also fortifiesthe process of institutionalizing DRR by enabling a localgovernment unit measure the effectiveness of its DRMpolicies, programs, and plans in the past and present andencourage local stakeholders to discuss more appropriateDRR options to improve current DRM performance basedBox 8. Objectives of the Round-TableDiscussionAs part of the involvement of EMI in the Globaland Local Agenda for Megacities of theUNDP-ProVention Consortium partnership,EMI and its 3cd Program international andlocal partner institutions held this roundtableto achieve the following aims:1. Present the results of analysis on theUSRi for Metro Manila and the DRMi forMetro Manila and the three partner cities ofQuezon, Marikina and Makati; and2. Elicit intellectual and practical inputs fromlocal government offi cials, local experts,practitioners, and other stakeholders onhow to build ownership of MEGA-Indexand promote the process of adaptationand institutionalization of the use of the riskindices.on the results of the indicators. This jumpstarts the necessary process of engagingthe government officials, decision makers, planners, and personnel in benchmarkingand monitoring the city’s DRM performances. It thus also becomes as an effectivemechanism to place DRR in the collective consciousness and mainstream DRR in allaspects of government operations.Metro Manila is the first megacity where the MEGA-Index methodology hasbeen applied. The pilot application of the tool is a means to further facilitate theimplementation of Metro Manila’s DRMMP.On 14 March 2006, the indicators concept and its methodological approach wereintroduced to a group of Metro Manila stakeholders. Preliminary data were collectedby requesting the participants to individually fill out a set of standardized forms forUSRi and DRMi.On 22 May 2006, the “First Seismic Risk Reduction and Risk Management IndicatorsWorkshop” in Metro Manila was conducted. Liliana Carreño, one of the authors ofthe methodology from the University of Catalonia, presented to a large multi-sectoralgroup of stakeholders the methodological approach and preliminary results of theDRMi for the entire Metro Manila region. In the workshop session, separate groupsof participants provided valuable information to construct the DRMi for the cities12

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ Ownershipof Marikina, Makati, and Quezon. Another group was asked to provide inputs on thecomponents of USRi for all the 17 cities and municipalities of Metro Manila.The round-table discussion (RTD) on 16 October 2006 was the latest consultationand discussion in the series of local meetings that brought together the target endusersof MEGA-Index. The activity was made possible through the sponsorship ofProVention, UNDP, Kobe University and PDC, as well as the local partner institutionsof EMI, PHIVOLCS and MMDA.The round-table discussion (RTD) on 16 October 2006 was the latest consultationand discussion in the series of local meetings that brought together the target endusersof MEGA-Index. The activity was made possible through the sponsorship ofProVention, UNDP, Kobe University and PDC, as well as the local partner institutionsof EMI, PHIVOLCS and MMDA.A total of 22 participants attended the RTD on MEGA-Index held at the PHIVOLCSAuditorium in Quezon City. The participants were from different sectors of thecommunity: three were from Makati City (Edwin Aguilar, Nelson Doroy and EdgarVillena); two from Marikina City (Tomas Aguilar, Jr. and Julie Borje); two fromQuezon City (Mary Beulah Rios and Gilbert Del Rosario); one from MMDA (AmanteSalvador); two from a non-governmental organization (Antonia Loyzaga and MayCeline Vicente from the Manila Observatory); two from the academe (Renan Ma.Tanhueco of De la Salle University and Francisco Delfin, Jr. from the University ofthe Philippines); one from the government (Ma. Lynn Melosantos of PHIVOLCS);and five from EMI (Fouad Bendimerad, Antonio Fernandez, Marqueza Reyes, AsteyaSantiago and Violeta Seva). Cristina Jean Dazo and Jerome Cruz, also of EMI, helpedin the registration and documentation, respectively.A. Fernandez, EMI’s Principal Scientist, provided the background of the RTD,followed by the self introduction of each of the participants. F. Bendimerad presentedan overview of Mega-INDEX in the global context, while A. Fernandez talked aboutMega-INDEX in the case of Metro Manila. Discussion then proceeded, first, on thepractical experiences and theoretical issues involved in the development of the indices,then, on the recommendations presented during the International Disaster ReductionConference (IDRC) in Davos, Switzerland on 27 August - 1 September 2006.Valuable insights were provided by the participants who gave the following commentsand observations on both the application and methodology of MEGA-Index, as well13Proceedings

Round-Table Discussion on MEGA-Indexas on possible courses of action:On Possible Adaptation Strategies:1. Use MEGA-Index as a Tool for Policy Makinga. Promote its application among the 17 local governments of Metro Manila, byproviding incentives.b. Solicit the cooperation of the Department ofInterior and Local Government (DILG) throughwhich government’s coercive authority could beused.c. Harness the support of the decision-makers, e.g.mayors who can persuade other mayors to use thesame tool for monitoring and benchmarking theirefforts in DRM.2. Promote MEGA-Index as a Process for Changea. Expose more people (not only the technicalpersonnel but more importantly, key decisionmakers)to the methodology.b. Promote it as an instrument to discover key policy and action areas whereperformance of the city government is lackluster, and increase awareness for potentialareas for improvement.c. Apply it as a means to enhance institutional capacity and increase allocated resources,for DRM to reach “100 per cent” adaptation, and reduce the gap between the existingand the ideal evaluations.On the Presentation of Results:1. Mathematical presentation of results may not be well appreciated by mayors anddecision-makers; their meaning should be conveyed in practical terms.2. Translate the results into specific policy recommendations and remedial actions,especially in areas where the local government has been evaluated to be deficient.3. Translate results in terms of the training needs of the entire Metro Manila.14

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ Ownership4. Based on the results, propose target scores and/or milestone dates or parameters toguide and direct the cities.On the Implementation Method:1. Objective peer evaluation can be done by the local governments in the next roundof assessment for DRMi.2. An external evaluator and/or facilitator could be used to conduct the procedure,instead of the self-rating method for DRMi.3. Local government offices may be required to submit appropriate supportingdocumentation, which external evaluators can rate objectively.F. Delfin recommended getting an outsider to do the rating, while N. Doroy concurredand suggested that the rating be accomplished by a third party or by a peer group. R.Tanhueco said that combining DRMi with USRi may result in questions on validation,and suggested using some damage indicators in the rating process. A. Loyzaga saidthat in her own experience, there has been no fixed parameter or standard on this,while M. Melosantos noted that in an Awards Ceremony she recetly attended, ratersused a common standard.As for the financial sector, A. Loyzaga proposed the use of some incentives in orderto enable local government units to govern better. M. Vicente pointed to the need notonly to focus on the index, but to respond to reducing the gap in the results, while E.Villena underscored the need for an increased level of awareness.The pilot application and review of the MEGA-Index methodology through a seriesof intensive workshops conducted with local stakeholders in Metro Manila providedmany insights as to the validity and relevance of the indicators system for megacityuse. For Metro Manila stakeholders, MEGA-Index clearly communicated to themthe degree of the region’s vulnerability earthquakes. In addition, the pilot cities ofQuezon, Marikina and Makati were able to qualitatively assess their respective levelsof disaster preparedness, mitigation, prevention and recovery and pinpoint areas forimprovement to further intensify their efforts in risk reduction. The initial applicationof this tool in Metro Manila has shown that it helps in promoting public policiesthat encourage DRR and opens up new opportunities and mechanisms in the manyoperations of government to institutionalize DRM, particularly those pertaining tometropolitan governance.Further fine-tuning and localizing the methodology to adapt to the local context will15

MEGA-Plan Validation Workshopenhance the relevance and applicability of MEGA-Index. These invaluable lessonswill also inform the replication of MEGA-Index implementation as a component ofthe 3cd Program in other megacities around the world.Next StepsTo follow through the implementation of DRMMP of Metro Manila, the promotionof MEGA-Index for adaptation by individual cities and municipalities should be thenext logical step. Adaptation strategies were suggested by the participants in the workshop,ranging from promoting MEGA-Index as a tool for policy making and MEGA-Index as a process for change. More discussions should be conducted to brainstormon other possible means to increase the buy-in of this tool by the cities and municipalitiesin Metro Manila. Towards this end, a non-proprietary software for MEGA-Indexwill be developed.16

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ OwnershipMEGA-Plan Validation Workshop416 October 2006, 1300H to 1800HPHIVOLCS Auditorium, Quezon City, PhilippinesBackgroundLand use planning has consistently been identified as an effective means to mitigateand prevent disasters. Not only can it be used as an approach in reducing theLimpacts of natural disasters, it can also provide a systematic basis for chartingLdecisions towards a sustainable, disaster-resilient city. This notion has been recognizedby local land use planners in the Philippines. However, the realization of integratingrisk parameters in the local planning process and practices is prevented by insufficientunderstanding of disaster risk assessment as a basis of land use decisions.As an attempt to fill this gap, EMI, in cooperation with international organizations suchas the Pacific Disaster Center (PDC), Kobe University, and UNDP and its local partnerinstitutions, PHIVOLCS and MMDA, through the sponsorship of the ProVentionConsortium, has recently developed an eLearning course on Risk-Sensitive Land UsePlanning that integrates land use planning and disaster risk reduction, known as theMEGA-Plan. This is in support of the overall goal of the 3cd Program in MetroManila, that is, to support local institutions to shift from a reactive, disaster responsefocus to a proactive and disaster risk management orientation.Specifically, the development of this specialized training course is a concrete steptowards achieving one of the objectives of Metro Manila’s DRMMP: to build capacitiesin disaster risk management as well as promote the mainstreaming of disaster riskreduction in the system, process, and practice of land use planning in Metro Manila.This walk-through and validation workshop aimed to gather feedback from thepotential users of the course to assure relevance of the course content and collectcomments and suggestions on further improving the training modules.Writtenby Nadia Pulmano and Marqueza Reyes.17

MEGA-Plan Validation WorkshopThe first seminar-workshop on “Land Use and Urban Planning Tools for Disaster RiskReduction” was held in December 2005, and participated in by land use planners fromlocal, metropolitan, and national agencies. The workshop was intended to enhancethe participants’ appreciation of the application of land use planning in DRR. Thiswas the first significant step towards the eventual mainstreaming of DRR in land useplanning in Metro Manila and in the country.The next step in DRR mainstreaming took placein May 2006 during the Fifth Field Trip whenthe workshop on “Mainstreaming Disaster RiskReduction in Land Use Planning” was conductedby EMI and its partner institutions. It markedthe continuing implementation of the MetroManila’s DRMMP within the 3cd Program. Theworkshop sought to facilitate the mainstreamingprocess of DRR in the planning process andpractices, through the use of risk communicationtools like the Megacity Disaster Risk ManagementBox 9. Objectives of the Validation WorkshopThe validation workshop aimed to review the landuse planning training course and present it to apanel of experts and end-users to discuss areas forimprovement. Specifi cally, the activity sought to:(1) Generate feedback from experts and potentialusers on the organization and comprehensivenessof the course, and(2) Solicit suggestions and recommendations forthe improvement of the course material and itspresentation.Knowledge Base (MEGA-Know), MEGA-View and MEGA-Index. The workshopalso provided an overview of the current extent of institutional integration of DRRin land use planning in Metro Manila, as well as the need of cities for mainstreamingtools applicable in the local planning context.On 16 October 2006, a validation workshop for the web-based training coursedeveloped by EMI, entitled “Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning: Integrating DisasterRisk Reduction for Sustainable Disaster Resilient Cities,” was held at the PHIVOLCSAuditorium in Quezon City. Forty pre-selected experts and potential users, representinglocal planning offices in different cities in Metro Manila, national government agenciesand other civil society groups, participated in the half-day workshop.ProceedingsF. Bendimerad started off the plenary by introducing MEGA-Learn, a suite of decisionand policy support tools developed by EMI and its international and local partners,which can be utilized for the advancement of disaster risk reduction in megacities andother complex urban areas. He first described MEGA-Know, a web-based tool forinformation sharing and capacity building. It is an online collection of city profiles, soundpractices, and other documents relevant to DRM and the DRMMP implementationin 3cd partner cities. He further elaborated on MEGA-Index which was developed tomeasure both DRM performance and urban seismic risk of megacities.18

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ OwnershipF. Bendimerad also discussed MEGA-View, a web-based Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) tool that provides useful information and maps from datasets suchas hazards, transportation, public facilities, emergency services and other relevantinformation. An interactive risk communication and planning tool, MEGA-Viewseeks to assist city planners, public safety officials and educators to understand thespatial context in which multiple hazards impact on urban environments. Lastly, hebriefly touched on MEGA-Plan, which is a web-based, blended training course forintegrating disaster risk parameters with land use planning.Marqueza Reyes, EMI’s Urban Disaster Risk Reduction Specialist, followed F.Bendimerand’s introduction by acknowledging the individual participants andelaborating on MEGA-Plan. She reiterated that the project aims to demonstrate howland use planning could be an effective tool in modifying vulnerabilities and reducingthe disaster risks in cities and urban areas exposed to hazards.M. Reyes proceeded to the overview of the day’s activity by detailing the workshopobjectives and process. She identified the workshop’s two general objectives as (1)gathering initial feedback from experts and potential users on the organization andcomprehensiveness of the course, and (2) soliciting suggestions and recommendationsfor the improvement of the course material and its presentation. She explained thatan open discussion during the plenary session will be held after the presentationand review of the contents of each session of the training module. The workshopparticipants were also reminded that a questionnaire was included in the participants’workshop kit which they were required to accomplish and submit to the secretariatafter the activity.During the walk through, the participants gave suggestions on the various modules.These were the following:On the Content:1. Place the discussion of land use planning in the first module to immediately provideperspective of the entire course.2. Include discussions on economic planning and other sectoral planning; environmentalmanagement; solid waste management; subsidence due to ground water extraction/harvesting affecting flood risk; flood prevention measures; fire/conflagration disasterscaused by earthquakes; and participatory GIS.3. Provide customized and localized case studies involving both successful andunsuccessful cases.19

MEGA-Plan Validation Workshop4. Provide additional supplementary readings or a list of suggested manuscripts,documents, journal articles, etc., as well as references and links to websites5. Provide more examples on the application of land use planning techniques for riskreduction.On the Delivery:1. Provide more interactive modes in the delivery of the online course.2. Require exercises or projects to be completed at the end of the course, as anapplication of what the eLearning participants learned from the course.To close the walk through and validation workshop, M. Reyes thanked all the participantsand reminded them to fill out the evaluation questionnaire and submit it to the EMISecretariat after the workshop.Overall, the MEGA-Plan was enthusiastically accepted by the workshop participants.Essentially, they observed that the topics in each session were informative and interesting.The workshop participants found the flow and structure of the discussions in eachsession logical and effective, since each session started with theoretical discussions,and ended with practical applications and case examinations. They pointed out that themodules can significantly assist “non-technical” local DRM actors in understandingconcepts related to earthquakes and other hazards. The participants also observedthat the course will not only be helpful to land use planners, but will also providefresh insights to builders and designers with regard to DRR efforts. However, on amore practical aspect, they noted that the possible cost of the training course and theunreliability of internet access in the workplace may prevent them from enrolling inthe online course.Next StepsThe next phase of this 3cd Program component should build on the gains of Phase 1and continue to build up MEGA-Plan as a solution to a widespread need for a trainingcourse on risk-sensitive land use planning that is easily accessible to the target audience.The second phase should focus on the remaining steps in the development stageand continue to the implementation stage, when the learning platform is ready to bedeployed to its target audience, i.e. participants can log in to MEGA-Learn, the course(MEGA-Plan) is ready to be delivered and supported by tutors and facilitators.The development MEGA-Plan will continue in terms of improving further its contentsby revising the content and adding more case studies, supplementary materials, and20

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ Ownershiptask modules. Review and revisions of the learning materials will be done based on theexternal formative evaluation of the course by a subject matter expert as well as fromthe feedback gathered from the workshop. Additional case studies will be integratedin the learning modules to provide participants real-life examples of sound practicesand success stories. Appropriate sound practices found in MEGA-Know will be linkedto MEGA-Plan. The task modules, meanwhile, will contain the appropriate exercisesand assignments for each learning session. Learning exercises after each session arenecessary to reinforce the practical application of the knowledge that participants willhave gained after going through the content modules.In the next phase of the 3cd Program, the improvement of the learning platform(called MEGA-Learn) in terms of functionality and features will be completed byintegrating online communication tools (e.g. discussion forums, email, chat, pin board,user gallery) and user tracking tools. MEGA-Plan, as a tutor-supported web-basedtraining course, requires communication tools to facilitate the interaction between tutorand learner and among learners themselves. Hence, the learning platform will facilitatethe teaching-learning process that is learner-centered by providing the appropriatetechnological tools that take full advantage of the computer and the Internet byfostering human-to-human interactions as well. MEGA-Learn will therefore have thefollowing functionalities of typical learning management systems for asynchronouscommunication to engage users in “minds-on” exercises. Functionalities related toprogress monitoring of users are necessary to provide learner data to course developers,tutors, and facilitators. These tech tools include user management tools and courseadministration tools. At present, MEGA-Learn has a search feature, automatic selftests,self-registration for participants, and tools for content management for authorsand course writers.Once these improvements in both the content and learning platform are completed,the delivery of MEGA-Plan as a blended training course to the target group will bethe next step.Plans for the next phase also include the development of stand-alone modules thatcan enhance the learning to be derived from MEGA-Plan, depending on identifiedtraining gaps and available resources. Topics for future modules, which may also beincorporated in MEGA-Plan as specialization modules, include landslides, tsunamis,volcanoes, and typhoons.21

Postscript5PostscriptAccomplishmentsThe three main activities during the Sixth Metro Manila Field Trip received activeand productive participation of stakeholders from government agencies, civilsociety, academe, and professional organizations (See Box 10). By and large,the field trip succeeded at two broad and important levels. On one hand, EMI was ableto further explore the possibilities of harnessing and strengthening its partnership withlocal institutions, and on the other, it was able to enhance stakeholders’ ownership ofthe DRMMP process. The latter was accomplished by actually involving partners andstakeholders in the development of MEGA-Plan and MEGA-Index, two of the maincomponents of MEGA-Learn.The Sixth Metro ManilaField Trip concluded thepreparatory phase of the3cd implementation inMetro Manila. It directedits efforts at validating,reinforcing and supportingthe accomplishments madein the past two years. Takentogether, the activities fromthe six field trips contributedto the fulfillment of theIWPs identifed in thecity’s DRMMP (See Box11). The most significantachievements of the 3cdProgram in Metro Manilaare those that are long-Box 10. Outcome of the 6th Metro Manila Field Trip Main Activities11-17 October 2006, Metro Manila, PhilippinesName of Activity1. Consultative Forum on the Consolidated Disaster RiskManagement BillMajor recommendations were recorded, including those of thePresidential Legal Liaison Offi ce which meets monthly to discussbills that can be certifi ed as urgent by the President. Consensuswas reached on areas for improvement and procedures to beobserved for the eventual enactment of the bill.2. Round-table Discussion on the Megacity IndicatorSystem (MEGA-Index)Suggestions on the tool’s application, adaptation andinstitutionalization in Metro Manila were gathered. Lessonswere learned from the experience of participants in developingindicators.3. Validation Workshop on the Risk-Sensitive Land UsePlanning eLearning Course (MEGA-Plan)Participants provided feedback on the contents and presentationof the training module and indicated additional topics for reviewand consideration.Related IWPIWP No. 5IWP No. 1IWP No. 222

Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders’ Ownershipterm and quantitavely non-measurable. These include the mainstreaming of soundpratices within institutions, improvement of institutional and governmence processes,enhancement of skills among professionals, and increase in awareness among a largeconstituency that includes policymakers, managers, professionals and the generalpublic.Box 11. Collective Accomplishments of the DRMMP Implementation in Metro Manila3cd Program, Phase 1 (2004-2006)IWP No. Description Accomplishment1 Develop andinstitutionalizetechnologies for riskcommunication andpreparedness2 Incorporate riskreduction criteria inland use and urbanplanning3 Conduct trainingneeds assessmentand capacity buildingfor DRM4 Mobilize resourcesamong NGOs,professionalorganizations andprivate sector in theDRM agenda5 Improve legaland institutionalarrangements forDRM delivery1.1. Development of the initial platform of MEGA-Learn, consisting of fourmegacity-specifi c tools, namely, MEGA-Know, MEGA-View, MEGA-Index andMEGA-Plan, with inputs from various FG members and local partners1.2. Training of more than 100 technical staff and specialists on MEGA-View, anddevelopment of a plan to transfer the technology to either PHIVOLCS or MMDA1.3. Review and testing of MEGA-Index in the context of Metro Manila, with thedirect involvement of FG members and local and national experts2.1. Development of MEGA-Plan, a web-based course on risk-sensitive land useplanning, with inputs from FG2 members2.2. Conduct of training workshops with urban and environmental planners fromvarious government agencies2.3. Review of the urban planning “cookbook” to include DRR parameters2.4. Awareness-building among planners on the role of DRR in the practice oftheir profession, through the continuous work of FG23.1. Identifi cation and evaluation of existing training events in terms of theirrelevance to DRM and DRR in Metro Manila3.2. Identifi cation of a target audience consisting of planners and key offi cials fromMMDA and Metro Manila LGUs3.3. Launching and delivery of the World Bank Institute’s (WBI) Distance LearningProgram on DRM in the Philippines, in collaboration with NDCC3.4. Undertaking of several participatory training workshops to enhance theknowledge and skills of key offi cials and staff involved in DRM4.1. Identifi cation of key civil society organizations in Metro Manila4.2. Development of the Terms of Reference for FG4, and conduct of initialworkshop with representatives from professional organizations and NGOs4.3. Agreement with the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) to holdtraining for professionals to improve understanding and implementation of theBuilding Code4.4. Initial discussion with CNDR for a joint program involving the private sector5.1. Collation and review of legislation related to DRM in the Philippines, as wellas state-of-the-art legislation in other countries5.2. Elaboration and consolidation of pending bills into a comprehensive DRM billthrough the collective work of FG5 members under the leadership of NDCC/OCD5.3. Consultation with key stakeholders, LGUs and legislators to promote theproposed DRM bill5.4. Introduction of a section on DRM in the country’s MTPDP23

PostscriptMoving ForwardThe key approach in sustaining and building upon the achievements of the past two yearsis to strengthen local ownership of the 3cd program and the DRMMP in Metro Manila.In addition to the objective of implementing the DRMMP, roundtable discussionswere held with several key government agencies that are actively implementing theirrespective disaster risk reduction programs in Metro Manila. Facilitated by the UNDPCountry Office, the purpose of the meetings was to find out how the final phaseof the 3cd Program of Metro Manila would fit the overall priority agenda of thegovernment.A meeting with Amelia Supetran and Sharon Gil of UNDP-Manila, R. Solidum andLeyo Bautista took place on 11 October 2006, to present the progress of the UNDPBureau of Crisis Prevention and Rehabilitation (UNDP/BCPR)-funded preparatoryphase of the 3cd activities in Manila. As agreed upon in this consultation meeting,NEDA, NDCC and MMDA would be invited to join the working group to coordinatewith EMI in identifying activities that need to be accomplished.Upon advice from the UNDP/BCPR in Geneva, EMI has started negotiating withkey institutions in Metro Manila to draft a proposal for the Phase 2 implementationof 3cd activities in Manila. Facilitated by UNDP-Manila, the working group held ameeting on 17 October 2006, which was presided by PHIVOLCS Deputy DirectorBart Bautista. A proposed TOR was submitted to the attendees for their comments.During this field trip, the possibility of partnering together with the private sectorin raising awareness about disaster risk reduction was also explored. A meeting withFloreen Simon of the CNDR was held to look into the possibility of partnering withthe private sector in raising awareness about DRR. F. Bendimerad offered to draft aproposal to jointly hold a seminar-workshop for CNDR members on how privatebusiness might work for DRR in the megacity.By December 2006, a draft proposal shall have been submitted to UNDP/BCPR forfunding. By February 2007, the availability of funds to support the proposed Phase2 implementation of the 3cd Program in Metro Manila shall have been firmed up,and the specific activities, pursued, as agreed upon by the collaborating institutions.The arrangements, in principle, shall follow the experience of EMI with the UNDPCountry Office in Amman, Jordan. In brief, responsible institutions shall undertakethose activities which they are interested in and competent to undertake. Appropriatefunds shall be provided to these institutions which shall work under an agreedframework provided by the 3cd program.24

Organizers3cd Program Implementation TeamFouad Bendimerad, EMI ChairmanKhalid Bouzina, Project ManagerJeannette Fernandez, Component 1 CoordinatorShirley Mattingly, Program DirectorEMI SecretariatKristoffer Berse, Knowledge Management CoordinatorJerome Cruz, InternMa. Cristina Jean Dazo, InternAntonio Fernandez, Principal ScientistTara Ledesma, Program and Administrative AssistantAubrey Lo, Finance and Administrative AssistantNadia Pulmano, Research AssistantMarqueza Reyes, Urban Seismic Risk Reduction SpecialistAsteya Santiago, General ManagerVioleta Seva, General Secretaryand TreasurerPHIVOLCS (Local Investigator)Annie Encarnacion, Administrative Assistant IIIEsther Garrido, Science Research Assistant IILynn Melosantos, Senior Science Research SpecialistRenato Solidum, DirectorNDCC/OCDPriscilla Duque, Chief, Training DivisionShereen Lucas, Civil Defense Officer IRomina Marasigan, Civil Defense Officer IIGlenn Rabonza, AdministratorMaritess Tandingan, Executive Assistant IINAPCEsteban Masagca, Chairman,VDC