Resilient Urban Communities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Ketsana (Ondoy) Rehabilitation Programme sought to “enable urban poor communities seriously affected by Typhoon Ketsana to recover from their loss and strengthen their capacities to sustain their lives and livelihoods.” The Programme set out not only to restore the pre-Ketsana status quo, but to enhance the affected communities’ resilience to disasters and reduce their vulnerabilities. Resilient Urban Communities: Stories from the Ketsana Rehabilitation Programme Featured in this volume are the experiences of seven Christian Aid partners who worked together as a consortium in fi nding effective ways for building disaster resilience in marginalized and vulnerable communities located in hazard-prone and high-risk areas: Center for Disaster Preparedness (CDP), Community Organizers Multiversity (COM), Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies (PHILSSA), Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (SALIGAN) Socio-Pastoral Institute (SPI), Technical Assistance Organization Pilipinas (TAO-Pilipinas), and Unlad Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation (Unlad Kabayan). It is hoped that the interventions and strategies employed in the Programme, with the evidence of actual change it brought to partners and communities, would contribute to the growing body of conceptual and practical knowledge on resilience in urban contexts. - From the Introduction RESILIENT URBAN COMMUNITIES Stories from the Ketsana Rehabilitation Programme Resilient Urban Communities: Stories from the Ketsana Rehabilitation Programme 1 JJCIC_Preliminaries_091912.indd 1 9/20/2012 1:57:59 PM JJCIC_Preliminaries_091912.indd 2 9/20/2012 1:58:01 PM JJCIC_Preliminaries_091912.indd 3 9/20/2012 1:58:01 PM JJCIC_Preliminaries_091912.indd 4 9/20/2012 1:58:01 PM JJCIC_Preliminaries_091912.indd 5 9/20/2012 1:58:01 PM JJCIC_Preliminaries_091912.indd 6 9/20/2012 1:58:02 PM JJCIC_Preliminaries_091912.indd 7 9/20/2012 1:58:02 PM viii Resilient Urban Communities: Stories from the Ketsana Rehabilitation Programme 9 JJCIC_Preliminaries_091912.indd 8 9/20/2012 1:58:02 PM Even as the Philippines saw perhaps the most massive relief operations seen in recent history— Introduction one that many consider to be the source of many lessons learned in disaster response, both positive and negative—the challenges posed by Ketsana on the humanitarian and development sectors in trying to understand its complexity and underlying causes proved to be the real battleground. For international development and humanitarian actors like Christian Aid (CA), what programming strategies and flexibilities needed to be employed to respond to an emergency of this scope and scale? For local partner non-government organizations (NGOs), what characteristics of urban and peri-urban areas in the Philippines needed to be considered in undertaking DRR work? For communities, what measures needed to be introduced to make them develop their own resilience to disasters without having to depend so much on outside help? The Ketsana Rehabilitation Programme Christian Aid and its partners launched an emergency response programme that provided relief, early recovery, and rehabilitation support to some of the most affected and vulnerable communities. The relief and early recovery phases of the programme lasted for six months, while the ensuing rehabilitation phase lasted for 30 months, aptly ending on the occasion of Ketsana’s third anniversary in September 2012. When Tropical Storm Ketsana (local name: Ondoy) hit the Philippines on September 26, 2009, it brought to mainstream consciousness a number of relatively new terminologies that soon The Ketsana Rehabilitation Programme sought to “enable urban poor communities seriously became buzzwords in communications media, social networking sites, workplaces, and daily affected by Typhoon Ketsana to recover from their loss and strengthen their capacities to conversation: “climate change,” “early warning,” “hazards,” “preparedness,” “mitigation.” For sustain their lives and livelihoods.” Consequently, the Programme set out not only to restore scholars and practitioners of disaster management, new frameworks and strategies emerged the pre-Ketsana status quo, but to enhance the affected communities’ resilience to disasters as we all grappled with the historic disaster that very few people saw coming: Disaster Risk and reduce their vulnerabilities. Changes would have to be seen beyond the target individuals, Reduction (DRR), Climate Change Adaptation (CCA), Resilience. households, and communities to become sustainable; changes in the beneficiaries’ environment would have to enable institutionalized and lasting impact that could benefit a bigger and more Ketsana could not have chosen a more “appropriate” place to hit than Metro Manila and its inclusive population. surrounding megalopolis to grab the world’s attention. When floodwaters began to rapidly rise after a day of incessant rains (455 millimeters in 24 hours), they gave rise to what turned out to be To achieve this overall objective, the following strategies were employed: tons and tons of debris and garbage, much of which ended up clogging natural waterways and drainage systems. Hours after the floodwaters receded and as people began the massive clean- 1. Prepare and/or strengthen community structures for urban DRR work through up operations, the obvious could not be stated enough: Metro Manila had a serious garbage organizing and strengthening of community structures. This strategy focused on problem and an equally dire drainage infrastructure. Many other factors were blamed and later strengthening the DRR capacities of people’s organizations (POs) and 2,000 families validated: poor urban and settlements planning, overcrowded communities living in high risk across four communities: Suburban and Sabah in Rodriguez, San Juan in Taytay, and areas, substandard infrastructure, and unsustainable resource management. San Bartolome in Novaliches. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people were housed in evacuation centers, while 2. Enhance DRR knowledge and skills of partners and target communities through even more stayed in their homes trying to save their properties and belongings. Power was capacity building interventions. This includes capacities on preparedness, response, down in most parts of the metropolis, and mobility was very limited because most major streets infrastructure, and psychosocial support. It also entailed the conduct of Participatory were either deep in floodwaters or filled with stranded vehicles and people. Economic and social Capacity and Vulnerability Assessments (PCVAs) to serve as bases for community- activities were severely halted, with businesses, government and private offices, and schools specific analyses and interventions. declaring non-working holidays so people could deal with the emergency in their own ways. By the end of September 27, most local governments had declared a State of Calamity, whereas the 3. Ensure secure livelihoods of target communities through sustainable individual and national government had officially called for assistance from the UN and international collective enterprise development. This installed community-managed livelihood humanitarian organizations. enterprises and provided technical support to 1,000 families across three communities, including the development of policies, savings schemes, and allocation of community Three years after Ketsana, it is now quite apparent that the attention on emergencies in the emergency funds. It also covered the set-up of mechanisms to link livelihood Philippines has been elevated to the level of public discourse. It gave focus to the specific interventions to broader markets, institutions and government, and the establishment of hazards and risks faced by urban centers like Metro Manila, and how the pace and quality links and referral mechanism to support the beneficiaries of employable skills trainings. of urbanization has a direct correlation with people’s vulnerabilities. There is also a growing recognition of the human side of disasters by many humanitarian and development actors. 4. Improve disaster resilience and ensure safe settlements of communities through small Before Ketsana, disaster risk analysis mainly focused on the hazards and exposure elements, infrastructure facilities. This included setting up an evacuation and livelihood center in and how we could mitigate the effects of disasters. Now there is growing consciousness on the Banaba, model flood-resilient house in Taytay, improvement of evacuation center and human side of the equation, especially on the vulnerabilities of communities and the existing capacities of institutions, as well as the need to install preparedness and sustainability measures into interventions. 10 Resilient Urban Communities: Stories from the Ketsana Rehabilitation Programme Resilient Urban Communities: Stories from the Ketsana Rehabilitation Programme 11 bridge in Suburban, and provision of technical capacity on community-based DRR for small buildings (CBDRR-SB) for 1,000 families in all areas. October 2009. For the Rehabilitation Phase, it worked with Damayan Homeowners’ Association (DHOA) to integrate DRR and resilience elements into the long-term 5. Conduct risk assessments in Metro Manila and neighboring provinces affected by community organizing and people’s planning process in Barangay San Juan, Taytay, Ketsana. This was done through an analysis of the physical and social dimensions of Rizal. flood risks, the identification of geo-hazards in Programme sites, and installation