RAPID ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TROPICAL STORM ONDOY ON URBAN POOR COMMUNITIES Institute of Philippine Culture School of Social Sciences, Loyola Schools Ateneo de Manila University July 2010 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 civil society 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 ii 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 iii 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 iv 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