Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
1
REPORT ON SURVEY RESULTS
page
I.
Overview of Philippines Disaster Profile
1
II.
Survey Context and Philippine Initiatives in
Disaster Risk Management
3
Taking on a Pro-active Disaster Management Approach
Survey Context
Survey Methodology
3
4
5
Stakeholders’ Perceptions
6
Views from Government
Views from Civil Society
Views from Local Leaders and Community Residents
Perceptions from Cities
Perceptions from Municipalities
Comparative Analysis of Key Survey Results Among Sectors
6
11
18
18
23
28
IV.
Issues and Challenges
33
V.
Recommendations
35
VI.
Annexes
36
III.
Annex 1 Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4 -
Annex 5 -
Acronyms
37
Survey Instrument with Guidance Notes &
Filipino Translation
38
List of Interviewees
50
Concepts & Experiences on Risk Transfer/Sharing
(Philippines and Other Countries)
53
Relevant Disaster Risk Management Framework 53
Defining a Few KeyTerms
55
ProVention Viewpoint: Invest to prevent disaster:
The potential benefits and limitations of
micro-insurance as a risk transfer mechanism for
developing countries
63
NDCC Memo Circular #21 “Enjoining LGUs to Secure
Property Insurance Against Natural & Man-made
Disasters or Calamities
Brief Profile of Selected Agencies & Organizations 69
67
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
2
I. OVERVIEW OF PHILIPPINE DISASTER PROFILE
A disaster-prone country
The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world. From
1900-1991, the Center for Research and Epidemiology of Disasters in Belgium recorded a
total of 701 disaster incidents, or almost 8 disasters a year. From 1987 – 2000, the
National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) recorded 523 disasters, an average of
37 disasters annually1. The European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office Disaster Risk
Indicators ranked the Philippines the 11th most disaster prone among 115 counties.
The Philippines’ predisposition to natural hazards is primarily a function of its
geographical and physical characteristics. Located near the Western North Pacific Basin
where 50% of the world’s tropical cyclones are generated, 20 typhoons enter the country’s
area of responsibility in a year, of which 9 make a landfall. The world’s second largest
archipelago, it is composed of 7,100 islands with total land area of 30 Million hectares.
Communities along its 36,289 kilometers coastline are prone to storm surges and sea
level changes. Flooding especially in low-lying areas is common due to rains brought
about by typhoons, monsoons, thunderstorms, and the inter-tropical convergence zone.
El Nino occurrences induce drought in many parts of the country, adversely affecting
agricultural production, potable water supply, and hydro-electricity generation.
The country is also part of the western segment of the Pacific Ring of Fire and lies
in between two major tectonic plates, whose movement creates mountain ranges, islands,
volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. The country’s topography varies from high
mountains, accounting for 60% of land mass, plains and freshwater swamps. There are
220 volcanoes, of which 22 are active. Five earthquakes, mostly imperceptible occur
daily. Heavy rains and earthquake can trigger landslides and debris flows.
Climate-related disasters: most frequent recurring with widespread impact
A cumulative total of 103 million people were affected by disasters from 1991 to
2001 or an average of 9.4 million yearly (CDRC 2001) with many Filipinos are repeatedly
hit by disasters. Tropical cyclones, drought and flood are the hazards affecting the most
number of people. From 1988 to 2000, there were 198 tropical cyclones with total
damage of Php 22.105 Billion. Some 8,000 people perished in the flashflood in Ormoc,
Leyte during Typhoon Uring (international code name Thelma) on November 5, 1991,
leaving 50,000 others homeless. In Camiguin Province, Typhoon Nanang (international
codename Lingling) claimed 220 lives (including those declared missing), injured 146
persons and affected some 7,000 families, with damage to settlements, agriculture and
infrastructure at P201 Million. In November and December 2004, flash floods and
landslides resulting from four consecutive typhoons cause widespread destruction along
the eastern coast of Luzon, particularly in the municipalities of Real, Infanta and Nakar of
Quezon Province and in Aurora Province. Flood and landslides in Southern Leyte
triggered by continuous rains in December 2003 and more recently in February and May
2006 has brought to attention the vulnerability of many villages in the area.
El Nino occurrences induced drought in many parts of the country and becoming a
recurring problem for agricultural production and potable water sources. During the El
Nino 997–1998 drought period, about a million families suffered from food scarcity in the
highlands of Mindanao and other parts of the archipelago.
Other Vulnerability Factors
1
The National Disaster Coordinating Council’s monitoring system since 1998 includes minor and major disasters .
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
3
Other than its geo-physical characteristics, the country’s social, economic and
political environment continues to be a significant factor in disaster frequency and loss.
Poverty, environmental degradation, rapid expansion of urban areas, deficiencies in
development and disaster management planning, patronage politics, government
corruption and negligence, and poor enforcement of public safety and environmental
legislations, have all contributed to recurring and chronic disaster situation. These as a
whole have a great impact on the ability of individuals, households, communities and
society to prepare for, cope with, and recover from disasters.
Environmental degradation and resource depletion have increased the country’s
vulnerability to natural hazards. The country now finds itself experiencing a cycle of
flood, drought and red tide occurrences. Deforestation has induced flood, soil erosion,
landslides, and siltation in low-risk lowland areas. The destruction of mangroves and coral
reefs has resulted in the decline of fisheries production and loss of natural protection of
coastal communities from storm surges and beach erosion.
The poverty situation of many Filipinos severely restricts their capacity to cope
with natural hazards, and recover from the damage and devastation of disasters. Poverty
leads people to inhabit high-risk areas and engage in unsustainable and dangerous
livelihoods. Weeklong rains brought about by two typhoons, Ditang and Edeng, triggered
a 50-ft. trashslide into urban poor settlements in Payatas, Quezon City on July 10,2000,
burying 362 people alive, mostly women and children.
Human-made disasters also take a heavy toll. From 1982–1990, there were 224
maritime accidents, mostly associated with weather disturbances. The collision of MV
Dona Paz with an oil tanker is the world’s worst peace time sea mishap, with 4,342
confirmed dead. The Philippines also holds a world record for the second worst disco fire
with Ozone disco fire on March 18, 1996 near midnight with 162 dead and 104 injured.
Armed conflict in the country especially in Mindanao has caused displacement of
communities.
Socio-economic cost of disasters
Disasters have destroyed human, social, and physical capital, and they have
derailed social and economic development, as funds are reallocated from ongoing
programs to finance relief and reconstruction assistance. For the period 1987 -2000,
the NDCC estimated total damages at Php 150.071 Billion (OCD, 2001).
The World Bank-NDCC Study entitled “Natural Disaster Risk Management in
the Philippines: Enhancing Poverty Alleviation Through Disaster Reduction” in 2003
reported that the country’s vulnerability of natural hazards cost the Philippine
Government an average of Php 15 billion annually in direct damages or more than
0.5% of the country’s GNP. Indirect and secondary disaster impact further increase
this cost which generals substantial social and economic impacts.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
4
II. SURVEY CONTEXT AND PHILIPPINE INITIATIVES IN DISASTER RISK MANAGMENT
Taking on a Pro-active Disaster Risk Management Approach
The experience of repeated disaster and losses is now compelling the
government and stakeholders to take on a more pro-active disaster risk management
orientation and actions. The National Disaster Coordinating Council, the highest
policy making, coordinating and supervising body at the national level for disaster
management in the country has to the present continued its shift to a more proactive
disaster risk management.
For disaster preparedness, the NDCC currently implements a 4-Point Plan of
Action covering the upgrading of forecasting capability of PAGASA and PHIVOLCS,
public information campaign on disaster preparedness, capacity building of local
government units in identified vulnerable areas, and mechanisms for public and
private sector partnerships in relief and rehabilitation. It continues to take action on
the recommendations of the World Bank-NDCC Study for the Philippine Government
to institute a comprehensive disaster risk management program.
Survey Context
One of the important findings of the World Bank- National Disaster Coordinating
Council Study on Natural Disaster Risk Management in the Philippines in 2003 is that
the “Government of the Philippines and individual households currently bear the majority
of costs caused by natural disasters”. The Study recommended that the Philippines
should develop a national framework for comprehensive disaster risk management with
risk sharing/financing as a key component. “More effective options for financing disaster
risk and relieving the burden of disasters from the public sector need to be explored,
including the idea of catastrophic insurance pool, and/or contingent credit facilities.”
(World Bank-NDCC, 2003, pp. 50 and 52)
Subsequently, the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) through the
Office of Civil Defense (OCD) convened a
Working Group
to address the
recommendations on risk sharing/financing – develop fiscal incentives for pro-active risk
management; establish a working group to determine feasibility of increasing insurance
coverage in the country; explore contingent facilities; and explore risk transfer options. As
a result of the WG recommendations, the local government units (LGUs) were enjoined to
insure their property and assets with the GSIS to initiate implementation of disaster risk
transfer mechanism through NDCVC Memo Circular #21 dated June 2003 (refer to Annex
4).
For a wider participation and consensus in developing appropriate risk
sharing/financing mechanisms and measures among national and local governments,
vulnerable communities and households and other stakeholders, the World Bank Institute
(WB) through the WB Country Office in Manila and the National Disaster Coordinating
Council with assistance of the International Institute of Applied System Analysis (IIASA)
and the Kyoto University is organizing workshop on “Financial Strategies for Managing
Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro, Meso & Micro-level” on May 22-24,
2006. In preparation for this 2-day Experts Meeting-Workshop and Policy Forum, a
survey was undertaken among various stakeholders in disaster risk management.
The survey looks at the current state, practice and perceptions on the financial
cost of disasters and the effective ways of managing the physical, social and economic
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
5
cost of disasters, in particular risk sharing and transfer solutions. Representatives from
the national agencies, local government units and civil society organizations from a list of
potential participants in the Workshop were covered in the quick survey conducted from
April 17 – May 12, 2006.
The Kyoto University contracted the field survey to the Center for Disaster
Preparedness with general guidance from the Office of Civil Defense. Please refer to
Survey Methodology
The survey instrument from the Kyoto University was basically used with local
translation and guidance notes for the different groups of stakeholders. Please refer to
Annex 2 for Survey Questionnaire with particular guidance notes.
Target number of samples to be covered was around ninety five (95) and actual
participants covered was one hundred and twenty three (123) representatives of national
agencies, local government units, civil society organizations, community leaders and
residents. From the list of possible participants for the Workshop on Financing Disaster
Risk Management, representatives of stakeholder groups to be covered in the survey
were identified.
The Office of Civil Defense identified the National Agencies to be
covered in the interviews. The Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC) begged off
from the interview since they have recently undergone reorganization and their finances
and budgets for continued operations are still being worked out.
The City/Municipal local government units were selected in consideration of
different types of hazard exposures, citations of good practice in disaster risk
management and urban governance, and geographical spread. Kyoto University identified
the City of Manila and Marikina to be among those covered by the survey. The
city/municipal officers for the survey in most cases selected the two (2) barangays and
subsequently the Pinunong Barangay (Barangay Captain) invited Barangay Kagawads
(Barangay Council members) for the focused group discussions.
The civil society organizations covered were selected on the basis of involvement
in disaster risk management and engagement in micro-finance activities. Kyoto University
identified the Earthquake Megacities Initiative, Corporate Network for Disaster Response
and Philippine Business for Social Progress to be covered in the survey. Some microcredit organizations declined involvement in the survey with the thought that their activities
were not related to disaster risk management and due to prior engagements with other
priority work.
Interviews usually took one to two hours especially for focused group discussions,
and this even excluded preliminary talks. Also, statements or questions requiring
ranking took long to be answered. The community people are not so familiar about the
workings of insurance as a whole or disaster insurance in particular. In addition, the
Philippine government has as a norm provided assistance during disasters, and not
compensation as in other more developed countries.
The ProVention Consortium Viewpoint for International Day for Disaster Reduction
in 2005 on “Invest to prevent disaster: The potential benefits and limitations of microinsurance as a risk transfer mechanism for developing countries” was disseminated to
most of the organizations covered by the survey for elaboration on the concept and
experiences in disaster risk insurance .
The quick survey conducted from April 17 – May 12, 2006 covered :
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
-
6
14 National Agencies (19 persons involved with 1 filled out questionnaire sent to
CDP).
Social Security System (SSS)
Department of Agriculture (DA)
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
Cooperative Development Authority (CDA)
Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
Department of Finance (DOF, sent filled out survey questionnaire but not interviewed due
to difficult scheduling of interview)
14. Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHILHEALTH, just discussion on issues related
to disaster insurance)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
-
3 City and 3 Municipal Local Government Units (11 persons involved with 1 filled out
questionnaire sent to CDP in addition to the interview of City/Municipal officers)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Marikina City, Metro Manila
City of Manila, Metro Manila
Batangas City, Batangas
Municipality of Guagua, Pampanga
Municipality of Catarman, Camiguin
Municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo
-
12 Barangays with 22 Punong
Barangays and Kagawads and 65
community residents involved in the
interviews and focus group discussions
1.
Barangays Malanday and Barangca,
Marikina City
Barangays 655 Zone 69 Intramuros and
649 Baseco, City of Manila
Barangays Wawa and Talumpok,
Batangas City
Barangays San Agustin, Betis and Sto.
Cristo, Guagua
Barangays Balabag and Bantud Fabrica,
Dumangas
Barangays Looc and Mainit, Catarman
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
-
6 Civil Society Organizations (6
persons interviewed)
1. Earthquake Megacities Initiative
2. Corporate Network for Disaster
Response
3. Philippine Business for Social Progress
4. National Confederation of Cooperatives
5. Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement
6. Kilusang Lima Para sa Lahat (NGO in Samar referred by Management and Organizational
Development for Empowerment)
Please refer to Annex 3 for list of organizations and persons covered in the
interviews and focus group discussions.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
7
Please refer to Annex 5 for brief profiles of some of the agencies and
organizations covered in the survey, with particular focus on their calamity loan and
compensation.
II. STAKEHOLDERS’ PERCEPTIONS
Views from the Government
Respondents from eleven (11) national agencies mentioned typhoon, flood,
landslide, drought, volcanic eruption, and earthquake as disasters with high economic
impact. Invariably, they pointed to heavy tolls from these occurrences on people’s lives,
properties, businesses and livelihoods, public infrastructure, and agriculture. Some cited
ill effects on health and psychological stress as a result of disasters.
Among financial consequences stated were loss of revenues and savings,
increased spending for damaged infrastructure and disaster assistance, economic
disruptions both in urban and rural areas resulting in increased indebtedness and poverty
among those affected. One felt that assessment must include accounting of loss in
potential revenues for both government and private sector to have a more realistic picture
of total damage.
As for the major causes for the possible increases in financial losses from
disasters, most declared factors related to mitigation measures such as failure of the
public to heed warnings, lack of effective warning, failure of households and businesses to
prepare for disasters, and lack of proper land use planning. High population growth and
poverty received equal weight. Only one respondent mentioned climate change as a
major factor.
Six respondents felt there were no positive impacts of disasters. Others felt these
occurrences provided reasons for more serious efforts in enforcing laws such as land use
policy; increased both government and public awareness on the need for risk mitigation;
made people realize the effectiveness of teamwork, sympathy and concern overflow; and,
caused some improvement in design of infrastructure and sustainable development of
damaged areas.
As to whether the experience of past disasters influenced national or local policy,
most respondents answered in the affirmative. Among the changes cited were: review of
PD 1566; expanded use of 5% of IRA as calamity fund; authority now given to local
government board (before only the President had authority) to declare a calamity area;
revision of the building code; improvement in early warning system including hazard
mapping and use of technology as part of risk mitigation; strengthening of disaster
management policies such as DSWD’s minimum standard rates for financial and housing
assistance, and revision of policies on donations for relief and rehabilitation; passing of
local ordinances for mitigation including construction design for dams and bridges; review
of GSIS emergency loan program due to the St. Bernard incident.
Among the most sensible, appropriate and effective means to reduce losses
proposed were the following measures: installation of early warning systems; strict
enforcement of the building code; ban on construction on fault lines and river banks;
improvement and implementation of the land use plan; relocation of residents from high
risk areas; strict implementation of disaster management policies at the local level; local
and community-based preparedness and mitigation plans and training/drill programs;
decentralized stockpiling of food and material provisions; and as a whole, putting in place
a comprehensive disaster management system that includes mitigation measures such as
hazard mapping, zonal planning, enforcement of laws, upgrading the capacity of national
management agencies, disaster preparedness training, and insurance.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
8
Four respondents stated that the LGU and the property owners/individuals should
have the most responsibility in reducing disaster losses; four felt the national and local
governments as well as property owners should share the burden; and the rest asserted
that the national and local governments must take on the responsibility.
All but two (who more or less agreed) fully agreed that everybody should take
more responsibility for disaster risks and those who can afford it should purchase private
insurance.
Five fully agreed, five agreed more or less and one did not agree that locals
should pull together and create a disaster fund to assist victims. Three fully agreed, two
more or less agreed while five did not agree so to the statement that government should
compensate victims as required by social solidarity. All but one (who did not agree so)
totally disagreed that it did not matter much what one did.
As to the forms of government compensation, most responses were actually forms
of assistance. Mentioned were seed subsidies, livestock dispersal and fingerlings
assistance; housing and livelihood assistance; emergency loan; relocation, relief and
rehabilitation assistance; repair of damaged infrastructure. PCIC was cited to provide
compensation for crop losses; and the DBM respondent pointed out the existence of an
economic fund to compensate losses in public assets.
Concerning priorities for government assistance, respondents ranked the priorities
in the following manner – 1) all victims by a certain percentage of their losses ; 2) only
needy victims; 3) all victms by the same amount; 4) same rank for only victims with
disaster insurance and for only victims who have not built their homes in high risk areas
(see table below):
Government should provide assistance to:
No. of Respondents =11
1 2 3 4 5 6
n.
a.
6 3 1
1
Priority
a. All victims by a certain percentage of their losses
b. All victims by the same amount, above which they can choose to have
2 5
3
1
insurance
c. Only needy victims, that is, not well-to-do households or businesses
4 3 2 1
d. Only victims with disaster insurance for their uninsured losses
e. Only victims who have not built their homes in high-risk areas without
a permit
f. None
2
1
2 5 2
2
3 4
2
1
Most responses to the question of sufficiency and timeliness of government
compensation were more in terms of assistance provided during disasters. There was a
consensus on the inadequacy of government response as estimates were from 5-10%, to
20%, to 30% of losses. A common assessment was that such response was not only
insufficient but often did not arrive on time. Two respondents reiterated the fact that
government did not provide compensation but only assistance to victims.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
9
As regards the most important reasons for government assistance and
compensation, almost all agreed that the government has always assisted disaster
victims and that social solidarity of taxpayers required it. Four respondents pointed out
government’s responsibility for not ensuring sustainable policies.
Most respondents cited two reasons for reducing government compensation:
compensation encourages people to move into high-risk areas and not take adequate
measures to reduce their losses; and compensation discourages those (who can afford)
to purchase disaster insurance. Few others also mentioned that compensation was too
costly; it was not fair for taxpayers in low-risk areas to support those in high-risk areas;
and often compensation goes to the wealthy.
As for ways to encourage stakeholders to reduce disaster losses, respondents
ranked the priorities in the following manner – 1) the local authorities should pass
regulations and strictly enforce them; 2) insurance companies should offer lower
premiums to those who have taken pre-specified loss-reducing measures; 3) the
government should make compensation after a disaster contingent on loss-reducing
measures before the disaster; 4) insurance companies should contribute to loss-reducing
measures; 5) same rank for the government should compensate for less of the losses
from a disaster and for insurance companies should raise premiums of those living in
high-risk areas; and 7) nothing can be done (see table below):
Ways to encourage stakeholders to reduce disaster losses
No. of Respondents = 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 n.
Priority
a
a. The local authorities should pass regulations and strictly enforce
9
1
1
them
b. The central government should make compensation after a
3 2 1 2 1
1
disaster contingent on loss-reducing measures before the disaster
c. The central government should compensate far less of the losses
1 1 1
2 4
2
2
2
from a disaster
d. Insurance companies should offer lower premiums to households,
4 3
businesses and communities that have taken pre-specified lossreducing measures
e. Insurance companies should raise premiums of those living in
7
2
2
1 2 2 3 1
2
high-risk areas to encourage people to leave and discourage people
building their homes in these areas
f. Insurance companies should contribute to loss-reducing measures
g. Nothing can be done
9
2
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
10
On the issue what government policy must be on villages in high risk areas,
respondents ranked the priorities in the following manner – 1) the government should
help communities move frm high risk areas to nearby safe areas; 2) villagers should be
required to relocate and government and provided with full compensation; 3) villagers who
voluntarily relocate should receive compensation; 4) the government should strictly
prohibit new construction in high risk areas and not invest in further protection; 5) villages
should be protected at all cost; and 6) others (see table below):
Government policy on villages in high risk areas
No. of Respondents = 11
1
2
3
4
5
1
9
6
n.a.
Priority
a. Villages should be protected at all costs
b. Villagers should be required to relocate, and
2
1
2
4
1
1
2
3
5
1
government should provide full compensation
c. If villagers choose to relocate, they should receive
compensation
d. The government should strictly prohibit any new
2
3
5
3
1
1
1
construction in these areas, and should not invest in
further protection
e. The government should help communities to move
2
1
from high risk areas to nearby, safe areas
f. Others
10
1
All respondents agreed that government must relocate, instead of continuing to
protect a village in a high-risk area, and that all property owners should insure themselves
against disasters (provided a respondent remarked that low-income individuals must be
assisted in purchasing insurance). Most felt that it was only fair that property owners
should take more responsibility. A few felt that insurance companies could assist in
building disaster defenses and that government could reduce compensation.
Nine respondents agreed to use taxpayer funds to create a disaster reserve fund
while three others opted to purchase (macro-) insurance in response to large scale or
consecutive disasters.
Respondents stated that all types of disasters mentioned above had high potential
of risk insurance due either to their intensity or frequency of occurrence. All agreed on the
feasibility of insurance at the local and even national (for some) level for these disasters.
One respondent (from SSS), however, excluded earthquake and volcanic eruption
disasters.
As for macro-insurance, most felt the national government should take charge but
for micro-insurance the local government and the private sector should have the
responsibility. A respondent thought that the private sector should take charge of both.
Eight respondents conceded that disaster insurance should be mandatory for
households, businesses and farms but only if the low-income persons were assisted.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
11
One said yes with no conditions; another one said no; and yet another thought only for
business people and private households.
Disaster insurance should be multi-hazard according to six respondents while four
felt it should vary by disaster type.
Seven respondents agreed that to prevent bankruptcy in case of very serious
disasters, insurance companies should be required to have more cash on hand or
purchase reinsurance even if this means that they charge higher premiums; three felt the
government should pay claims above a certain amount; three also believed that insurance
companies should divert funds from other types of insurance, for example, from car
insurance; and two agreed that foreign insurance companies operating in Philippines
should divert funds from policies held by citizens of other countries. A respondent also
stated that it should be solely the private insurance companies’ look-out.
Most respondents felt it was unfair for insurers to charge the same premium for
people in low-risk areas and those in high-risk areas. Six agreed that risk insurance
should be multi-hazard while only three thought it should vary per type of disaster. One
respondent said it could be multi-hazard if undertaken by government and vary by
disaster type if assumed by private individuals.
Ten respondents said yes, their houses were insured for fire, three of whom
insured both for fire and earthquake. Only one said no. Eight said no other properties
were insured while only three had other insurance. No details on insurance coverage
were provided by respondents.
Four have been approached by insurance companies but refused to purchase a
policy, and the rest were not.
Nine respondents did not experience disaster in their communities. Three said
their neighborhood was affected by typhoons and flood. Seven personally experienced
disaster by typhoons and flood, landslide and earthquake. Eight said it was unlikely that
their area would get affected by typhoons and flood; two said not very likely; and one was
almost certain that it would happen each year.
All stated that they were willing to pay for insurance cover as long as premiums
are affordable (3), and based on fair property assessment (5). Some agreed to pay
P10,000 per year, P1,000 –P5,000 premium. First priority for insurance for five
respondents was for fire due its possibility anytime and resulting in great loss on property;
six mentioned typhoons and flood that occurred frequently; and, two said earthquake.
Eight respondents declared that they were not aware of any micro-credit or microinsurance in their areas. A respondent mentioned the Damayan Fund of Novaliches
Development Coop that collected P300/month as automatic deduction for death of
member apart from fixed deposit and savings paid by members; another cited 5/6 type of
lending in their area.
Seven respondents felt that it was feasible to link micro-insurance to disaster risk
insurance particularly in rural areas and were interested in it. Three others were not
interested.
Respondents evaluated the following possible features of a national program for
insurance and compensation with the following results:
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
Features of a national program for insurance and compensation
12
No. of
Respondents
a. All property owners must purchase private disaster insurance. This would
4*
be offered for all disaster risks at the same premium for everybody whether
they are at high or low risk
b. In the case of a disaster, all victims would receive a fixed amount of
3
compensation from the gov't, which would be the same for everybody. To
cover losses above this amount, property owners and businesses can
purchase insurance
c. All households, farms, businesses can purchase disaster insurance
3**
covering all types of disaster from the government
d. Household, businesses or farms form a mutual insurance pool
1
e. Other, please specify below ***
1
* But not the same premium for all (comment of respondent from DILG)
** Provided there is mechanism for accountability and transparency (comment of respondent from
DILG)
*** Tuck in the charges with the real estate tax at the local level
Views from Civil Society
Types of disasters with high economic impact that six (6) respondents mentioned
were earthquake, typhoons, flood, landslide, volcanic eruption. Impacts enumerated were
loss of lives and properties; damaged infrastructure; disruption of economic activities; and,
damage to crops and livestock. A respondent cited trauma to families caused specifically
by earthquake and another respondent commented that for recurring typhoons and flood
people could recover on their own.
Financial costs mentioned varied according to extent and intensity of disaster.
Costs of recovery and opportunity lost while working out recovery; and economic
disruption could be greater more so for families and communities that had to be resettled
after a damaging earthquake, landslide and volcanic eruption. Loss of income could have
a heavier toll especially on daily wage earners and the informal sector. Costs of repair
and rehabilitation of houses and public infrastructure; loss of capital due to business
interruption; costs of repair or replacement of damaged equipment; increased
indebtedness and poverty were noted. Those affected became more dependent on
support from LGUs, aid and loans from relatives who were not affected. Damaged
property often had no more value.
Factors seen as major causes for increase in financial losses due to disasters
were: lack of proper land use planning (4 respondents); failure of households and
businesses to prepare for disasters (3); high population growth (2); increasing poverty (1);
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
13
rapid urbanization and migration from rural areas (1); lack of effective warning (2); failure
of public to heed warnings (2); concentration of assets in vulnerable areas (1); climate
change increasing the frequency or intensity of weather hazards (1). Other factors
mentioned: poor state of biophysical resources; disasters not viewed by business sector
in terms of financial losses; lack of disaster preparedness (LGUs not conscious of need
for geo-hazard mapping and lack of appreciation of households of the gravity of disaster
as in St. Bernard); lack of coordination between government, NGOs and communities in
preparedness; preparedness not built into disaster management system; poverty making
people hard up to recover losses due to lack of options; and, degradation of the
environment.
Positive impacts of disasters cited were: increased awareness on the need for
preparedness and mitigation on part of LGUs and communities with institutionalization of
LDCCs; willingness of people especially from urban areas to help those affected in rural
areas and even victims helping out other victims; increased awareness of advantage of
putting money as savings in the coop rather than keep it at home as in Infanta, Quezon
where six months after the disaster, coops experienced increase in savings deposits;
greater concern about the environment to prevent future landslides.
Regarding past disasters influencing national or local policy, all but one
respondent felt some improvements. Among these were: the 2004 flood and landslide in
REINA resulted in conduct of local hazard mapping; the series of disasters in the 1990s
resulted in making LDCCs functional; the experience of flood in Marikina led to local-level
preparedness and mitigation planning and implementation; after the northern Luzon
earthquake in 1990, the LDCCs were institutionalized and became functional in the
affected areas even as the local calamity fund was allocated; LGUs agreed to increase
coverage of PHILHEATH for indigent families; and, zonal mapping implemented in
landslide-prone areas. Not much change was felt by a respondent in their two local areas
as ban on illegal logging was lifted again by national government, and definition of
boundaries of logging concessions still needed to be defined and monitored as
concessionaires usually went beyond boundaries and nobody checked their activities.
As for the means to reduce losses, the suggested measures focused on: building
code enforcement, and construction and retrofitting of existing structures; land use and
development planning; investment in disaster preparedness and mitigation; national
government having a more proactive disaster warning agencies, and political will to
enforce environmental laws especially on regulations of mining; LGUs policies to establish
functional disaster coordinating councils and calamity fund, local land use plans and
zoning ordinances, programs to train planning officers and improve local livelihood to help
disaster stricken families or communities to recover, and disaster preparedness
education; total ban on logging; early warning and forecasting not only for typhoons but
also monsoon rains; functional and well maintained early warning systems; and,
resettlement of vulnerable communities.
All respondents felt that the national government had the most responsibility for
reducing disaster losses; three paired it with the local government; and two with the
property owners. A respondent remarked that the constituents of LGUs should be most
responsible as well, and another felt that corporations involved in resource extraction
must also be taken to task.
Five respondents fully agreed and one agreed more or less that government
should compensate disaster victims. Two fully agreed, two agreed more or less, one did
not agree so and one full disagree that everybody must be more responsible for risks and
those who could afford should have private insurance. Two fully agreed, one agreed more
or less, and three did not agree so that locals put up a fund to help victims. All totally
disagreed and one did not agree so that it did not matter what one did for the victims
would lose a lot just the same.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
14
As for government compensation, what respondents mentioned were more of
assistance provided by government. These were the following: calamity loan from SSS
and GSIS; land set aside for relocation; avian flu compensation but still under study; relief
and rehabilitation assistance; dead indemnification and hospitalization referral for injured;
partial assistance to rebuild damaged houses; seeds from DA; evacuation and
resettlement in safer areas; livelihood
A respondent noted that government assistance was often not based on equity
but on basis of connections.
The civil society representatives ranked who should receive government
assistance after major disasters as follows – 1) only disaster victims with disaster
insurance for their uninsured losses; 2) only needy victims; 3) same rank for all victims by
percentage of their losses and for only victms who have not built their homes in high-risk
areas; 5) all victims by the same amount; and 6) none. Their responses are shown in the
following table:
Government should provide assistance to:
No. of Respondents = 6
Priority
a. All victims by a certain percentage of their losses
1
2
2
b. All victims by the same amount, above which they can choose to have
3
4
1
5
6
n.a
.
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
insurance
c. Only needy victims, that is, not well-to-do households or businesses
1
1
d. Only victims with disaster insurance for their uninsured losses
2
2
e. Only victims who have not built their homes in high-risk areas without a permit
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
f. None
5
As regards the issue of sufficiency and timeliness of government compensation,
all responded that assistance was neither timely nor adequate. The range of assistance
was estimated at no more than 10-20% of losses.
Four respondents thought that a most important argument for government
assistance and compensation was its neglect in ensuring policies to mitigate disasters,
and three said social solidarity of taxpayers was also a major argument. A respondent
saw all three arguments as significant. Other comments were: it was the mandate and
responsibility of government to provide assistance (2), and the economic (in)capacity of
the victims should also be considered (1).
As for the most important arguments for reducing government compensation,
responses were: compensation is too costly for the taxpayers (2); compensation
encourages people to move into high-risk areas and not take adequate measures to
reduce their losses (3); compensation discourages those (who can afford) to purchase
disaster insurance (2); compensation encourages mendicancy (1); I don't think
compensation should be reduced (2). One respondent remarked that compensation
should not be reduced if there were no safety nets like disaster insurance.
To encourage stakeholders to reduce disaster losses, respondents ranked the
priorities in the following manner – 1) same rank for the local authorities should pass and
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
1
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
15
enforce regulations and for the government to make compensation after a disaster
contingent on loss reducing measures; 3) insurance companies should offer lower
premiums for those who take on pre-specified risk reducing measures; 4) insurance
companies should contribute to loss reducing measures; 5) same rank for government
compensating far less of losses and for insurance companies contributing to loss-reducing
measures; and 7) nothing can be done (see table below):
Ways to encourage stakeholders to reduce disaster
No. of Respondents = 6
losses
1
2
4
1
2
4
3
4
5
6
2
3
7
n.a.
Priority
a. The local authorities should pass regulations and strictly
1
enforce them
b. The central government should make compensation after a
disaster contingent on loss-reducing measures before the
disaster
c. The central government should compensate far less of the
1
losses from a disaster
d. Insurance companies should offer lower premiums to
1
4
1
households, businesses and communities that have taken prespecified loss-reducing measures
e. Insurance companies should raise premiums of those living
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
in high-risk areas to encourage people to leave and
discourage people building their homes in these areas
f. Insurance companies should contribute to loss-reducing
measures
g. Nothing can be done
5
1
On the question of what government policy must be on villages in high risk areas,
respondents from civil society ranked the priorities in the following manner -- government
should help communities relocate to safe nearby areas; 2) villagers should be required to
relocate with full compensation; 3) the government should prohibit new construction in
high risk areas and not invest in further protection; 4) villagers who volunteer to relocate
are given compensation; 5) villages should be protected at all cost; 6) others (see table
below):
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
Government policy on villages in high risk areas
16
No. of Respondents = 6
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
6
n.a.
Priority
a. Villages should be protected at all costs
1
b. Villagers should be required to relocate, and government
2
1
2
1
3
3
should provide full compensation
c. If villagers choose to relocate, they should receive
compensation
d. The government should strictly prohibit any new construction
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
in these areas, and should not invest in further protection
e. The government should help communities to move from high
1
risk areas to nearby, safe areas
f. Others
1*
2
3
*The government should strictly prohibit any new construction in these areas (comment of one
respondent).
Respondents all agreed that government must relocate, instead of continuing to
protect a village in a high-risk area.
Three respondents felt that all property owners should insure themselves against
disasters, and three thought that low-income individuals must be assisted in purchasing
insurance. As for reasons for more private insurance, three believed that government
could reduce compensation; three deemed that it was only fair that property owners
should take more responsibility; and three felt that insurance companies could assist in
building disaster defenses
Three respondents agreed to use taxpayer funds to create a disaster reserve fund
while three others opted to purchase (macro-) insurance in response to large scale or
consecutive disasters.
As for types of disasters having high potential of risk insurance, three respondents
mentioned flood due to frequency of occurrence; two named typhoons as these were
recurrent; and, earthquake (1) and landslide (1) for widespread effects and intensity. Five
respondents agreed on the feasibility of insurance at the local and even national (2) level
for these disasters. One respondent commented that if ever we ventured into microinsurance, feasibility would depend on how far we could reduce both premium and claims
as well, otherwise, we would go out of business in no time. Another remarked that one
must ensure low premium and (insurance company) credibility.
Responses to the question of who should be responsible for macro-insurance and
for micro-insurance were varied. For macro-insurance: national government, insurance
companies, private owners (1); disaster insurance companies, private owners (1);
National government, private insurers and re-insurers (1); national and local governments,
private insurance companies, private owners (1); national government body (1); and,
private corporations* (1). For micro-insurance: LGUs, rural banks, coops, private owners
(1); government assisting low-income groups, households (1); households, private
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
17
insurance, LGUs (1); local government assisting high risk areas and poor households ,
NGOs-POs, poor households (1), local government (1); and, coops* (1).
* Respondent added a comment: “But government has to participate in both (macro- and microinsurance) as disasters usually have widespread impact. If not, insurance will be too expensive that only
a very few can afford and only a fraction of claims can be provided with the government still covering the
balance. And since there can be no actuarial studies on impact of disasters to project feasibility of
insurance package, how can companies set the premium rates that are affordable and with guaranteed
claims.”
Three respondents agreed that disaster insurance should be mandatory for
households, businesses and farms and three others conceded but only if the low-income
persons were assisted. One said no; and yet another remarked that making it mandatory
can solve some issues involved in the business side of disaster insurance only in the
sense of spreading the risks to all.
Disaster insurance should be same for all according to two respondents and two
others felt it should vary by disaster type.
Three respondents agreed that to prevent bankruptcy in case of very serious
disasters, the government should pay claims above a certain amount; three others felt
that insurance companies should be required to have more cash on hand or purchase
reinsurance even if this means that they charge higher premiums; three also believed that
insurance companies should divert funds from other types of insurance, for example, from
car insurance; and two agreed that foreign insurance companies operating in Philippines
should divert funds from policies held by citizens of other countries. Only one respondent
stated that each policy holder should receive less if insurance claims are too high.
Four respondents felt it was unfair for insurers to charge the same premium for
people in low-risk areas and those in high-risk areas. Two also said no for it would
encourage more people to build in high-risk areas.
Two agreed that risk insurance should be multi-hazard (to simplify system
according to one). Four others thought it should be risk-based and vary per type of
disaster.
Only three respondents said their houses or offices were insured for fire, one of
whom included earthquake and typhoon coverage as this was required by loan package
with UCPB. Three said no. Three said no insurance was offered while only three had
other insurance for their cars (two with comprehensive coverage and one TPL only). Not
one respondent was approached to buy property insurance.
Three respondents did not experience disaster in their communities. Two said
their neighborhood was affected by fire, typhoon and flood. Three personally experienced
disaster by fire, typhoon and flood. One said it was unlikely that their area would get
affected by typhoons and flood; two said not very likely; one said very likely; and, two
were almost certain that it would happen each year.
Four said that they were willing to pay for insurance with risk-based premiums (3)
or subsidized pro-poor rate (1). First priority for insurance for three respondents was for
fire; one mentioned typhoon; and another said flood that occurred frequently.
Five respondents declared that they were familiar with micro-credit or microfinance as part of their program (3), or coop in the area (1), or as the loan shark 5/6 (1). A
respondent mentioned the coop in Novaliches that collected P400 from members for a
death benefit of P200,000. Another respondent talked about two types of microinsurance their coop provide as built-in benefits to members: insurance cover for loans in
case of death of borrower; and, fixed amount of death benefit. Both were provided as part
of benefits and services of Cooperative Life Insurance Mutual Benefits Society (CLIMBS)
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
18
to which coops paid insurance premium with unpaid loan balance, however, being
absorbed by the coops.
Four respondents felt that it was feasible to link micro-insurance to disaster risk
insurance but only one expressed interest in it. Two said it was not a priority for them for
one had other organizational concerns and another thought first priority should go to life
and health insurance. One explicitly said no. Another commented that it was possible but
subject to study, adding that: Current practice in micro-insurance is to provide very limited
coverage to reduce premium payments so as to make it affordable. With government’s
inadequacy in putting in place policies and spending for necessary risk mitigation
infrastructure, disaster risk remains very high in the country. Risk insurance companies
will have second thoughts in getting into such kind of business. Even non-vulnerable
areas can be vulnerable due to government neglect and inadequacy as the lack of forest
protection can result in lowland disasters not experienced before. The government has to
make real efforts in risk reduction and mitigation as first priority. Insurance companies can
be enticed to go into disaster insurance if government provides the first line of defense in
risk reduction.
Evaluating the possible features of a national program for insurance and
compensation, responses were the following:
Features of a national program for insurance and compensation
a. All property owners must purchase private disaster insurance. This would be
No. of Resp. = 6
1
offered for all disaster risks at the same premium for everybody whether they are at
high or low risk
b. In the case of a disaster, all victims would receive a fixed amount of
2*
compensation from the gov't, which would be the same for everybody. To cover
losses above this amount, property owners and businesses can purchase
insurance
c. All households, farms, businesses can purchase disaster insurance covering all
types of disaster from the government
d. Household, businesses or farms form a mutual insurance pool
e. Other, please specify below
3**
*Rich has more assets; shared responsibility (comment of one respondent)
**Have disaster insurance that is not mandatory and those who are willing but not capable are to be
assisted by gov't; For compensation, help only the needy. (comment of one respondent)
**Mandatory disaster insurance based on hazard in the area with government assisting low income
households to avail of insurance. Premium depends on level of risk and capacity to pay. Low income
groups to be assisted in strengthening livelihood options. (comment of one respondent)
**Maximizing GSIS alone would already be sufficient. (comment of one respondent)
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
19
Views from Local Leaders and Community Residents
Perceptions From the Cities
A total of 48 respondents including 13 local (city/municipal) officers, identified the
following types of disasters that had high economic impact: typhoon, flood, earthquake,
landslide, volcanic eruption, drought, tornado, and fire. Impacts cited were loss of lives
and properties; damaged infrastructure; disruption of economic activities; school and work
disruption; damage to agriculture; uprooting of trees; loss of fishing boats and gears;
health problems; disruption of transport; fire; and, hoarding of goods to jack up price.
Financial costs were mentioned corresponding to disaster types: costs of damage
to houses and farms; lost savings and income for school tuition, medicines and food; loss
of capital and need to borrow to recover livelihood and business; costs of repair of houses
and rehabilitation; price hikes draining resources; costs of repair of water system; need to
seek outside jobs after loss of fishing boats and gears.
Factors seen as major causes for increase in financial losses due to disasters
were: high population growth (21); increasing poverty (21); rapid urbanization and
migration from rural (13); lack of proper land use planning (13); lack of effective warning
(12); failure of public to heed warnings (11); climate change increasing the frequency or
intensity of weather hazards (5); lack of government regulations or schemes on financial
issues (4); lack of land use planning (1); concentration of assets in vulnerable areas (1);
and, lack of people's perception on financial loss (1). Other factors mentioned: quarrying
(1); lack of effective warning and modern equipment, environmental degradation due to
abuse of resources, and lack of government regulations and poor implementation(6).
Positive impacts of disasters cited were: increased cooperation among people and
improved capacity for disaster preparedness; construction of more durable bridges and
houses; formation of BDCCs; higher level of awareness of Marikina fault line and need for
proactive government and people’s preparedness; flexible farming schedules followed to
avoid disasters; installation of internet viewer donated by Japan to Marikina LGU;
relocation of residents in high-risk low-lying areas; implementation of land use planning;
installation of dikes along Marikina river; LGU more active in resource generation;
upgrading of bridge and canals; and increased government initiatives in disaster
preparedness and mitigation.
As for past disasters influencing national or local policy, respondents mentioned
changes including: Manila policy of relocating households at risk (but site too far so
resident return to high risk areas); creation of a national calamity fund; de-clogging of
canals in preparation for rainy season; city-wide ordinance on garbage disposal;
procurement of modern technology for disaster management; regular interagency
program for disaster preparedness; barangay ban of tree-cutting and quarrying in
Batangas City; reactivation of BDCCs; early warning and evacuatioin system in place;
solid waster management from city to barangay level; PD 1566 and RA 8185; LGU
authority to declare state of calamity and luse of 5% of calamity fund for disaster; policy to
help stranded passengers at Batangas Pier; strengthening LDCCs in Marikina with
definite functions and composition; investment in fully equipped rescue boats and other
modern equipment; safety benchmarked by LGU, with disaster preparedness as a part of
good governance; installing early warning systems, dike and other safety devices,
upgrading infrastructure and irrigation support, improving waste management including
along drainage to prevent floods, more prompt assistance to evacuation centers; and
identification of high-risk areas needing greater assistance and preparedness, or
relocation of families at risk.
Regarding the means to reduce losses, the suggested measures included the
following: building code enforcement and land use regulation (Manila); disaster
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
20
preparedness program implementation; advocacy, education and information campaign
involving all stakeholders; use of modern technology in disaster management; ordinance
on garbage disposal; LDCC risk assessment and planning; drills in schools (Batangas);
planning to minimize agricultural losses; dikes construction and preparation of evacuation
centers; reinforcement of houses; stockpiling of food and fuel; disaster management
guidebook (Marikina); early warning systems using high technology and radio; preventive
evacuation; establishment of 112 relocation sites; forest protection and tree planting;
forecasting not only on typhoons wind but also amount of rainfall; free and improved
irrigation for rural areas of the city (in anticipation of drought); use of new technology to
detect earthquake occurrence, and retrofitting houses.
Thirty seven (37) respondents felt that the national government had the most
responsibility for reducing disaster losses; 28 said it should be the local government; and
18 the property owners. Five others remarked that the all three, or that the national and
local governments together with households, communities and private owners should be
responsible.
Thirty two (33) respondents fully agreed; 9 agreed more or less agreed; 8 didn’t
agree so; and, one totally disagreed that government should compensate disaster victims.
Six (6) fully agreed, 22 agreed more or less; 16 didn’t agree so; and, four totally disagreed
that everybody must be more responsible for risks and those who could afford should
have private insurance. Sixteen (16) fully agreed, 22 agreed more or less, and 5 did not
agree so that locals put up a fund to help victims. Eleven (11) did not agree so, and 16
totally disagreed that it did not matter what one did for the victims would lose a lot just the
same.
As for government compensation, respondents mentioned these types: housing,
relocation and livelihood assistance; relief and rehabilitation; repair of schools, GSIS
calamity loan; evacuation and relocation; P5,000 minimum assistance for fire and flood
victims; P1,500 maximum assistance per barangay; rescue, transport and medical
assistance; security assistance against looting; P10,000 PAGIBIG calamity loan; SSS
loan; crop assistance; and, house and building inspection.
For ranking who should receive government assistance after major disasters, the
local people ranked their priorities as follows – 1) only needed victims; 2) all victims by a
certain percentage of their losses; 3) all victims by the same amount; 4) only those who
have built in know low risk areas and with a permit; 5) only victims with disaster insurance
for uninsured losses; and 6) none. Their responses are shown in the table below:
Government should provide assistance to:
Priority
a. All victims by a certain percentage of their losses
b. All victims by the same amount, above which they can
choose to have insurance
c. Only needy victims, that is, not well-to-do households
or businesses
d. Only victims with disaster insurance for their uninsured
losses
e. Only victims who have not built their homes in high-risk
areas without a permit
f. None
No. of Respondents
1
2
3
4
5
13
6
23
14
15
14
16
2
29
7
11
5
9
13
28
7
18
17
2
2
7
6
n.a.
50
On the issue of sufficiency and timeliness of government compensation, all
responded that assistance was not adequate. Rates of assistance ranged from 5%, 10%,
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
21
15%-25%, to 50% of damage. Fourteen (14) respondent said assistance was inadequate
but timely.
Thirty three respondents thought that a most important argument for government
assistance and compensation was: that government has always assisted or compensated
disaster victims and that it was social solidarity of taxpayers (34); due to government
neglect in ensuring sustainable policies (21). Four (4) did not believe government should
compensate. Sis respondents felt that the government should not pay but only help as it
may create an attitude of dependency among victims or that residents may even destroy
their properties if only to get government compensation
As for the most important arguments for reducing government compensation,
responses were: compensation is too costly for the taxpayers (4); compensation
encourages people to move into high-risk areas and not take adequate measures to
reduce their losses (19); it is not fair for taxpayers in low-risk areas to support those in
high-risk areas (2); often compensation goes to the wealthy (15); compensation
discourages those (who can afford) to purchase disaster insurance (6); government
compensation discourages neighbors and others from helping one another (5); I don't
think compensation should be reduced (12). Other comments: the government should
less compensation for the more privileged while increasing that of the less privileged; and,
compensation should be increased but the losses should be assessed carefully.
To encourage stakeholders to reduce disaster losses, respondents ranked the
priorities in the following manner – 1) the local authorities should pass and strictly and
strictly enforce regulations; 2) the government should compensate contingent on loss
reducing measures taken; 3) insurance companies should offer lower premiums for those
taking pre-specified loss reducing measures; 4) insurance companies should contribute to
loss-reducing measures; 5) insurance companies should raise premiums of those living in
high-risk areas; 6) government should compensate far less of losses; and 7) nothing can
be done. Please refer to the table below.
Ways to encourage stakeholders to reduce disaster
losses
Priority
a. The local authorities should pass regulations and
strictly enforce them
b. The central government should make
compensation after a disaster contingent on lossreducing measures before the disaster
c. The central government should compensate far
less of the losses from a disaster
d. Insurance companies should offer lower premiums
to households, businesses and communities that
have taken pre-specified loss-reducing measures
e. Insurance companies should raise premiums of
those living in high-risk areas to encourage people to
leave and discourage people building their homes in
these areas
f. Insurance companies should contribute to lossreducing measures
g. Nothing can be done
No. of Respondents
1
2
44
4
3
32
4
6
1
1
8
1
4
1
3
4
5
6
1
1
1
5
5
29
1
32
9
2
2
1
11
2
16
2
5
1
13
10
16
13
20
7
n.a.
44
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
22
On the question of what government policy must be on villages in high risk areas,
respondents ranked the priorities in the following manner – 1) government should help
communities relocate to nearby safe area; 2) the government should strictly prohibit new
construction in high-risk areas and not invest in further protection; 3) villages should be
protected at all cost; 4) villagers should be relocated with full compensation; 5) those who
voluntarily relocate are given compensation; 6) others. Please see table below.
Government policy on villages in high risk areas
Priority
a. Villages should be protected at all costs
b. Villagers should be required to relocate, and
government should provide full compensation
c. If villagers choose to relocate, they should receive
compensation
d. The government should strictly prohibit any new
construction in these areas, and should not invest in
further protection
e. The government should help communities to move from
high risk areas to nearby, safe areas
f. Others
No. of Respondents
1
2
3
4
5
6
n.a.
9
11
4
4
12
4
6
17
18
6
10
3
5
4
8
9
10
16
5
6
14
9
13
2
5
9
18
9
2
11
4
12
13
24
16
Fifty (50) respondents agreed that government must relocate, instead of
continuing to protect a village in a high-risk area while two (2) said no.
Twenty nine (29) respondents felt that property owners should insure themselves
against disasters, and twenty one (21) thought that low-income individuals must be
assisted in purchasing insurance.
As for reasons for more private insurance, eleven (11) believed that government
could reduce compensation; eighteen (18) believed that insurance companies could set
higher premiums in high-risk areas; twenty five (25) said that it was only fair that property
owners should take more responsibility and, nineteen (19) felt that insurance companies
could assist in building disaster defenses. Respondents from Batangas said that there
should be disaster preparedness so that financial help could be provided.
Thirty four (34) respondents agreed to use taxpayer funds to create a disaster
reserve fund while 6 opted to divert funds from other budgets; 4 others opted to purchase
(macro-) insurance in response to large scale or consecutive disasters, and one said
borrow at high interest rates following a disaster.
As for types of disasters having high potential of risk insurance, respondents
mentioned typhoons and flood due to frequency of occurrence (28); earthquake due to
magnitude or intensity of damage (9); fire (13) and landslide () for widespread effects
and/or extent of damage; all disaster depending on local and hazard conditions (1).
Nineteen (19) respondents agreed on the feasibility of disaster insurance at the
local and national level. Respondents comments: feasible but work on credibility of
insurance company and where to invest funds; affordable package; ensure benefits; must
given for free to indigents like PHILHEALTH; ok if budgeted; necessary because many
people are at risk; insurance more fair, can speed up assistance, and more effective than
government, and can prevent government corruption.
Responses to the question of who should be responsible for macro-insurance and
for micro-insurance: for macro-insurance: national government (12), government, private
insurers, property owners (3) , private owners (6); private owners and insurance
companies(1); and, government (6). For micro-insurance: national and local governments,
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
23
property owners, people (3); national government (2); local government (11); government
(1); local government, private owners, low-income groups (1); government (2); and,
barangay (1).
Nineteen (19) respondents agreed that disaster insurance should be mandatory
for households, businesses and farms; 30 said yes but only if the low-income persons
were assisted. One said no.
Disaster insurance should be same for all according to 23 respondents and 13
others felt it should vary by disaster type.
Eighteen (18) respondents agreed that to prevent bankruptcy in case of very
serious disasters, the government should pay claims above a certain amount. Three (3)
felt that each policy holder should receive less if insurance claims are too high; that
insurance companies should be required to have more cash on hand or purchase
reinsurance even if this means that they charge higher premiums (36); that insurance
companies should divert funds from other types of insurance, for example, from car
insurance (21); that foreign insurance companies operating in Philippines should divert
funds from policies held by citizens of other countries (21); that companies should go
bankrupt and not pay the claims (1).
Thirty one (31) respondents felt it was unfair for insurers to charge the same
premium for people in low-risk areas and those in high-risk areas. Yes, because of social
solidarity (4). Yes, because people in the high-risk area are poor (5). Six (6) also said no
for it would encourage more people to build in high-risk areas.
Thirty six (36) agreed that risk insurance should be multi-hazard. Eleven (11)
respondents thought it should depend on the type of disaster.
Only two (2) respondents said their houses were insured for fire. Thirty eight (38)
said no; five (5) said no insurance was offered. Only seven (7) had other insurance for
their cars or tricycle (TPL only). Thirty four (34) said no one approached them to buy
property insurance and ten (10) have been approached but refused to buy insurance.
Almost all (46) respondents experienced disaster in their communities and
affected by typhoon, flood, fire, earthquake, monsoon winds, and volcanic eruption. All
(47) but one personally experienced disaster by typhoon, flood, fire, earthquake, monsoon
winds, and volcanic eruption.
Six (6) said it was almost certain that their area would get affected by typhoons
and flood; nine (9) said very likely; eight (8) not very likely; and, twenty four (24) said
unlikely that it would happen each year.
Thirty nine (39) said that they were willing to pay for insurance.. . A respondents
were willing to pay P25 weekly, or P100 to P500 monthly premium on risk insurance.
Eight (8) said no because many have been duped by insurance companies. First priority
for insurance for 27 respondents was for typhoon due to frequency of occurrence;
earthquake because of lits intensity (8); and one said fire due to frequency of occurrence.
Thirty nine (39) respondents said that they were familiar with micro-credit or
micro-finance of coops in the area, or as the loan shark 5/6. Also, PHILHEALTH,
ABSCBN, CCT, UPLIFT, LINGAP were mentioned by Manila respondents. CCT goes with
life insurance and premium is P5/week and loan of P4,000 initially but increased if good
payer. Batangas respondents cited Soro-soro Ibaba DCI, KMEI lending for fish vendors,
and TASIMFCO (Talumpok-Silangan Multipurpose Coop) that engages in lending, animal
dispersal, consumers store and rentals.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
24
Thirty nine (39) respondents felt that it was feasible to link micro-insurance to
disaster risk insurance all of whom except three (3) expressed interest in it if premiums
are affordable (10); if credibility of insurer is assured (5) . Seven (7) said no because no
money; and, eleven (11) no answer.
As for the possible features of a national program for insurance and
compensation, responses were the following:
Features of a national program for insurance and compensation
a. All property owners must purchase private disaster insurance. This would be
offered for all disaster risks at the same premium for everybody whether they are
at high or low risk
b. In the case of a disaster, all victims would receive a fixed amount of
compensation from the gov't, which would be the same for everybody. To cover
losses above this amount, property owners and businesses can purchase
insurance
c. All households, farms, businesses can purchase disaster insurance covering all
types of disaster from the government
d. Household, businesses or farms form a mutual insurance pool
e. Other, please specify below
No. of
Resp.
5
8
26*
5
1**
*Batangas residents had consensus on letter c.
**Letter c. plus “according to capacity to pay” (Marikina residents)
Perceptions From Municipalities
Respondents, from a total of 43 persons of whom 10 were local officials, identified
the types of disasters with high economic impact as the following: typhoons, flood,
landslide, earthquake, drought or El Nino, crop infestation, fire, volcanic eruption and
lahar flow.
Impacts enumerated were loss of lives and properties; damaged
infrastructure; disruption of economic activities; waterways siltation; school and work
disruption; damage to crops, fishery and livestock; disease outbreaks; food shortage;
drying up of water sources; and food insecurity. A respondent cited a whole family
trapped in fire incident, students stranded, and brownouts caused by uprooting of tress
swept by typhoons, and others related how transport problems spelled the end of their fish
trade business.
Financial costs were enumerated according to disaster types. Costs of damage
from lahar on their businesses were still felt by Pampanga respondents. Loss of livelihood
has brought greater indebtedness and recurring typhoons made recovery more difficult.
Costs of recovery in Camiguin were just as hard as farms and damaged houses needed
rehabilitation. After disasters, Iloilo respondents cited the negative impact on their
livelihood had repercussions on health and education needs, repayment of loans were
made doubly difficult; and, even money for food became a problem.
Factors seen as major causes for increase in financial losses due to disasters
were: increasing poverty (30); lack of effective warning (19); high population growth (8);
failure of the public to heed warnings (8); lack of proper land use planning (7); lack of
people’s perception on financial loss (3); failure of households and businesses to prepare
for disasters (2); concentration of assets in vulnerable areas (2); climate change
increasing the frequency or intensity of weather hazards (2); and, rapid urbanization and
migration from rural areas (1). Other factors mentioned: lack of facilities for use during
disasters like boats; depletion of forest cover and over extraction from the natural
resources; and, forces of nature such as Mt. Pinatubo’s eruption with lahar deposits in
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
25
rivers and settlements in vulnerable areas; politicking, lack of continuity of programs with
changes in political administration, and corruption in government.
Positive impacts of disasters cited were: increased cooperation among people and
start of development of culture of preparedness; government adoption of preparedness
and mitigation measures; awareness on corruption in government and its effect on
disaster response; improvement of early warning system as in Guagua where the LGU
with the schools set up BIONIC (Barangay Information Organizing Network) to do
community education and health information for disaster preparedness in 1991 and
institutionalized since 1993 to the present; institutionalization of BDCCs; retrofitting of
houses to adapt to lahar; review of land use and zonal planning; improvement of public
infrastructure and private houses; and improved soil fertility. Respondent in an FGD said
no positive impact but only losses.
Regarding past disasters influencing national or local policy, all respondents
mentioned improvements including: centralization of relief operations; review of disaster
preparedness; reclassification of land use zoning; strengthening of PDCCs down to the
BDCCs; enforcement of regulations on high-risk areas; passage of ordinance No. 2005-01
allocating an annual appropriation of P200,000.00 for the operation of the local weather
station in Dumangas, local government prohibition on house construction along river
banks; DPWH adoption of Guagua LGU proposal of 10 meters (instead of 80 meters)
channeling of flood waters in 1992; installation of local warning system; centralized relief
goods distribution system adopted by both regional and national governments;
comprehensive land use plan with the integration of risk assessment and community
disaster management (winning Galing Pook Award 1998-1999); Pinatubo Hazard Urgent
Funds of JICA loan Phase II-III implementation influenced by inputs from inputs; and, RA
9003.
With regard to the means to reduce losses, the suggested measures included the
following: early warning systems in place; building code enforcement and land use
regulation; disaster preparedness program implementation; efficient and improved
monitoring systems and facilities; disaster and crop insurance; tree planting and
reforestation; forest protection; more efficient road construction to prevent water blocking;
proper solid waste management; synchronized farming to prevent pests; local ordinances
to mobilize people for clean up prior to rainy season; locals consulted prior to DPWH
construction; address governance problems such as IRA channeling bottlenecks to
barangays, and corruption.
Thirty one (31) respondents felt that the local government had the most
responsibility for reducing disaster losses; 26 said it should be the national government;
and 17 the property owners. A respondent remarked that the constituents of LGUs should
be most responsible as well, and another felt that corporations involved in resource
extraction must also be taken to task.
Thirty (30) respondents fully agreed and 5 agreed more or less that government
should compensate disaster victims. Twenty one (21) fully agreed, 13 agreed more or less
that everybody must be more responsible for risks and those who could afford should
have private insurance. Eighteen (18) fully agreed, nine agreed more or less, and 11 did
not agree so that locals put up a fund to help victims. Ten agreed more or less, 7 did not
agree so, and 17 totally disagreed that it did not matter what one did for the victims would
lose a lot just the same.
As for government compensation, respondents mentioned these types: farm
inputs and livelihood assistance; relief and rehabilitation; housing assistance; repair of
infrastructure; financial and medical assistance; evacuation and relocation; P5,000
minimum assistance for fire victims house reconstruction; core housing assistance of
P10,000 for each resettled family (often riddled with corruption, a respondent remarked).
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
26
Municipal people ranked the options on ho should receive government assistance
after major disasters as follows – 1) all disaster victims by a certain percentage of their
losses; 2) only needy victms (closely following option no. 1); 3) all victims by the same
amount above which they can choose to have insurance; 4) only victims who have built in
known low risk areas and with permit; 5) only victims with disaster insurance; and 6)
none. Their responses are shown in the table below:
Government should provide assistance to:
Priority
a. All victims by a certain percentage of their losses
b. All victims by the same amount, above which they can
choose to have insurance
c. Only needy victims, that is, not well-to-do households
or businesses
d. Only victims with disaster insurance for their uninsured
losses
e. Only victims who have not built their homes in high-risk
areas without a permit
f. None
No. of Respondents
1
2
3
4
5
17
1
9
10
9
14
1
5
1
6
17
15
2
1
6
n.a.
1
1
3
1
6
9
17
1
5
18
11
1
38
1
On the issue of sufficiency and timeliness of government compensation, all
responded that assistance was neither timely nor adequate. The Dumangas group said
about 90-100% (of victims) were given assistance and added that from a scale of 1 to 10
rating government assistance was only between 1-5.. The range of assistance was
estimated at no more than 10-20% of losses by the Guagua group..
Thirty three respondents thought that a most important argument for government
assistance and compensation was its neglect in ensuring policies to mitigate disasters; 24
said social solidarity of taxpayers was also a major argument; and, 16 agreed that
government has always assisted or compensated disaster victims. A respondent
comment was: ”responsibility of government to give what is due like father and son
relationship”. Another remark was we should not be always depending on government
(“cargo de gobierno”).
As for the most important arguments for reducing government compensation,
responses were: compensation is too costly for the taxpayers (2); compensation
encourages people to move into high-risk areas and not take adequate measures to
reduce their losses (8); compensation discourages those (who can afford) to purchase
disaster insurance (16); often compensation goes to the wealthy (15); I don't think
compensation should be reduced (30); compensation discourages neighbors and others
from helping one another (1).. One group remarked that if compensation was reduced,
government should explain it.
To encourage stakeholders to reduce disaster losses, respondents ranked the
priorities in the following manner -- 1) local authorities should pass and enforce
regulations; 2) the government should make compensation contingent on loss reducing
measures; 3) insurance companies should raise premiums of those in high risk areas; 4)
insurance companies should contribute to loss-reducing measures; 5) insurance
premiums should offer lower premiums to those who take loss-teducting measures; 6) the
government should compensate far less for losses; 7) nothing can be done. Please refer
to table on the next page:
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
Ways to encourage stakeholders to reduce disaster
losses
Priority
a. The local authorities should pass regulations and
strictly enforce them
b. The central government should make
compensation after a disaster contingent on lossreducing measures before the disaster
c. The central government should compensate far
less of the losses from a disaster
d. Insurance companies should offer lower
premiums to households, businesses and
communities that have taken pre-specified lossreducing measures
e. Insurance companies should raise premiums of
those living in high-risk areas to encourage people
to leave and discourage people building their
homes in these areas
f. Insurance companies should contribute to lossreducing measures
g. Nothing can be done
27
No. of Respondents
1
2
3
50
1
11
12
27
7
4
5
6
14
2
2
11.5
7
n.a.
28
29
49
12
19
19
12
19
35
1
6
5
24
25
8
3
2
On the question of what government policy must be on villages in high risk areas,
respondents ranked the priorities in the following manner – 1) villagers should be
relocated and given full compensation; 2) villagers who voluntarily relocate should be
compensated; 3) the government should prohibit any new construction in high risk areas;
4) the government should help communities move to nearby safe area; 5)villages should
be protected at all cost (see table below).
Government policy on villages in high risk areas
Priority
a. Villages should be protected at all costs
b. Villagers should be required to relocate, and government
should provide full compensation
c. If villagers choose to relocate, they should receive
compensation
d. The government should strictly prohibit any new
construction in these areas, and should not invest in further
protection
e. The government should help communities to move from
high risk areas to nearby, safe areas
f. Others
No. of Respondents
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
35
12
18
16
1
5
7
21
1
12
44
5
1
8
10
14
27
3
11
10
2
21
13
n.a.
Twenty five respondents agreed that government must relocate, instead of
continuing to protect a village in a high-risk area while 15 said no.
Sixteen (16) respondents felt that property owners should insure themselves
against disasters, and 24 thought that low-income individuals must be assisted in
purchasing insurance.
As for reasons for more private insurance, 17 believed that government could
reduce compensation; 13 said that it was only fair that property owners should take more
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
28
responsibility; 1 believed that insurance companies could set higher premiums in high-risk
areas; and, 10 felt that insurance companies could assist in building disaster defenses
Twenty one (21) respondents agreed to use taxpayer funds to create a disaster
reserve fund while 16 opted to divert funds from other budgets; 2 others opted to
purchase (macro-) insurance in response to large scale or consecutive disasters.
As for types of disasters having high potential of risk insurance, 17 respondents
mentioned flood due to frequency of occurrence; 9 named typhoons as these were
recurrent; and, volcanic eruption (8); lahar (1), fire (1) and landslide (1) for widespread
effects and/or intensity.
All respondents agreed on the feasibility of insurance at the local and national
level for these disasters. Five respondents commented that it was feasible as long as
poorer households get assistance. Another asked whether insurers would agree to lower
insurance premium to make it more affordable.
Responses to the question of who should be responsible for macro-insurance and
for micro-insurance was varied. For macro-insurance: national government, insurance
companies, private owners (20); private owners (7); national government (5); and,
government (7). For micro-insurance: LGUs, NGOs, coops (13), NGO, coops (1); private
owners (2); government, private owners, low-income groups (1); government (12); local
government (1); and, barangay (1).
Nine (9) respondents agreed that disaster insurance should be mandatory for
households, businesses and farms; 24 said yes but only if the low-income persons were
assisted. Seven (7) said no.
Disaster insurance should be same for all according to 23 respondents and 13
others felt it should vary by disaster type.
Eighteen (18) respondents agreed that to prevent bankruptcy in case of very
serious disasters, the government should pay claims above a certain amount. Two felt
that each policy holder should receive less if insurance claims are too high (2); that
insurance companies should be required to have more cash on hand or purchase
reinsurance even if this means that they charge higher premiums (18); that insurance
companies should divert funds from other types of insurance, for example, from car
insurance (19); that foreign insurance companies operating in Philippines should divert
funds from policies held by citizens of other countries (13).
Twenty three (23) respondents felt it was unfair for insurers to charge the same
premium for people in low-risk areas and those in high-risk areas. Yes, because of social
solidarity (10). Yes, because people in the high-risk area are poor (4). Three (3) also said
no for it would encourage more people to build in high-risk areas.
Thirty nine (41) agreed that risk insurance should be multi-hazard.
respondent thought it should depend on the type of disaster.
One
Only six (6) respondents said their houses or offices were insured for fire. Twenty
four (24) said no. Eleven (11) said no insurance was offered. Only five (5) had other
insurance for their cars or tricycle (TPL only). Twenty four (24) said no one approached
them to buy property insurance and only one have been approached but refused to buy
insurance.
All respondents experienced disaster in their communities and affected by
drought, typhoon and flood. All also personally experienced disasters such as fire,
typhoon, flood, lahar, and earthquake. One said it was not very likely that their area
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
29
would get affected by typhoons and flood; 4 said very likely; and, 37 were almost certain
that it would happen each year.
Thirty three (33) said that they were willing to pay for insurance with risk-based
premiums (17) or subsidized pro-poor rate (4). A respondent was willing to pay P5,000 to
P10,000 annual premium on risk insurance. First priority for insurance for 21 respondents
was for flood; 13 mentioned typhoon; and 1 said drought.
Twenty nine (29) respondents said that they were familiar with micro-credit or
micro-finance as part of their program , or coop in the area, or as the loan shark 5/6 at 1020% interest rate. Also, PHILHEALTH with its 50-25-25 scheme was mentioned as the
government health micro-insurance; also in Guagua, the Business and Professional
Credit Cooperative with 3% interest rate on loans; and private micro-credit with 3% per
month. Respondents from Camiguin cited PRRM micro-finance, TIBOD sa Barangay,
ARAWAN Financing Services.
Thirty six respondents felt that it was feasible to link micro-insurance to disaster
risk insurance all of whom expressed interest in it. A respondent said no, for it was not
wise to allot funds for disasters for they needed to move the funds.
As for the possible features of a national program for insurance and
compensation, responses were the following:
Features of a national program for insurance and compensation
a. All property owners must purchase private disaster insurance. This would be
offered for all disaster risks at the same premium for everybody whether they are
at high or low risk
b. In the case of a disaster, all victims would receive a fixed amount of
compensation from the gov't, which would be the same for everybody. To cover
losses above this amount, property owners and businesses can purchase
insurance
c. All households, farms, businesses can purchase disaster insurance covering all
types of disaster from the government
d. Household, businesses or farms form a mutual insurance pool
e. Other, please specify below
No. of
Resp.
2
18
10
6
Comparative Analysis of Key Survey Results Among Sectors
Priorities for Government Assistance
In terms of ranking priorities based on weighted averages, urban respondents
came strong in favor of government assisting only needy victims; all victims by a certain
percentage of losses, and a far third all victims by the same amount, above which they
can choose to have insurance. Those from the rural sector gave equal weight to
government assisting only needy victims, and all victims by a certain percentage of
losses. Those from the government sector gave priority to all victims be a certain
percentage of losses, next to only needy victims. Civil society respondents considered as
first priority only victims with disaster insurance for their uninsured losses, and then all
victims be a certain percentage of losses, and thirdly, only needy victims, and victims who
have not built in high-risk areas. The first three sectors were almost similar in their
rankings. Stress of the urban sector to only needy victims receiving assistance contrasts
with civil society sector’s priority to those victims with disaster insurance that in turn
ranked very low in the government and urban sectors’ ranking.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
30
Ways to Reduce Disaster Losses
As for ways to reduce disaster losses, all sectors gave top priority to local
authorities passing regulations and strictly enforcing them. For all sectors except those
from government, next weighted priority (far behind from the first) was for the central
government to make compensation contingent on loss-reducing pre-disaster measures.
Understandably perhaps, for government respondents, central government compensating
far less of the losses ranked next though not too far behind were insurance companies
offering lower premiums and central government compensation based on loss-reducing
measures. Ranking very low both for the government and urban respondents was
insurance raising premiums of those in high-risk areas which contrasts to civil society
sector’s lower priority given to central government compensating far less of the losses. All
sectors based weighted average gave lowest priority to nothing can be done.
Government policy on villages in high risk areas
Both urban and rural respondents rated, as top priority for government policy on
villages in high-risk areas, requiring villagers to relocate with full government
compensation. Government respondents ranked as top priority government helping
communities to move to nearby, safer areas while those from civil society gave almost
equal weight to requiring villagers to relocate with full compensation, and government
strictly prohibiting any new construction in these areas, and not invest in further
protection. All gave lower priority to compensating villagers who choose to relocate. The
government respondents gave the lowest ranking to protected villagers at all costs.
Features of a national program for insurance and compensation
On the question of legislation of a national program for insurance and
compensation, the government sector top choice was requiring all property owners to
purchase insurance for all disaster risks at the same premium. Those from civil society
and the rural sector gave on the average higher priority to government compensation of a
fixed amount for all victims, and to cover losses above this amount property owners and
businesses acquiring private insurance. The urban sector put the greatest stress on
government providing disaster insurance covering all types of disaster to all households,
farms, and businesses.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
31
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
32
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
33
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
34
IV. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
Taking the cue from the survey results, we can summarize the most significant
issues and concerns in searching for financial strategies to manage the economic impact
of natural disasters in the country.
Most disasters in the country have high economic impact affecting most
particularly the vulnerable sector --- the poor. The major causes for increased financial
losses have to do with disaster mitigation and preparedness as well as poverty,
population growth, environmental degradation, and climate change. The experience of
disaster, however, have had positive impacts in enhancing government and public
awareness of the importance of risk mitigation and preparedness, improvement of
national and local policies, and involvement of all sectors in disaster risk management.
Reduction of disaster losses requires developing a comprehensive disaster risk
management program that includes mitigation measures such as hazard mapping and
risk assessment, enforcement of disaster-related laws, upgrading the capacity of national
and local management agencies, community-based disaster preparedness training and
education, and risk insurance.
The national government should have the most responsibility disaster risk
reduction and more or less equally the local government and individual property owners.
But, government disaster assistance or compensation is on the whole neither timely nor
adequate. The participation of all stakeholders in risk management becomes all the more
indispensable.
To reduce disaster losses, priority should be for local authorities to pass
legislations and strictly enforce these safety regulations such as measures to move highrisk communities into safer areas and strictly prohibit construction in high-risk areas. The
national government should compensate on the basis of risk reduction measures in place
and enforcement at the local level drawing from a specific disaster reserve fund separate
from the existing calamity fund. With loss-reducing mechanisms functioning at the local
level, insurance companies may be able to offer lower premiums.
Macro-insurance to be feasible may need the involvement of the national and
local governments, and private insurance as disasters usually have widespread impact.
Micro-insurance may be handled by the local government, private insurers, coops and
micro-finance institutions. Insurance may need to be mandatory for all so as to spread
the risk but also have to be subsidized for low-income groups. The issue of whether
insurance has to be multi-hazard or risk-based (varied according to disaster types) may
need further study. Making it multi-hazard has the advantage of simplifying administration
but may be feasible only with government back-up the extent of which is something that
also needs to be explored.
There are other related issues that should be addressed. In terms of hierarchy of
needs, barangay leaders and community residents cited as top priority food on the table;
day-to-day survival, and education of children. This implies a sequencing for insurance
with health insurance, education insurance, life insurance as first priorities, and property
or disaster insurance as next. For middle-income earners, property insurance with
coverage more than fire comes as a compliance with requirements of a bank loan, and as
Third Party Liability (TPL) required for vehicles, and not as a conscious need or plan to
manage risks.
In addition, the credibility of private insurance has over the recent years come
under a cloud of doubt and public scrutiny. Experiences with education plans, and
corruption within the government as a main factor for PCIC’s failure in helping farmers
with crop failures and losses have to be addressed. Transparency and accountability,
investment portfolio, premium rates and claiming procedures all have to be spelled out.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
35
How to make the benefits of disaster insurance tangible to households?
PHILHEALTH is attractive because of the membership card it issues which doubles as
identification card of low income people who do not usually have access to ID cards.
Aside from hospitalization benefits, out patient consultation clinics have also been opened
by PHILHEALTH especially for indigent members. For local government buy-in, the
pictures of the Mayor is also included in the subsidized PHILHEALTH cards.
Setting affordable premium rates and fair claims package for risk insurance
policies may also be tricky.
Low-income group’s access to private insurance if ever is
very limited. There is a need to study the potentials of micro-finance or micro-credit in
enhancing coping mechanisms and risk reduction among the more vulnerable low-income
groups. PHILHEALTH subsidized scheme for the indigents may provide some concrete
insights into what type of risk insurance is feasible.
Providing tax incentives or exemptions on disaster insurance should have an
impact on lowering premium rates to make them more affordable. As it is now aside,
there is a heavy tax burden -- premium tax, 10% VAT and municipal taxes. Also included
in the cost of conventional insurance is the brokerage (middle men) commission – 10%
for vehicle TPL insurance and 35% for fire insurance. If a government body like
PHILHEALTH or GSIS handles the disaster insurance, then the issue of tax exemption
and brokerage commission can be settled.
In addition, affordability will continue to be a major issue for as long as the
prevailing economic standing of most households and individuals in terms of income and
opportunities, coupled with the common attitude of Filipinos regarding savings, remains
unchanged. Many people will prioritize spending for a fiesta, even to the extent of
borrowing, than purchase disaster insurance coverage.
Computations have to worked out by the insurance companies involved – both
government (national and/or local government) and private – how to have viable and
affordable scheme taking into consideration both the risks involved and having a big pool
of people to lower premiums.
How can disaster micro-insurance be bundled with micro-finance? Can the microcredit organizations provide the money to purchase the disaster risk insurance and the
low income household avail of easy weekly or monthly modes of payment?.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
36
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following courses of action are recommended:
Develop a comprehensive disaster risk management program and strengthen
collaboration and coordination among all stakeholders. The program should cover hazard
mapping and risk assessment, enforcement of disaster-related laws, upgrading the
capacity of national and local management agencies, community-based disaster
preparedness training and education, and risk insurance. A review of the current status of
mitigation and preparedness measures and their enforcement especially in identified
vulnerable areas is proposed. The national and local governments with the participation
of civil society should take the lead in mobilizing all sectors in disaster risk reduction.
-
Continue implementing preparedness measures in the 4 Point Plan of Action
for Disaster Preparedness including upgrading forecasting capability of
PAGASA and PHIVOLCS; conducting public information campaign on disaster
preparedness and capability building training for LGUs in identified vulnerable
areas; and, providing mechanisms for government and private sector
partnerships for relief and rehabilitation. Undertake program for structural and
non-structural mitigation and prevention measures.
-
Strengthen livelihood and income sourcing, and health training assistance at
the individual, household and community level as part of risk reduction
measure in the pre-disaster period, and not only as part of rehabilitation after
the disaster event..
-
Continue integrated pre-, during, post disaster management activities with
emphasis on preparedness, mitigation and prevention applying a multisectoral (inter-sectoral), multi-disciplinary approach, and multi-stakeholder
participation and planning and implementation at different levels of
government.
Improvise a strategy to reduce disaster losses at local level. Local governments
can take the initiative in approving and enforcing legislations, and implementing
community-based programs for risk reduction. A campaign to institutionalize a communitybased disaster risk management program at the local level especially in identified highrisk areas is highly recommended. The national government shall compensate on the
basis of these measures and programs at the local level. A distinct disaster reserve fund
may be created for this purpose. Risk mitigation mechanisms at the local level may entice
insurance companies to offer lower premiums.
Conduct an in-depth study on the feasibility of macro- and micro-insurance as a
risk financing strategy. The study shall evaluate and draw the best from current practice,
and suggest instruments whereby national and local governments, private insurance
insurers, coops and micro-finance institutions may venture into risk insurance. It shall
help settle related issues in risk insurance such as those that surfaced in the survey.
(Part of vehicle licensing? Part of tax paid to local government? Part of SSS and GSIS
premiums and benefits?)
Evaluate current status and practice of micro-finance for link-up with risk
insurance. A research on success stories of micro-finance projects in the country shall
help showcase best practices for adoption at the local level, and provide access to
technical expertise in the field of micro-insurance. A CIDA-funded project, SocioEconomic Development Through Co-operatives in the Philippines is just one that is worth
looking into. It has assisted a co-operative insurer, CLIMBS—The Co-operative Life
Insurance Mutual Benefit Society—to service the small-scale insurance market through
local-level coops. Many of these coops are based in poor areas, with members who have
lacked access to affordable insurance.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
37
ANNEXES
Annex 1 -
Acronyms
Annex 2 -
Survey Instrument with Guidance Notes and Filipino
Translation
Annex 3 -
List of Interviewees
Annex 4 -
Concepts and Experiences on Risk Transfer/Sharing
(Philippines and Other Countries)



Relevant Disaster Risk Management Framework
Defining a Few KeyTerms
ProVention Viewpoint: Invest to prevent disaster:
The potential benefits and limitations of
micro-insurance as a risk transfer mechanism for
developing countries
 NDCC Memo Circular #21 “Enjoining LGUs to Secure
Property Insurance Against Natural & Man-made
Disasters or Calamities
Annex 5 -
Brief Profile of Selected Agencies and Organizations
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
38
Annex 1
ACRONONYMS
BSP - Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
BDCC – Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council
CBDM – Community Based Disaster Management
CBDRM – Community Based Disaster Risk Management
CDA - Cooperative Development Authority
C/MDCC – City/Municipal Disaster Coordinating Council
CNDR – Corporate Network for Disaster Response
CRED – Center for Research and Epidemiology of Disasters
DA – Department of Agriculture
DBP - Development Bank of the Philippines
DBM - Department of Budget and Management
DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DILG – Department of Interior and Local Government
DM – Disaster Management
DOF - Department of Finance
DPWH- Department of Public Works and Highways
DRM – Disaster Risk Management
DSWD – Department of Social Work and Development
GO – Government Organization
GSIS - Government Service Insurance System
IRA – Internal Revenue Allotment
LDCC – Local Disaster Coordinating Council
LGC – Local Government Code
LGU – Local Government Unit
MDG – Millennium Development Goal
NATCCO – National Confederation of Cooperatives
NDCC – National Disaster Coordinating Council
NEDA - National Economic Development Authority
NGA – National Government Agency
NGO – National Government Organization
OCD – Office of Civil Defense
PCIC – Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation
PBSP – Philippine Business for Social Progress
PHILHEALTH
PRRM – Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement
SSS- Social Security System
WBI - World Bank Institute
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
39
Annex 2
IMPLEMENTING FINANCIAL STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
NATURAL DISASTERS ON MACRO-, MESO- AND MICRO-LEVEL
Purpose of the Questionnaire Survey: The World Bank study found that presently the Government
and individual households bear the majority of costs caused by natural disasters. More effective options
for financing disaster risk and relieving the burden of disasters from the public sector should be explored,
including the idea of a catastrophic insurance pool, and/or contingent credit facilities, or some other
innovative risk management solutions. The survey is intended to identify and explore the possibilities of
the financial risk management solutions, applicable to Philippines context.
Targets of Questionnaire Survey: The survey will target the following different groups of stakeholders:
Representatives of 10 to 12 key national agencies unions and corporations related to disaster
and financial management (government bodies, banks, insurance and micro-finance agencies
etc.)
Representatives of 6 local government units (LGU) about the local government policies and
practices (3 from urban area, and 3 from rural areas)
Representatives of 5 civil society bodies (NGOs) on the social acceptance of financial risk
management instruments
Representatives of 12 barangay captains (community leaders) (two each from each LGU)
Representatives of 60 residential areas? (rural and urban areas with different socio-economic
status) (5 each from each barangay in rural and urban areas)
Total number of samples is around 95.
Survey Methods: The survey can be conducted through three different methods:
Semi-structured interviews (for national agencies)
Questionnaire survey (for LGU, NGOs and residents)
Focus group discussion (for Barangay chief and local residents)
Ideally the list of responses would originate from open ended interviews, ie ask the question without
giving choices and see what come out. Those responses then guide the choices on a subsequent
written or oral questionnaire.
Other Pointers: (from CDP)
1.
Read materials on insurance and financial issues related to disaster risk management.
References on disaster risk transfer and sharing measures are attached (from
ProVention Consortium).
The common financial strategies used as of now in the Philippines is the Calamity Fund and
the GSIS (and SSS) Calamity Loans to its members after a disaster. Some private property
owners have insurance coverage and farmers are covered by Philippine Crop Insurance.
Although limited, micro-insurance exists in the health sector. There is wealth of experience in
micro-credit/finance schemes.
Difference between macro and micro insurance ----Macro-insurance: associated with
conventional insurance from insurance companies; Micro-insurance: associated with insurance
for the low-income groups/pro-poor programs.
2.
In other countries, the concept of entitlements or claims of disaster victims is related to the
rights based approach, accountability and participation, duty bearers and rights holders. These
are yet to be applied in disaster management in the Philippines.
3.
Get the Names, positions held by the persons interviewed or organizational membership, sex,
age.
4.
Document answers of Municipal/City Mayor or designated Municipal Officer, Punong Barangay
of each of the 2 barangays and community residents separately. There is no right or wrong
answer. The survey is looking in current practice, perceptions, opinions and recommendations.
5.
Use one questionnaire each for the interviews with the Municipal/City Mayor/Officer, Barangay
Captains, and community residents. Just fill out the questionnaire in English. Ensure all
questions are anwered. There is no need to write a separate narrative report following the
interviews. Encode answers of interviewees on the spaces provided for each of the questions.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
40
6.
Identify disaster type1, 2, 3 cited in answers to questionnaire per number to make sure that
there is no mix up (e.g. disaster type 1 – flooding; disaster type 2 – earthquake; disaster type 3
- landslide)
7.
For the Focus Group Discussion with the 5 Community Residents for each barangay, there is
no need for the interviewees to come to a consensus or agreement about their answers. If they
have common answers, fine but if they have different answers, reflect these in the filled out
questionnaire.
8.
Send back to CDP/CDP Survey Team the electronic file of the filled out questionnaire before
03 May 2006.
Survey Contents:
1.
Name three major natural disasters which have high socio-economic impacts in the Philippines
(e.g., earthquake, typhoon, flood, volcano, landslide etc.)
Disaster Type 1
Disaster Type 2
Disaster Type 3
.......................................
........................................
.........................................
Ano ang tatlong pangunahing disaster/kalamidad mula sa kalikasan ang nagdudulot ng malaking
pinsala o epektong sosyo-ekonomiko sa Pilipinas (sa buhay at kabuhayan ng pamilya at
komunidad)? Hal. lindol, bagyo, pagsabog ng bulkan, pagguho ng lupa, atbp.
Kalamidad/Disaster type 1
2.
Kalamidad/Disaster type 2
Kalamidad/Disaster type 3
What are the types of impacts in past disasters? (e.g. on lives, housing, infrastructure, livelihoods,
agriculture, livestock, etc.)
Disaster Type 1
Disaster Type 2
Disaster Type 3
Ano ang mga pinasala o epekto ng mga nakaraang kalamidad/disaster? Hal. sa buhay,
kabahayan, infrastructure, kabuhayan, agrikultura, mga hayop, atbp.
Kalamidad/disaster type 1
3.
Kalamidad/disaster type 2
Kalamidad/disaster type 3
What are the types of financial consequences in past disasters? (give examples)
Disaster Type 1
Disaster Type 2
Disaster Type 3
Ano ang mga pinansyal na pinsala/epekto dulot ng mga nakaraang kalamidad/disaster?
Magbigay ng halimbawa. (kung nasira ang pananim, kailangang mangutang ng ____ para me
pambili ng binhi at gastos sa pananim; kung nasira ang bahay, kailangang ipakumpuni ang bahay; di
makapasok sa pabrika, walang sweldo para sa ____ araw….)
Kalamidad/disaster type 1
Kalamidad/disaster type 2
Kalamidad/disaster type 3
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
4.
41
In your opinion, what are the major causes of possible increases in financial losses due to
disasters in the Philippines? (please select 3 items from the list below)
High population growth
Increasing poverty
Increasing wealth and assets
Rapid urbanization and migration from rural areas
Lack of effective warning
Failure of public to heed warnings
Failure of households and businesses to prepare for disasters
Lack of proper land use planning
Lack of government regulations or schemes on financial issues
Concentration of assets in vulnerable areas
Lack of people’s perception on financial loss (to be proactive than reactive)
Climate change increasing the frequency or intensity of weather hazards
Others (please specify)
Sa iyong palagay, ano ang mga pangunahing dahilan ng pagtaas ng natatamong pagkalawang
pinansyal mula sa kalamidad sa Pilipinas? Pumili ng 3 mula sa listahan sa ibaba.
-Mataas na paglaki ng populasyon
-Papasidhing kahirapan
-Paparaming kayamanan at pag-aari
-Mabilis na urbanisasyon at migration mula sa rural areas
-Kulang ang epektibong pagbigay ng maagang babala
-Kawalan ng paghahanda para sa disaster ng mga kabahayan/pamilya at negosyo
-Kakulangan ng proper land use planning
-Kakulangan ng government regulations or schemes on financial issues
-Konsentrasyon ng mga pag-aari sa bulnerableng lugar
-Kakulangan ng perception ng mga tao ng financial loss (na maging proactive kaysa reactive)
-Pagbago ng klima na nagdudulot ng pagdalas at pagtindi ng mga weather hazards
-Iba pa (ilista kung ano pang dahilan ang sinabi na di maikategorya sa itaas)
5.
Are there any positive impacts of disasters?
Disaster Type 1
Disaster Type 2
Disaster Type 3
Mayroon bang positibong epektong ibinubunga or idinudulot ang mga kalamidad/disaster? Ano ang
mga ito?
Kalamidad/disaster type 1
6.
Kalamidad/disaster type 2
Kalamidad/disaster type 3
Did any of the past disasters influence the policy of national and/or local governments? If so,
please specify.
Meron ba kalamidad/disaster sa nakaraan (in the past) na nakaimpluwensya ng patakaran ng
pamahalaan sa lokal o sa nasyunal? Anong kalamidad/disaster ito? Anong patakaran ang ipinanukala
(inirekomenda) o ipinatupad?
7. What do you think would be most sensible/appropriate and effective means to reduce disaster
losses? (give example, like building code implementation for earthquake, early warning for typhoon,
etc..)
Disaster Type 1
Disaster Type 2
Disaster Type 3
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
42
Sa iyong palagay, ano ang pinakaangkop at epektibong paraan upang mabawasan ang losses dahil
sa kalamidad? Magbigay ng halimbawa tulad ng pagpapatupad ng building code para sa lindol,
maagang babala para sa bagyo, atbp.
Kalamidad/disaster type 1
8.
Kalamidad/disaster type 2
Kalamidad/disasater type 3
Who (do you think) should have the most responsibility for reducing disaster losses (choose
2 from below)?

The national government

The local/municipal governments (LGU)

Property owners / individuals

Others (please specify who should be most responsible other than those cited above)
Sa iyong palagay, sino dapat ang maging responsible sa pagpapababa pinsala o kawalan dulot ng
kalamidad/disaster. Pumili ng 2 mula sa nakalista.
- National na pamahalaan
- Lokal/munisipal na pamahalaan
-Ang mga may-ari ng property/mga indibidwal
- Iba pa. (Tukuyin kung sino ang dapat maging responsible bukod sa nakalista sa itaas).
9.
Which of the following statements do you agree more with? (1 - agree fully; 2 - more or less
agree; 3 - do not agree so; 4 - totally disagree)

Social solidarity requires that government compensate disaster victims for damages that
occur to their homes and livelihood. .....................

Everybody should take more responsibility for disaster risks and those who can afford it
should purchase private insurance ........................

Locals should pull together and create a fund which could help disaster victims in case of a
disaster .......................

It does not matter what you do, disaster victims will lose a lot ....................
Alin sa mga pahayag sa ibaba ka mas sumasang-ayon? (1 - lubos na sumasang-ayon; 2 - more or less
agree; 3 - do not agree so much; 4 – talagang di sang-ayon)
- Batay sa pakikiisa sa bayan, dapat bayaran/i-compensate ng gobyerno ang mga biktima
ng kalamidad/disaster para sa mga pinsala sa kanilang kabahayan o kabuhayan ………
- Dapat maging mas responsible ang lahat para sa peligro ng disaster/kalamidad at ang mga
maykaya ay dapat kumuha ng pribadong insurance. ……...
- Ang mga tagakomunidad o nakatira sa lugar ay dapat magsama-sama at bumuo ng pondong
pantulong sa mga biktima ng kalamidad sakaling magkaroon ng disaster . ………..
- Kahit ano ang iyong gawin, malaki pa rin ang mawawala sa mga masasalanta ng kalamidad/disaster
……..
10. What type of compensation was made by governments after different types of disasters? (e.g.,
building houses, livelihood options, move to less vulnerable areas)
Disaster Type 1
Disaster Type 2
Disaster Type 3
Anong tipo ng kabayaran/compensation ang ibinigay ng gobyerno para sa iba-ibang klase ng
kalamidad/disaster? Hal. Muling pagpapatayo ng bahay, pagbangon ng kabuhayan, relokasyon sa mas
di mapanganib na lugar, atbp.
Kalamidad/disaster type 1
Kalamidad/disaster type 2
Kalamidad/disaster type 3
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
43
11. (In your opinion) After a major disaster, the Philippines government should provide assistance
to: (Please rank or prioritize according to your choice with # 1 as the highest priority, #2 as next
choice etc and # 6 as the least priority)

All victims by a certain percentage of their losses ……

All victims by the same amount, above which they can choose to have insurance coverage
…….

Only needy victims, that is, not well-to-do households or businesses ……

Only victims with disaster insurance for their uninsured losses ……

Only victims who have not built their homes in high-risk areas without a permit (who have
built in known low risk areas and with building permit) …..

None ……..
Sa iyong palagay, pagkatapos ng disaster/kalamidad dapat magbigay ang pamahalaan ng tulong o
kabayaran sa: (Please rank or prioritize according to your choice with # 1 as the highest priority, #2 as
next choice and …. # 6 as the least priority)
> Lahat ng biktima ayon sa takdang porsiyento (%) ng kanilang kawalan/losses ...........
> Lahat ng biktima ayon sa iisang/pare-parehong takdang halaga, at lampas sa halagang ito
ay maaaring kumuha na sila ng insurance (hal. P25,000 sa lahat ng masiraan ng bahay
at ang mga may-ari ng bahay ay kukuha ng insurance para sa balance ng halaga ng
bahay nila) ……….
> Ang mga biktimang nangangailangang lamang, at din na bibigyan yung mga may kayang
pamilya o negosyo ………
> Yon lamang mga biktima na me disaster insurance para sa hindi nila na-insure na losses.
……….
> Yon lamang mga biktima na hindi nagpatayo ng bahay sa high-risk areas nang walang
permit (nagtayo sa alam na low risk area at may building permit)………..
> Wala ………..
12. (In your opinion, in what you know) Has compensation been sufficient/adequate and timely in
past disasters? What ratio (or percentage) of losses has been compensated? (example, 1/10 or
10% only of losses was compensated)
Sa iyong palagay o pagkaalam, sapat at napapabahon ba ang bayad/compensation na ibinigay sa
mga biktima ng nakaraang kalamidad/disaster? Anong ratio ng nawala o napinsala ang
nabayaran/na-compensate? (halimbawa, 1/10 o 10% lang ng nasira ang nacompensate o
nabayaran)
13. (In your opinion, what are the most important ….) What would you view as the most important
argument for government assistance and financial compensation (choose two options)?

The government has always assisted/compensated disaster victims

The government is responsible for disaster losses by not ensuring sustainable policies,
such as reforestation, to prevent large-scale disasters

Social solidarity on the part of Philippines taxpayers

Other (specify what reason/s)

I don't believe the government should offer compensation
Sa iyong paglagay, bakit dapat tulungan at bayaran/i-compensate ng gobyerno ang mga
biktima ng kalamidad/disaster? (Pumili ng 2 dahilan).
> Laging tinutulungan/kinu-compensate ng pamahalaan ang mga biktima ng kalamidad.
> Responsible ang gobyerno para sa mga natamong kawalan/losses mula sa kalamidad sapagkat
hindi niya sinigurado ang mga sustainable na patakaran, tulad ng reforestation, upang maiwasan
ang malakihang kalamidad/disaster.
> Pakikiisa sa bayan ng mga nagbabayad ng buwis sa Pilipinas
> Iba pa (tukuying ang dahilan/mga dahilan)
> Hindi ako naniniwala na dapat bayaran/i-compensate ng gobyerno ang biktima ng
kalamidad.
14. (In your opinion what are the most important…) What would you view as the most important
arguments for the government reducing compensation, at least to some groups (choose two
options)?

Compensation is too costly for the taxpayers

Compensation encourages people to move into high-risk areas and not to take adequate
measures to reduce their losses

It is not fair for taxpayers in low-risk areas to support those in high-risk areas

Often compensation goes to the wealthy
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level




44
Compensation discourages those(who can afford it) to purchase disaster insurance
Government compensation discourages neighbors and others from helping one another
Other (specify what reason/s)
I don't think compensation should be reduced
Sa iyong palagay, bakit dapat babaan ng gobyerno ang bayad/compensation, at least sa ilang
biktima ng kalamidad? (Pumili ng 2 dahilan).
> Napakagastos para sa mga nagbabayad ng buwis ang pagbibay ng kabayaran/
compensation.
> Ang pagbibigay ng compensation ay nag-eengganyo sa mga taong tumira sa mga mapanganib
na lugar (high risk areas) at huwag gumawa ng sapat na mga paraan/hakbang upang
mapababa ang kanilang pinsala/losses.
> Hindi “fair” sa mga nagbabayad ng buwis sa low risk areas na suportahan ang mga nasa
high risk areas
> Kalimitan, ang bayad/compensation ay sa mga nakaka-angat din pumupunta.
> Ang bayad/compensation ay nakaka-discourage sa mga maykaya naman na hindi kumuha
ng disaster insurance.
> Ang pagbibigay ng pamahalaan ng kabayaran/compensation ay nakaka-discourage sa
pagtutulungan ng mga magkakapitbahay.
> Iba pa. (tukuyin ang mga dahilan/mga dahilan)
> Hindi ako naniniwala na dapat babaan ang bayad/compensation.
15. How can households, businesses and communities best be encouraged to take measures to
reduce disaster losses? (please rank as per the order of priority; #1 as highest priority, #2 as
2nd priority …. #6 as least priority )

The local authorities should pass regulations and strictly enforce them

The central government should make compensation after a disaster contingent on lossreducing measures before the disaster

The central government should compensate far less of the losses from a disaster

Insurance companies should offer lower premiums to households, businesses and
communities that have taken prespecified loss-reducing measures

Insurance companies should raise premiums of those living in high-risk areas to encourage
people to leave and discourage people building their homes in these areas

Insurance companies should contribute to loss-reducing measures

Nothing can be done
Paano mas mae-engganyo ang mga pamilya, negosyo at komunidad na gumawa ng mga
paraan/hakbang upang mapababa ang pinsala/losses mula sa kalamidad? (please rank as per the
order of priority; #1 as highest priority, #2 as 2nd priority …. #6 as least priority)
> Ang mga local na pamahalaan ay dapat magsagawa ng mga regulasyon at istriktong ipatupad
ang mga ito.
> Dapat gawing kundisyon ng o itali ng national government ang compensation pagkatapos ng
isang kalamidad sa pagsasagawa ng mga paraan/ hakbang sa pagpapababa sa
mawawala/mapipinsala bago ng kalamidad.
> Dapat bawasan pa ng national government ang compensation na ibinibigay para sa mga
napipinsala sa kalamidad o disaster losses.
> Dapat ibaba ng mga insurance companies ang insurance premiums para sa mga
household, business at komunidad na merong isinasagawang prespecified loss-reducing
measures.
> Dapat itaas ng insurance companies ang premiums para doon sa naninirahan sa high risk areas
upang maengganyo ang mga taong lisanin ang lugar at ma-discourage ang mga tao sa pagtatayo
ng bahay dito.
> Dapat mag-ambag o magcontribute ang mga insurance companies sa loss-reducing
measures.
> Wala tayong magagawa.
16. Some villages are located in such high risk areas that it would be less expensive to move
households and business out of the area than to protect them from floods or typhoons or
earthquakes. In your opinion, ((Please rank or prioritize according to your choice with # 1 as
the highest priority, #2 as next choice etc and # 6 as the least priority)
 Villages should be protected at all costs
 Villagers should be required to relocate, and the government should provide full
compensation
 If villagers choose to relocate, they should receive compensation
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
45
 The government should strictly prohibit any new construction in these areas, and should not
invest in further protection
 The government should help communities to move from high risk areas to nearby, safer
areas
 Others (specify)
Ang ilang baryo/komunidad ay nasa high risk areas at magiging mas matipid na ilipat ang mga bahay at
negosyo mula dito upang maprotektahan sila mula sa mga baha o bayo o lindol. Sa iyong palagay,
((Please rank or prioritize according to your choice with # 1 as the highest priority, #2 as next choice etc
and # 6 as the least priority)
>Dapat pangalagaan ang bawat baryo/komunidad sa abot nang lahat nang
makakaya.
> Ang mga taga-baryo/komunidad ay dapat lumipat at ang pamahalaan ay dapat
magbigay ng sapat na kabayaran/compensation
> Kung piliin ng mga taga-baryo/komunidad na lumipat, dapat silang bayaran/
i- compensate.
> Dapat istriktong ipagbawal ng gobyerno ang kahit anong bagong pagpapatayo sa
high risk areas at hindi dapat mag-invest sa higit pang proteksyon ng lugar na ito.
> Dapat tulungan ng gobyerno ang mga komunidad na lumipat mula mapanganib na
lugar patungo sa kalapit na mas ligtas na lugar
> Iba pa (Tukuyin.)
17. Consider the following situation: A village is located in a high-risk area where it is very
expensive for the government to provide protection from floods or typhoons or earthquakes.
Since the villagers can barely make a living with their livelihood in this high risk area, they would
agree to relocating with compensation from the government. In your opinion, should the
government move the villagers to another area with compensation, and not continue to protect
the area?
Yes _______
No ________
Ano ang iyong gagawin sa ganitong kalagayan? -- Ang isang baryo ay nasa isang high risk area
kung saan mas mahal pa sa gobyerno na proteksyonan ang lugar na ito mula baha at bagyo.
Sapagkat ang mga naninirahan ay halos wala din naming mapagkakitaan sa lugar na ito, papayag
silang magrelocate with compensation mula sa gobyerno. Dapat bang irelocate sila sa ibang area
with compensation at patuloy na protektahan ang area na ito?
Oo ________Hindi ___________
18. Do you think that property owners should insure themselves against disaster damage?
 yes
 only if low-income persons are assisted in purchasing insurance
 no
If you answered “yes” or “yes, if low-income persons are assisted..”, what are your main
reasons for more private insurance?
 The government could reduce compensation
 Insurance companies could set higher premiums in high-risk areas to keep people from
locating there
 It is only fair that property owners take more responsibility
 Insurance companies could assist governments in building disaster defenses
 Other?
If you answered “no”, what are your main reasons?
 It is the government that should be fully responsible for compensating disaster victims
 Insurance companies try all tricks to avoid paying to disaster victims
 Insurance companies will not insure poor persons living in very high risk areas
 Insurance companies do not insure all disaster risks
 Over the long run, it is cheaper to mitigate disaster risks than purchase insurance, because
private insurers will naturally require a return on their investments
 Other (specify)
Dapat bang i-insure ng property owners ang kanilang sarili laban sa disaster damage? Oo_____
Oo, kung tutulungan ang mga low-income na makabili ng insurance ______
Hindi _______
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
46
Kung (ang sagot mo ay) “oo” o “oo, kung tutulugan ang low income makabili ng insurance”, sa tingin
mo bakit kailangan ng mas maraming private insurance (bakit kailangang mas maraming property
owners ang magpa-insure?
> Para puedeng bawasan ang bayad/compensation na ibibigay ng pamahalaan.
> Puedeng magtakda ng mas mataas na premium ang insurance companies sa
high-risk areas upang pigilan ang mga taong lumipat don.
> “Fair” lang na magkaroon ng mas malaking responsibiliad ang mga property
owners.
> Maaring tumulong ang mga insurance companies sa gobyerno sa
pagtatayo/pagkakaroon ng mga depensa laban sa disaster/kalamidad.
> Iba pa (Tukuyin)___________
Kung (ang sagot mo ay) hindi, sa tingin mo bakit hindi dapat bumili ang mga
private owners ng insurance?

Ang pamahalaan dapat ang may buong responsibilidad sa pagbayad/ compensate
sa mga disaster victims

Gumagamit ang mga kumpanya ng insurance ng lahat ng paraan (gimik) para
iwasan ang pagbabayad sa mga disaster victims

Hindi i-iinsure ng mga kumpanya ng insurance ang mga mahihirap na taong nakatira
sa high risk areas

Hindi ini-insure ng mga insurance companies ang lahat ng mga tipo ng disaster

Sa pangmatagalan, mas mura para sa mga property owners na pabababain ang
pagkabulnerable nila sa disaster (mitigate disaster risk) kaysa bumili ng insurance
kasi kailangan ding bawiin ang investment at tumubo ng mga insurance companies.

Iba pa (Tukuyin) ____________
19.




For very large (or consecutive) disasters, the national and municipal/local governments may have
difficulty in providing support to private persons (households/businesses) and repairing damaged
public infrastructure (roads, schools,…). In your opinion, the government should (choose one):
Use taxpayer funds to create a disaster reserve fund
Borrow at high interest rates following a disaster;
Divert funds from other budgets, e.g., from education, health,..
Purchase insurance (macro-insurance)
Para sa malakihan (o sunud-sunod) na mga kalamidad/disaster, ang pamahalaan (national/local) ay
maaaring mahirapan sa pagbigay ng suporta/tulong sa mga pamilya at negosyo at pagkumpuni sa mga
nasirang imprastruktura (daan, paaralan…). Sa iyong palagay, ang pamahalaan ay dapat _____ (Pumili
ng isa lang)
 Gamitin ang mga buwis upang makabuo ng disaster reserve fund.
 Umutang kahit sa mataas na interest rate pagkatapos ng kalamidad/disaster.
 I-divert ang pera mula sa ibang budget hal. Edukasyon, kalusugan
 Bumili ng insurance (macro-insurance; mula sa regular insurance companies)
20. Which type of disaster has high potential of risk insurance? Choose one disaster type onlyPlease
explain the reason (is it more on recurrence of the event or intensity of event or other factors).
Disaster Type 1
Disaster Type 2
Disaster Type 3
Anong tipo ng kalamidad/disaster ang may mataas na potential para sa risk insurance? Choose one
disaster type onlyIpaliwanag bakit. Hal. Dahil malimit ang kalamidad? Dahil tumitindi ang kalamidad? Iba
pang salik?
Kalamidad/disaster type 2
Kalamidad/disaster type 3
21. What do you think on the feasibility of insurance at the local level for different types of
disasters? (Feasible? or not feasible? for each disaster type identified) (for interviewees from
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
47
National agencies and NGOs --- feasibility at the national and local level for various types of
disasters)
Disaster Type 1
Disaster Type 2
Disaster Type 3
Feasible ba o hindi feasible ang insurance sa local level para sa iba’t ibang tipo ng
kalamidad/disaster? (for interviewees from National agencies and NGOs --- feasibility at the national
and local level for various types of disasters)
kalamidad type 1
kalamidad type 2
kalamidad type 3
22. Who should be responsible for macro-insurance and who should be responsible for microinsurance?
Difference between macro and micro insurance ----Macro-insurance: associated with
conventional insurance from insurance companies; Micro-insurance: associated with insurance
for the low-income groups/pro-poor programs.
Macro-insurance
Micro-insurance
Sino ang dapat maging responsible sa macro-insurance?
Sa micro-insurance ?
Macro-insurance
Micro-insurance
23. Do you think that disaster insurance should be mandatory for households/ businesses and farms
(since otherwise the government has to bail them out at high cost to the taxpayers)?

Yes ________

Yes, but only if low-income persons are assisted _______

No ________
Is it the same for all the disasters or should be vary as per disaster types?
Disaster type 1
Disaster type 2
Disaster type 3
Dapat bang i-require ang disaster insurance sa mga household/business at farms (kasi kung hindi e icocompensate sila ng gobyerno na malaking gastos sa taxpayers) ?
Oo _______
Oo, kung ang mga low-income lang ang tutulungan _________
Hindi ________
Pare-pareho ba ang magiging patakaran sa pagcompensate para sa lahat ng tipo kalamidad? O iba-iba
para sa iba’t ibang tipo ng kalamidad?
kalamidad type 1
kalamidad type 2
kalamidad type 3
24. Since insurance companies may go bankrupt after a very serious disaster which of the following
should be more effective means (Please select two options).
 the government should pay the insurance claims above a certain amount
 Each policy holder should receive less if insurance claims are too high for insurers
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
48
to pay
 Insurance companies should be required to have more cash on hand or purchase
reinsurance even if this means that they charge higher premiums
 Insurance companies should divert funds from other types of insurance, for
example, from car insurance
 Foreign insurance companies operating in Philippines should divert funds from
policies held by citizens of other countries
 The companies should go bankrupt and not pay the claims
Dahil maaring ma-bankrupt ang insurance company pagkatapos ng isang grabeng kalamidad, pumili ng
2 mas epektibong paraan:
> Dapat bayaran ng pamahalaan ang insurance claims lampas sa isang amount
(hal. Over 50,000 insurance claim, ang government na ang magbabayad – kung
70,000, sagot na ng government ang 20,000)
> Bawat policy holder ay babayaran/makakatanggap ng mas mababa kung sobrang taas
ang mga claims na babarayan ng insurance company.
> Dapat lakihan ng mga insurance company ang kanilang cash on hand o magpareinsure kahit dahil ditto ay tataasan nila ang kanilang insurance premium na
sisingilin.
> Dapat maglipat/divert ng pera ang insurance companies mula sa ibang insurance nila
para mabayaran ang mga disaster victims, hal. mula sa car insurance.
> Ang foreign insurance companies na nagnenegosyo sa Pilipinas ay dapat maglipat/
divert ng pondo mula sa policies ng mga mamamayan mula sa ibang bansa.
> Dapat hayaan ang mga insurance company na maging bankrupt at huwag bayaran
ang mga claims.
25. Should insurers charge the same insurance premium for people living in low-risk areas as for people
living in high-risk areas? (Please choose only one answer)

No, this is unfair

Yes, because of social solidarity

Yes, because the people in the high-risk area are poor

No, because this will encourage more people to build in high-risk areas
Dapat bang pareho ang insurance premium para sa mga nakatira sa low-risk area at yong nakatira sa
high risk area? (Please choose only one answer)
> Hindi, unfair ito.
> Oo, dahil sa pakikiisa sa bayan.
> Oo, sapagkat mga mahihirap ang nakatira doon sa mga high risk area.
> Hindi, sapagkat mas maengganyo ang mas maraming mga taong magtayo sa mga
high risk areas.
26. Some parts of the Philippines are high risk for one disaster, but having low risk for other types of
disaster (e.g., one area is close to active fault, and having high earthquake risk, but have low flood risk).
In that case, how to prioritize risk insurance? Should it be different for different types of disasters or
should be a multi-hazard?
Ang ilang lugar sa Pilipinas ay high risk sa isang kalamidad/disaster pero low risk sa iba naming
kalamidad. Hal. mayroong malapit sa active fault, at may taglay na na earthquake risk pero mababa
naman ang flood risk. Sa ganitong kaso, paano i-prioritize ang risk insurance? Dapat bang iba-iba
depende sa disaster risk? O dapat multi-hazard ang risk insurance?
27. Is your home insured?
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
49
Yes ________
If yes, for which type of disaster?
No __________
No insurance is offered __________
I’m not sure _________
Naka-insure ba ang bahay mo?
Oo________
Para sa anong kalamidad? __________
Hindi __________
Walang nag-offer ng insurance _________
Hindi ako sigurado/hindi ko alam ________
28. Are your other property (including your crop or livestock) insured?
Yes _______ If yes, for which type of disaster?
No _______
No insurance is offered ________
I’m not sure __________
Naka-insure ba ang iba mo pang ari-arian? Hal. Pananim, mga alagang hayop?
Oo _________ Para sa anong kalamidad? __________
Hindi _________
Walang nag-offer ng insurance __________
Hindi ako sigurado/hindi ko alam _______________
29. What types of damages does your policy cover?
 Please mention the coverage options/details
 I’m not sure what my insurance covers _________
Anong mga tipo ng pinsala/damages ang covered ng iyong insurance policy?
 Banggitin ang coverage options/ditalye
> Hindi ako sigurado/hindi ko alam kung ano ang covered. ___________
30. Have you ever been approached by insurance companies to purchase property insurance? (This
question is for those who presently do not have insurance coverage)
No ________
You have been approached, but refused to buy insurance ____________
Nilapitan ka na ba ng insurance company para bumili ng property insurance?
Hindi __________
Oo pero hindi ako bumili ________
31. Has your community (neighborhood or barangay) ever been affected by any type of disaster?
Yes __________
No __________
If so, which type of disaster?
Naapektuhan o nakaranas na ba ang iyong komunidad/lugar ng kahit anong kalamidad?
Oo __________
Anong kalamidad?
Hindi ________
32. Have you personally experienced disaster?
Yes ________
No _________
If so, which type of disaster?
Ikaw mismo, nakaranas ka na ng kalamidad?
Oo ________
anong kalamidad?
Hindi _______
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
50
33. What is the probability that each year, a flood or typhoon (whichever is the more frequent disaster)
will affect your area so that you will have 3-4 days of business interruption?
 almost certain (above 90%)
 very likely (51-90%)
 not very likely (26-50%)
 unlikely (below 25%)
Anong probability na bawat taon ay tatamaan/masasalanta ang iyong lugar ng pagbaha o bagyo (kung
alin man ang mas malimit na tumama) at titigil ang iyong kabuhayan o negosyo ng 3-4 na araw?
>Halos sigurado (lampas 90%)
>Malamang (51-90%)
>Baka hindi (26-50%)
>Malabong tamaan (below 25%)
34. Are you willing to pay for the insurance to cover your losses?
If yes, can you please state the amount...
If no, please state the reason
Sang-ayon ka bang magbayad o bumili ng insurance upang i-cover ang iyong losses?
Kung oo, hanggang magkano?
Kung hindi, bakit?
35. Which disaster will you have the first priority for insurance cover? And why?
Para sa anong kalamidad/disaster ang iyong first priority para sa insurance cover? Bakit?
36. Are you aware of the micro-credit or micro-insurance scheme in your area? If yes, which type of
scheme?
Alam mo ba kung mayroong micro credit o micro insurance sa iyong lugar? Kung oo, anong klase?
37. Do you think it is feasible to link the micro-insurance scheme to disaster risk insurance, especially for
the rural areas? If so, will you be interested in it?
Sa tingin mo, feasible bang i-link ang micro-insurance sa disaster risk insurance, laluna sa rural areas?
Kung feasible, interesado ka ba rito?
38. Many countries have a national program for insurance and compensation. If Philippines were to
legislate such a program, how would you evaluate the following features (Choose one option only)?
 All property owners must purchase private disaster insurance. This would be offered for all
disaster risks at the same premium for everybody whether they are at high or low risk.
 In the case of a disaster, all victims would receive a fixed amount of compensation from the
government, which would be the same for everybody. To cover losses above this amount, property
owners and businesses can purchase insurance.
 All households, farms and businesses can purchase disaster insurance covering all types of
disasters from the government.
 Households, businesses or farms form a mutual insurance pool
 Other, please specify below
_____________________________________________________
Maraming bansa ang mayroong national program para sa insurance at compensation. Kung isasabatas
ito ng Pilipinas, aling “feature” ang pipiliin mo? (Pumili ng isa lang).





Lahat ng mga property owners ay dapat bumili ng private disaster insurance. I-o-offer ito
sa lahat ng mga disaster risk sa parehong premium para sa lahat, nasa high o low risk na
lugar man.
Sa panahon ng kalamidad, lahat ng mga biktima ay bibigyan ng takdang/parehong
kabayaran/compensation mula sa gobyerno upang i-cover ang kanilang losses lampas sa
ganitong compensation, dapat kumuha ng insurance ang property owners at businesses.
Lahat ng pamilya, bukirin, at negosyo ay dapat kumuha sa pamahalaan ng disaster
insurance na sasakop sa lahat ng disaster.
Dapat bumuo ang mga pamilya, negosyo at bukirin ng mutual insurance pool.
Iba pa (Tukuyin) . ___________ _________________________
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
51
Maraming salamat sa inyong mga sagot!
Annex 3
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES & FGD PARTICIPANTS
National Agencies Interviewed (14 agencies involving 18 persons)
1. Social Security System - Ms. Eugenia de la Cruz, MRD (April 24)
2. Department of Agriculture - Ms. Lorna Caldo, Management Information Division (April
24)
3. Central Bank - Mr. Antonio Grajeda (+3 others) - Deputy Director, Crisis
Management (April 26)
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
52
GSIS - Mr. Eric Zerrudo, Vice President (April 26)
Department of Public Works and Highways - Ms. Alice Narcelles (April 28)
National Economic Development Authority - Mr. Emmanuel Torrente (May 2)
Department of Environment and Natural Resources - USec Manuel Gerotche
(May 4)
Department of Interior and Local Government – USec Melchor Rosales for preliminary
discussion and Ms. Ma. Matilde L. Go, Local Government Operations Officer V,
Bureau of Local Government Development (May 4)
Development Bank of the Philippines - Mr. Philip Hashim (May 5)
Department of Social Welfare and Development - Mr. Rey Matija, Project
Management Bureau (May 8)
Cooperative Development Authority - Ms. Marilyn Estrella (May 10)
Department of Budget and Management - Dir. Delantar (May 12)
Department of Finance (sent filled out survey questionnaire due to difficult scheduling
of interview)
PHILHEALTH (discussion on issues related to disaster insurance proceeding from his
presentation during the Symposium on Health in Emergencies in Disasters – Dr.
Eduardo P. Banzon, Vice President (May 19)
Civil Society Organizations Interviewed
1. Earthquake Megacities Initiative – Dr. Marqueza Reyes (April 25)
2. Philippine Business for Social Progress – Mr. Ramon Dirige, Deputy Director, (May 1)
3. Corporate Network for Disaster Response – Ms. Floreen Simon, Project Officer (May
2)
4. National Confederation of Cooperatives – Mr. Alejandro Almendral, Vice President
5. Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement – Mr. Ding Navarro, Vice President for
preliminaries and Ms. Carla Santos, OIC Movement Building and Field Operations
Office (April 17 and 26)
6. Kilusan Lima Para sa Lahat - Guillermo Bacsa, Manager (April 17)
Local Government Units Interviewed
City Government (5 persons)
1. Marikina City, Metro Manila - Mr. Tomas Aguilar, City Planning and Development
Officer (May 2)
2. Manila City, Metro Manila – Mr. Rodolfo Reyes, OIC Economic Division, City Planning
and Development Office, (May 5)
3. Batangas City, Batangas – Ms. Mila M. Espanola, City Social Welfare and
Development Office; Reny S. Aguda, Engineer III, City Engineer Office; Alex L.
Gutierrez, Zoning Officer II, City Planning and Development Office (May 3)
Municipal Government (6 persons)
1. Catarman, Camiguin – Engr. Art Ramigoso, Municipal Planning and Development
Officer (April 24)
2. Guagua, Pampanga – Mr. Isaias Panganiban, SB Secretary and Municipal Disaster
Action Officer; Ms. Elsa Pantino, Municipal Planning and Development Offficer (April
28)
3. Dumangas, Iloilo – Mayor Rolando B. Distura and Eng. Saul de Asia, Municipal
Planning and Development Officer (sent filled out survey form since due to difficulty in
scheduling interview on account of fiesta); Ms. Rubirose Policarpio, Sanggunian
Bayan Secretary (May 9)
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
53
Barangay Captains and Leaders (12 barangays involving 22 persons)
Marikina City
1. Brgy. Malanday – Punong Barangay Willy Jocson (May 2)
2. Brgy. Barangca – Punong Barangay Frankie Ayuson (May 2)
City of Manila
1. Brgy. 655 Zone 69, Intramuros – Punong Barangay Pedrito Yacub (May 2)
2. Brgy. 649 Zone 68, Baseco Port Area – Punong Barangay Teresita C. Lumactud with
5 other Brgy Councilors: Kagawads Kagawad Kermin V. Camacho, Kristo E.
Hispano, Roy M. Abayon, Edmund Cayanan, Rey Campanera (May 5)
Batangas City
1. Brgy. Wawa – Punong Barangay Rodrigo Lardizabal Sr. (May 3)
2. Brgy. Talumpok – Punong Brangay Tereso Gutierrez with 5 other Brgy. Councilors:
Kagawads Francisco Candor, Gilbert Gutierrez, Conrado Gutierrez, Librado
Gutierrez, Roman Manalo (May 3)
Guagua, Pampanga
1. Brgy Sto. Cristo – Punong Barangay Chito Araullo (April 28, together with Punong
Barangay of San Agustin, Betis at Guagua Municipal Hall)
2. Brgy. San Agustin, Betis – Punong Barangay Rudy Ocampo (April 28)
Catarman, Camiguin
1. Brgy. Looc – Punong Barangay Godofredo Apugan (April 23)
2. Brgy. Mainit – Punong Barangay Marlon Sabud (April 22)
Dumangas, Iloilo (Barangay Captain joining FGD with their community residents)
1. Barangay Bantud Fabrica - Punong Barangay Romeo Hautea (May 7)
2. Barangay Balabag - Punong Barangay Eva Gustilo (May 7)
Community Residents (FGDS in 12 barangays involving 65 residents)
Marikina City ( FGDs in 2 barangays involving 10 community residents)
1. Brgy. Malanday – Emma Mabalot, Iluminada Martinez, Lydia Raotraot, Beth del
Rosario and Janet de la Cruz (April 26 and May 2)
2. Brgy. Barangca – Babylou Manocsoc, Maya Manocsoc, Charmaigne Joy Lumbre, Ken
Edwin Ocfemia, Carlota Cabuguasan (May 4)
City of Manila (FGDs in 2 barangays involving 12 residents)
1. Brgy. 655 Zone 69, Intramuros – Kagawads Antonio Villejo, Virgilio Zamora, Vicky
Roxa, Alfredo Villejo; Brgy. Secretary Asuncion Tarrbal; Brgy Tanods Jomer Perez,
JR Yacub, Crispin Dizon (May 2 and 5)
2. Brgy. 649 Zone 68, Baseco Port Area – BHW Edith Castillo, Block Leaders Tita
Gagula, Rhiza Olana, Carmelita de la Pena, Teresa Paje (May 5)
Batangas City (2 FGDs involving at least 12 residents)
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
54
3. Brgy. Wawa – Kagawad Roberto Villanueva, Brgy. Sec.Arnold Aspunta, Day Care
Worker Glenda Atienza, Divina Parto of the CWSDO (May 3)
4. Brgy. Talumpok – Erlinda Pornasider, Venacia Gutierrez, Nancy Manalo, Teresita
Macasacad, Teodora Anacieto, Maritel Perez, Josefa Diaano, Letecia Magtibay (May
3)
Guagua, Pampanga (2 FGDs involving 11 residents)
1. Brgy. Sto. Cristo – Kagawads Alfredo Tan, Godofredo Cruz, Jose Sarmiento, Alan
Parino; Fr. Cecilio Lamo (Aglipay priest) Dr. Alene E. Araullo (Soroptimist, Women
NGO) (April 28)
2. Brgy. San Agustin, Betis - Kagawads Analyn Vitug, Tita Gozon, Paterno Ocampo,
Alejandro Cortez and Francisco Malig (April 28)
Catarman, Camiguin (2 FGDs involving 12 residents)
1. Brgy. Looc – Kagawads Godofredo Apupan, Santa Banaag, Louela Amontos, Arlene
Adaza, Vilma Econar, Melenciano Veloso and Brgy Disaster Committee Chair Zocilito
Adaza (April 22)
2. Brgy. Mainit – Nagpakabana Coop Officers Vicente Ipulan, Monico Lagubis,
Florentino Duran, Saturnina Veloso, Josefina Culita (April 22)
Dumangas, Iloilo (2 FGDs involving 8 residents excluding Punong Barangays)
1. Brgy. Bantud Fabrica – Kagawads Rodolgo Simpas, Carlita Penaranda, Eleodoro
Caturao, Gliceria Dalomillo; community resident Joewell Baibado (May 7)
2. Brgy. Balabag - Kagawads Bonifacio Perocho, Ernesto Gustilo, Althea Beatizula,
Rex Demonteverde (May 7)
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
55
Annex 4
Relevant Disaster Risk Management Framework
Disaster Risk Reduction Framework from UN International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction
Minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risk throughout society to avoid (prevention)
or limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards within the
broad context of sustainable development through strengthening capacities.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
56
Disaster Risk Management Framework, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center
The three pillars of the disaster risk management framework consists of policies,
institutional frameworks, and legal arrangement. They combine to form the
mechanism necessary to implement and maintain disaster risk reduction actions at all
levels – national, provincial, district and local.
Source: Disaster Risk Management in Asia: A Primer, Asian Disaster
Preparedness Center and USAID, 2005
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
57
DEFINING A FEW KEY TERMS
The UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction UNISDR) on disaster risk
reduction in order to promote a common understanding on this subject, for use by the
public, authorities and practitioners. The terms are based on a broad consideration of
different international sources. This is a continuing effort to be reflected in future
reviews, responding to a need expressed in several international venues, regional
discussions and national conferences. Feedback from specialists and other
practitioners to improve these definitions will be most welcome.
Hazard. A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity,
which may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic
disruption or environmental degradation.
Hazards can include latent conditions that may represent future threats and can have
different origins: natural (geological, hydrometeorological and biological) and/or
induced by human processes (environmental degradation and technological hazards).
Hazards can be single, sequential or combined in their origin and effects. Each
hazard is characterized by its location, intensity and probability.
Hazard analysis. Identification, studies and monitoring of any hazard to determine
its potential, origin, characteristics and behaviour.
Natural hazards. Natural processes or phenomena occurring in the biosphere that
may constitute a damaging event.
Natural hazards can be classified by origin namely: geological, hydrometeorological
or biological. Hazardous events can vary in magnitude or intensity, frequency,
duration, area of extent, speed of onset, spatial dispersion and temporal spacing.
Geological hazard. Natural earth processes or phenomena that may cause the loss
of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental
degradation.
Geological hazard includes internal earth processes or tectonic origin, such as
earthquakes, geological fault activity, tsunamis, volcanic activity and emissions as
well as external processes such as mass movements: landslides, rockslides, rock
falls or avalanches, surfaces collapses, expansive soils and debris or mud flows.
Geological hazards can be single, sequential or combined in their origin and effects.
Hydrometeorological hazards. Natural processes or phenomena of atmospheric,
hydrological or oceanographic nature, which may cause the loss of life or injury,
property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation.
Hydrometeorological hazards include: floods, debris and mud floods; tropical cyclones,
storm surges, thunder/hailstorms, rain and wind storms, blizzards and other severe
storms; drought, desertification, wildland fires, temperature extremes, sand or dust
storms; permafrost and snow or ice avalanches. Hydrometeorological hazards can be
single, sequential or combined in their origin and effects.

Adapted from UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) Geneva, Living with Risk: A global
review of disaster reduction initiatives, Preliminary version July 2002 and http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/libterminology-eng.htm
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
58
Biological hazard. Processes of organic origin or those conveyed by biological
vectors, including exposure to pathogenic micro-organisms, toxins and bioactive
substances, which may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and
economic disruption or environmental degradation.
Examples of biological hazards: outbreaks of epidemic diseases, plant or animal
contagion, insect plagues and extensive infestations.
Technological hazards. Danger originating from technological or industrial
accidents, dangerous procedures, infrastructure failures or certain human activities,
which may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic
disruption or environmental degradation.
Some examples: industrial pollution, nuclear activities and radioactivity, toxic wastes,
dam failures; transport, industrial or technological accidents (explosions, fires, spills).
Wildland fire. Any fire occurring in vegetation areas regardless of ignition sources,
damages or benefits.
Climate change. The climate of a place or region is changed if over an extended
period (typically decades or longer) there is a statistically significant change in
measurements of either the mean state or variability of the climate for that place or
region.
Changes in climate may be due to natural processes or to persistent anthropogenic
changes in atmosphere or in land use. Note that the definition of climate change used
in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is more restricted,
as it includes only those changes which are attributable directly or indirectly to human
activity.
Greenhouse gas (GHG). A gas, such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane,
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), that absorbs and
re-emits infrared radiation, warming the earth's surface and contributing to climate
change (UNEP, 1998).
El Niño-southern oscillation (ENSO). A complex interaction of the tropical Pacific
Ocean and the global atmosphere that results in irregularly occurring episodes of
changed ocean and weather patterns in many parts of the world, often with significant
impacts, such as altered marine habitats, rainfall changes, floods, droughts, and
changes in storm patterns.
The El Niño part of ENSO refers to the well-above-average ocean temperatures along
the coasts of Ecuador, Peru and northern Chile and across the eastern equatorial
Pacific Ocean, while the Southern Oscillation refers to the associated global patterns
of changed atmospheric pressure and rainfall. La Niña is approximately the opposite
condition to El Niño. Each El Niño or La Niña episode usually lasts for several
seasons.
La Niña. (see El Niño-Southern Oscillation).
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
59
Vulnerability. A set of conditions and processes resulting from physical, social,
economical and environmental factors, which increase the susceptibility of a
community to the impact of hazards.
Environmental degradation. The reduction of the capacity of the environment to
meet social and ecological objectives, and needs.
Potential effects are varied and may contribute to an increase in vulnerability and the
frequency and intensity of natural hazards.
Some examples: land degradation, deforestation, desertification, wildland fires, loss of
biodiversity, land, water and air pollution, climate change, sea level rise and ozone
depletion.
Risk. The probability of harmful consequences, or expected loss (of lives, people,
injured, property, livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or environment damaged)
resulting from interactions between natural or human induced hazards and
vulnerable/capable conditions.
Conventionally risk is expressed by the notation Risk = Hazards x Vulnerability. Risk
is also expressed as a function of hazard x vulnerability.
How one copes depends on capacity. In community based disaster management
this notation is used Risk = Hazards x Vulnerability
Capacity
Risk = Hazards x Vulnerability. Some disciplines also include the concept of
exposure to refer particularly to the physical aspects of vulnerability, Risk = probability
(p) x Loss (L).
Beyond expressing a probability of physical harm, it is crucial to appreciate that risks
are always created or exist within social systems. It is important to consider the social
contexts in which risk occur and that people therefore do not necessarily share the
same perceptions of risk and their underlying causes.
Acceptable risk. The level of loss a society or community considers acceptable
given existing social, economic, political, cultural, technical and environmental
conditions.
In engineering terms, acceptable risk is also used to assess structural and nonstructural measures undertaken to reduce possible damage at a level which does not
harm people and property, according to codes or "accepted practice" based, among
other issues, on a known probability of hazard.
Elements at Risk. Who and what can be damaged. People (their lives and health),
household and community structures (houses, school,
community center),
community facilities and services (access roads, bridges, hospital, water supply,
electricity…), livelihood and economic activities (jobs, crops, livestock, equipment…),
and the environment (natural resource base).
Risk assessment/analysis. A methodology to determine the nature and extent of
risk by analyzing potential hazards and evaluating existing conditions of
vulnerability/capacity that could pose a potential threat or harm to people, property,
livelihoods and the environment on which they depend.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
60
The process of conducting a risk assessment is based on a review of both technical
features of hazards such as their location, intensity and probability, and also the
analysis of the physical, social and economic dimensions of vulnerability, while taking
particular account of the coping capabilities pertinent to the risk scenarios.
Geographic information systems (GIS). Analysis that combine relational
databases with spatial interpretation and outputs often in form of maps. A more
elaborate definition is that of computer programmes for capturing, storing, checking,
integrating, analysing and displaying data about the earth that is spatially referenced.
Geographical information systems are increasingly being utilised for hazard and
vulnerability mapping and analysis, as well as for the application of disaster risk
management measures.
Capacity. A combination of all the strengths and resources available within a
community, society or organization that can reduce the level of risk, or the effects of a
disaster.
Capacity may include physical, institutional, social or economic means as well as
skilled personal or collective attributes such as leadership and management. Capacity
may also be described as capability.
Positive factors, that increase the ability of people and the society they live in, to cope
effectively with hazards, that increase their resilience, or that otherwise reduce the
susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards.
Coping Capacity. The means by which people or organizations use available
resources and abilities to face adverse consequences that could lead to a disaster.
In general, this involves managing resources, both in normal times as well as during
crises or adverse conditions. The strengthening of coping capacities usually builds
resilience to withstand the effects of natural and human-induced hazards.
Capacity building. Efforts aimed to develop human skills or societal infrastructures
within a community or organization needed to reduce the level of risk.
In extended understanding, capacity building also includes development of
institutional, financial, political and other resources, such as technology at different
levels and sectors of the society.
Resilience/resilient. The capacity of a system, community or society to resist or to
change in order that it may obtain an acceptable level in functioning and structure.
This is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organizing
itself, and the ability to increase its capacity for learning and adaptation, including the
capacity to recover from a disaster.
Ecosystem. A complex set of relationships of living organisms functioning as a unit
and interacting with their physical environment.
The boundaries of what could be called an ecosystem are somewhat arbitrary,
depending on the focus of interest or study. Thus the extent of an ecosystem may
range from very small spatial scales to, ultimately, the entire Earth (IPCC, 2001).
Disaster. A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing
widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the
ability of the affected community/society to cope using its own resources.
A disaster is a function of the risk process. It results from the combination of hazards,
conditions of vulnerability and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce the
potential negative consequences of risk.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
61
Socio-economic impact of disasters. We usually think of the socio-impacts of
disasters as the damages to lives and property and its attendant human suffering.
Usual indicators are the number of people dead, injured or missing; the houses
damaged partially or totally; crops, harvests and livestock damaged in agriculture; and
infrastructure such as bridges and roads to be repaired. Aside from casualties, the
damages are usually expressed in monetary terms. The socio-economic impacts can
be classified as follows:
-
Direct damages: These refer to the physical destruction, whether complete or
partial, that occurs simultaneously with or immediately after the disaster. These
cover direct effects on properties and incomes of persons, business enterprises
and the community as a results of the damage to fixed assets, capital and
inventories of finished goods. Included are losses of capital and assets such as
destruction of housing, factories, means of communication (bridges, roads, etc.),
community infrastructures (schools, hospitals, electricity networks, drainage
works, dams, irrigation, etc.); loss of stocks intended for final consumption or for
intermediate production units; production losses such as the destruction of crops,
the death of livestock, the closure of shops, small business establishments and
industrial production units. The damage reports per disaster usually cover these
direct effects.
-
Indirect damages: These refer to damages to the flow of goods that will not be
produced and services that will not be provided after the disaster strikes in a chain
reaction within the economic system. The period covered begins immediately
after the disaster and may last several months or years, depending on the type
and characteristics of the disaster. Indirect effects are usually measured in
monetary terms as a result from the reduction in family income and the decline in
production of other business enterprises, reduction of activities of suppliers and
client enterprises, reduction of purchases of goods and services.
-
Secondary effects: These refer to the impact of the disaster on the overall
economic performance of a country as measured by macro-economic variables.
The estimated changes in these variables due to the disaster complement the
estimated direct and indirect damages, although they cannot be added to express
the total amount of damage inflicted. These would include unemployment,
increase in inflation and lowered economic growth rates. Epidemic and the
isolation of some communities are also cited as secondary effects.
-
Other effects: These include the “intangible” effects of disasters such as human
suffering, frustration, feelings of economic dependence, increase in crimes. Most
of these can not be quantified. Other economic effects also include impact on
income distribution, especially on the poor and the disadvantaged groups,
imbalances created in the growth of different regions of the same country,
economic opportunities lost as a result of the diversion of economic effort, and
ecological changes which follow the disaster.
Disaster Risk management:The systematic process of using administrative
decisions, organization, operational skills and capacities to implement policies,
strategies and coping capacities of the society and communities to lessen the impacts
of natural hazards and related environmental and technological disasters. This
comprises all forms of activities, including structural and non-structural measures to
avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) adverse effects of hazards.
Disaster risk reduction (disaster reduction): The conceptual framework of
elements considered with the possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster
risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and

from UNDRO, 1978 and Deduerwaerdere, 1998
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
62
preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of
sustainable development.
The disaster risk reduction framework is composed of the following fields of action, as
described in ISDR's publication 2002 "Living with Risk: a global review of disaster
reduction initiatives", page 23:

Risk awareness and assessment including hazard analysis and
vulnerability/capacity analysis;

Knowledge development including education, training, research and
information;

Public commitment and institutional frameworks, including organisational,
policy, legislation and community action;

Application of measures including environmental management, land-use and
urban planning, protection of critical facilities, application of science and
technology, partnership and networking, and financial instruments;

Early warning systems including forecasting, dissemination of warnings,
preparedness measures and reaction capacities.
Sustainable development. Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It
contains within it two key concepts: the concept of "needs", in particular the essential
needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of
limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the
environment's ability to meet present and the future needs. (Brundtland Commission,
1987).
Sustainable development is based on socio-cultural development, political stability
and decorum, economic growth and ecosystem protection, which all relate to disaster
risk reduction.
Counter measures. All measures taken to counter and reduce disaster risk. They
most commonly refer to engineering (structural) measures but can also include nonstructural measures and tools designed and employed to avoid or limit the adverse
impact of natural hazards and related environmental and technological disasters.
Public awareness. The processes of informing the general population, increasing
levels of consciousness about risks and how people can act to reduce their exposure
to hazards. This is particularly important for public officials in fulfilling their
responsibilities to save lives and property in the event of a disaster.
Public awareness activities foster changes in behaviour leading towards a culture of
risk reduction. This involves public information, dissemination, education, radio or
television broadcasts, use of printed media, as well as, the establishment of
information centres and networks and community and participation actions.
Public information. Information, facts and knowledge provided or learned as a
result of research or study, available to be disseminated to the public.
Prevention: Activities to provide outright avoidance of the adverse impact of
hazards and related environmental, technological and biological disasters.
Depending on social and technical feasibility and cost/benefit considerations,
investing in preventive measures is justified in areas frequently affected by disaster.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
63
In the context of public awareness and education, prevention refers to attitudes and
behaviour leading towards a “culture of prevention”
Mitigation: Structural and non-structural measures undertaken to limit the adverse
impact of natural hazards, environmental degradation and technological hazards
Land-use planning. Branch of physical and socio-economic planning that
determines the means and assesses the values or limitations of various options in
which land is to be utilized, with the corresponding effects on different segments of
the population or interests of a community taken into account in resulting decisions.
Land-use planning involves studies and mapping, analysis of environmental and
hazard data, formulation of alternative land-use decisions and design of a long-range
plan for different geographical and administrative scales.
Land-use planning can help to mitigate disasters and reduce risks by discouraging
high-density settlements and construction of key installations in hazard-prone areas,
control of population density and expansion, and in the siting of service routes for
transport, power, water, sewage and other critical facilities.
Building codes. Ordinances and regulations controlling the design, construction,
materials, alteration and occupancy of any structure to insure human safety and
welfare. Building codes include both technical and functional standards.
Retrofitting (or upgrading). Reinforcement of structures to become more resistant
and resilient to the forces of natural hazards.
Retrofitting involves consideration of changes in the mass, stiffness, damping, load
path and ductility of materials, as well as radical changes such as the introduction of
energy absorbing dampers and base isolation systems. Examples of retrofitting
includes the consideration of wind loading to strengthen and minimize the wind force,
or in earthquake prone areas, the strengthening of structures.
Environmental impact assessment (EIA). Studies undertaken in order to assess
the effect on a specified environment of the introduction of any new factor, which may
upset the current ecological balance.
EIA is a policy making tool that serves to provide evidence and analysis of
environmental impacts of activities from conception to decision-making. It is utilised
extensively in national programming and for international development assistance
projects. An EIA must include a detailed risk assessment and provide alternatives
solutions or options.
Structural / non-structural measures. Structural measures refer to any physical
construction to reduce or avoid possible impacts of hazards, which include
engineering measures and construction of hazard-resistant and protective structures
and infrastructure.
Non-structural measures refer to policies, awareness, knowledge development, public
commitment, and methods and operating practices, including participatory
mechanisms and the provision of information, which can reduce risk and related
impacts.
Preparedness: Activities and measures taken in advance to ensure effective
response to the impact of disasters, including the issuance of timely and effective
early warnings and the temporary removal of people and property from a threatened
location
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
64
Forecast. Definite statement or statistical estimate of the occurrence of a future
event (UNESCO, WMO).
This term is used with different meanings in different disciplines.
Early warning: The provision of timely and effective information, through identified
institutions, that allows individuals exposed to a hazard to take action to avoid or
reduce their risk and prepare for effective response.
Early warning systems include a chain of concerns, namely: understanding and
mapping the hazard; monitoring and forecasting impending events; processing and
disseminating understandable warnings to political authorities and the population, and
undertaking appropriate and timely actions in response to the warnings.
Emergency management. The organization and management of resources and
responsibilities for dealing with all aspects of emergencies, in particularly
preparedness, response and rehabilitation.
Emergency management involves plans, structures and arrangements established to
engage the normal endeavours of government, voluntary and private agencies in a
comprehensive and coordinated way to respond to the whole spectrum of emergency
needs. This is also known as disaster management.
Relief / response. The provision of assistance or intervention during or immediately
after a disaster to meet the life preservation and basic subsistence needs of those
people affected. It can be of an immediate, short-term, or protracted duration.
Recovery. Decisions and actions taken after a disaster with a view to restoring or
improving the pre-disaster living conditions of the stricken community, while
encouraging and facilitating necessary adjustments to reduce disaster risk.
Recovery (rehabilitation and reconstruction) affords an opportunity to develop and
apply disaster risk reduction measures.
Sources:
Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives Preliminary version,
pp. 25 – 26, UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) Geneva, July
2002
Terminology: Basic terms of disaster risk reduction,
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng.htm
Economic Aspects, Disaster Prevention and Mitigation vol 7, Office of the United
Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator, Geneva, 1987.
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Natural Disaster Management: A Case Study in the
Philippines by Anne Dedeurwaerdere, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of
Disasters, Universite Catholique de Louvain, 1998.
Community Based Disaster Management Training Hand-outs, Center for Disaster
Preparedness
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
65
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
66
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
67
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
68
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
69
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
70
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
71
Annex 5
BRIEF PROFILES OF SELECTED ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN INSURANCE
AND MICRO-FINANCE
1. The GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) is the state
insurance company of the Philippines.
The GSIS is mandated to provide and administer the following social security benefits
for government employees: compulsory life insurance, optional life insurance,
retirement benefits, disability benefits for work-related contingencies and death
benefits. In addition, the GSIS is entrusted with the administration of the General
Insurance Fund by virtue of RA656 of the Property Insurance Law. It provides
insurance coverage to assets and properties which have government insurable
interests.
One of the Funds that it administers is the General Insurance Fund (GIF) established
in 1951.
The GIF is mandated to indemnify or compensate the Government for any damage to,
or loss of, its properties due to fire, earthquake, storm, or other casualty.
"Government" refers to the national, provincial, city, or municipal government, agency,
commission, board or enterprises owned or controlled by the Government.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
72
Coverage
The GSIS covers all government workers irrespective of their employment status,
except employees who have separate retirement schemes under special laws.
Benefits And Services
The principal benefit package of the GSIS consist of compulsory and optional life
insurance, retirement, separation and employee's compensation benefits.
Service Privileges
Active GSIS members are entitled to the following loan privileges: salary, policy,
emergency and housing loans (Bahay Ko Housing Program and Socialized/Special
housing loans). To help retirees cope with the increasing cost of living, the Pension
Loan program was conceived. The program is available to old-age or disability
pensioners
Business Lines Offered
The GIF, like any other insurance company, has the following product lines: Fire and
Special Risks, Motor Vehicles, Property Floater, Marine Hull and Cargo, Aviation Hull
and Cargo, Engineering, Surety Bonds, Personal Accident, and Miscellaneous.
Miscellaneous Includes livestock, fidelity guarantee, comprehensive triple "D"
(dishonesty, disappearance, and destruction) and Comprehensive General Liability
(CGL). The latter policy includes damages for death and care and loss of services
resulting from bodily injury and damages for loss of use of property resulting from
property damage.
2. The SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS) administers social security protection to
workers in the private sector. It administers two programs namely:
1. The Social Security Program Social security provides replacement income for
workers in times of death, disability, sickness, maternity and old age. The Social
Security Act of 1997 provides for better benefit packages, expansion of coverage,
flexibility in investments, stiffer penalties for violators of the law, condonation of
penalties of delinquent employers and the establishment of a voluntary provident fund
for members.
2. The Employees' Compensation (EC) Program.
The EC program provides double compensation to the worker when the illness,
death or accident occurs during work-related activities. EC benefits are granted only
to members with employers other than themselves.
SSS members can avail of the so-called calamity loan, a loan intended to meet
the emergency credit needs of a member who is a victim of a natural disaster in a
locality declared as a calamity area.
3. The PHILIPPINE CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION (PCIC) is mandated to
provide insurance protection to the country's agricultural producers particularly the
subsistence farmers, against loss of their crops and non-crop agricultural assets
on account of natural calamities such as typhoons, floods, droughts,
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, plant pests and diseases, and/or other
perils. It can also provide guarantee cover for production loans extended by
lending institutions to agricultural producers for crops not yet covered by
insurance. It is a government-owned and –controlled corporation.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
73
PCIC as an agricultural insurer is committed to help stabilize the income of
agricultural producers and promote the flow of credit in the country side by providing
insurance protection to qualified farmers and other agricultural stakeholders against
losses of their crops and produce, including their farm machineries and equipment,
transport facilities and other related infrastructures arising from natural calamities,
pests and diseases, and other perils beyond their effective control; extending
innovative and client-responsive insurance packages and other services thru peoples'
organizations including farmers' cooperatives, agricultural lenders and service
providers.
It implements the crop or agricultural insurance program. It has palay and corn
insurance operations as far back as 1981-1982 as well as interim cover for tobacco
and High Value Commercial Crops (HVCC) starting 1991-1993. It joined the
Philippine Livestock Management Services Corporation to undertake livestock
insurance covering cattle, swine, goats and poultry. It also administered the
Comprehensive Agricultural Loan Fund Guarantee Program of the DA and the
Agricultural Credit Policy Council. It started with the multi-risk guarantee coverage for
priority crops in 1988, which shifted to credit guarantee in 1991. It also implemented
the Fisheries Sector Program (FSP) guarantee Fund of the DA-ACPC up to end 2000.
4. PHILHEALTH is implementing a unified benefit package for all PhilHealth
members. This benefit package includes the following categories of personal health
services: It expanded its services for members in the government sector in 1998 by
assuming the complete range of Medicare services previously provided by the GSIS.
Inpatient hospital care:

Room and board;

Services of health care professionals;

Diagnostic, laboratory, and other medical examination services;
Use of surgical or medical equipment and facilities;

Prescription drugs and biologicals, subject to the limitations stated in Section
37 of RA 7875; and

Inpatient education packages.
Outpatient care:

Services of health care professionals;

Diagnostic, laboratory, and other medical examination services;

Personal preventive services;

Prescription drugs and biologicals, subject to the limitations described in
Section 37 of RA 7875; and

Emergency and transfer services
The program covers the following:

Employed Members - all those employed in the government and private
sector.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level

Individually Paying Members - self-employed, Overseas Filipino Workers,
professionals in private practice (doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc.)

Non Paying Members - the following are entitled to lifetime coverage:

74
-
Retirees and pensioners of the GSIS and SSS (including permanent
total disability and survivorship pensioners of the SSS) prior to the
effectivity of RA 7875 in March 4, 1995.
-
Members who have reached the age of retirement and have paid at
least 120 monthly contributions. Optional Retirees (under RA 1616, PD
1146 or PD 1184) are not yet entitled to lifetime coverage until they
reach the age of retirement (60 years old).
Indigent Members - under the indigent component of the NHIP
The Sponsored (Indigent) Program aims to provide Medicare privileges to the
marginalized sector of Filipino society. Target members of the Program are those
belonging to the lowest 25% of the population. They are identified through a survey
called CBIS-MBN, using the Family Data Survey Form (FDSF), conducted by the
local Social Welfare Development Office.
The Program is implemented in partnership with the local government units (LGUs)
and PhilHealth. The LGU and the National Government through PhilHealth share the
annual premium payment of P1,200 per indigent household to get enrolled. The
annual premium rate of P1,188 was increased to P1,200 per indigent household.
5. The COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA) promotes the viability
and growth of cooperatives as instruments of equity, social justice and sustainable
economic development. With its vision as the to be the proactive and responsive
lead government agency for the promotion of sustained growth and full
development of cooperatives, for them to become broad-based instruments of
social justice, equity and balanced national progress, it builds strong linkages with
national government agencies and local government units, as well as national and
international cooperative institutions. It establishes support systems and
structures such as Cooperative Centralized Financial System, Standard Chart of
Accounts, Performance Standards, Cooperative Code of Good Governance,
modular and Ladderized Curriculum for Training and Continuing Education. It
pursues a holistic strategy to optimize benefits to cooperative members in
particular and to Philippine society in general.
NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF COOPERATIVES (NATCCO) is a national
organization of cooperatives composed of six regional development centers, one
cooperative insurance arm, one school-based education center, one associate
regional housing cooperative federation, and 1,700 cooperatives at the municipal, city
and barangay cooperatives. The "NATCCO Network," as it is fondly called, has a total
membership of more than one million individuals. NATCCO and its centers provide a
whole range of cooperative development programs and services: training and
education, research and data banking, audit consultancy, business programs such as
financial intermediation, inter-coop trade, cooperative insurance, training center and
hostel facilities, and social programs like gender and development, youth involvement
in cooperatives, and heath and housing cooperative development.• National
Confederation of Cooperatives (NATCCO; http://www.natcco.ccop/; e-mail:
ceo@natcco.coop)
6.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
75
7. PHILIPPINE BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL PROGRESS (PBSP), founded in 1971, is
an association of over 100 companies in the country that allocate a portion of their net
profit to social development. Established in 1971, it is involved in community
development, small enterprises promotion, environmental conservation, agrarian
reform and relief and rehabilitation. PBSP also provides training and consultancy
services to NGOs and POs nationwide through three resource/technical centers: the
Social Management Institute, the Center for Rural Technology Development, and the
Social Development Resource Center.
PBSP is a private and non-profit foundation dedicated to promoting business sector
commitment to social development. Organized in 1970 by 50 of the country’s
prominent business leaders, it has since grown to become the nation’s largest
business-led social development foundation.
Vision
To be the leader in promoting business sector commitment to social development.
Mission
PBSP is committed to the empowerment of the poor by promoting business sector
leadership in, and commitment to, poverty alleviation programs that lead to selfreliance.
The First of Its Kind in Southeast Asia
PBSP is the first of its kind in Southeast Asia being the only non-profit consortium of
corporations leading the advocacy on and the practice of corporate social
responsibility, (CSR) and corporate, citizenship. It is modeled after the Venezuelan
Dividendo Voluntario para la Comunidad, adopting self-taxation for its poverty
alleviation programs.
30 Years of Concrete CSR
For more than three decades, it has been the business sector’s vehicle in delivering
organized, professional, and sustainable assistance to the Filipino poor, particularly
the landless farmers, fisher folk, rural workers, urban poor, and indigenous cultural
communities. It has harnessed partnerships among the government, NGOs, civil
society and donor institutions to expand the impact and relevance of its work on
poverty alleviation.
Rising above traditional welfare approaches, PBSP promotes the philosophy of
efficiency, self-help and participation in improving the quality of life of the
underprivileged. PBSP’s guiding principle is “Helping People Help Themselves.”
8. PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT (PRRM)
Vision
PRRM envisions a world of equity and sustainability. The future is one where society
is free of ignorance, poverty, disease, and powerlessness, and development takes
place within the environment's carrying capacity.
Mission
To enhance the capacity of rural communities in the planning, advocacy and
implementation of sustainable development, through an integrated program of
education, livelihood, health, habitat, environment, and self-governance.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
76
Rootedness in the Community
Strengthening Civil Society Capacities and Movements
Over the years, civil society has emerged as a key player in shaping development
policy and making strategic interventions in the development process. Civil society
refers to those autonomous centers of organized citizen action undertaking initiatives
to meet people’s needs. Increasingly, civil society organizations have been asserting
their role in democratizing the state and the market by implementing their own
development strategies, demonstrating alternative models, and spearheading a
reform agenda into the mainstream for adoption into public policy
PRRM helps communities and civil society organizations plan for their development,
manage their natural resources, pursue economic activities, address their health and
other social service needs, participate in governance, engage the state and other
actors in development, and sustain development gains beyond the period of direct
assistance. PRRM’s approach also aims to help individuals, women and men, realize
their full potentials, in their households, organizations and communities. The gender
dimension is integrated in all aspects of PRRM’s development work.
PRRM has helped build sectoral associations, cooperatives and community
organizations at the village level, sectoral and multi-sectoral federations and networks
at the municipal and provincial levels, and national sectoral federations of small
farmers, fishers, women and youth. These partner sectoral organizations at the
national level form the People’s Organizations Leaders’ Caucus (POLAC):

Pambansang Samahan ng mga Magsasaka para sa Likas-Kayang
Pananakahan (SAKAHAN): federation of farmers for sustainable agriculture.

Nagkakaisang Ugnayan ng Maliliit na Magsasaka at Manggagawa sa Niyugan
(NIUGAN): federation of small coconut farmer organizations.

Pinalakas na Ugnayan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda sa Luzon, Mindanao at
Visayas (PUMALU-MV): federation of municipal fisherfolk organizations.

Daluyan at Ugnayan ng Organisasyong Pangkababaihan (DALUYONG): a
national women’s organization.

Philippine Rural Reconstruction Youth Association (PRRYA): organization of
Filipino youth mobilized as volunteers for community development.
Demonstration of Alternative Models of Development
At the field level, PRRM has evolved a sustainable area development strategy on the
scale of what it calls a sustainable rural district, or SRD. The concept of PRRM’s SRD
assumes a certain scale of sustainability in demonstrating a community-centered area
develop- ment model. Intervention in small, isolated villages becomes futile when the
policy and institutional set-ups affecting development (e.g., trading and marketing
systems) transcend the level of the village.
9. BATANGAS CITY is the capital and largest city of the Batangas province.
Batangas City is an important seaport and trade center for the province, which is a
sugar-growing region. Silk and cotton fabrics and coconut oil are manufactured in the
city. The city is also the largest seaport in the CALABARZON region. According to the
2000 census, it has a population of 247,588 people in 50,223 households. It is a
major recreational, religious, commercial, industrial and educational center in
Batangas. Eduardo B. Dimacuha is the current city mayor (2004 - 2007). It is
politically subdivided into 105 barangays.
Location, Accessibility Area
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
77
The City of Batangas is a coastal city lying in a covelike shape at the southeastern
portion of Batangas Province and geographically situated at coordinates 13 degrees,
45 minutes and 25.96 seconds north latitude and 121 degrees, 3 minutes and 29.2
seconds east longitude. It is bounded on the northwest by the municipality of San
Pascual; on the north by the municipality of San Jose; on the east by the
municipalities of Ibaan, Taysan and Lobo; and on the south by the Batangas Bay.
The city of Batangas is known as the "Industrial Port City of Calabarzon" and
classified as one of the fastest urbanizing cities in the country today and the home of
approximately 255,981 peace-loving, hospitable and hardworking inhabitants. It was
proclaimed as a City on July 23, 1969 which became the accelerating point of trading,
commercial and industrial activities in the locality. The city is presently classified as a
Regional Growth Center and identified as one of the sites for the Regional AgroIndustrial center and Special Economic Zone as mandated by the Medium Term
Philippine Development Plan and the Ecozone Act of 1995.
This capital city is one of the nation's top revenue earning cities and the site of one of
the biggest oil refineries in the Philippines. The City is also hosting the first three
power plants using natural gas with a combined capacity of 2700MW. It is located
112.00 kilometers south of Manila. The city's fine harbor was declared as an
International Port and an alternate port of Manila. The city is a land of historical places,
of fresh fruits and marine resources and of great opportunities for social and
economic advancement.
Vision
"A progressive and globally competitive industrializing city characterized by an orderly
and environmentally-sound setting and inhabited by skilled and dynamic citizens"
Mission
"To improve the quality of life of the citizens through a sustained effort to attain a
balance agro-industrial development; to generate more employment opportunities and
to provide adequately the basic infrastructure utilities, facilities and social services
necessary to a wholesome community living."
Major Goals

To enable the majority of population to meet their minimum basic needs,
especially to raise their income above the poverty threshold.

To provide basic services to the more disadvantaged sectors to a level that
will allow to manage and control their resources; and,

To harness the productive capacity of city's human resource base for its total
development and competitiveness in the national and global markets.
10. DUMANGAS, ILO-ILO considered as both an agricultural and fishing municipality,
is situated in Ilo-ilo Province and lies at the Southeastern part of Panay Island. The
municipality contains a total land area of 12,870 hectares. As a coastal town, a large
portion of the land is bounded by the sea. Its total coastline is approximately 21.6
kilometers, while approximately 1/3 of the total land area (4,535.95 has.) is devoted to
fishpond (milkfish culture). It is primarily an agricultural community and a total of
11,355.5000 hectares or 90.60% of the total land area is devoted to agriculture. This
comprises 6,090.21 of agricultural farmlands and 4,535.9500 hectares of fishponds.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
78
Geography
Dumangas is generally plain with few hills, namely. Matagsing Hill at Barangays
Ermita and Sulañgan, Ermita Hill at Barangay Ermita, Binaobao Hill at Barangay
Sulañgan and Elihan Hill at Barangay Rosario. There are seven rivers traversing the
town. These rivers are: Dumangas River, which traverses the central portion of the
Municipality; Barasan, Agdarupan, Paloc, Talusan, Sulañgan and Linao River. The
Linao river contains fresh water source while the rest are brackish. The Municipality
lies at the tail-end of one of the biggest rivers in the Province of Iloilo, the Jalaur River.
This river is the main source of irrigation water for the Municipalities of Dingle,
Pototan, Barotac Nuevo and Dumangas.
Population
Dumangas is composed of 45 barangays, 17 of which are coastal and 39 are farming.
Its coastline is 21.8 km. Total land area is 12,870.8 has with 56, 291 people inhibiting
and 11,262 households.
Economy
The Municipality of Dumangas is primarily an agricultural and fishing municipality.
Major agricultural products are palay, salt, sugarcane, fruits and crops. Among the
fishery products are bangus, crabs, prawn and shrimps. Despite its movement
towards the more sophisticated economic endeavors, agriculture and fishery remain
to be the primary gears that turn the turbines of the Municipality’s fiscal system.
PAGASA Agro-Meteorological Station
Dumangas has always been at the mercy of natural disasters and calamities. The
Philippines being located along the path of weather disturbances and the municipality
being the catch basin of one of the tributaries in the Province of Iloilo, Dumangas has
seen much of its resources go to waste during extreme occurrences.
For years, the impact of climate changes was widely felt by farmers, fishermen and
fish producers. However, there was then very limited access to specific local weather
and climate information that will serve as a guide to the daily and long-term activities
of these people. As a result, most constituents were left unprepared for the variables
that has significantly lower down production volume at certain periods and sometimes
even result in total loss of crops and cultured fishes, destruction of lives, properties
and infrastructure.
This constant problem given birth to a concept that was fathered by Mayor Rolando B.
Distura. The very plausible solution is the regular provision of local weather and
climate data to constituents for disaster preparation and mitigation purposes.
After various consultations and discussions with the key people from the Philippine
Atmospheric, Geo-Physical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), the
latter chose Dumangas as pilot area for the Agro-Met project in the entire Philippines.
The project is through the partnership of the Municipality Dumangas and the PAGASA
with the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center and the International Research Institute
for Climate Prediction. Representatives from the Asian Disaster Preparedness
Center and the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction visited the
project site last March 4 and 5 for assessment and had already committed a 5-year
support to the project development.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
79
Currently, daily observation activities and data gathering are done at the Agro-Met by
the municipal employees designated as observers. These data are then transmitted to
the PAGASA Central Office for interpretation and the interpreted form is transmitted
back to the Agro–Met Office for dissemination purposes. The constituents can be
informed of future local weather and be able to prepare mitigation measures to
minimize the grave impacts of disasters and calamities. The application of weather
information provided by the Agro-Met is expected to be the effective tool of the
municipality in boosting agricultural and fishery production and most of all for the
protection of the property and lives of the people.
Currently, the Agro-Met station is equipped with an automatic weather station (MILOS
200) and is hooked at the internet for ready access to weather and climate
information from the PAGASA for end-users and stakeholders.
11. CATARMAN, CAMIGUIN is a 5th class municipality in the province of Camiguin,
Philippines. According to the 2000 census, it has a population of 15,386 people in
3,236 households. Catarman is politically subdivided into 14 barangays.
Mission Statement
To improve the living conditions of the people and enable them to become selfsufficient through poverty alleviation, preservation of the cultural heritage,
conservation of marine and inland ecology, promotion of sustainable agriculture, rural
industries and tourism development.
Vision
Independent, hospitable, God-fearing and relatively self-sufficient Catarmanons with
improved socio-economic conditions through agri-industrial and tourism development,
living in an ecologically balanced environment and preserved cultural heritage.
Goals

Maintenance of ecological balance and preservation/sustenance of natural
resource assets, i.e., protection and rehabilitation of marine and inland
resource base;

Preservation of cultural heritage;

Reduction of poverty incidence to 305; increase incomes from improved
agricultural productions and employment opportunities, generation of local
revenues and tourism development;

Improve quality of life through improved access to and delivery of basic social
services, and reduced vulnerability to disasters;

Improved state of support infrastructure and utilities to support economic and
other activities; and,

Strengthen coordination between and among government agencies, nongovernment/people’s organizations, and the business sector, and increase
capacity of people’s organization to promote and gain local development.
12. GUAGUA, PAMPANGA is one of the twenty-one towns of the Province of
Pampanga, Philippines. Along with the towns of Lubao, Porac, Sta. Rita,
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
80
Floridablanca and Sasmuan, Guagua belongs to the 2nd District of Pampanga and
has a population of 96,858. Located on the western part of the province, Guagua is
about 9.5 kilometers off the City of San Fernando, and approximately 77 kilometers
away from Metropolitan Manila. The town is bounded on the north by the towns of
Bacolor and Sta. Rita; on the south by the towns of Sasmuan and Lubao; on the east,
Macabebe and Sasmuan; and on the west, Porac and Floridablanca. Guagua
composed of 31 barangays.
Mission
Realization of a higher quality of life for the people of Guagua through a reinforced
multi-partnership between the government and the community, towards optimizing
counter-strategies on the impact of natural threats, and achieving a sustainable
approach to development thereby creating an alternative nucleus of outgrowth in the
Second District of Pampanga.
Topography and Land Features
The town is almost flat and is suitable to any type of development; agricultural,
industrial, commercial and others. It is only a meter above sea level. The general
slope is south and southeast toward the Pampanga de Bay which drains out into
Manila Bay. Further, Guagua is traversed by several creeks and tributaries during
rainy days, which collect and convey floodwater to the Guagua river and into the
Manila Bay.
13. MARIKINA CITY lies at a lush valley bounded by mountain ranges and sliced by
a river, is one of the twelve (12) cities and five (5) municipalities comprising Metro
Manila area. It is approximately 21 kms. away from Manila, and lies within 14˚ 35’
latitude and 14˚ 41’ longitude.
The total land area of Marikina is approximately 2,150 hectares. This represents
about 3.44% of the total land area of Metro Manila. At present, the city is composed of
fifteen (15) barangays in two (2) districts. Estimated population in 2005 is 457,722.
Vision
Marikina : "A Little Singapore". Bustling in holistic progress, a vibrant community
where the citizens have pride of place, pride of self and mutual concern for the
common good. Marikina has chosen Singapore as its benchmark for a variety of
reasons, foremost of which are its noteworthy attributes of:

DISCIPLINE

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE

WORK ETHICS

ENVIRONMENTAL SOUNDNESS

ECONOMIC DYNAMISM, and a

CORRUPT-FREE GOVERNMENT
Mission
Specifically, the city seeks to make itself

A place for living
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level

A place for work and business

A place for history

A place for socializing

A place for entertainment

A place for arts, culture, tourism and sports

A place for education

A place for religion
81
In a nut-shell, Marikina hopes to imbue itself with elements that will transform it into a
little Singapore. Efforts, however, shall be geared primarily towards poverty
reduction for it is the alleviation of urban blight which determines the efficacy of local
governance.
While programs and strategies are multifarious and encompassing, they are basically
poverty-focused. Eradication of poverty is, thus, the focal point of everything that the
city sets out to do in the long term.
BASIC ELEMENTS
Marikina takes an integrated approach in pursuit of its vision. This includes the
following:

Ensuring good access between and among different areas of the city.
It is said that the key word in urban governance is access. Access to work, residence,
transportation system, recreation centers and others.

Defining Space
Land uses are reasonable and clearly defined to allow judicious, practical and
maximum use of the city's limited land resource. This has been addressed in the city's
newly approved Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

Making memorable spaces
There are areas identified, designated or maintained as areas of identity. This
includes cultural and historical zone, Dutch Olandes, among others.

Using the city's physical setting to its best advantage. Marikina is strategically
located - - it is in the heart of Metro Manila and a gateway to Rizal. These are
some of its strategic advantages which the city uses to the hilt.
Topography
Since Marikina is primarily a valley nestled amid mountain ranges and rolling hills, its
topography is generally characterized to be level with only a portion mildly sloping.
These mildly sloping areas are particularly evident in the eastern section of the town.
Figures
14. CITY OF MANILA is one of the ten most populous cities of Metropolitan Manila.
With not more than 2.5% growth rate in the last 25 years, Manila's population is
recorded at 1,654,761 in 1995. The population of Manila, which accounts for 17.51%
of the total population of the Metropolitan Manila ranks second to Quezon City with
21.04%. Compared to the population of 1,598,918 in 1990, the City's population
increased by an average of 0.67% per annum (Table 5). The minimal growth in
population seems to indicate that residents who have the means or find the city very
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
82
crowded have moved to nearby areas like the CALABARZON in the South. This is
reflected in the higher rate of increase during the same period by the so-called
"subdivision municipalities" of Las Piñas, Taguig, Laguna, Cavite in the South and
Marikina in the East.
Today, the city is divided into six congressional districts for easy political identification.
All these six districts are sub-divided into 100 zones and 897 barangays (the smallest
political unit in the city). The old administrative 14 districts became 17 due to the
redefining of congressional district boundaries. Tondo was divided into two - Tondo I
which is the first congressional district and Tondo II, the second congressional district.
Some barangays were separated from the then administrative districts of Sampaloc
forming Sta. Mesa which is part of the sixth congressional district and some
barangays of Sta. Ana comprising the area of San Andres which is now part of the
fifth congressional district.
Population Density
With a population of 1,581,082 million and a land area of 38.52 square kilometers,
Manila's population density of 43,258 persons per square kilometer is almost 200
times the national and 2.9 times the NCR. It is estimated that some 150,000 migrants
per annum are added to, the ever growing population of Manila.
Housing
The presence of squatters in the city is a reflection of a basic social problem:
inadequate housing. Housing problem affects the unemployed and the employed who
do not own the place they live in. The reasons may be varied but the most obvious
would be the prohibitive cost of building a house.
Indeed, the local housing problem is so serious that any hope for its meaningful
resolution requires the immediate implementation of sustained slum clearance and
squatter relocation with provisions for housing and other basic facilities in relocation
sites as well as strict squatter prevention measures in cleared areas. The city
government, thru its Urban Settlements Office is committed to address this housing
predicament, hopefully, in terms of quantity, affordability, quality and accessibility. It
must be added, however, that it does when the city faces increasing financial
constraints as a result of the higher cost of other essential public services.
Construction materials cost is among the highest in the country. Interest rates are
high and are still soaring the steady influx of migrant fortune-seekers to live in Manila
place added pressure on the city's housing stock.
What can the city then do to increase the supply of housing? It can assure allocation
of sufficient sites for housing at locations acceptable to prospective
constituent/beneficiaries; provide land use incentives for the production of housing,
particularly mass-oriented housing project; assist, to a limited extent, in the financing
of socialized high-rise tenement type of housing and establish a favorably regular
climate for new housing construction.
Water Bodies
The present Pasig is a stream 23 kilometers long. It rises from the North side of
Laguna de Bai and flow West - ward into Manila Bay. The mouth of the river was a
first somewhere near Pasig town. Into the Bay there the river carried its load of mud
and sand. After hundreds of years these deposits of soil had piled up to form ground.
Through this triangle of ground that it had formed, the river forced a new channel, with
many loops, to reach the bay now farther off. The river thus divided the triangle into
an upper side and lower side, or into north and south. And the mouth of the river was
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
83
now almost exactly in the middle between these two halves. The ground thus formed
at the mouth of a river is called a delta.
The delta of the Pasig River is almost entirely occupied by the City of Manila. In the
beginning this delta was not a solid hunk of ground. Instead it was a jumble of small
islands between which ran the rivulets that we call esteros.
The higher ground beyond the delta was already inhabited. In the dense forests of
what is now Caloocan, Quezon City and San Juan roamed the aboriginal tribes. Their
tools, weapons and other goods (which are called artifacts) have been unearthed. But
no artifacts have been found in the ground of Manila, a sign that the delta islands
began to be lived in only recently.
One of the world's best natural harbors, the bay is 56 kilometres at its broadest. The
entrance is about 18 kilometres wide and is divided the Rock of Corregidor into two
passages: a northern and southern channel.
Environmental Degradation
The price of urbanization has been prohibitive due to pollution, imbalances in the ecosystem. Waterways are practically bad, the air is polluted because of unregulated
vehicular emissions and industrial wastes; waste management remains inadequate.
The Pasig River and the 23 creeks or esteros are considered biologically dead.
Air pollution is posing increasingly serious problems in some of the world's biggest
cities, and is now an almost inescapable part of urban life anywhere according to a
report jointly published by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
Solid waste collection and disposal has always been viewed by local executives as a
major area of concern over the years. The fact is, as the City population grows, the
problem of waste management grows proportionately. It is because of this reality that
compelled the local leadership to continuously search, formulate and implement
appropriate and multi-dimensional programs that would ensure a long-term beneficial
impact not only to the constituents of the City of Manila but also to the entire country
as a whole. Consequently, waste management in the City has been one of the
highest priority concerns thaf which has become an indispensable component of
development.
Risk Management
Manila is divided into zones of different vulnerability levels defined by the types of soil
rock materials present that control the resonance of swaying buildings. Under the very
high risk zone underlain by the very 'thick layers of soft clay or loose sand greater
than 15 meters are Quiapo, Intramuros, Sta.Cruz, Binondo and Port Area. Malate and
Ermita are very high zones underlain by medium dense sand or clay while Pandacan
is low risk zone with stiff to hard clay dense sand.
Development Goals
Human and Ecological Security
It shall be our goal to provide human and ecological security to improve the quality of
life of the people of Manila. The city government is determined to address the needs
of our constituents without sacrificing the ecological balance between man and tile
environment This goal would mean alleviation , if not freedom from poverty, social
injustices and economic imbalance - complemented with sound ecologically balanced
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel
Survey on Implementing Financial Strategies for Managing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Macro-, Meso-, & Micro-level
84
environment. It acknowledges that concern for the environment in relation to man
should be far more integrated in the process of governance.
Urban Regeneration
The physical, social, economic, and political structures of the city need to be
revitalized to accommodate and respond to the irreversible complexities brought by
urbanization a midst accelerating population. The demands created by these activities
in a old city like Manila compelled the city government to resort for urban regeneration,
to upgrade the city infrastructure and services, restore and rehabilitate existing
cultural landmarks, and spur the city’s development that is responsive to the needs of
both present and future requirements.
Development Policies and Strategies
The City of Manila shall be guided by the following policies and strategies that shall
serve as development pillars in the pursuit of the City's development goals.
Dynamic and Responsive Local Governance
Manila's built-in advantages as a premier city and as the nation's trading and
commercial center have not been fully utilized. The prestige associated with the city's
rich historical past and its superior natural and human resources have not been a
major tributary to alleviate the city's monstrous ~ problems. Moreover, the inability to
exercise and maximize these built-in advantages as a result of traditional local
governance has stirred the city into a decaying metropolis. Local Government Code of
1991 provides local functions of autonomous power and a corporate character,
encourages and supports every local functionary to be dynamic and responsive in
handling their respective local affairs. In this light, the city government firmly believes
that in order to facilitate the realization of its developmental goals and objectives, it is
first and foremost to lay down the foundation of a dynamic and responsive local
governance, and let the same be institutionalize
Participatory Governance
Participatory governance unveils the strategy of integrated and coordinated
approaches. Such policy and strategy entice and encourage all sectors of the society
to take part and make a bold step in shaping the city's development plight in
connection with their respective sect oral needs, not allowing the city government
alone to shoulder all the burdens and initiatives, but rather share with the local
government quest for socio-economic deliverance. Moreover, transparency within the
approaches ensure the active, dynamic and productive partnership between the
government, barangay officials and the private sectors towards a renewed envisioned
City of Manila.
Workshop on Financial Strategies Managing Economic Impact of Natural Disaster at the Macro-, Meso-, Micro-Level
Office of Civil Defense- National Disaster Coordinating Council* International Institute of Applied System Analysis* Kyoto University* World Bank Institute
22-24 May 2006, EDSA Shangrila Hotel