7 January 2020
Crowne Plaza Hotel, Ortigas Center
Pasig City, Manila, Philippines
Under the leadership of Dr. Juan M. Pulhin, Chair of IdSC-INREM, the center commences the year 2020 with a Technical and Policy Forum on Climate Disaster and Risk Assessment (CDRA) and Local Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP) on 7 January 2020 at Crowne Plaza Hotel, Pasig City. IdSC-INREM partnered with the Climate Change Commission and the University of the Philippines Resilience Institute in the implementation of the said Forum. The Forum is the first of its kind in the Philippines, where the key agencies involved in the CDRA and LCCAP preparation gather together to come up with unified policies and guidelines to hasten the preparation of a science-based CDRA and LCCAP to enhance climate change and disaster resilience of LGUs and local communities in the country.
The Forum is part of the project implemented by the IDSC-INREM of the University of the Philippines Los Banos, through a grant from the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research-funded project entitled “Enhancing Climate Risk Resilience through Human Security Development and Capacity Building in the Province of Aurora, Philippines.”
The objectives of the Forum were: 1) Present current issues and challenges associated with the CDRA and LCCAP preparation based on the experiences of UPLB IDSC-INREM, UPRI, CCC, and other stakeholders; 2) Discuss the strengths and limitations of the current CDRA and LCCAP guidelines and processes based on the experience of the different stakeholders; 3) Agree on key strategies to develop a unified policy and guidelines that will hasten the preparation of CDRA and LCCAP by LGUs; and 4) Formulate action plan towards the issuance of a joint government policy guidelines for a speedy preparation of a simplified, science-based, and more responsive CDRA and LCCAP by all LGUs in the country. CDRA and LCCAP should be mainstreamed by the LGUs in the preparation of their Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) and in their Annual Investment Plan (AIP). The Program of the Forum is found in Attachment A while the Overview is found in Attachment B.
Presentation on the issues, challenges and lessons learned on the use of CDRA for LCCAP formulation were shared by the Department of Interior and Local Government through the Bureau of Local Government Development (BLGD-DILG) (Attachments C and D), Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) (Attachment E), Climate Change Commission (CCC) (Attachment F), UPLB (Attachment G), and University of the Philippines Resilience Institute (UPRI) (Attachment H). The list of issues and challenges with the corresponding actions are summarized below:
Table 1. List of current issues and challenges associated with the CDRA and LCCAP preparation
|ISSUES AND CHALLENGES||ACTION(S)|
|Steep learning curve||CCC: Cascading expertise… Administrative personnel are multi-taskers, there should be passion and commitment from concerned personnel tasked with CDRA/LCCAP. There should be focused efforts, focal persons (per area of concern, similar with MDRRMOs).
RVO Cruz: Accountability, making LGUs accountable for what they’re doing (in the preparation of CDRA, LCCAP, DRRMP, etc.). Are plans reviewed by HLURB enough? Or should there be validation measures? Is there enough appreciation (from LGUs) for these plans, beyond just compliance?
Clarification: Are we talking about LCCAP as a separate planning document? Or LCCAP as a CDP, CLUP, etc.?
HLURB: There is no agency collecting and reviewing CDRA outputs. There should be a group that handles or reviews CDRA? HLURB is mandated to review zoning ordinances. In terms of CDRA, are hazards avoided? CDP first, then CLUP, to create zoning policies.
Clarification: There are two plans mandated: CDP and CLUP. CDRA is one of the tools (for these plans). Implementation problems, proof is the presence of damages arising from natural hazards (case of recent typhoon Ursula). In terms of steep learning curve, training is emphasized, including coaching and mentoring. Periodic training, requiring more days. Requirement for aspiring politicians, to be trained in preparing plans.
RVO Cruz: Concern of NEDA, plans are redundant.
DILG: We don’t want CDRA, LCCAP as a separate document, but a part of the process. LGUs have a lot of complaints about the number of required plans. Results from CDRA and LCCAP can be derived for other plans, since these have similar processes with other plans. Who will check CDRA quality? In 2014, a number of LGUs do not have complete set of plans. LGUs have no DCP, CLUP, but have LCCAPs. This year, there should be CDPs for LGUs.
CCC: Mindset before (2013), LCCAP should be part of CDP, each LGU should have LCCAP as a way to monitor plans and programs of LGUs related to climate change. Climate change expenditure tagging, GHG emissions inventory… there should be a law (and other legal instruments) that harmonizes all of these plans. Awards and certifications to be given (similar to DILG-awarded Seal of Good Local Governance).
RVO Cruz (summarizing): LCCAP as a stand alone document or as a process. Creation of a technical working group…
“Hindi naman natin aalisin ang LCCAP…” If there is CDRA, LCCAP, then CDP and CLUP will derive results from CDRA, LCCAP. (Clarification… or other way around?)
Dr. Sucol: Case of General Nakar, Quezon. Who will check CDRA quality? TOT of DILG, HLURB, DOT… HEIs are required to attend, they should help in the preparation of CDRA and LCCAP reports. In case of Region 4A, they formed TWG for CDRA/LCCAP formulation. SUCs as local resource partners. Problem for attending SUCs of TOTs: they are not tapped in their regions. LCCAP should be a separate document (after crafting the CDRA, it will be easier to craft the LCCAP. The LCCAP is a requirement to access PSF. In the case of General Nakar, the CDRA was crafted, then CLUP and then LCCAP. Also, in the National Climate Resilience Framework, probabilistic framework was not emphasized and there is difficulty in mapping the multi-scenario assessment. Also, how do these scenarios impact LGUs, since there is a lack of analysis of climate-change stimuli impacts.
RVO Cruz summary: Harmonization of tools, set of guidelines.
Comment (NPTE): (Framework ang dapat pinagkakaisahan natin… hindi dapat nag-iiba. Although iba iba tools).
UPRI: There are too many things that are asked of them (for LGUs). LCCAP should be a derivative plan. Case of ELA: Start preparing ELA then include in CDP and CLUP. Ano bang scale of planning ang dapat gawin ng CDRA? May be in a provincial level? Or national level? Then allow appreciation for LGUs. Magkaiba iba competencies ng LGUs. Sino ba talaga sa level ng government (ang magplaplano). Ecosystem-based approaches, multi/inter-administrative planning is preferred.
RVO Cruz summary: Multi-LGU preparation of CDRA.
Reaction (NPTE): PAGASA (CLIRAM). PSF specific to the project, details should be specific to the CLIRAM.
UPRI (Joy): Design of supplemental guidelines, endline is for CLUP, CDRA for CCVA. Kailangan tutukan ang spatial to sectoral results…
Aurora PDRRMO (Tina): Mas mahirap CDP CLUP, LGUs ginagawa ang CDRA LCCAP for compliance. Mas nahihirapan ngayon, dahil CDRA-based ang mga plano… 1st, unahin ang institutionalization (for CDRA preparation?), sino ang focal office? DILG requirement (note to reporter). May assistance sa CDRA binigay ang DILG, municipalities (Baler) included in the training but not all included. Province should be capacitated then trickle down to municipalities. Aurora Province allotted budget for CDRA preparation at provincial level. There is no technical capacity, LGUs depend on consultants. Sino ang focal office? Sino ang mag iimplement? Paano makikita ang monitoring and implementation?
CP: Main problem: usage of all these reports? Ginagamit lamang for compliance… Real purpose is for planning. Synthesis of comments: Agree: on a national scale, then on a provincial level, then municipalities will enhance. Then will be included in the CLUP, process included as a chapter. Sinong gagawa ng provincial scale report…
HLURB: Parang may issue kami kapag may agency na gagawa lahat… Prefers that CDRA already present in LGUs…
RVO Cruz: Taking away the burden from LGUs, TWGs can later refine…
NPTE (reaction to HLURB): Kukunin lahat ng ginawa na, parallel pero hindi sabay. Cyclical
CCC: FYI: Georisk… issued last year by PHIVOLCS, to consider in the plans, for future discussion by TWG.
|Lack of manpower
|RVO Cruz: How do we allow HEIs to be more available? How do we strengthen the process to make them more available for LGUs?
CCC: We have been engaged with a number of SUCs, passion and commitment are there but they (HEIs) lack resources (budgeting and financing) and training. HEIs work voluntarily. Topic for TWG: How do we strengthen the process to make them more available for LGUs?. Case of Bulacan State University, engagement with LGUs. Marching orders given, training should be given to plantilla positions (sustainability issues), and somebody who is knowledgeable in the subject matter. DILG also taps local universities.
RVO Cruz: Emphasized the importance of inter-agency/LGU planning
HLURB: Case of GMMARAP.
RVO Cruz: We should identify agencies to be involved: PHICOLVS, MGB, PAGASA, DENR, DILG, DOH, DOST, OCD, DICT, DSWD, HLURB, UPRI… CCAM member agencies
NPTE: But we should also have a smaller group, who are directly involved: CCC, DHSUD, NPTE, DILG, NEDA, LGU representatives, UPRI, UPLB, League of Municipalities (c/o CCC), PHIVOLCS, PAGASA, MGB, OCD (13 in total). (for further discussion: RVOC)
i. TIMETABLE: within 30 days from date of RTD, interagency TWG will be organized (before February 6, 2020)
Who initiates the formation of the TWG: DILG has a meeting on January 16 (CCC).
(note to reporter: points of discussion regarding the inclusion of LCP in TWG. RVOC recommendation; invite LCP first)
JM Pulhin: Paano kaya ang magandang mekanismo, to move things forward (CCC can help)?
CCC: NCRRMF… If TWG is organized, what is the framework that should be adopted to forward the agenda. CCC issued a resolution anchored on the climate risk management framework that relies on probabilistic planning approach. Historical worst cases + multi-scenario events
|Data intensive||RVO Cruz: To have a macro- broader scale of CDRA.
UPRI: Take advantage of community-based monitoring system (CBMS).
|Sustainability (Resources)||RVO Cruz: There should be a focal person, focal unit in the LGU.|
Based from the presentations made, the preparation of CDRA as a requirement for the formulation of LCCAP and other plans is constrained by the following: 1) steep learning curve, including effective cascading of expertise to the LGUs; 2) lack of manpower; 3) data intensive; 4) sustainability (resources and resource mobilization); and 5) appreciation and accountability of LGUs in preparing CDRA.
The recommendations that were formulated through a forum resolution were:
- Institute a focal office/unit for climate change (similar to DRRMO) in the LGUs for both compliance and accountability;
- Coaching and mentoring (instead of training) of LGUs (specifically those occupying plantilla positions and knowledgeable on the subject matter) in the preparation of CDRA and LCCAP, and requiring elected LGU officials to be trained on CDRA and LCCAPs;
- Appoint an agency tasked to monitor the completion of CDRA and its mainstreaming into development plans, including ensuring the alignment of LCCAP with CLUP and CDP;
- Tap Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as technical service providers to LGUs in developing their CDRA and LCCAP, and address issues on resource mobilization;
- Agree on the scale of government unit for CDRA preparation (whether provincial, regional and national) and capacitate LGUs in enhancing the assessment and mainstreaming the results in their plans. It is recommended that the national government prepares the CDRA, and this goes into the CLUP as a chapter; and,
- Include some data requirements for CDRA in the Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS).
The resolution also calls for the creation of Inter-agency Technical Working Group to develop a unified framework harmonizing the guidelines and tools (such as the probabilistic risk assessment, smooth translation from spatial to sectoral) for CDRA and LCCAP. The TWG should include (but not limited to): CCC, DHSUD, UPRI, NPTE, DILG, NEDA, LGU representatives, UPLB, League of Municipalities, PHIVOLCS, PAGASA, MGB, OCD. The TWG, is suggested to be organized within 30 days from the date of the Technical and Policy Forum on CDRA and LCCAP. The Forum Resolution is found in Attachment I.
The resolution will be presented to DILG, who provides the guidelines in the preparation or updating of local plans, requiring the integration of disaster risk reduction and management and climate change adaptation and mitigation.
The Forum was attended by 51 participants from NEDA, CCC, NPTE, UP RI, DHSUD (then HLURB), DILG, LGU Representatives from the Province of Aurora, Municipalities of Dingalan, Aurora and Majayjay, Laguna, IdSC-INREM and UPLB-CRSC. The list of participants is found in Attachment J. A story of the Forum was uploaded to the social media of the university is found in Attachment K (https://uplb.edu.ph/all-news/inrem-led-forum-crafts-policies-for-science-based-cdra-and-lccap/?fbclid=IwAR3W1bAi3YF2c2J24pCdo6kB7kleJ9raXK6-t2E7WvmH8qSylS69Slburtw).