SU DEPENDENCIA LABORAL

There were sessions in the barangay which focused on gender mainstreaming, but that is the sole effort of the local government. I would not give JICA any credit for that. – LGU2

Interviews with the local government counterparts found that the project worked well with the local officers, including the chief executive (mayor), heads of concerned departments and sectoral divisions like the DRRM and planning offices, association leaders, and various local officials. JICA was able to convene key officers in a number of workshops for the revision of the municipalities’ comprehensive land use and DRRM plans, which is the main focus of Component 1 of the project. Regardless of the gender of the person taking up the local position, the concerned officer was nevertheless invited to project meetings and workshops. Hence, there was no conscious decision to either invite or prohibit representatives based on their gender. In terms of gender and development, it can therefore be surmised that it is fortunate if a woman occupies that particular position, which entirely depends on the Philippine government’s own gender mainstreaming framework (i.e. gender equality in hiring and promotion). The project coordinator noted:

“In terms of our project counterparts in the local government, a lot of them were women. For example, the planning officer of the city was a proactive woman who mobilised the local government to act on the plan. The mayors of the municipalities are all women. So, in terms of planning the project with the local counterparts, gender is kind of intrinsic already.”

This then connotes that the participation of local stakeholders in the project is not based on gender, but on their function and the roles they hold in the local government.

According to LGU1, the DRRM officer of Tacloban City, JICA’s technical assistance played a significant part in the revision of the land use and DRRM plans. LGU1 expressed that this

was because the city government do not have the capacity to determine the kinds of information needed to effectively revise the plans on their own. S/he narrated:

“First, we could hardly come up with a categorical pronouncement as to how high the storm surge was. One of the first group of expert teams who came was JICA, and they were able to tell us the differences of the height of water in different and specific areas. There was an expert with them who busied himself to find water marks on walls and gave us their ideas on how high the water was. We could not have done this on our own.

In fact, JICA was the one who technically informed us about the radius of the storm surge. This was the kind of technical assistance we really needed. JICA was instrumental in rectifying some of our maps, which we needed for our land use and DRRM plans. Since there was a map expert with them, JICA eventually helped us in revising the plans, especially because of their technical expertise.”

Aside from the technical assistance on hazard maps, LGU1 noted that JICA also evaluated the capacity of the DRRM office, and their recommendations were eventually accepted:

“The capacity of the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management was first and foremost diagnosed and assessed by JICA. After a series of meetings which discussed our situation and capacity as DRRM office, what we have and what we don’t, they came back with a ready-made template and guideline. This made us realise that we should have had those sooner. They gave us a contingency plan, particularly in the response aspect. The timeline management they did was very ideal. It explained specific time and motions of distributed responsibilities in different clusters, properly coordinating each other’s actions at the same time. It was because of JICA’s assistance why we expanded and added new clusters based on the model they gave us.

We mainstreamed the DRRM plan into our comprehensive land use plan, and the hazard maps given by JICA were crucial in revising these plans. We rely on the maps they provided in identifying the hazard prone areas, which also became our basis for preparedness and building back better infrastructure.”

“JICA was here a few weeks after Yolanda—they are one of the earliest teams to offer technical assistance. JICA wanted to be part of the Tacloban Recovery and Rehabilitation Plan, but eventually became part of larger and long-term plans: the comprehensive land use and DRRM plans, even the Local Climate Change Action Plan.

The maps they did were critical in identifying the height and scope of the city affected by the storm surge. Our previous maps were, to a great extent, amiss. If we had accurate storm surge maps earlier, we could have planned, prepared, and responded more efficiently.”

Aside from the technical assistance, LGU2 also expressed that JICA’s financial assistance was crucial in order to properly integrate the technical assistance they offered:

“JICA had two main roles: financial and technical assistance. I think this is a special kind of arrangement, since HQ4 explained to us that JICA does not usually extend financial assistance directly at the local level. For the technical assistance, they deployed an architect, an urban planner, a mapper—basically an entire team to help us with the comprehensive land use and DRRM plans. As the planning officer, I negotiated—if JICA wants the technical recommendations to be done, they need to be willing to assist us financially through the conduct of workshops of concerned city officers and barangay-level officials for the revision of the plans.”

The financial and technical assistance extended by JICA to the city was deemed crucial and useful. However, although the interviews suggested that JICA played a significant part in revising and contributing technical information, LGU2 pointed out that JICA failed to include the local people’s perceptions and presented ready-made hazard maps and a timeline action plan. JICA’s maps, albeit helpful and accurate, were not done through a participatory process, which is critical to validate and make the findings useful. LGU2 narrated:

“Initially, they gave us the recommendations for revision—which was no doubt accurate and on point. They did all these development thrusts…Their recommendations were ultimately integrated, a huge chunk of it.

But their process was different—they laid it out and just wanted the local people to confirm and implement it. There was nothing participatory about it. Although their calculations were accurate, it was purely scientific. So, I said: I am okay with this, as a

technical person. But in planning and research, how do you make your output legitimate? How do you make it stand? The process should be legitimate, it is the process that will legitimise the output.

In mapping, you need to have two processes and sources: scientific and community- based. Both methods are acceptable—it would be best to have it combined. Ownership is important. If you just stick it up to them and impose it on them, at the end of the day you would always be defending it to the community. Whereas if we went through the tedious but crucial process of consulting the community and making the maps together, the outputs would be legitimate.

JICA can’t understand this at first, one of the Japanese consultants said, ‘Why are you so particular about the method? Why can’t we just implement directly the development thrusts?’ And I remember answering, ‘It doesn’t work that way. If we do it that way, we will always be bombarded by rallies. I am the city planning officer, I am the one who will face the communities’ complaints,’ so we continued with the participatory process. We validated the map through a number of workshops together with the barangay officials.

At the end of the day, we really owned it. There was ownership with the process, ownership with the outputs. I eventually told him, ‘See, your inputs are accurate, but we needed the process.’ JICA served as a crucial contributor. They achieved their agenda, but I also made sure we attained ours.”

The hazard maps, timeline action and evacuation plans, with crucial technical inputs from JICA and workshops at the community level, were also rolled out to the barangay level.

While JICA did not initiate any participatory processes, the interview with the local project coordinator stated that one of the members of the Japanese consultant team was, for a time, specifically assigned as the social sector focal person, which included gender, health, education, and other social issues, for Component 1. Her work included assessing impacts, possible implications, and action planning in these social aspects. However, she only worked at the planning stage, and was then transferred to another project. The project coordinator expressed:

“She was mainly involved in the first phase where the social considerations were assessed, and then she wasn’t needed in the second phase, since it focused more on structural measures (i.e. building sea wall).”

The project coordinator explained that it was not just the social focal person who was “eliminated”, but also other consultant team members who focused on fisheries, agriculture, and solid waste management. While no one took over the tasks, the outputs of the focal person were taken into consideration during the workshops for the revision of land use and DRRM plans of the municipalities.

The project coordinator also expressed that in Component 1, JICA highlighted the importance of considering vulnerable groups in general, including children, elderly, persons with disabilities, among others:

“Yes, JICA did not do specific gender analysis on the possible impacts of the project. They did not focus on the possible impacts of the intervention on women or men, but more on integrating vulnerable groups in general, including children, senior citizen, persons with disability, in the land use and DRRM plans.”

Interviews with the local government officials reinforced this, explaining how JICA considered vulnerable groups in timeline action planning and systems for evacuation. They underscored that JICA did not fall short in considering the elderly, pregnant women, and children in revising the comprehensive land use and DRRM plans. LGU1 explained:

“Before Yolanda, we didn’t have a systematic evacuation. We just looked for possible shelters which we can use for evacuating the residents—we knocked on doors of private buildings, gymnasiums, churches, and ask them if it is possible to accommodate these families.

With JICA’s plan, everything is prepositioned. We now know where a specific family should go. JICA was very instrumental in its contribution to the identification system. One household has one ID card. At the back of the card, it shows the list of members of the household, and specifically, if the member is vulnerable—is this person with disability? With special needs? With communicable disease? Pregnant? This is helpful, with just one look at the ID card upon check-in at the evacuation centre, we will know any specific needs and other priorities that we need to accommodate. For instance, if

you are a person with disability, if you are pregnant, we will address these needs separately. JICA underscored the need to separate vulnerable individuals.”

LGU1 further added:

“Our new DRRM plan is not just gender responsive, it is inclusive to all vulnerable groups, which is the trend now.

In the evacuation aspect, it was JICA who pushed for these kinds of needs: separate women, prioritize pregnant women and children… The vulnerable groups should be evacuated first, and the capable and energetic last. Although we cannot say these are really rooted from Japan, but a part of this really was based on their experiences in disasters. When I was sent there, I observed how responsive they are in disasters. I think disasters, their response to and management of it, has been part of their culture. Everybody instantly reacts. They are prepared and know what to do in times of calamities. It should also be engrained in our culture like that.

Yet, I think they underscored these needs in the plan because they also studied our culture—the importance that we give to women, children, and other vulnerable groups, and how these should be integrated. I think it’s unlikely for them to give us a directive. I took it to myself that maybe they studied and considered our culture well to be able to give us appropriate guidance.”

However, while vulnerable groups and their needs are considered to be unequivocally important, LGU2 explained why, for instance, gender mainstreaming is also crucial in crafting plans for the community:

“In one of the workshops, we visualized how men and women use spaces in the barangays. We did this because we know the desires and needs of men and women are different. We found out with the men’s perspective, they are usually concerned mostly with infrastructure or production—structures which will help them seek or make profit. On the other hand, women are concerned with the general well-being and up-keep. Women’s perspectives are more holistic, while men’s are economic. It does not necessarily mean that they are contradicting, it just means that they see things differently.”

Interviews with the local government counterparts also attested that while JICA did not push for a specific gender lens in the project, another member of the Japanese consultant team was there to share her personal points of view. The only female consultant that stayed for the entire duration of the project served as a key person who provided some gender viewpoints, based from her own experiences in disaster management in Japan. LGU1 said:

“She was very informative, though she only provided her viewpoints when we asked her.”

LGU2 argued that it was solely the local government’s effort to consciously mainstream gender. However, even though JICA did not initiate any discussions related to this, LGU2 noted that they also did not reject the idea:

“We would plan the entire programme, and they let us do so. When we suggested to have a session on gender mainstreaming, they did not negate nor dispute the idea. We really pushed for gender since it is in our organisational culture. I can also say it’s deeply rooted in the Philippines’ culture, where women are strong-willed. We are also required to mainstream gender within the Climate Change Action and DRRM plans. That’s why in our barangay workshops, it’s not just the technical people who are involved. We’ve done it with the barangay constituents, and we particularly allocated a session on gender mainstreaming. But all of those are the local government’s efforts, I wouldn’t give JICA any credit for that.”