EQUIPOS PARA TRABAJOS TEMPORALES EN ALTURA

Table 5.1 outlines the participants interviewed, including some background with regard to their role and organisation. The agencies had similar histories with DRR and CCA; most had begun implementing DRR projects around 2006. Local NGO Ph3 had only conducted PHVCAs within the last 6 months (April – September 2010). Interestingly, during the interviews with the two local NGOs (Ph 1 and Ph 2), it transpired that their communities had been greatly affected by a typhoon (Reming) in November 2006. As a consequence of this disaster, the affected NGOs had begun to focus on addressing DRR:

‘…[our] DRR work…started shaping up in 2004 it is introduced by one of staff of HD INGO D…[he] also introduced us the DRR and…introduced also to us the use of [PHVCA]

tools but…DRR is already introduced by [local gov. official] to us but…we don’t have any interest because during this time we focus on disaster relief. We started to shake up the DRR perspective in office started in 2004 but 2006 (after Reming), become now clear picture of what is DRR to us.’ (Point Person – DRR and Community-based DRR Programme, Local NGO Ph2)

165 Similarly, Local NGO Ph3 interviewees also described being introduced to DRR by their INGO partner but indicated that they had already been thinking along these lines. The local agencies did not tend to have an extensive disaster risk management background; they may have been involved in disaster relief (e.g. Local NGO Ph2), but vary in their organisational remits (see Table 5.1). DRR Project Officer (Local NGO Ph3) said that they were trying to move towards addressing all their work through a ‘DRR lens’.

Climate change was not deemed a new phenomenon, with interviewees stating that they began discussing it several years ago. The concepts are differentiated, but it was surprising to discern a lack of emphasis on CCA compared with DRR as might have been expected, given this emphasis amongst the interviewees in Study A. In terms of implementation, the majority did not appear to draw a major distinction between CCA and their implementation of community-based DRR activities, and appeared to be addressing climate change in terms of its impact on disasters. However the Executive Director of Local NGO Ph1 perceived CCA to require a different approach:

‘For us, the risk reduction measures are those strategies, activities or mechanisms that community are doing in order to… – not adapt – in order to phase, or to handle these adverse shocks no? that are coming but we’re seeing that…sometimes this kind of actions strategies that we’re doing are not necessarily an adaptation work, but it’s just, maybe it’s a tactical or a temporal action for community to respond or to bounce back easier into different shocks; but not necessarily yet an adaptation.’ (Executive Director, Local NGO Ph1)

Climate change also emerged as a discussion point for observed hazard and environmental changes during the Philippines interviews:

‘If go to community…the people have own definition of [climate change] because time changes according to them. Noticeably hazard events are becoming more frequent.

This Mayon volcano used to erupt every 10 years – but it was altered recently: it erupts maybe in the span of two to three years. Rains and floodings are now more frequent and just very abrupt unlike before. That’s what we learn from the community people and also us observe as a native of this place. This hazard typhoon…and others becoming more frequent, and the magnitude of destructions becoming wider – very

166 intense. Before we don’t experience this hot weather, all across the Philippines.’

(Regional Programme Manager, Development INGO Ph)

However there was also more of an awareness compared with Head Office interviewees (Study A) of the wider range of natural and human systems that could be causing the observed change. One interviewee¹ noted that climate change is ‘quite loosely’ used to explain different changes, sharing the example of an area predicted to experience climate change driven drought which (along with flooding) is a ‘past and future hazard’. In this interviewee’s opinion, DRR and CCA are ‘all the same’ and ‘difficult to prioritise [as they] all lead to disasters.’

The comparative lack of emphasis on CCA compared with the findings from Study A may be indicative of the lag mentioned during Study A between changes at the international policy level and implementation at the practical level². Indeed, the NGOs interviewed were still getting to grips with CCA and its implications for their work.

In the following section, the three main findings from Study A are rephrased as questions in order to compare them with the analysis of the Philippines interviews. As the following discussion will demonstrate, there were similarities between Studies A and B, but their greatest divergence was with regard to the appreciation of multi-hazards and the value and integration of science. Participants did not tend to refer to specific toolkits but adopted very similar techniques of hazard and vulnerability assessment to those described during the UK interviews, drawing on hazard mapping, timelines and prioritisation methods.

Interviewees emphasised the process, rather than a rigid set of instructions (tools). However, whilst developers of toolkits in Study A emphasised that tools are not prescriptive and that users are encouraged to adapt the tool based on the situation on the ground, these ideas may not migrate to those (local partners) implementing toolkits:

1 Senior Programme Officer 1 (INGO Ph2)

2 Director of the Disaster Management Team (INGO H; Study A)

167

‘we would like to use simpler tools but if we can’t help it then we have to [use it]

because it’s really part of the module but we would find ways to make it simpler and more understandable for community because honestly communities are not well adjusted to different tools used by local workers and local NGO workers – they just think of how they would earn more and how they would run the family.’ (Project Officer – DRR, Local NGO Ph3)

The implication is that, even if the NGO or the community find a component of the PHVCA toolkit difficult to implement, they must still use it because it is part of the defined process, thus countering the assumptions of developers in Study A that toolkits are used in a flexible manner. However, interviewees tended to emphasise the process of PHVCA more than the tools and those interviewees who commented on tools noted the need to adapt the tool based on the situation on the ground. However, the DRR Project Officer and Programme staff at Local NGO Ph3 felt that their experience of continually having to adapt tools and augment them with additional tools (driven by management) was at the expense of their actual understanding of the PHVCA process. The DRR Project Officer also noted that NGOs have a tendency to overly focus on the tools:

‘I think NGOs have a knack of trying to get every available tool there is and confusing ourselves on what tool to use instead of focusing on one effective tool, efficient, simple tool – no way can we get every tool there is, try to integrate them and end up with complicated integrated tool – one problem of NGOs.’ (Project Officer – DRR, Local NGO Ph3)

What was particularly insightful was that the interviewees from the Local NGO Ph3 included both project and programme staff (those implementing) and the executive director, the latter being less critical of tools than the project and programme staff. The last quotation also raises the question as to whether NGOs put too much faith in toolkits and do not invest enough in facilitation. In the context of multi-hazards and the utilisation of science, it also suggests that creating or adapting tools might not be the means of integrating these approaches as it may only drive further confusion.

168 Table 5.1 Participants in Study B. Shaded participants did not contribute to the interview in the main. HD INGO represents Humanitarian and Development International NGO.

Organisation Operations History of Engagement

Respondent Date of interview Location of interview Interview recorded (Y/N)

WASH DRR coordinator 17/09/2010 Makati City, Metro

Manila Y

Officer 1 17/09/2010 Quezon City, Metro

Manila N

Senior Programme

Officer 2 17/09/2010 Quezon City, Metro

Manila N

HD INGO Ph2) 2006 2007 Executive Director

11/09/2010 Legazpi City, Albay Y

Local NGO Ph2

programme 12/09/2010 Legazpi City, Albay Y

169

Project Officer - DRR 24/09/2010 Osamiz, Misamis

Occidental, Mindanao Y Programme staff – DRR 25/09/2010 Osamiz, Misamis

Occidental, Mindanao Y Executive Director 27/09/2010 Osamiz, Misamis

Occidental, Mindanao Y

Development INGO

Ph (Country Office) Partner [Did not specify] [Did not specify]

Regional Programme

Programme Officer 15/09/2010 Legazpi City, Albay

Humanitarian INGO

Ph (Country Office) Direct (and volunteers)

[Did not specify]

Management Services 10/09/2010 Manila, Metro Manila Y

170