EVALUACION DEL SERVICIO SERVICIO

In the Philippines, as is apparent in sub-sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.3, climate change adaptation cannot be divorced from climate-related hazards that often lead to disasters. As such not only are international agreements relating to climate change relevant to this study in the Philippines but also international agreements relating to DRRM are relevant. Two key international agreements thus are found under the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – often referred to as the Convention – and the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 (HFA).

UNFCCC

The Philippines joined the Convention 19 years ago in 1994. The country signed up on 12 June, then ratified on 2 August, and finally its entry took force on 31 October 1994 (UNFCCC, 2013b). As a member of the Convention the Philippines thereby agreed to multiple commitments applicable to non-Annex 1 countries. One of these is the commitment to submit National Communications and Biennial Update Reports, of  which  the  initial  communication  is  “to  be  submitted  within  the  first  three  years  of   entry   to   the   Convention”,   in   order   to   identify   “steps   they   are   taking   or   envisage   undertaking  to  implement  the  Convention”  (UNFCCC, 2012b). The Philippine Inter-Agency Committee on Climate Change (IACCC) subsequently submitted   ‘The Philippines' Initial National Communication on Climate Change’  to  the  UNFCCC in May 2000. Among other things such as a greenhouse gas inventory the report identified agriculture, water resources, and coastal resources as three major sectors with issues and concerns in regards to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change (IACCC, 1999) and these continue to be principal areas of national focus in regards to climate change adaptation. The focus on adaptation in urban areas however is more recent and arguably still gaining traction. As can be seen in the report, it identified the trend of urbanization in the Philippines, a potential 2 to 3°C increase in annual temperature in Metro Manila and other highly urbanized areas, and 102 municipalities (towns or cities) endangered by a 1-metre sea level rise including five in Metro Manila (Navotas, Malabon, Manila, Pasay, Las Pinãs and Parañaque) as being noteworthy factors linked to climate change (Ibid., pp. 44, 55 and 57).

Nevertheless  in  comparison  to  the  greater  focus  on  more  “rural”  and  natural  resource   issues no significant attention was paid then to adaptation plans in urban areas.

Among other commitments in the Convention, five commitments in Article 4 relevant to this research on adaptation are that the Philippines: (a) cooperates in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change, (b) takes climate change considerations into account in its relevant policies and actions, (c) promotes and cooperates in research and development of data archives to further the understanding of climate change, (d) promotes and cooperates in full and open exchange of relevant scientific and other information related to the climatic system and climate change in the Philippines, and to the economic and social consequences of various response strategies, and (e) promotes and cooperates in education, training and public awareness related to climate change and encourages the widest participation in this process including NGOs (UN, 1992b, pp. 10-11).

In addition to the aforementioned commitments (which were written into the original Convention adopted in 1992) greater attention has been given to adaptation as opposed to mitigation in the Convention notably after the   IPCC’s   third   assessment   report in 2001 and through the Bali Action Plan of 2007 and the Cancun Adaptation Framework of 2010 (UNFCCC, 2011a). These have subsequently incorporated additional commitments or requirements into the Convention that affect the Philippines as well as all other Parties. Namely the Bali Action Plan broadened the concept of adaptation to additionally   include:   “risk   management   and   reduction   strategies, disaster reduction strategies, economic diversification to build resilience, and the involvement of multilateral bodies, public and private sectors and civil society in enhanced action on adaptation”  (UNFCCC, 2013a). Furthermore under the Cancun Agreement (which developed the Cancun Adaptation Framework) all parties, especially Less Developed Countries, are required to formulate and implement national adaptation plans (NAPs) to identify and address their medium and long-term adaptation needs (UNFCCC, 2012a). These commitments are influential to varying degrees in the development of national policy and programmes in the Philippines,

specifically the creation of the Climate Change and the Disaster Risk Reduction Management Acts, which are discussed in detail under Sub-section 5.1.3. As Bercilla from   Manila   Observatory   asserts:   “The crafting of the Climate Change Law in the Philippines was heavily influenced by international developments on the UN Negotiation on Climate Change, specifically UNFCCC” and   “The   law   highlights   adaptation and mitigation – two of the four pillars of climate change action introduced  at  the  Bali  meeting  of  the  UNFCCC  in  2007” (L12).

Hyogo Framework for Action

Although not explicitly about adaptation to climate change, the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 has more recently influenced the practice of disaster management  in  the  Philippines,  and  noticeably  influenced  the  ‘Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction in the Philippines: Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) 2009-2019’  and  the  DRRM  Act  of  2010.    The   Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015:

Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters was one outcome of the   ‘World   Conference   for   Disaster   Reduction’   held   in   Kobe   (Hyogo,   Japan)   in   January 2005. It represents a global commitment to reduce disaster losses by 2015 and in 2005 Member States of the United Nations, including the Philippines, adopted it. The United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) officially coordinates its implementation, but the responsibility for implementing the HFA is spread across actors to States, Regional Organisations, International Organisations and the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) system (UNISDR, 2007).

According to the UNISDR, the HFA  “is  the  first  plan  to  explain,  describe  and  detail   the work that is required from all different sectors and actors to reduce disaster losses.

It was developed and agreed on with the many partners needed to reduce disaster risk - governments, international agencies, disaster experts and many others - bringing them into a common system of coordination”  (2013). And unlike the UNFCCC, the

HFA   is   not  legally   binding;;   it  simply   “outlines  five  priorities  for   action,   and   offers   guiding principles and practical  means  for  achieving  disaster  resilience”   (Ibid.) (see Box 3).

Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015’s  five  priorities  

Priority Action 1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation.

Priority Action 2: Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning.

Priority Action 3: Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels.

Priority Action 4: Reduce the underlying risk factors.

Priority Action 5: Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels

Box 3. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015's five priorities Source: UNISDR (2013)

The HFA in particular supports a more holistic multi-hazard, multi-sectoral approach to disasters, takes a proactive risk reduction approach and puts greater focus on vulnerability and capabilities as key factors affecting disaster risk. According to the

‘Philippines: National Progress Report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2009-2011)’ disaster risk considerations have been more effectively integrated into sustainable development policies, planning and programmes   in   the   Philippines   “with   a   special   emphasis   on   disaster   prevention,   mitigation,   preparedness  and   vulnerability   reduction”   as  a   consequence   of   the  HFA   (OCD, 2008, p. 3).

This  contrasts  to  the  Philippines’  former top-down sectoral focus on physical hazards and its reactive approach to disasters focusing on disaster response and anticipation (OCD, 2011) and also causes significant overlap with adaptation theory and strategies, which too emphasise the importance of reducing vulnerabilities and building capacities. The HFA has also highlighted the link between disaster risk reduction and climate change. The first core indicator for Priority Action 4 in the HFA  states  that  “disaster  risk  reduction  is  [to  be]  an  integral  objective  of  environment   related policies and plans, including for land use natural resource management and

adaptation to climate change [italics  added]” (UNISDR, 2005). Furthermore through HFA’s  emphasis  on  risk  reduction,  which  includes  both  structural  and  non-structural measures  to  reduce  people’s  vulnerability to disasters and to build their capabilities,

“the  HFA  recognize[s]  the  importance  of  promoting  the  integration  of  risk  reduction   associated with climate change into strategies for disaster risk reduction and climate change  adaptation”  (UNISDR, 2010, p. 1).