Disaster Risk Management Needs of Metro Manila: A Scoping Report

SCOPING MISSION REPORT
DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF METRO MANILA
December 2009

Photo taken along Ortigas Avenue in Pasig City Philippines a day after Tropical Storm Ketsana hit Metro Manila on 26
September 2009 (Photo courtesy of Nonie Reyes).

This report was prepared by the Scoping Mission Team: John Schneider and Greg Scott, Geoscience Australia;
and Anne Orquiza, AusAID

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AusAID   Australian Agency for International Development
BOM Bureau of Meteorology
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CSCAND Collective Strengthening of Community Awareness for Natural Disasters
DEM Digital Elevation Map
DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
GA Geoscience Australia
GOP Government of the Philippines
LDCC Local Disaster Coordinating Council
LGU Local Government Unit
LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging
MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau
MMDA   Metro Manila Development Authority
MMEIRS Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction Study
NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information Agency
NDCC National Disaster Coordinating Council
NEDA National Economic Development Authority
NEXIS National Exposure Information System
OCD Office of Civil Defense
PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services
PHIVOLCS Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
PNRC Philippine National Red Cross
PROJECT 143 Strengthening the Disaster Management Capacities of Communities
READY Project Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community and Disaster Risk
Management
REDAS Rapid Earthquake Damage Assessment System
SDI Spatial Data Infrastructure
UNDP United Nations Development Bank
UP University of the Philippines
WB World Bank

Page 2 | S c o p i n g M i s s i o n R e p o r t : D R M R e q u i r e m e n t s o f M e t r o M a n i l a

Table of Contents

Contents Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………. 2
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Summary……………….…………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

I Background………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
II The Scoping Mission…………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
III Potential Opportunities for Engagement………………………………………………………….. 11
IV Recommendations and Next Steps…………………………………………………………………… 16

Annexes
1 Scoping Mission Summary of Program…………..…………………………………………………. 20
2 Highlights of Discussions with Agencies……………………………………………………………. 21
3 List of People Consulted.………………………………………………………………………………….. 27


SUMMARY

Tropical Storm Ketsana hit the Philippines on 26 September 2009 and flooded Metro Manila
and neighboring provinces. In response, the Australian Government provided a total of
AUD3.10 million for emergency assistance to communities and families in Metro Manila and
Southern Tagalog. AusAID and Geoscience Australia also undertook a scoping mission to
understand the context of the flooding and scope out the disaster risk reduction and
management requirements of Metro Manila.

Since the flooding affected Metro Manila and the provinces of Laguna and Rizal, the
National Disaster Coordinating Council ‐ Collective Strengthening of Community Awareness
for Natural Disaster agencies were in consensus that this conurbation, referred here as
Greater Manila Area, should be the coverage of future risk reduction initiatives.

The following disaster risk reduction and management needs and options were identified.

1. Collect inundation and damage data from Ketsana to improve understanding of flood
forecasting and risk.
2. Undertake hazard mapping for all relevant natural hazards (e.g. flood, storm surge,
severe wind, earthquake, tsunami, landslide, liquefaction and volcanic eruption).
3. Develop an urban flood modeling capability to capture the combined effects of riverine
and flash flooding in the urban environment.
4. Assess earthquake and flood risk to Greater Manila Area through a robust understanding
of the hazard and the potential impacts (damage, loss of life, social disruption and
economic cost).
5. Develop a national exposure information system which is an essential information
platform for extending natural hazard mapping to risk assessment.
6. Improve flood monitoring through better monitoring of rainfall and stream flow.
7. Improve early warning to better prepare people and communities to disasters and avoid
or minimize losses.
8. Integrate disaster risk management into the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan and
Comprehensive Land Use Plans of local government units.
9. Prepare contingency plans focusing on search and rescue, evacuation, and relief at the
community or barangay level.
10. Formulate disaster risk management plan for the metropolitan area to tackle disasters of
huge magnitude and better coordinate efforts of local governments.

Given these risk reduction and management needs and options, a comprehensive program
of hazard and risk assessment to improve the scientific and technical foundations of disaster
risk management is recommended.

1. Immediate to short‐term (3‐6 months)
a. Provide inputs to Post‐Disaster Needs Assessment.
b. Build data and analytical tool through lessons learned and high resolution
topographic information.
c. Design Metro Manila recovery and reconstruction program and prepare action plan
for Metro Manila urban planning.


2. Medium to long‐term (1‐4 years)
a. Undertake low resolution mapping of relevant natural hazards in Greater Manila
Area (1st to 12th month).
b. Gather and develop datasets and tools required for higher resolution natural hazard
impact analysis (12th to 18th month).
c. Undertake natural hazard impact analyses, including climate change scenarios, in
high priority areas (1st to 24th month).
d. Formulate the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan (25th to 30th month).
e. Mainstream disaster risk management and climate change adaptation into
development planning (31st to 42nd month).
f. Strengthen early warning system capacity of technical agencies on impact modeling
and forecasting (12th to 24th month).
g. Strengthen the capacity of communities to prepare for and manage disasters (12th to
30th month).


I. BACKGROUND

PHILIPPINES IN THE RING OF FIRE
The 7101 islands of the Philippines archipelago is situated in the Pacific ring of fire,
earthquake belt and typhoon path placing the country second in Asia1 most at risk to natural
hazards such volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and typhoons including associated risks. In
Southeast Asia, the Philippines accounts for 30 percent of disasters that occurred from
1990‐2009. At least 60 percent of the total land area of the Philippines is exposed to
multiple hazards, with 74 percent of its population vulnerable to disasters, ranking the
country eighth most vulnerable worldwide to natural disasters2. In economic terms, the
country ranks ninth with 80 percent of its GDP at risk to natural hazards. It is even more
disturbing in human terms ‐ mortality risk is high with the country’s 92 million population
vulnerable to natural hazards.  If the same typhoon were to hit Japan and the Philippines,
mortality is estimated to be 17 times higher in the Philippines.3   More alarmingly, this
disaster profile of the Philippines is also strongly influenced by the pressures of climate
change, population growth and urbanization making the country more vulnerable to both
current and future risks.

METROPOLITAN MANILA
Metropolitan Manila or Metro Manila corresponds
to the National Capital Region.  It has a land area
of 636 square kilometers or 0.21 percent of the
Philippines’ aggregate land area which is
connected by an isthmus that is bound on the east
by Laguna Lake and on the west by Manila Bay.
Metro Manila lies along the flat fluvial and deltaic
lands in the west; and the rugged lands of
Marikina Valley and the Sierra Madre mountains in
the east; by the Manila Bay in the west, the larger
and fertile plains of Central Luzon in the north, and
Laguna de Bay in the south. Metro Manila is a
member of the Central Luzon Basin composed
mainly of recent alluvial deposits. The slope of the
land descends generally to the west, southwest or
south direction. A network of natural waterways
and rivers of various sizes and importance
traverses the landscape to Laguna Lake to the
south and Manila Bay to the west.

Metro Manila is regarded as the Philippines
premier urban center, the seat of government
and power, and considered as the 18th largest


1
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 2009. Global Report on Disaster Risk Reduction.
2
World Bank. 2005. Natural Disaster Hot Spots: A Global Risk Analysis.
3
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 2009. 2009 Global Assessment Report on
Disaster Risk Reduction: Risk and poverty in a changing climate.


metropolitan area in the world. It has a population of 11.55 million (National Statistics
Office, 2007) making it highly dense at almost 18,100 people per square kilometer. The
mega city’s contiguous area is composed of 16 cities, one municipality and 1,695 barangays
each independently managed; is host to 90 percent of the country’s business and financial
activities; cultural, medical, educational and research institutions; as well international
organizations.

Local government units like cities and municipalities have the responsibility to provide basic
social services to their constituency and the authority to manage their natural resources and
generate additional revenues.   The administrative management of Metro Manila however is
undertaken by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA).   The services under the
jurisdiction of MMDA are those services which have metro-wide impact and transcend
legal political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for
said services to be provided by the individual local government units (LGUs) comprising
Metro Manila. These services include: (1) development planning: (2) transportation and
traffic management: (3) solid waste disposal and management: (4) flood control and
sewerage management: (5) urban renewal, zoning, land use planning and shelter
services; and (6) health sanitation, urban protection and pollution control and public
safety. Despite the mandate of MMDA, the development of LGUs in Metro Manila
however has been undertaken in isolation of the bigger Metro Manila wide perspective,
reflected by the desire of each local government to implement its own rules and
regulations, i.e., traffic management. Often, Metro Manila administration is also made
more complicated by political affiliations of local chief executives making it hard for MMDA
to implement inter‐local government initiatives and regulations.

A MEGA‐CITY AT RISK
Metro Manila is built on and around active faults, and thus
has a very high potential for damaging earthquakes.  In the
Asia Pacific region, Metro Manila is the megacity most at
risk to earthquakes with the active West Valley fault
system that cuts through the northeastern part of the
metropolis. 4    Studies indicate that magnitude 6
earthquakes occur every 37 years and magnitude 7
earthquakes every 200 to 400 years.  The high population
density coupled with this active fault system could have a
devastating impact on Metro Manila. A recent study of
earthquake risk to Metro Manila indicates that a
magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the West Valley fault could
result in 33,000 deaths and 38 percent damage to
residential structures 5.  Tsunamis triggered from offshore
earthquakes also pose a risk to Metro Manila.

The Philippines has the greatest number of people
exposed to very high volcanic hazards with volcanic
disasters affecting more than 100,000 people once every


4
Geoscience Australia. June 2008. AUSGEO News. Assessing natural disaster risk in the Asia Pacific region.
5
Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Study, MMDA, 2004?


few decades.6   Metro Manila in particular is located near two active volcanoes, namely
Mount Pinatubo to the north and Taal Volcano to the south, making it highly exposed to
volcanic hazards.

As a low‐lying area, Metro Manila is highly vulnerable to riverine flooding, storm surge and
severe wind, particularly given the frequency of cyclonic activity – an average of 20
typhoons hit the Philippines in a year, at least five of which are destructive.  Moreover, the
eastern portion of Metro Manila is traversed by Marikina River, a major river system that
stretches from Rizal Province to eastern Metro Manila, connects to Laguna Lake and passes
through heavily populated residential areas and important commercial and industrial
districts at its middle and downstream portions. Historically, approximately half of Metro
Manila is subject to flooding at a return period of 100 years or less7. The river regularly
overflows its banks, and floods the surrounding basin during periods of heavy rains as
experienced on 26 September 2009 when Tropical Storm Ketsana (Ondoy) poured down on
Metro Manila.

METRO MANILA IN THE EYE OF KETSANA
Tropical Storm Ketsana caught Metro Manila and its surrounding environment (the Greater
Manila Area, Laguna and Rizal in particular) by surprise and highlighted the vulnerability of
the mega‐city to disaster risks. Ketsana was not strong in terms of wind intensity but it
brought 420 millimeter (mm) of rainwater in a matter of 24 hours, submerging major parts
of the metropolitan area totaling to 21,710 hectares.  Total damage to properties amounted
to PhP3 billion and total deaths of 241. The devastation was greatly exacerbated by
uncontrolled and rapid urbanization – poor urban planning, insufficient spillways and
floodways, drainage clogged with solid wastes, infrastructure and settlement encroaching
on natural water ways and bodies, and informal settlers on riverbanks and hazard‐prone
areas.  Most significantly, Ketsana underscored the vulnerability of the metropolis to natural
hazards and weak contingency planning – a fatal combination, which beckons urgent
measures to strengthen disaster preparedness and early warning systems in Metro Manila.

AUSTRALIA WORKING ON DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT
The Australian Government, through the Australian Agency for International Development
(AusAID), has been working closely with the Government of the Philippines (GOP) on
disaster risk management (DRM) initiatives since 2006.  It has been supporting government
agencies to map 27 provinces vulnerable to natural hazards, establish community‐based
early warning systems, organize disaster response teams, and integrate disaster risk
reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) strategies into local development and
regulatory processes. Australia has also commenced work with government agencies on
enhancing the tropical cyclone early warning system, and assessing risks and impacts from
natural hazards. All these initiatives have been focused in rural areas, particularly in the
eastern seaboard provinces of the Philippines.


6
Geoscience Australia. June 2008. AUSGEO News. Assessing natural disaster risk in the Asia Pacific region.
7
Metro Manila Flood Susceptibility Map, Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2009.


II. THE SCOPING MISSION

OBJECTIVES
The aftermath of Tropical Storm Ketsana provides an opportunity for the Australian
Government to expand its DRM initiatives to an urban area like Metro Manila.  To look into
this, AusAID with Geoscience Australia (GA) conducted a scoping mission from 29 October
to 06 November (Annex 1 – Scoping Mission Summary of Program).

The scoping mission was three‐pronged. Primarily, it provided an opportunity for AusAID
and GA to understand the context of the recent flooding in Metro Manila and scope out the
DRM needs of Metro Manila.  It also provided a venue for the team to validate the priorities
identified under the Options Paper. And lastly, it allowed GA to follow‐up on activities under
the project Strengthening Natural Hazard Risk Assessment Capacity in the Philippines with
NDCC‐CSCAND agencies.

The mission also provided an opportunity for the Australian Government to provide inputs
to the Post‐Ketsana Disaster Needs Assessment8, particularly to the chapter on Disaster Risk
Management, and to the newly created Special Private‐Public Reconstruction Commission.9

THE TEAM
The scoping mission team is composed of the following:
• Dr John Schneider, Assistant Director‐General, Risk and Impact Analysis Group,
Geoscience Australia
• Mr Greg Scott, Assistant Director‐General, National Mapping and Information Group,
Geoscience Australia
• Ms Anne Orquiza, Senior Program Officer, Disaster Management, AusAID

APPROACH
The mission built on the DRM initiatives of AusAID in the Philippines implemented with the
National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC), particularly the Technical Working Group on
Collective Strengthening of Community Awareness on Natural Disasters (CSCAND) and other
government and international development partners, and the Options Paper on Natural
Hazard Risk Assessment prepared by GA, NDCC‐CSCAND agencies.

The mission involved individual discussions with the following agencies:

1. NDCC‐CSCAND agencies, namely:


8
Led by the World Bank (with United Nations and European Commission) and Government of the Philippines
after Tropical Storm Ketsana and before Typhoon Parma to help government undertake damage assessment
and recommend long‐term reconstruction needs; complements the United Nations Disaster Assessment
Committee which focused on rescue and relief.
9
Created by virtue of EO XXX to coordinate reconstruction projects to address impacts of Ketsana, and
generate and manage (national and international) funds for these.


a. Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB): Responsible for landslide and flood
susceptibility maps based on geologic and physiographic data, as well as historic
information.
b. National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA): Responsible for
base maps and compilation of hazard/risk map layers from other CSCAND agencies.
c. Office of Civil Defense (OCD): Responsible for coordinating disaster risk
management, including emergency and humanitarian response, at the national and
local levels.
d. Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
(PAGASA): Responsible for weather forecasting and flood hazard mapping.
e. Philippine Institute for Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS): Responsible for
earthquake and volcano hazard monitoring and mapping and leadership of the Rapid
Earthquake Detection and Simulation (REDAS) project which simulates damages to
earthquake scenarios.

2. City of Taguig: One of the 16 Metro Manila cities and one of the most heavily impacted
by Ketsana flooding, particularly along its border with Lake Laguna.

3. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) ‐ Major Flood Control Project Office:
Responsible for design implementation of major flood control measures.

4. Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA): Responsible for coordinating metro‐
wide development policies and activities in Metro Manila, including flood management.

5. National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA): Responsible for developing
economic and land use policies and coordinating national and regional development
planning and programming, and census information through the National Statistical
Office.

6. University of the Philippines (UP): Premier state university, the Department of Geodetic
Engineering hosts the Applied Geodesy and Applied Photogrammetric Training Center
which was funded by the Australian International Development Assistance Board
(AIDAB), the predecessor of AusAID:

7. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): Administrator of the Partner of
NDCC‐CSCAND agencies in the implementation of the Hazard Mapping and Assessment
for Effective Community and Disaster Risk Management (READY Project) being funded
by AusAID.

8. World Bank (WB): Led with GOP the conduct of Post Disaster Needs Assessment to help
the government undertake damage assessment and recommend long‐term
reconstruction needs

A meeting that brought together CSCAND agencies and NEDA was also organized to agree
on priorities and next steps.


Annex 2 provides the Highlights of Discussions with Agencies, and Annex 3 lists the people
met during the scoping mission.

III. POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENGAGEMENT

The scoping mission team found a wide array of DRM activities, particularly on natural
hazard impact analysis, which could be pursued in Metro Manila. The timing is also
opportune given that the impacts of Tropical Storm Ketsana have generated huge public
interest and placed DRM high in the political agenda – a long overdue attention given the
high exposure of the Philippines to natural hazards and high vulnerability of its population
to disasters.

The flooding brought about by Tropical Storm Ketsana was not limited to Metro Manila but
also affected neighboring provinces, particularly Laguna and Rizal.  As a result, the general
consensus of the NDCC‐CSCAND agencies is that this larger area is the more appropriate
conurbation for future risk reduction initiatives. Thus, this report will refer to the
conurbation of Metro Manila together with the neighboring Laguna and Rizal provinces as
the Greater Manila Area.

The following summarizes possible areas for intervention.

11. COLLECT INUNDATION AND DAMAGE DATA FROM KETSANA.  Knowledge of the extent, timing and
depth of flooding in Greater Manila Area, together with a spatial distribution of
associated damage is of critical importance to improving understanding of flood
forecasting and risk. Data collected by several government agencies and non‐
government organizations (NGOs) need to be consolidated and integrated to generate a
more accurate depiction of the impact of this event.  This information is vital in the short
term for input to reconstruction planning and improved early warning, as well as in the
longer term for improved risk assessment to inform disaster risk reduction and
management.

12. UNDERTAKE HAZARD MAPPING.   Natural hazard mapping in the Greater Manila Area should
be undertaken for all relevant natural hazards (eg. flood, storm surge, severe wind,
earthquake, tsunami, landslide, liquefaction and volcanic eruption) using the current
READY Project10 mapping process. This study will also build on other metro‐scale studies
undertaken in Metro Manila such as the Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction
Study (MMEIRS) and Drainage Study in Metro Manila. The low resolution mapping will
provide urgent information necessary for relief and recovery efforts (e.g. resettlement of
displaced peoples). This process will also identify high‐priority areas for more detailed
analysis, such as areas potentially and seriously affected by multiple hazards and areas
that may be susceptible to climate change impacts.


10
  Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective Community and Disaster Risk Management Project, funded
by AusAID and being implemented by UNDP and NDCC‐CSCAND agencies in 28 provinces along the eastern
seaboard.  Components include hazard mapping, community‐based early warning system, and information and
education campaign.


13. DEVELOP AN URBAN FLOOD MODELING CAPABILITY.  The magnitude and extent of flooding from
Ketsana was not foreseen by existing flood forecasting tools or previous flood hazard
mapping.  Flood mapping to date has been based on historical information on previous
floods and on limited riverine flood modeling.  There is a need to improve the modeling
capability to fully capture the combined effects of riverine and flash flooding in the
urban environment.  This capability will need to incorporate flow as defined by streets
and urban drainage, including various flood control measures such as dikes, spillways,
tunnels, pumping stations and tidal influences.  It will also need to capture issues with
lack of maintenance including drainage barriers from trash and other debris, informal
settlements, cemented storm drains, fish pens, and water lilies. This work will require
investment in a detailed digital elevation model (DEM) for Greater Manila Area, which
can be obtained from an aerial LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) survey or an
appropriate alternative technology. This will also require the customization of a flood
modeling tool to capture the specific attributes of the natural and man‐made water flow
process in the Greater Manila Area.  Once developed, the model would provide the basis
for testing different flood management options as well as support early warning
systems.

14. ASSESS EARTHQUAKE AND FLOOD RISK TO GREATER MANILA AREA.  Flood and earthquake are the
natural hazards that present the biggest risks to the Greater Manila Area. The
assessment of risk requires a robust understanding of the underlying natural
phenomena (i.e., the hazard), as well as the potential impact in terms of damage, loss of
life, social disruption and economic cost. The MMEIRS Project provided an excellent
assessment of earthquake risk to Metro Manila, which lies to the west of the West
Valley fault.  This study needs to be updated and expanded to investigate the risk to the
eastern side of the fault (in the Rizal and Laguna provinces) which is also heavily
populated and equally at risk. Similarly, a study of flood risk requires additional
information on the vulnerability of population, buildings and infrastructure, but can
utilize the same exposure information that is developed for earthquake. Therefore, a
combined study of earthquake and flood risks could be undertaken.

15. DEVELOP A NATIONAL EXPOSURE INFORMATION SYSTEM.  A national exposure information system
(NEXIS) would provide the essential information platform for extending natural hazard
mapping to risk assessment. The current REDAS program being developed and rolled
out by PHIVOLCS is an important contribution to this effort.  This effort however needs
to be significantly expanded to meet the broader needs for input to DRM as well as
economic development planning.  NEDA has the mandate to develop and manage this
data as part of its role in collecting and managing census data, through the National
Statistics Office, as well as in its role in coordinating socio‐economic and land use
planning at the national and regional levels.  It is currently in the process of developing
geo‐referenced databases through its 15 regional offices which can be the starting point
for a more comprehensive exposure data system.

Under the current engagement between GA and PHIVOLCS, the development of an
exposure information system will be pilot‐tested in Iloilo City with the intention of
eventually replicating this to other localities, and then eventually nationwide. An


exposure system could also be developed for the Greater Manila Area building on the
Iloilo pilot testing and lessons learned.

NAMRIA has also identified the need for a national spatial data infrastructure (SDI).  The
development of the SDI is a long‐term process which will need to be addressed at many
levels of government. NEDA is also interested in this capability, so there is a natural
affinity for this development in the combined interests of NAMRIA from a spatial
perspective and NEDA from a socio‐economic one.

16. IMPROVE FLOOD MONITORING.  Improved monitoring of rainfall and stream flow is essential
to improving flood forecasting and early warning. A major issue for flood forecasting
and flood modeling is generally the lack of rainfall monitoring and stream flow data
throughout the water catchment for the Greater Manila Area. PAGASA prepared a
framework for strengthening early warning system capacity in this area. Under this
framework, PAGASA is in the process of installing rain, water‐level and automated
weather stations, with funding from the Korean Government, which will provide much‐
needed input to model the flooding either in real time or for hazard mapping in the long
term.  A specific need has been identified for two additional Doppler radar instrument
for the Greater Manila Area which will greatly enhance the forecasting capability for this
area.  Under the framework, PAGASA identified AusAID and UNDP as potential sources
of support for these.

Three ground‐based Doppler radar instruments are also being installed in Aparri
(Cagayan), Virac (Catanduanes), and Guian (Samar) with funding from the Japanese
Government. These are expected to markedly improve the forecasting ability of
PAGASA in northern Luzon.

17. IMPROVE EARLY WARNING. It is a challenge to disseminate the right information to
communities exposed to disasters; multiple channels of communications are necessary
but difficult to coordinate. The existing community‐based early warning system should
be improved so that people and communities are better prepared to avoid or minimize
their losses. Such early warning systems should exist for well‐defined geographical
areas, covering all significant hazards that can affect the communities, follow both
scientific and indigenous approaches and form an integral part of community‐based
contingency planning exercises. Institutional arrangements could be strengthened
through radio, television, and print media at the national and regional level to improve
the flow of information and early warnings to the people likely to be affected.

18. INTEGRATE DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT INTO PHYSICAL AND LAND USE PLANS. Several factors that
converged to produce the shocking impacts of Ketsana were man‐made: impermeable
concrete surfaces covered the soil and prevented the absorption of rainwater;
indiscriminate garbage disposal clogged drainages; structures along waterways impeded
the flow of water unto rivers and eventually to the sea; and buildings and entire villages
were built along river beds and flood plains.  These impacts provide an opportunity to
re‐examine how Metro Manila and its fringes have been haphazardly developed, and
how effective land use and urban planning could significantly reduce the vulnerability of
the Greater Manila Area to natural hazards.


Land use planning provides a platform in mainstreaming DRM in the urban development
process, and a framework within which risk mapping, building resilient communities and
building back better may be undertaken. It can also address concerns brought about by
climate change‐induced hazards by redesigning the spatial structure and functioning of
urban areas.  As such, the preparation of comprehensive land use plans (CLUPs) of local
government units in Metro Manila should commence based on a physical framework
plan that builds on the potentials and limits of the natural and physical environment,
provides development options, describes the trajectory of metropolitan development,
and defines the policy environment.

NEDA recently coordinated the updating of Regional Physical Framework Plans through
the NEDA Regional Offices. The Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan however was
not included in the update (note that MMDA is not part of the NEDA organizational
structure).  The document was last prepared in 1999 and MMDA plans to update this by
June 2010 for presentation to the new President and MMDA administration. The
scoping mission team, however, advised MMDA that the formulation process would take
at least two years if the document is to build on sound scientific and technical datasets
and tools (i.e., hazard risk and vulnerability assessment) as bases for development
options and policy environment. Within the six months timeframe, an action plan for
the formulation of the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan could be prepared,
including data generation, for presentation to the next administration.

19. PREPARE CONTINGENCY PLANS.  In the Philippines, response to a disaster is organized largely
through local resources, with the national resources supplementing the local response.
A number of LGUs have prepared contingency plans to respond to disasters. However,
these plans have not been updated or tested for their operational value. There is a need
to adopt a much stronger policy on contingency planning, one which focuses on search
and rescue, evacuation, and relief to the people. It needs to be a broad‐based exercise,
which includes local government, NGOs, the business sector, and other humanitarian
organizations, and needs to be updated every year. These plans should also be
supported with basic emergency facilities, training, and regular testing through the team
of responders.

20. FORMULATE DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN.  While contingency planning at the local level is
important, it is also necessary to have an integrated and unified DRM action plan for
Metro Manila, a task that goes beyond the territorial boundaries of each LGU which
tackles disasters within their areas of jurisdictions with mixed results. Given the
magnitude of recent disasters brought about by Ketsana (and aggravated by typhoons
Parma and Mirinae), very few local governments with enough resources will be able to
address the problem adequately, even among more progressive and developed LGUs in
Metro Manila. There is therefore a need to coordinate the efforts of all local
governments, particularly within a metropolitan area.  To undertake this, MMDA should
be provided with sufficient authority to coordinate LGUs within the metropolis for
disaster risk management. This authority should enable the MMDA to direct resources
and actions without being over‐ridden by local governments’ autonomy.


As part of DRM and contingency planning, provincial and metropolitan/regional
databases for emergency response assets should be developed to immediately
determine the available resources and how these could be shared and deployed to
respond to an emergency. A national stockpile or repository for rescue equipment,
relief goods, medical and health supplies should also be established to immediately
supplement and re‐supply local supplies of these items in the event of a major natural
disaster. This stockpile would provide for the request, receipt, staging, storage,
repackaging, distribution, dispensing, retrieval and return of any unused assets of the
stockpile or any pandemic countermeasures.

10. PROPOSED DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECTS FOR METRO MANILA

a. Metro Manila reconstruction and rehabilitation program. During the scoping
mission, AusAID Manila developed a concept note on proposed reconstruction and
rehabilitation of Metro Manila. The concept note intends to expand current DRM
support of AusAID implemented in 27 eastern‐seaboard provinces to Metro Manila.
Components include socialized housing and livelihood support with Gawad Kalinga11;
classroom rehabilitation with Department of Education; community‐based disaster risk
management with the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) building on Project 14312;
and urban planning with Taguig City. The objective is to implement a comprehensive
recovery and reconstruction package of assistance based on a “building back better”
approach with a local government unit, and to showcase this as a model that other LGUs
and donors could replicate in other localities.  Hazard risk and vulnerability mapping will
also be undertaken with GA and NDCC‐CSCAND agencies for the whole of Metro Manila
including its surrounding provinces (i.e., Laguna and Rizal).

The leadership of Taguig City is very open to working with AusAID on the proposal,
particularly on in‐city relocation and resettlement of informal settlers, and integration of
DRM and CCA into a comprehensive land use plan. On the socialized housing
component, a major consideration that should be further looked into is the suitability of
proposed relocation and resettlement sites and the structural design of the socialized
housing units to be constructed. GA could provide AusAID with technical
evaluation/advice on the appropriateness of the relocation and resettlement sites and
structural design.  It might also be worth exploring other resettlement models such as
the low‐equity socialized housing being implemented by the Habitat for Humanity with
the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council.

b. Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management and Strengthening Early Warning System
Capacity in Metro Manila.  UNDP submitted to AusAID a concept note on strengthening
DRM capacity in Metro Manila.  The concept note has the following components: hazard
risk and vulnerability mapping, integration of DRM into development planning process,


11
a Philippine‐based poverty reduction and nation‐building movement launched by Couples for Christ, a
Catholic lay community, to care for worse‐off Filipinos and survivors of natural disasters.  Gawad Kalinga
implements integrated, holistic and sustainable community development programs in depressed areas
addressing shelter, livelihood, education and health issues.
12
Strengthening the Disaster Management Capacities of Communities Project, funded by AusAID and
implemented by PNRC in 16 LGUs.  Focus is on establishing and capacitating barangay disaster response teams.


community‐based early warning system, contingency planning, and strengthening of
disaster management agencies like OCD, PAGASA and PHIVOLCS.

The concept note is comprehensive in scope, builds on and brings together learning and
experiences from other AusAID‐supported DRM initiatives13. UNDP acknowledges the
technical expertise of Australian government agencies like GA and the Bureau of
Meteorology and their current engagement with CSCAND agencies.  Thus, the proposal
provides opportunity for GA to further engage and work with NDCC‐CSCAND agencies
and share Australian expertise.

Building on hazard risk and vulnerability mapping for Greater Manila Area, the proposal
could be a platform for the formulation of the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan,
and updating of the CLUPs for Metro Manila LGUs.  While targeting Metro Manila, the
concept note did not include MMDA as potential project partner but instead identified
NEDA and OCD as project partners and implementers.  This needs to be revisited given
the critical role that MMDA plays in metropolitan and urban planning, including DRM
and contingency planning. Per consultation with NEDA, MMDA should lead this
initiative with NEDA providing technical advice, sharing tools and sitting in the project
board.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

As articulated in the original Terms of Reference for this scoping mission, key datasets, tools
and information are required to understand the impacts of natural hazards.  These datasets,
tools and information include:

• High resolution topographic information;
• Information on the characteristics, frequency and potential extent of different
natural hazards, and how the weather‐related hazards are affected by climate
change;
• Exposure information includes location and attributes of community elements exposed
to natural hazards, i.e., data on people, residential structures, critical facilities and
infrastructure (i.e., schools, hospitals, roads and bridges), and attributes associated with
these elements (i.e., type of construction, number of residents, cost of construction); and
• Vulnerability information includes physical, social, environmental or economic elements.

An improved understanding of the characteristics and impacts of natural hazards, including
the effects of climate change, on Metro Manila will support a broad range of activities to
reduce and manage risks to vulnerable communities. These activities could include
emergency drills, evacuation and contingency planning, early warning system, construction
of resilient buildings, retrofitting of critical infrastructure, land use planning, and education
and awareness.


13
READY Project and Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation into
Development Planning and Regulatory Processes implemented by UNDP and NEDA.


Given the abovementioned risk reduction and management needs and options, a
comprehensive program of hazard and risk assessment to improve the scientific and
technical foundations of disaster risk management is recommended by the team. This
approach should take into account “low hanging fruit” (i.e., identifying barriers, solving the
flooding problem and undertaking LIDAR survey, among others) with a view to improving
the knowledge base for a reasonable timeframe of three (3) to four (4) years.

In the immediate and short term (3‐6 months), the following activities are recommended:

1. IMMEDIATE TO SHORT‐TERM (3‐6 MONTHS)

a. Provide inputs to Post‐Disaster Needs Assessment. At the time of the scoping, a Post‐
Disaster Needs Assessment for Ketsana was being undertaken by the World Bank
and GOP with the European Commission, the United Nations and the Asian
Development Bank. World Bank requested AusAID and GA to contribute to the
process. The findings and recommendations from this scoping mission could feed
into the PDNA chapter on DRM.

b. Build data and analytical tool
i. Develop lessons learned document for the Metro Manila flooding. This would
involve gathering and organizing existing data and lessons learned from the
Ketsana flooding.
ii. Identify options (i.e., aerial photography, RADAR or LIDAR survey) for the
generation of high resolution topographic information (including assessment of
Asiametrex proposal on LIDAR survey in Greater Manila Area (approximately
AUD 600,000 to cover 2,000 square kilometers).

c. Design the Metro Manila reconstruction and rehabilitation program and prepare an
action plan for Metro Manila urban planning
i. Design hazard risk and vulnerability assessment project for Greater Manila Area
with NDCC‐CSCAND agencies and GA.
ii. Design community‐based DRM project with Taguig City and PNRC.
iii. Provide inputs to socialized housing and urban planning components of the
Metro Manila reconstruction and recovery program, i.e., assess physical
(geological and hydrological) suitability of proposed relocation and resettlement
sites, and structural design of proposed socialized housing.
iv. Prepare an action plan for the formulation of the Metro Manila Physical
Framework Plan with MMDA, taking note of the need for the process to benefit
from hazard and vulnerability assessment and mapping.
v. Explore options on providing Metro Manila with Doppler radar instruments to
improve flood monitoring and forecasting of PAGASA and strengthen early
warning system in Metro Manila.
vi. Discuss with UNDP the implementation of the project proposal on
Mainstreaming DRM and Strengthening Early Warning System Capacity in Metro
Manila with the Metro Manila reconstruction and recovery program.


Most activities identified and designed would take at least one year to implement and some
would be building blocks that would provide inputs to succeeding activities. Thus, timing
and phasing of activities would be important considerations.

2. MEDIUM TO LONG‐TERM (1‐4 YEARS)

a. Undertake low resolution mapping of relevant natural hazards in Greater Manila
Area (1st to 12th month). This activity will build on other studies undertaken in Metro
Manila and provide urgent information for recovery and relief efforts (e.g.
resettlement of displaced peoples). Furthermore, this process will identify high‐
priority areas for more detailed analysis (i.e., potentially seriously affected by
multiple hazards, and susceptible to climate change impacts).

b. Gather and develop datasets and tools required for higher resolution natural hazard
impact analysis (12th to 18th month). Datasets fundamental to multiple natural
hazards include:
i. Historical data (i.e., peak flood levels, streamflow, rainfall)
i. High‐resolution DEM;
ii. Moderate‐high resolution bathymetric data;
iii. Climate change scenario data (i.e., sea level rise, rainfall and wind intensity);
iv. Land use information;
v. Exposure information; and
vi. Vulnerability information.

c. Undertake natural hazard impact analyses, including climate change scenarios, in
high priority areas (1st to 24th month). Impact analysis will provide information on
which communities are most vulnerable to specific natural hazards; how many
people would be left homeless, injured or killed by different probability events; and
how much economic losses and damage to properties the hazards would bring if
these would turn into disasters. The following analytical work could be undertaken
in order of priority, with the primary focus on flood and earthquake in the first 24
months of the study:
i. Flood hydrodynamic analysis;
ii. Earthquake impact analysis;
iii. Cyclone severe wind impact analysis;
iv. Tsunami impact analysis;
v. Volcanic ash impact analysis; and
vi. Landslide susceptibility.

d. Formulate the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan (25th to 30th month). This
indicative physical and land use plan with policy recommendations will cover all
cities and municipalities in Metro Manila, and will be prepared and led by MMDA in
close consultation with LGUs. It will utilize the hazard maps and impact analysis
undertaken for Metro Manila and guided by the guidelines on the formulation and
updating of Regional Physical Framework Plans prepared by NEDA.


e. Mainstream disaster risk management and climate change adaptation into
development planning in Metro Manila (31st to 42nd month).  This activity will guide
the revision and updating of CLUPs of cities and municipality in Metro Manila.  It will
take off from the Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan, utilize the hazard maps
prepared and impact analysis undertaken.  The preparation of CLUPs will be guided
by the planning guidelines prepared by NEDA through the project Mainstreaming
DRR and CCA into local development plans and decision‐making processes being
supported by AusAID. A DRM plan for the whole of Metro Manila could also be
prepared through this activity.

f. Strengthen early warning system capacity in Metro Manila (12th to 24th month).  This
activity will capacitate technical agencies such as PAGASA and PHIVOLCS on impact
modeling and forecasting, and the National and Local Disaster Coordinating Councils
and MMDA on contingency planning and response.  It will build on the hazard maps
and impact analysis, early warning equipment (i.e., Doppler radar instruments, rain
gauges, weather stations, etc) provided to Metro Manila.

g. Strengthen the capacity of communities to prepare for and manage disasters (12th to
30th month). This activity will establish barangay disaster response teams and
capacitate these teams to set up and monitor local early warning systems; produce
information, education and communication materials; develop community
evacuation plans; provide voluntary labor for physical protection measures; and
form skilled community‐based teams to support rescue and recovery operations.
This will build on the lessons from Project 143 and the contingency planning of city
and municipality disaster coordinating councils, and will utilize hazard maps and
vulnerability assessment.  Activities will be coordinated with and mainstreamed into
the local disaster coordinating councils and local government units to facilitate
ownership and sustainability of activities and project gains.


ANNEX 1
SCOPING MISSION SUMMARY OF PROGRAM

29 October, Thursday
Meeting in AusAID with Titon Mitra, Minister Counsellor
Courtesy call with Ambassador Rod Smith
Meeting with UNDP and World Bank

30 October, Friday
Launch of PAGASA’s Enhanced Tropical Cyclone Early Warning System
Meeting with Bureau of Meteorology

02 November, Monday
Telecon with GA
Meeting with ADB

03 November, Tuesday
Meeting with NEDA
Meeting with MGB
Meeting with PAGASA
Meeting with UP Department of Geodetic Engineering

04 November, Wednesday
Meeting with NAMRIA
Meeting with PHIVOLCS

05 November, Thursday
Meeting with Taguig City
Meeting with MMDA
Debriefing with AusAID
Meeting with DPWH

06 November, Friday
Meeting with CSCAND Agencies and NEDA
Meeting with UNDP


ANNEX 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSIONS WITH AGENCIES

1. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND WORLD BANK (29 October 2009, Thursday,
6:30‐8:30 pm, UNDP Office, Makati City; Mr. Sanny Jegillos, Mr. Krishna Vatsa and Dr.
Michael Ernst of UNDP; and Ms. Mukami Karauki, Dr. Hyoung Gun Wang and Ms. Kathy
Vidar of World Bank) Discussion. PDNA damage and loss assessment currently being
undertaken with needs assessment to commence the following week. Sectoral teams
were created to undertake PDNA.  DRR is captured in building back better, e.g., different
locations require different policies.  Draft PRNA report is due on 13 November, with final
report by 27 November for recommendation to the Reconstruction Commission. The
current constraint of the PDNA is the lack of map on actual area flooded due to Ketsana.
LANDSAT data was not used because of noise in the radar data.  Google Campaign can
fly and cover 1000 km (at estimated cost of US$200,000).  Due to the high cost of data
acquisition, there is a need to prioritize areas to be covered (i.e., WB and UN agencies
requested information for different areas). WB inquired if AusAID would be able to
support/fund data acquisition.  Agreements. (1) GA can provide advisory services to the
PDNA in the short‐term (i.e., next two weeks). (2) AusAID and GA could contribute in
the long‐term through natural hazard impact analysis, for further discussion. (2) Will
explore possibility for AusAID to support data acquisition.

2. AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY (30 October 2009, Friday, 2:30‐3:30 pm, AusAID
Office, Makati City; Mr. Andrew Donaldson, Mr. Todd Smith) Discussion. This was an
opportunity to share information about interests of BOM and GA in meteorological
hazards.  Discussed was the complementary nature of the forecasting work of BOM with
hazard and risk assessment work of GA. BOM identified rainfall associated with
monsoons as a big issue, bearing in mind that rainfall attributed to Ketsana was probably
exacerbated by a monsoon system. Agreements. GA and BOM to look into
opportunities to collaborate in work with PAGASA.  The main opportunity would be in
hazard modelling, particularly developing the historical catalogue of typhoon tracks, and
in developing better forecasting of rainfall together with improved inundation modelling
of the urban environment.

3. ASIA DEVELOPMENT BANK (Friday, 4:00 PM‐6:30 PM, Renaissance Hotel, Makati City; Mr.
Neil Britton, Regional Disaster Management Coordinator)  Discussion.  The focus of ADB
in the Philippines is on infrastructure development, while World Bank places more
emphasis on health and social issues. The ADB has contributed about US$1B to the
Government of the Philippines over the past 5 years, mainly for infrastructure programs.
ADB was very complimentary of the AusAID approach to capacity building, which is
aimed at reducing the dependency on aid in the long term. In terms of regional
initiatives, ADB thinks the Global Earthquake Model has potential, and noted that any
participation/funding from ADB would need to come from the regional offices, which
would be the South East Asia and South West Pacific. Agreements. Given mutual
interests in development activities, it would be useful to explore potential for
collaboration between AusAID and the ADB.


4. NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (03 November, Tuesday, 8:30‐10:00 am,
NEDA Office, Pasig City; Director Susan Jose, Ms. Medy Endencia and Ms. Thelma
Manuel) Discussion. NEDA has previous experiences on PDNA and involvement to
corresponding reconstruction bodies (i.e., 1990 Luzon earthquake and 1991 Mount
Pinatubo eruption) and should have initiated the assessment not the World Bank.  As an
end‐user for policy and planning, NEDA is very interested on having a National Exposure
System (NEXIS) in the Philippines and this is one reason why NEDA requested the study
tour to Australia. The establishment of NEXIS could be a combination of a pilot (i.e.,
Iloilo) for nationwide coverage later on. Within the context of the inter‐agency and
multi‐sectoral National Land Use Committee, NEDA sees itself as the coordinating body
for the establishment of a NEXIS.  It however needs to think about actually housing the
system.  The national database could be housed in NEDA Central Office and the regional
database at the NEDA Regional Officers.  The mechanism at the local government level is
the question. In terms of using the Reduced Earthquake Damage Assessment System
(REDAS) as a platform for other hazards, NEDA was advised that REDAS has limitations
and would not be able to perform the required algorithm and manipulation if other
hazard information and requirements are plugged in. Agreements. NEDA keen on
establishing a NEXIS and sees itself as the coordinating body. Needs however to think
about actual housing the system.

5. Mines and Geosciences (03 November 2009, Tuesday, 11:00 am ‐ 1:00 pm, MGB Office,
Quezon City; Director Horacio Ramos, Assistant Director Edwin Domingo, Dr. Bill David,
Engr. Antonio Apostol, Engr. Evelyn Rollon)  Discussion.  MGB has a key role in assessing
natural hazards in the Philippines.  In general, it provides geologic data to PAGASA and
PHIVOLCS who have the prime carriage for meteorological and geological hazard
assessment, respectively, at the national scale. However, MGB is also currently
developing landslide and flood susceptibility maps throughout the Philippines at
1:50,000 scale.  These maps are based on historic information of past floods as well as
physiographic and geologic mapping.  MGB expressed interest in developing a capability
to do dynamic modeling of these hazards.  In the case of flood modeling, however, there
appears to be overlap with PAGASA’s role in flood hazard assessment.  With regard to
landslides, the differentiation of roles between PHIVOLCS and MGB is clearer, with MGB
generally responsible for instability mapping and failures induced by rainfall, while
PHIVOLCS is responsible for mapping earthquake‐induced soil failures including
landslides and liquefaction.  Discussed was GA’s landslide interoperability project which
links disparate databases across Australia.  MGB is interested in this concept as there is
no uniform database being developed by the regional offices.  Agreements.  Given the
disparate nature of landslide and flood mapping at the regional level, the development
of interoperable databases would be useful in the long term.

6. PAGASA (03 November 2009, Tuesday, 2:00 – 4:00 pm, PAGASA Office, Quezon City;
Director Prisco Nilo, Dr. Cynthia Celebre, Ms. Susan Espinueva, Ms. Thelma Cinco, Ms.
Charmie Monteverde, Ms. Lourdes Sulapat)  Discussion.  Initial discussion focused on the
draft MOU prepared by GA for consideration of PAGASA as a basis for developing a
detailed work program.  Several issues were noted, particularly with regard to roles and
expectations from each party.  Inquiry on the operational budget was also made on the


sidelines.  Severe wind modeling is still a priority, particularly in regional areas.  PAGASA
has been focusing on severe weather forecasting and collecting some flood inundation
information from Ketsana.  PAGASA states without reservation that it has the mandate
for flood hazard mapping at the national level.  However, its capability to model floods,
particularly in an urban environment is limited.  PAGASA needs assistance to develop a
capability that would incorporate riverine and flash flooding in an urban setting. A
major issue for flood forecasting and flood modeling generally is the lack of rainfall
monitoring and stream flow data throughout the water catchment surrounding Manila.
Three ground‐based Doppler radar instruments are being installed in Aparri (Cagayan),
Virac (Catanduanes), and Guian (Samar) with funding from Japan, which will markedly
improve the forecasting ability.  However, additional Doppler radars are greatly needed
for Metro Manila. PAGASA is also in the process of installing rain, water‐level and
automated weather stations with funding from Korea, which will provide much‐needed
input to model the flooding either in real time or for hazard mapping in the long term.
PAGASA has also been working to capture climate change information into long‐term
weather forecasting.  This issue was not explored at any length in the meeting.  It was
understood, however, that PAGASA has been working with the Millennium Development
Goal Fund Project on Strengthening Institutional Capacity on Climate Change
Adaptation, a grant from Spain, to develop an understanding of some of the broad‐scale
climate implications for the Philippines in terms of rainfall and temperature in particular.
There is a longer‐term need to better understand the implications for the distribution
and frequency of severe storms, including wind, rainfall and storm surge.  Agreements.
General agreement on the nature of the collaboration was reached, but some
outstanding details, particularly on operational budget, need to be discussed with GA
(Alanna Simpson). The lack of a comprehensive flood‐modeling and forecasting
capability is the outstanding gap which needs to be addressed in any potential
expansion of the program.

7. NAMRIA (04 November 2009, Wednesday, 9:00 am – 12:00 nn, NAMRIA Office, Taguig
City; Deputy Administrator Linda Papa and Director Jose Galo Isada) Discussion. The
present collaboration with GA is exploring the underlying data acquisition, processing
and validation processes of NAMRIA’s mapping operations, which need to be updated as
a matter of priority. NAMRIA is keen to develop a national spatial data infrastructure
(SDI) but will need to update its internal operational systems before it will be able to
move in this direction.  In any case, an SDI will require investment over the long term
and a commitment across government to make it happen.  Meanwhile, the recognized
need for exposure data to support disaster risk management is a good vehicle to get
things going.  NAMRIA is the only agency to have actually prepared a flood inundation
map from Ketsana.  They made it clear that this was not done as part of their mandate
as a mapping agency, rather as an offer of assistance in a crisis.  Some 700 data points
were collected, which focused on areas of heaviest flooding along the Marikina River.
This valuable dataset has been contributed to NDCC and the PDNA, but it needs to be
consolidated and integrated with the data collected by other agencies.  NAMRIA also has
before and after ALOS satellite imagery from Ketsana, which provides a reasonable
overview of the extent of flooding, but no detail.  The existing base map of Metro Manila
is outdated.  The current map was developed from aerial photography at 1:5,000 scale,
which provides 1‐2 meter accuracy. However, this is insufficient for detailed flood


modeling.  There is a priority need to conduct a LIDAR survey over Metro Manila plus as
well as the Greater Manila area to capture both ground‐level and building footprint
information.  Climate change is an emerging issue.  One of the issues regarding assessing
coastal impact is the lack of a detailed map of the Philippine coastline. This is
problematic given the 7100 islands that make up the archipelago.  Sources of funding to
redress this include: a loan of $100M loan to the GOP for an Integrated National
Resources and Environment Program; and a $5M grant from the World Bank’s Global
Disaster Relief Fund. These projects also complement the funding from Spain for the
Millennium Goal Development Framework, which is supporting down‐scaling of global
climate models (through PAGASA). Agreements. GA will continue to provide support
from the National Mapping and Information Group to assist NAMRIA with updating its
map production processes. The development of a detailed LIDAR‐based DEM for
Greater Manila is a priority, as is the development of a national digital elevation model
to replace existing paper‐based maps.

8. PHIVOLCS (04 November 2009, Wednesday, 2:30 – 6:30 pm, PHIVOLCS Office, Quezon
City; Director Rene Solidum, Mr. Ishmael Narag, Ms. Mylene Villegas) Discussion.
Reviewed the current GA‐PHIVOLCS work program, which is focusing on vulnerability
modeling and a case study risk assessment for Iloilo. Iloilo has a well‐developed
database of residential structures which will provide a good basis for extracting building
types. A framework for this will be developed further at the GA‐PHIVOLCS workshop on
13‐14 November.  This workshop will focus on earthquakes, and will include engineers
from the University of Philippines and the private sector.  Vulnerability to volcano and
wind hazard will be incorporated in the next stage. Reviewed the status of READY,
which incorporates community‐preparedness and training using the REDAS program.
This is being rolled out over 27 provinces, 11 of which have been completed. The
program covers earthquake (rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, tsunami), flood,
landslide and volcanic hazards at 1:50,000 scale.  The program provides hazard scenarios
and local governments generate exposure information as an overlay. The workshops
target disaster and land managers for local government capacity building.  It was noted
that PHIVOLCS is waiting for national household survey data from the NSO to provide
additional information for REDAS at the barangay level. For the current program,
PHIVOLCS is happy to continue to incorporate exposure information into REDAS, but in
the longer term it is recognized that this is not its role. Meanwhile, REDAS is an
excellent tool for community‐level education and data input, but it does not presently
capture vulnerability information and therefore is limited in its ability to model risk.  The
MMEIRS study was a detailed earthquake scenario risk study of Metro Manila. The
study, covering 14 cities and 3 municipalities in an area of 636 square km, was funded by
JICA and was completed in 2004.  The study developed earthquake scenarios, the most
salient of which was a 7.2 magnitude event on the West Valley Fault in eastern Metro
Manila. This event was assessed to have a return period of 200‐400 years, with an
estimated 33,000 deaths and 38 percent damage to residential structures.  The MMEIRS
study represents a reasonably comprehensive study of earthquake risk of Metro Manila.
The main limitations are in the focus on residential structures only and on a scenario‐
based approach rather than a fully probabilistic one.  The biggest limitation, however, is
that the study did not address the risk to the eastern side of the fault, which comprises
Greater Manila outside Metro Manila proper.  Since this area is heavily populated and is


part of the water catchment for the Marikina River, it would be appropriate to extend
the earthquake risk study at the same time as a broader flood risk study of Greater
Manila. Also discussed were the Global Earthquake Model development and the
potential benefits to the Philippines. PHIVOLCS acknowledged that the international
collaboration and development of models and tools could be useful.  On the other hand,
the REDAS approach to community preparedness and bottom‐up approach to assessing
vulnerability should be considered by GEM as an exemplar in the developing world.
PHIVOLCS has not had a specific role in the study of Ketsana.  However, they did access
remotely sensed satellite data for post‐disaster impact assessment through their
participation in Sentinel Asia. PHIVOLCS requested post‐event flood data for Ketsana
which was provided to NAMRIA and PAGASA.  PHIVOLCS also noted that Glen Tabios of
the National Hydraulics Training Center at the University of Philippines had done some
flood modeling of Ketsana.  Agreements.  The current work program on risk assessment
and the case study for Iloilo is on track.  The MMEIRS study should be expanded to the
Greater Manila Area as a matter of priority.

9. TAGUIG CITY (05 November 2009, Thursday, 8:30 – 11:00 am, Taguig City Hall, Taguig
City; Administrator Wilfredo Villar, Architect Joey Mastrili, Mr. George Sumabat)
Discussion.  Taguig City had big plans to develop the lakeshore into a major tourism area
like Darling Harbor in Sydney. The recent flooding however provided a reality check.
The road dike traversing Bicutan to Tatay was built based on a 100‐year flood level.
Although it saved Taguig City from major flooding, its integrity is still in question given
the possible increased likelihood of another flood of this magnitude.  It was not only the
informal settlers who were vulnerable to the flooding. An executive village was also
submerged since it is situated on a natural wetland outside the dike.  Suggested was the
possibility of using the pipe constructed by the National Irrigation Administration from
Laguna Lake to irrigate farmlands in Bacoor Cavite.  This is not being utilized now given
the subdivision boom in Cavite. There are 30,000 informal settlers‐families in Taguig
City. Thus, the city has partnered with NGOs on resettlement, using the following
models, namely: (a) Gawad Kalinga – sweat equity using conventional method,
PhP120000 for 17 square meters under a usufruct agreement; (b) Habitat for Humanity
– with equity using smart masonry blocks, PhP250000 for 26 square meters at PhP900
per month for 25 years, target to build 70 buildings, with 8 buildings completed to date;
(c) New Zealand – prefabricated steel.  The city is due to update its CLUP with the vision
of surpassing Makati in 10 years.  The city has an established an early warning system
and designated evacuation centers.  The team conducted an ocular survey of the road
dike and potential relocation site for AusAID.  The area seems to be still part of a natural
floodplain.  While the road dike protected the area from flooding, there might be a need
to re‐think the safety of the relocation site.  The team also visited a sample relocation
site of Habitat for Humanity community in FTI Taguig City.

10. MMDA (05 November 2009, Thursday, 11:30 – 1:00 pm, MMDA Office, Makati City;
Assistant General Manager Corazon Bautista‐Cruz, Director Josefina Faulan, Mr. Michael
Gison, Mr. Reynaldo Lunas) Discussion. MMDA presented their internally developed
damage and needs assessment for Metro Manila as a result of Ketsana. Damage to
flood control amounted to PhP32.62M. Total number of informal settlers in Metro
Manila is about 544,609 households/families.  The current government policy is in‐city


resettlement. MMDA mentioned that AusAID is the first donor agency that talked to
them about disaster risk management for Metro Manila, and articulated their keen
interest to work with the agency.  MMDA requested assistance in the preparation of the
Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan. They initially intend to have the document
ready for the new President after May 2010. This however is not possible since the
document needs to be informed by impact modeling and risk assessment.  Agreements.
Recommend to AusAID the provision of assistance to MMDA on the formulation of
Metro Manila Physical Framework Plan. Instead of handing over the plan to the next
President, an action agenda will be drawn up informing the President of the immediate
actions and next steps.

11. DPWH (05 November 2009, Thursday, 5:30 – 6:30 pm, DPWH Office, Manila; Engr. Sofia
Santiago, Engr. Leonila Mercado, Engr. Leonardo Sanchez) Discussion. Provided
historical perspective on eFCOS and plans of DPWH to improve flood control operations
and monitoring. Clarified that the operation and management of the Efficient Flood
Control Operation System (eFCOS) turned over to MMDA in 2002 from DPWH. The
design and construction of this was managed by DPWH including initial operation.

12. CSCAND AGENCIES AND NEDA (06 November 2009, Friday, 9:10 am – 12:00 nn, PAGASA
Office, Quezon City; Deputy Administrator Linda Papa, Director Prisco Nilo, Director Rene
Solidum, Assistant Director Edwin Domingo, Engr. Tony Apostol, Ms. Charmie
Moneverde, Ms. Penny Abat, Ms. Kristine Villarino)  Discussions.  The meeting provided
a venue for CSCAND agencies to identify their priorities and confirm DRM priorities for
Metro Manila.  The following are the key points:

b. Identify the entire watershed or river basin as the target coverage of a proposed
project on hazard mapping and vulnerability assessment for Metro Manila.  Expand
the coverage of previous studies undertaken for Metro Manila, i.e., MMEIRS, to
cover neighboring provinces, particularly Laguna and Rizal.
b. Conduct an inventory of existing information for Greater Manila Area, acquire new
datasets and update elevation models.
c. Build exposure information on floods and earthquakes.
d. Include the impact of climate change on hazard and vulnerability assessment project.
e. Support strengthening of early warning system for Metro Manila, i.e., provision of
Doppler radar instrument and capacity building.
f. Identify appropriate relocation sites for socialized housing projects.
g. Metro Manila as a case study to improve flood data and monitoring methodology
and this can be expanded to other areas.
h. Develop a national disaster data infrastructure housed in OCD based initially on
READY Project/REDAS.
i. At the national level, improve the national mapping program, and, in particular,
develop a national spatial data infrastructure.
j. Convene stakeholders and bring together lessons learned from the flooding.
k. Identify MMDA to lead a Metro Manila wide project given their mandate.  NEDA will
share tools and guidelines and will support MMDA as part of the oversight body.


ANNEX 3
LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED

Asian Development Bank
1 Mr Neil Britton, Regional Disaster Management Coordinator
Australian Agency for International Development
2 Mr Titon Mitra, Minister Counsellor
3 Mr Peter Jensen, Counsellor
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
4 Mr Andrew Donaldson, Manager
5 Mr Todd Smith, Manager
City of Taguig
6 Mr Wilfredo Villar, Administrator
7 Architect Joey Mastrili, OIC City Planning and Development Office
8 Mr George Sumabat, Socialized Housing Specialist
Department of Public Works and Highways
9 Engr Sofia Santiago, Program Manager of Major Flood Control Project
10 Engr Leonila Mercado, Supervising Engineer
11 Engr Leonardo Sanchez, Engineer II
Metro Manila Development Authority
12 Dr Corazon Bautista‐Cruz, Assistant General Manager
13 Ms Josefina Faulan, Director for Policy and Planning Services
14 Mr Michael Gison, Chief of Planning Division
15 Mr Reynaldo Lunas
Mines and Geosciences Bureau
16 Mr Horacio Ramos, Director
17 Mr Edwin Domingo, Assistant Director
1 Dr Bill David, Chief of Planning Division
19 Engr Antonio Apostol, OIC Land Survey Division
20 Engr Evelyn Rollon, Supervising Engineer
National Economic Development Authority ‐ Regional Development Coordination Staff
21 Engr Susan Jose, Director
22 Ms Medy Endencia, Assistant Director
23 Ms Thelma Manuel, Chief of Land Use and Physical Planning Coordination Division
National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
24 Ms Linda Papa, Deputy Administrator
25 Mr Jose Galo Isada, Director of Mapping
Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
26 Dr Prisco Nilo, Administrator
27 Dr Cynthia Celebre
28 Ms Susan Espinueva
29 Ms Thelma Cinco
30 Ms Charmie Monteverde
31 Ms Lourdes Sulapat


Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
32 Dr Rene Solidum, Director
33 Mr Ishmael Narag, OIC of Volcanology and Seismology Monitoring Division
34 Ms Mylene Villegas, OIC of Information and Education Division
United Nations Development Programme
35 Mr Sanny Jegillos, Regional Programme Coordinator (Bangkok)
36 Mr Krishna Vatsa, Early Recovery Specialist
37 Dr Michael Ernst, Consultant for Early Recovery
University of the Philippnes – Department of Geodetic Engineering
38 Dr Enrico Pariquit, Department Chairman
World Bank
39 Ms Mukami Karauki, Senior Operations Officer
40 Dr Hyoung Gun Wang, Geographic Information System Specialist
41 Ms Cathy Vidar


Disaster Risk Management Needs of Metro Manila: A Scoping Report

Disaster Risk Management Needs of Metro Manila: A Scoping Report

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (9)

Similaire à Disaster Risk Management Needs of Metro Manila: A Scoping Report

Similaire à Disaster Risk Management Needs of Metro Manila: A Scoping Report (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Disaster Risk Management Needs of Metro Manila: A Scoping Report