While natural disasters affect a large number of individuals, People with Disabilites (PWDs) tend to be more affected than others during such situations and often face bigger challenges in order to cope with the situation and survive. Due to their specific situations, they risk being excluded and invisible during response activities, and they often face additional barriers in accessing support and relief efforts. In an emergency context, their original vulnerability is greatly compounded, bringing about the risk of their vulnerability increasing.

1. A STUDY ON THE
DISABILITY INCLUSION PROCESS
IN THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO
TROPICAL STORM WASHI

2. A Study on the Disability Inclusion Process in the Emergency Response to Tropical Storm WASHI
Published by Handicap International – Philippines program under its project ‘Emergency response to
improve the living condition of WASHI affected vulnerable families in Cagayan De Oro and Iligan City’,
funded by Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).
Study conducted by Camilla Reyes Pante, assisted by MItzie Santiago
Written by Camilla Reyes Pante, with contributions from Satish Mishra and Catherine Vasseur
© Handicap International – Philippines program, 2012
Photo Credits Handicap International – Philippines program
This publication is the property of Handicap International. It has been produced with the financial
assistance of the AusAID. The views expressed herein should not be taken, in any way, to reflect the
official opinion of the AusAID.
For more information and
www.handicapinternational.ph
to
download
a
copy
of
this
publication
please
visit

3. About Handicap International
Handicap International is an independent international aid organization working in situation of
poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. Working alongside persons with disabilities and
other vulnerable groups throughout the world, our action and testimony are focused on
responding to their essential needs, improving their living conditions and promoting respect for
their dignity and their fundamentals rights. With a network of eight national association (USA,
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland and UK), Handicap
International, founded in 1982 and co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in 1997, has program in 60
countries and acts in both emergency and development situations.
Handicap International in the Philippines has been operational since 1985 and is one of the key
organizations in the disability sector in the country. It has wide range of complimentary projects
which assists to promote inclusion of persons with disabilities and their issues in
development policies and actions, build capacities of key local stakeholders and reduce the
impact of natural disasters and conflicts. Handicap International in the Philippines is committed
to enhances persons with disabilities access to services, promote their active participation and
social inclusion, developing partnerships at all levels, in the frame of the national and
international policies on disability.
AusAID is the Australian Government agency responsible for managing Australia’s overseas aid
program. The fundamental purpose of the Australian aid program is to help people overcome
poverty. In the Philippines, Australia’s aid program focuses on: basic education, local service
delivery, disaster risk reduction and climate change, peace and development in Mindanao, and
governance.
About the Project
Handicap International WASHI Project: “Emergency response to improve the living condition of
WASHI affected vulnerable families in Cagayan De Oro and Iligan City” was implemented from
February 2012 to September 2012. Working with partners and community the project aims to
ensure that vulnerable groups have access to relief services and are better equipped to cope
with the crisis with a specific focus on persons with disabilities, persons with severe or chronic
medical condition, children, expectant mothers, mothers with young children, and female
heads of household and older persons.

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Handicap International would like to thank the following for their valuable participation and
contributions to the study
Action Contre la Faim
Australian Agency International Develpment
The Camp Coordination and Camp Management Cluster, Health Cluster, Protection
Cluster, and WASH Cluster in Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City
Catholic Relief Services
Community and Family Services International
Department of Social Welfare and Development - Region X
Department of Health - Region X
Cagayan de Oro City Social Welfare and Development Office
Cagayan de Oro City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
Camp Managers in Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City
Iligan City - District 7 Social Welfare and Development Office
Iligan City Administrator
Iligan City Health Office
International Organization for Migration
Philippine National Red Cross
Save the Children
UN High Commissioner for Refugees
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
World Food Programme
World Health Organization
Xavier University - Lumbia Ecoville

5. TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. 8
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 9
2. OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................... 10
3. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................................... 10
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 11
4.1.
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................... 11
4.2.
SURVEYS ........................................................................................................................... 11
4.2.1.
Survey of Camp Managers .............................................................................................. 11
4.2.2.
Survey of Washi-affected population ............................................................................. 12
4.3.
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION WITH HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL........................................... 12
5. POLICY REVIEW ................................................................................................... 13
5.1.
KEY NATIONAL POLICIES .................................................................................................... 13
5.1.1.
Republic Act 7277: Magna Carta for Disabled Persons ................................................... 13
5.1.2.
Republic Act 10121: The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of
2010................................................................................................................................. 14
5.1.3.
Other disability laws ........................................................................................................ 15
5.2.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND FRAMEWORKS ......................................................... 15
5.2.1.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) ......... 15
5.2.2.
Biwako Millenium Framework ........................................................................................ 16
5.2.3.
Other international conventions ..................................................................................... 17
5.3.
HUMANITARIAN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ................................................................. 17
5.3.1.
The Sphere Handbook ..................................................................................................... 17
5.3.2.
Other humanitarian standards and guidelines ............................................................... 18
6. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 19
6.1.
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................... 19
6.1.1.
Disability in general ......................................................................................................... 19
6.1.2.
Relevant laws, conventions, and guidelines ................................................................... 19
6.1.3.
Disability in the delivery of emergency relief and services ............................................. 20
6.1.4.
Disability in monitoring and reporting ............................................................................ 21

6. 6.1.5.
6.1.6.
6.1.7.
6.1.8.
Existing attitudes and assumptions regarding disability and emergency response ....... 21
Opportunities for disability inclusion in emergency response ....................................... 22
Challenges and difficulties to disability inclusion in emergency response ..................... 23
Recommendations for disability inclusion in emergency response................................ 25
6.2.
SURVEY OF CAMP MANAGERS ........................................................................................... 26
6.2.1.
General Information........................................................................................................ 26
6.2.2.
Knowledge and attitudes of respondents towards disability ......................................... 27
6.2.3.
Perceptions on inclusive and targeted emergency relief for PWD ................................. 32
6.2.4.
Respondents’ confidence and perceived challenges in including PWD in camp
activities .......................................................................................................................... 38
6.3.
FOCUS GROUP DISCCUSION WITH HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE
TEAM ............................................................................................................................... 40
6.3.1.
Beneficiary Identification ................................................................................................ 40
6.3.2.
General emergency relief activities ................................................................................ 40
6.3.3.
Physical accessibility........................................................................................................ 42
6.3.4.
Support to specific needs ................................................................................................ 43
6.3.5.
Observations regarding coordination and other emergency response actors ............... 43
6.4.
SURVEY OF AFECTED HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................................... 43
6.4.1.
General Information........................................................................................................ 44
6.4.2.
Effects of Tropical Storm Washi on affected households ............................................... 45
6.4.3.
Search, rescue, and evacuation....................................................................................... 46
6.4.4.
Immediate needs of affected households and assistance received ............................... 46
6.4.5.
Access to emergency relief and support ......................................................................... 50
6.4.6.
Physical accessibility of camp structures ........................................................................ 51
6.4.7.
Disability and access to emergency relief and support................................................... 52
7. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 53
7.1.
CONSIDERATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF PWD NEEDS BY THE RESPONSE ......................... 53
7.2.
MECHANISMS FOR THE INCLUSION OF PWD IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE ............................. 55
7.2.1.
Beneficiary identification ................................................................................................ 55
7.2.2.
Communication and information dissemination ............................................................ 56
7.2.3.
Special arrangements for PWD during distributions and relief activities ....................... 56
7.2.4.
Identification and consideration of the specific needs of PWD ...................................... 57
7.2.5.
Coordination.................................................................................................................... 57
7.3.
PREVAILING ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF DISABILITY IN DISASTER RESPONSE ............ 57
7.3.1.
Inclusion is automatic through a blanket approach and through PWD caregivers ........ 58
7.3.2.
Disability inclusion requires special and technical skills ................................................. 58
7.3.3.
Disability inclusion will divert resources from the affected population ......................... 59

7. 7.3.4.
PWD cannot participate in camp and community activities ........................................... 59
8. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 60
9. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 61
9.1.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 61
9.1.1.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Improve awareness and understanding of disability ................ 61
9.1.2.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Increase capacities for disability inclusive emergency
response .......................................................................................................................... 62
9.1.3.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Improve data collection on disability ........................................ 62
9.1.4.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Involve PWD .............................................................................. 63
9.1.5.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Create referral systems for the specific needs of PWD ........... 63
9.1.6.
RECOMMENDATION 6: Regulate and monitor disability inclusion ................................ 63
9.1.7.
RECOMMENDATION 7: Increase advocacy at all levels .................................................. 64
9.2.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ....................................................................... 64
ANNEX 1: List of Key Informants ............................................................................... 66
ANNEX 2: Guide Questions to Key Informant Interviews ........................................... 67
ANNEX 3: Survey Questionnaire for Camp Managers ................................................ 68
ANNEX 4: Survey Questionnaire for Washi-Affected Households............................... 71
ANNEX 5: Guide Questions to Focus Group Discussion with Handicap International
Field Teams ............................................................................................... 74

8. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CCCM
Camp coordination and camp management
CDO
Cagayan de Oro City
CSO
Civil society organization
CSWDO
City Social Welfare and Development Office
DPO
Disabled people's organization
DSWD
Department of Social Welfare and Development
FGD
Focus group discussion
IASC
Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IOM
International Organization for Migration
NGO
Non-governmental organization
PWD
Persons with disabilities
SRE
Search, rescue, and evacuation
UN
United Nations
UNCRPD
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
UNHCR
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
IDP
Internally displaced person
LGU
Local government unit
NFI
Non-food items
WASH
Water, sanitation, and hygiene
8|P a g e

9. 1.
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization estimates that 15% of any given population lives with some type of
impairment1. For the Philippines, it would translate into over 12 million persons with disabilities (PWD)
however there is no available comprehensive and accurate data at national, regional nor provincial
levels. In the Philippines, disability is more common among women, elderly and poor households and
majority of PWD live in rural areas where social exclusion and isolation are part of their daily lives and
experience.
Tropical Storm Washi swept across the Mindanao region of Philippines from 16 to 18 December 2011,
bringing strong winds and heavy rains that caused massive flooding, flash floods, and landslides. As the
storm left Mindanao in the early hours of 17 December, rain-swollen rivers surged down the steep
volcanic hills and mountains surrounding the cities of Cagayan de Oro (CDO) and Iligan flooding the
Cagayan, Agus and Mandulog rivers. In some places, the mud-clogged rivers rose by over 3 meters in
less than an hour, causing devastation more common with tsunamis, with entire neighborhoods and
villages swept away. The flash floods struck in the early hours of the morning, giving residents little
warning and killing many people as they slept. According to the Philippine National Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), the tropical storm and its accompanying floods killed
over 1,200 people, with almost 200 reported missing and 6,000 injured. Tropical Storm Washi was
estimated to have affected 1,114,229 individuals (120,800 households).2
While natural disasters affect a large number of individuals, PWD tend to be more affected than others
during such situations and often face bigger challenges in order to cope with the situation and survive.
Due to their specific situations, they risk being excluded and invisible during response activities, and
they often face additional barriers in accessing support and relief efforts. In an emergency context, their
original vulnerability is greatly compounded, bringing about the risk of their vulnerability increasing.
Factors that may make PWD more vulnerable in emergencies include the following3:


PWD are particularly affected by changes in terrain resulting from disaster

Because of limited physical accessibility, the loss or lack of mobility aids, or the lack of appropriate
assistance, PWD may be deprived of rescue and evacuation services, relief access, safe location and
adequate shelter, water and sanitation, and other services.

2
PWD may not be aware of what is happening, and therefore not comprehend the situation and its
consequences

1
PWD tend to be missed by emergency registration systems
Emotional distress and trauma caused by a disaster may have long-term consequences on PWD
Word Disability Report (2011)
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, SitRep No. 46 re Effects of Tropical Storm
“SENDONG” (Washi) and Status of Emergency Response Operations (January 2012), p. 1
<http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/358/NDRRMC%20Update%20Sitrep%20No.46%20re%20Effects
%20of%20TS%20SENDONG%20as%20of%2025%20Jan%202012,%208AM.pdf> [accessed 13 June 2012]
3
Handicap International, Including Disability Issues in Disaster Management (Bangladesh: Handicap International,
2005), p. 7
9|P a g e

10. 
PWD may misinterpret the situation, and communication difficulties make PWDs more vulnerable in
disaster situations

PWD may be separated from their families or caregivers who serve as their support system. These
individuals may also be affected by the disaster, with their capacity to support the PWD diminished.
PWD also have specific needs that are not always taken into account by response activities. Although
they have the very same basic needs as everyone else, meeting these specific needs may be critical to
prevent their condition from deteriorating and allow them equal access to basic emergency relief.
Examples of specific needs can include the need for assistive devices or technical aids, additional
nutrition requirements, medical care specific to certain conditions, adapted physical environments, and
the like.
This study seeks to provide a broad picture of what the disability inclusion process was like in the Washi
response, examining how the immediate response took into account the specific situation and needs of
PWD as well as the current attitudes and perceptions surrounding disability inclusion in emergencies.
The results gleaned from the study and their analysis will be utilized to formulate recommendations
towards the improved inclusion of disability in subsequent disaster response.
2.
OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The objective of this study is to provide an analysis of the immediate response to Tropical Storm
Washi, and provide recommendations for the inclusion of PWD in the disaster response of disaster
management stakeholders in the Philippines.
This will be done through answering the following research questions:
a.
Were the needs of PWD considered in identifying and providing immediate emergency assistance?
b.
What formal mechanisms are in place for the inclusion of PWD in disaster management, in particular in
the immediate emergency response phase?
c.
What are the prevailing attitudes and perceptions of disaster management stakeholders towards
mainstreaming disability in disaster response?
3.
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
Disability inclusion in emergency response is a broad subject, while the time and resources allotted for
the study are limited. Given this, the following scope and limitations were established to delimit the
study boundaries:
a.
The study shall cover the emergency response stage of the Washi response, from the onset of the disaster
to three months after.
b.
The study will focus geographically on Washi-affected areas of Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental and
Iligan City, Lanao del Norte, including evacuation centers, transitional sites, relocation sites, and affected
communities.
10 | P a g e

11. c.
4.
While the researchers recognize that other factors aside from disability may impact on the inclusion of
individuals in emergency response, an in depth analysis is not within the scope of the study. These factors,
such as gender, age, ethnicity, religion, etc., will however be acknowledged where relevant.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study utilized mixed methodology for data collection, including both quantitative and qualitative
methods covering a wide range of stakeholders. This section shall discuss each of the methods used and
their respective samples.
4.1.
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
In-depth key informant interviews were conducted with representatives of NGOs, UN agencies,
coordinating bodies, government offices and agencies, and local civil society organizations with Washiresponse activities. These organizations, offices, and agencies were not selected at random but were
selected through information collected from the contact lists of various coordinating bodies and from
feedback provided by the Handicap International Washi-response team. They were all present from the
onset of the disaster and, at the time of data collection, continued to be present in the Washi-affected
areas within the scope of the study. The target participants for the interviews were coordinators,
managers, or heads of office.
A total of 22 key informant interviews were conducted. (See Annex 1 for a list of participating
organizations, offices and agencies.)
The interviews followed a semi-structured format, framed by an interview guide made up of openended questions (Annex 2). Information was collected on their knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions on
disability and inclusion, their respective organizations’, offices’ or agencies’ current efforts at inclusion
at the field level, challenges and limitations faced in including PWD in their activities, and
recommendations for strengthening disability inclusion.
4.2.
SURVEYS
4.2.1. Survey of Camp Managers
A survey was conducted for camp managers of evacuation centers, transitional sites, and relocation sites
in Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City. All camp managers were targeted for the survey, conducted
during the regular camp manager meetings in both cities. A total of 69 camp managers participated in
the survey, representing 86% of all 80 camp managers.
The tool utilized for this survey was a self-administered questionnaire (Annex 3), with closed questions
aimed to gather information on the respondents’ knowledge and attitudes towards disability, and their
perceptions of disability inclusion in their respective sites.
11 | P a g e

12. 4.2.2. Survey of Washi-affected population
A second survey was conducted for Washi-affected households. The sample included both households
with PWD and those without PWD, providing a basis for comparison to help identify cases where
reported non-inclusion or accessibility issues are due to disability as opposed to factors that also affect
the access to relief of households with no PWD. For example, if households with and without PWD in
one site provide reports about not being able to access relief services, this may more likely reflect issues
in the general availability or accessibility of relief in their area rather than issues due to disability.
The survey covered evacuation centers, transitional sites, relocation sites, and communities in Cagayan
de Oro City and Iligan City chosen by the Handicap International Washi-response team. Given the study
limitations in terms of time, the areas chosen were those where information already existed on affected
households with PWD. Households with PWD were selected based on this information, while
households with no PWD were selected at random. The survey had a total of 166 respondents.
The tool utilized for the survey of Washi-affected households was a questionnaire administered by of
Handicap International community workers (Annex 4). The questionnaire is made up of both closed and
open-ended questions on the sample’s experience of the immediate response, their perceptions of the
assistance they have received, and of their access to available relief and services. Households with PWD
were asked additional questions on how their specific needs were met by the response and their
perceptions on how their disabilities affected their access to emergency relief and services.
4.3.
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION WITH HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL
A focus group discussion was held with representatives of the Handicap International Washi-response
team to discuss their various observations on inclusion and accessibility in the different sites covered by
their activities. Participants included staff from the teams in Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City. The
discussion was semi-structured, framed by open-ended guide questions (Annex 5) covering various
aspects of the emergency response.
12 | P a g e

13. 5.
POLICY REVIEW
There exists a range of national laws, and international conventions and frameworks that include
provisions for the mainstreaming of disability in disaster management. This section will explore the key
provisions of these laws, conventions, and frameworks relating to disability mainstreaming in
emergency response.
5.1.
KEY NATIONAL POLICIES
5.1.1. Republic Act 7277: Magna Carta for Disabled Persons
Republic Act 7277, entitled an Act Providing for the Rehabilitation, Self -Development and Self-Reliance
of Disabled Persons and their Integration into the Mainstream of Society and for Other Purposes, is the
central disability legislation in the Philippines. Also known as the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, the
act was ratified in 1991 with amendments following in 2007 and 2010.
PWD are defined by the Magna Carta as ‘those suffering from restriction of different abilities, as a result
of a mental, physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in the manner or within the range
considered normal for a human being’; with impairment being defined as ‘any loss, diminution or
aberration of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure of function’. 4
The Magna Carta covers the rights and privileges of PWD to employment, health, education, social
services, telecommunications, accessibility, and political and civil rights. Some of the key provisions of
this act and its amendments include the following:

Establishment of a national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against PWD

Rehabilitation, development, and provision of opportunities towards self-reliance of PWD and their
integration into mainstream of society

Establishment of the National Council on Disability Affairs (NCDA) whose task is to monitor and coordinate
the efforts of government agencies

Granting of privileges to PWD in all public and private establishments offering direct services such as
hotels or accommodations, transportation, health services, and other related services.

Granting of incentives to those caring and living with PWD.

Penalties for the verbal, non-verbal ridicule and vilification against PWD.

Establishment of a Persons with Disabilities Affairs Office (PDAO)in every province, city and municipality
Republic Act 7277 does not include any provisions for PWD in case of emergencies such as natural
disasters.
4
Philippines, Republic Act No. 727 (1991), Chapter I, Section 4
<www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-laws/republic-acts/republic-act-7277> [accessed 12 June 2012]
13 | P a g e

14. 5.1.2. Republic Act 10121: The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010
Passed into law in 2010, the DRRM Act seeks to
adopt a disaster risk reduction and management approach that is holistic, comprehensive, integrated, and
proactive in lessening the socio-economic and environmental impacts of disasters including climate
change, and promote the involvement and participation of all sectors and all stakeholders concerned, at
5
all levels, especially the local community.
The scope of the act, as specified in Section 4, is ‘the development of policies and plans and the
implementation of actions and measures pertaining to all aspects of disaster risk reduction and
management.’6 Its key provisions include the following:

The renaming of the National Disaster Coordinating Council to the National Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Council, as well as the organization, membership, powers, and function of this council

The establishment and organization of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Councils at the regional,
provincial, municipal, and local levels

The establishment of Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Offices in every province, city, and
municipality; and the establishment of Barangay Risk Reduction and Management Committees in every
barangay

The integration of DRR education in school curricula and mandatory training for public sector employees

Mechanisms for the declaration of state of calamity

Coordination during emergencies of the various DRRM councils and offices

Mechanisms for international humanitarian assistance
There are no specific provisions for PWD in the act. PWD are included in what the act refers to as
‘Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups’, defined in Paragraph oo of Section 3 as ‘those that face higher
exposure to disaster risk and poverty including, but not limited to, women, children, elderly, differentlyabled people, and ethnic minorities.’7 Throughout the act, these groups are made mention of thrice:

Under Section 2 – Declaration of Policy:
‘It shall be the policy of the state to… [d]evelop and
strengthen the capacities of vulnerable and marginalized groups to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and
8
recover from the effects of disasters.’

Under Section 3 – Definition of Terms: DRRM Information System is defined as a specialized database
that includes information on vulnerable groups, together with information on ‘disasters and their human
9
material, economic and environmental impact, risk assessment and mapping.’
5
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, National Risk Reduction and Management
Framework (2011), p.5
< http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/227/NDRRMFramework.pdf> [accessed 12 June 2012]
6
Philippines, Republic Act 10121 (2009), p.12
< http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/045_RA%2010121.pdf> [accessed 12 June 2012]
7
Ibid, p. 12
8
Ibid, p. 4
9
Ibid, p. 7
14 | P a g e

15. 
Under Section 12 - The LDRRMO: The act states that the head of the barangay should facilitate and
ensure the participation of ‘at least two CSO representatives from existing and active community-based
10
people’s organizations representing the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in the barangay.’
5.1.3. Other disability laws
There are several other disability laws or laws that include provisions for PWD in addition to the Magna
Carta for PWD, including the following:

Commonwealth Act 3203: Care and Protection of Disabled Children (1935)

Republic Act 3562: An act to promote the education of the blind in the Philippines (1963)

Presidential Decree 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code (1974)

Batas Pambansa Bilang 344: Accessibility Law (1982)

Senate Bill 1730: The Economic Independence of Disabled Persons Act (1999)
5.2.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND FRAMEWORKS
5.2.1. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
The UNCRPD was adopted on December 2006, and the convention and its Optional Protocol opened for
signature by all states and by regional integration organizations on March 2007. The UNCRPD had 153
signatories with 114 ratifications, while the Optional Protocol had 90 signatories with 65 ratifications.11
The Philippines signed and ratified the convention, but is not a signatory to the protocol.
The purpose of the UNCRPD, as specified in Article 1, is ‘to promote, protect and ensure the full and
equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to
promote respect for their inherent dignity.’12 PWD are defined by the convention as ‘those who have
long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various
barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.’13 The
convention, seen as ‘mark[ing] a shift in thinking about disability from a social welfare concern, to a
human rights issue’,14 covers areas including accessibility, personal mobility, health, education,
employment, rehabilitation, participation in political life, and equality and non-discrimination.
In terms of emergencies, Article 11 of the UNCRPD deals with Situations of Risk and Humanitarian
Emergencies, and calls for State Parties to take ‘all necessary measures to ensure the protection and
10
Ibid, p. 25
United Nations Enable, Convention and Optional Protocol Signatures and Ratifications
<http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?navid=17&pid=166> [accessed 14 June 2012]
12
United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), Article 1
<http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259> [accessed 14 June 2012]
13
Ibid.
14
United Nations, Why a Convention?
<http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/questions.shtml#three> [accessed 14 June 2012]
11
15 | P a g e

16. safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict,
humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.’15 However, how this translates in
practice is not defined by the convention.
A paper published by the Conflict and Emergencies Task Group of the International Disability and
Development Consortium defines what Article 11 can mean in practice for emergency response actors:

PWD are considered as a key target group across all intervention processes, including identification,
assessment, planning, delivery of support, and monitoring and evaluation

Local organizations of PWD and their caregivers, and NGOs working in the disability field should be
involved and consulted by humanitarian agencies to ensure the needs of PWD are recognized

Action and care is needed by humanitarian agencies to pro-actively seek out PWD to ensure they are
registered and supported

Funding guidelines of donor agencies should include information on universal design for camps and
shelters to ensure comprehensive accessibility

Sectoral agencies must include the needs of PWD, including with regard to disability access in their
operations

Funding for post-conflict and post-disaster interventions needs to include PWD in a tailored way,
supporting PWD as beneficiaries whilst enabling them to be included as part of the community response
16
to the disaster or emergency
5.2.2. Biwako Millennium Framework
The Biwako Millennium Framework is a policy framework for the Asian and Pacific Region, for States to
work towards an inclusive, barrier-free and rights-based society for PWD. Covering the period from 2003
to 2012, the framework identified seven priority areas for action:

Self-help organizations of persons with disabilities and related family and parent associations

Women with disabilities

Early detection, intervention and education

Training and employment

Access to built environment and public transportation

Access to information and communication

Poverty alleviation through capacity-building, social security and sustainable livelihood programs
During its mid-term review in 2007, an explicit strategy recognizing the importance of disability-inclusive
disaster management was introduced:
15
United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), Article 11
<http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259> [accessed 14 June 2012]
16
Emergency & Humanitarian Assistance and the UN Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights
and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, p. 2
16 | P a g e

17. Disability-inclusive disaster management should be promoted. Disability perspectives should be
duly included in the implementation of policies and initiatives in this area, including the Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005-2015…. Universal design concepts should be integrated into
infrastructure development in disaster-preparedness and post-disaster reconstruction
activities.17
5.2.3. Other international conventions
Other international instruments with provisions for PWD include the following:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Articles 3, 21, 23 and 25

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966): Article 26

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966): Article 2

The Declaration on the Rights of the Disabled Persons (1975)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989): Articles 2 and 23
5.3.
HUMANITARIAN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
5.3.1. The Sphere Handbook
The Sphere Handbook is a widely accepted and recognized set of standards for humanitarian response,
utilized by local and international humanitarian actors, donors, and UN agencies alike. Its creation was
based on two core beliefs: ‘that those affected by disaster or conflict have a right to life with dignity and,
therefore, a right to assistance; and… that all possible steps should be taken to alleviate human
suffering.’18 Unlike the UNCRPD and other international conventions, the Sphere standards are selfregulatory, with no compliance mechanism for humanitarian actors.
Two components make up the handbook: the humanitarian charter and the minimum standards. The
humanitarian charter provides the ethical and legal background to the subsequent components of the
handbook. Aside from establishing legal rights and obligations, the charter ‘attempts to capture a
consensus among Humanitarian agencies as to the principles which should govern the response to
disaster or conflict.’19
The standards ‘describe conditions that must be achieved in any humanitarian response in order for
disaster-affected populations to survive and recover in stable conditions and with dignity’.20 These
17
United Nations Economic and Social Council, Biwako Plus Five: Further Efforts Towards an Inclusive, Barrier-Free
and Rights-Based Society for Persons With Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific (2007), p. 14
<http://www.ncda.gov.ph/international-conventions-and-commitments/other-internationalcommitments/biwako-plus-five/> [accessed 15 June 2012]
18
The Sphere Project, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response (The Sphere
Project, 2011), p.4
19
Ibid., p. 20
20
Ibid., p. 4
17 | P a g e

18. standards cover four sets of activities: water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion; food security
and nutrition; shelter, settlement and non-food items; and health action.
The handbook takes into account a number of cross-cutting themes, including disability. The other
themes are children, DRR, environment, gender, HIV/AIDS, older people, and psychosocial support. For
themes dealing with an affected population’s particular vulnerabilities and capabilities, the handbook
further recognizes that ‘treating these people as a long list of “vulnerable groups” can lead to
fragmented and ineffective interventions, which ignore overlapping vulnerabilities and the changing
nature of vulnerabilities over time, even during one specific crisis.’21
The definition of disability provided by the UNCRPD is utilized by the handbook and it states that:
Persons with disabilities face disproportionate risks in disaster situations and are often excluded
from relief and rehabilitation processes… [They] are a diverse population including children and
older people, whose needs cannot be addressed in a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Humanitarian
responses, therefore, must take into consideration the particular abilities, skills, resources and
knowledge of individuals with different types and degrees of impairments... It is essential,
therefore, to include persons with disabilities in all aspects of relief and recovery. This requires
both mainstreamed and targeted responses.22
Given this, the handbook makes mention of disability - either directly or through reference to
‘vulnerable people’23 - throughout its sections, from the Humanitarian Charter, the Protection
Principles, the Core Standards, and the technical chapters on minimum standards.
5.3.2. Other humanitarian standards and guidelines
In addition to the Sphere standards, other examples of standards and guidelines for humanitarian
response that integrate disability include the following:

IASC: The Operational Guidelines on the Protection of Persons in Situations of Natural Disasters of the
IASC acknowledges that certain persons are particularly vulnerable during disasters, including PWD.
These guidelines include the specific human rights concerns that PWD may face and practical steps
towards their protection in situations of natural disasters. The IASC Guidelines on Mental Health and
Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings also includes provisions for persons with severe mental
disorders or disabilities.

UNHCR: The Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, published by the Global
Protection Cluster led by UNHCR, utilizes an age, gender, and diversity approach, with diversity defined as
‘other factors [that] might lead to significant inequalities and place persons at risk… includ[ing] ethnicity,
21
Ibid., p. 11
Ibid., p. 17
23
The handbook defines vulnerable people as ‘people who are especially susceptible to the effects of natural or
man-made disasters or of conflict… due to a combination of physical, social, environmental and political factors…
marginalized by their society due to their ethnicity, age, sex, disability, class or caste, political affiliations or
religion.’
22
18 | P a g e

19. 24
language, culture, religion, disability, family status and socio-economic status.’
UNHCR have also
published a guide entitled Working with Persons with Disabilities in Forced Displacement.

Other guidelines or toolkits published by NGOs working in disability also exist, such as Handicap
International and Christian Blind Mission
6.
RESULTS
After discussing laws, conventions, guidelines, and standards relevant to disability inclusion in
emergency response, this section will look at the research findings collected through the methodology
and data collection tools described in Section 4.
6.1.
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
Twenty-two interviews were conducted with various actors from NGOs, UN agencies, government
offices and agencies, and civil society organizations (see Annex 1). The discussion of the results of these
interviews will be structured by the main themes covered, focusing on responses shared by all or the
majority of the informants, as well as statements that express important existing assumptions and
attitudes towards disability.
6.1.1. Disability in general
The informants and the bodies they represented took PWD as part of a broader grouping, referred to
alternatively by the various actors interviewed as ‘most vulnerable’, ‘vulnerable groups’, and ‘persons
with special needs’. Other groups commonly included under this umbrella term are women, children,
older persons, persons with chronic illnesses, single-headed households including those headed by
children, women, older persons or PWD, among others. PWD and the other groups mentioned were
seen as needing special attention and prioritization in all emergency response activities.
In general, the informants felt that to deal with disability required technical and medical expertise.
Several informants also seemed to feel that disability was to be taken solely as a specialized sector, in a
way disconnected from the mainstream. Many informants said that to work with disability required
specialized teams or focal points which focused only on disability. A concrete manifestation of this is
how a number of individuals targeted for the interviews refused or delegated the interviews to disability
focal points, despite explanations that the interviews would cover the entire emergency response. This
was especially noticeable for government offices and agencies participating in the response.
Some informants also carried the assumption that PWD are not numerous in society, and that the
exclusion of PWD is not an issue for the Philippines when compared to other places. These assumptions
on disability together with others are explored further in Sub-Section 6.1.5.
6.1.2. Relevant laws, conventions, and guidelines
24
Global Protection Cluster, Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons (2010), p. 14
19 | P a g e

20. Official references regarding disability mainstreaming differed depending on the type of organization or
office being interviewed.
Government offices and agencies referred mostly to the DRRM Law of 2010 as their reference for
disability inclusion in disaster response, while only a minority of NGOs, UN agencies, and civil society
organizations mentioned the law. On the other hand, interviewees from the latter groups all mentioned
the Sphere standards which were not mentioned by the government offices or agencies. A common
reference mentioned by the informants was their own internal guidelines and mandates, ranging from
organizational strategies, mission vision statements, to technical guides for emergency response.
One important observation is that none of the informants mentioned the Magna Carta for PWD, the
centerpiece legislation for disability in the country, or provided additional details on provisions specific
for PWD in the DRRM law or the Sphere standards.
6.1.3. Disability in the delivery of emergency relief and services
The activities of the informants took a general or blanket approach to emergency response, with the
exception of some activities specifically targeting women and children, and activities where beneficiary
selection is necessary. Informants noted that where selection is done, disability is always part of the
criteria.
The identification of beneficiaries as described by the informants is largely dependent on DSWD, CSWD,
and the barangay. In some cases, additional information is also collected from or provided by the
communities. Some organizations also conduct independent validation of the information they receive.
Of the 22 informants, there were three25 with activities specifically targeting PWD through the provision
of assistive devices, technical aids, and medicines. For the other informants, their means of including
PWD was generally through addressing the issue of access to emergency relief and support. One
informant described this approach as increasing PWD access to relief, or increasing their access to the
PWD. The most common examples provided by the informants included special distribution
arrangements such as special lanes and assistance in carrying relief items, providing additional support
for certain activities such as shelter repair or construction, building of accessible facilities, increased
monitoring of PWD for psychosocial and nutrition activities, among others.
It was commonly acknowledged by the informants, and demonstrated by the above examples, that
while disability changes the mode of delivery of relief or the frequency and intensity of monitoring for
some activities, it does not change the actual service or support being provided. This was seen to be true
even in cases where selection criteria included disability. As one informant observed, PWD are always
part of the criteria but no specific interventions or adaptations to interventions follow for them.
When asked about addressing the specific needs of PWD, the approaches described by the informants
were largely ad hoc in nature. No mechanisms were mentioned for the systematic identification and
25
Specifically, CFSI Cagayan de Oro, CFSI Iligan, and UNHCR in partnership with CFSI
20 | P a g e

21. referral of these needs. Where these special needs were identified, this was often through PWD or their
families asking emergency actors directly for support.
Informants representing clusters and coordination bodies were also asked to speak about how they
monitor disability inclusion in their members’ activities. With the exception of the Displacement
Tracking Matrix of the CCCM cluster which includes the number of PWD per site, it would seem that no
systematic monitoring of disability is being done by the clusters or coordinating bodies. The discussion
of disability issues during cluster or coordination meetings is largely ad hoc, brought up only when there
are specific issues. Global indicators, the main monitoring mechanism of the clusters made up of three
to five indicators selected by cluster members, also did not include disability. The terms of reference for
the provincial clusters were not yet available at the time of the study, and were therefore not checked
for the inclusion of disability.
The informants had mixed responses when asked if they felt the emergency response was sufficiently
inclusive for PWD, although it was commonly acknowledged that improvements can still be made.
Despite this, informants felt that they did what they could, given their capacity and the challenges to the
inclusion of PWD in emergency response they described (see Section 6.1.7.).
6.1.4. Disability in monitoring and reporting
Apart from those conducting activities directed at PWD, the informants said their organization or office
does not collect information on their beneficiaries with disabilities. Disaggregation of beneficiary data
for monitoring and reporting is limited to gender and age, with other vulnerability factors not included.
A few organizations collect disability information at the individual or household level but the data is not
consolidated and therefore not reported. Examples include family access cards and individual nutrition
screening forms.
6.1.5. Existing attitudes and assumptions regarding disability and emergency response
Several existing assumptions, perceptions, and attitudes towards disability and emergency response
emerged during the interviews.
A number of informants were of the assumption that PWD and their needs were automatically being
included in the emergency response. A statement repeated in a number of interviews was that because
activities were implemented using a general or blanket approach26, PWD were automatically being
covered. Although less common than this, some informants were also of the thinking that
mainstreaming disability was something more or less automatic for international organizations. Voucher
systems for distributions were also seen as a way to ensure that PWD needs were being covered. Only a
minority of the informants said that increasing access of PWD to relief does not necessarily mean
meeting their needs.
26
Approach where the entire population in a certain area such as an evacuation center, relocation site, or affected
community is included in an activity, with no beneficiary targeting
21 | P a g e

22. There were also assumptions that all PWD are able to access relief or have someone to access relief for
them. When cases were mentioned where PWD reportedly were not able to receive relief goods, a
number of informants said that this was the fault of the PWD themselves. For example, one informant
said that if they really needed the items, they would come to the distributions. That they did not come
meant it was really not essential to them. Another informant said that it is the responsibility of the PWD
to find someone to collect relief for them, adding that all PWD have family. For these informants, there
was very little acknowledgement of the possibility that some PWD may be living on their own and had
no capacity to reach distributions or access information.
Many of the informants were also of the opinion that making emergency response activities inclusive or
accessible was significantly more costly than activities that were non-inclusive or accessible. This
assumption has resulted to the opinion that considering PWD needs somehow reduces the resources
available for the general affected population, with a number of informants saying they needed to think
of the greater number before considering the few. This assumption can be linked to the thinking
mentioned earlier that PWD are not numerous in society, which can lead to questions from actors on
why they need to be considered in the response.
A number of informants were also of the opinion that responding to disability equates to a long-term,
sustainable response, showing some confusion in distinguishing between the emergency needs and the
long-term needs of PWD.
In some examples provided by the informants, it could also be seen that PWD were thought of as a
generally homogeneous group. Their individual abilities were not always considered in the
implementation of activities. A good example of this would be cash-for-work or food-for-work activities,
where it is almost automatically assumed that all PWD will not be able to participate due to the nature
of the work required, and alternatives such as cash vouchers or the direct provision of items are
provided to them before an actual assessment of their capacity and willingness to participate.
However, some informants also stated that while PWD need special attention, their capacities also need
to be considered; that they have special needs, but this does not automatically imply that they are
different from others. For a number of informants, this realization came after PWD in various sites
expressed their willingness and determination to participate in cash-for-work and food-for-work
activities despite alternatives being made available to them.
6.1.6. Opportunities for disability inclusion in emergency response
The informants were asked to identify factors that facilitated or could facilitate the inclusion of PWD in
their activities.
Many of the respondents said that there already was a general consciousness and awareness of
disability and the need to include PWD, that there was little question that disability was a relevant crosscutting issue that needed to be mainstreamed. However, capitalizing on this awareness is limited by
their lack of capacity for disability inclusion.
22 | P a g e

23. Informants also pointed out that there is some data on PWD such as existing databases or registries, and
that communities are able to provide valuable information that is sometimes missed by barangays, the
CSWD, or the DSWD. However, when asked further about the actual utilization of available information,
there did not seem to be any systematic or clear manner in which the data is being used.
Internal factors that can facilitate the inclusion of PWD include the mandate and nature of the
informants’ respective organizations and offices, as well as having staff who are already experienced and
exposed to disability and other cross-cutting issues.
Another opportunity identified by the informants was the building of partnerships and coordination
between actors, seen as contributing to a systematic referral system for PWD.
The informants conducting activities targeting PWD and whose approach can be considered inclusive
towards disability provided the following additional factors that they considered key to their being able
to implement such activities:

Presence in the areas before the disaster

Existing partnerships with donors and local organizations

Their team already had experience with PWD

Inclusion was already being emphasized before Washi

Some information on PWD was already collected before Washi

Their activities took an individual, targeted approach

There were existing tools and capacity for the identification of PWD as similar emergency projects had
already been implemented elsewhere before Washi
6.1.7. Challenges and difficulties to disability inclusion in emergency response
When asked about the main challenges to disability inclusion in emergency response, the various
responses given by the informants can be divided into four main themes: information, resources,
knowledge and capacity, and representation and participation.
Information was emphasized by almost all informants as the most significant challenge in making
emergency response activities more inclusive. This was often the first answer provided by the
informants. The informants noted a lack of information about PWD and disability in general, both before
and after the disaster. There was no available census data on PWD from before Washi, and information
on the affected population afterwards did not include disability.
In cases where information is or was being collected, informants noted that there was still very little in
terms of the actual utilization of data. They also noted issues in the consistency and reliability of data.
For example, informants reported cases where information was not up to date or where various sources
provided conflicting information on PWD numbers.
23 | P a g e

24. Following information issues, limitations in terms of resources was the most common answer. These
limitations were often attributed to the nature of emergency response, where time is limited and
activities are implemented rapidly.
Informants mentioned being stretched to capacity in terms of human resources given the emergency
context. For example, most informants from government offices or agencies mentioned having no one
to dedicate for PWD or having to divert their PWD focal point. This underscores two key assumptions:
firstly, that disability inclusion requires additional human resources; and secondly, that it requires the
dedication of a focal point or team, as mentioned earlier.
Budgetary limitations to including disability and making accessibility considerations were also
mentioned by informants, implying a common perception that disability inclusion is expensive and
costly. Some informants mentioned there being no specific funding for disability.
Also included in these limitations are external conditions such as the land contour in relocation sites and
limited space in camps, seen to make accessibility modifications more challenging to implement.
Another challenge mentioned by most informants was the lack of knowledge and capacity on disability.
In a number of interviews, informants expressed confusion as to who is considered as a PWD and what
disability is. Some informants admitted to understanding disability as something that can be visibly seen,
an obvious physical condition of a person. Emergency field teams do not receive training on disability.
For example, it was mentioned during the interviews that camp managers did not receive any training
on dealing with disability in either Cagayan de Oro or Iligan. This lack of knowledge and understanding
as to what constitutes disability can be directly linked to difficulties expressed by informants in
identifying PWD, saying they are more difficult to identify and therefore more complex to include in
activities compared to other vulnerable groups.
Informants also expressed a lack of knowledge on what constitutes mainstreaming and inclusion, and on
accessibility and minimum accessibility standards.
Given the perception mentioned earlier of disability requiring specialized skills, informants mentioned
their lack of technical or medical skills as another difficulty. In one case, this perception actually led to
an organization choosing not to deal with PWD saying they did not have the medical capacity to do so.
The low participation and representation of the disability sector in coordination meetings and
emergency activities was also seen as a difficulty, with disability issues getting lost amongst other
competing concerns. Informants expressed the need for constant presence from the sector for it to be
included and to ensure existing policies are being implemented.
A few informants also mentioned cases where PWD were being hidden by their families, making it
difficult to identify them and ensure their needs are being considered.
For some informants, PWD and disability inclusion were seen as unnecessary, additional work. One
informant mentioned the additional assistance they needed to provide PWD as a challenge while
another informant thought that the monitoring of disability inclusion was ‘too detailed’. A number of
24 | P a g e

25. informants were also of the opinion that PWD were generally more emotional and sensitive, and
therefore always required extra care from their teams during communication or activities.
In the most extreme case encountered throughout the interviews, one informant said that the challenge
was the persons themselves, referring to PWD as problematic because they can disrupt activities when
they are ‘weird’ or ‘noisy’. The same informant said they were hesitant to include PWD because it will
become their responsibility or add to their work if the PWD are left alone or in case there is an
emergency. This thinking ultimately led them to impose more requirements for PWD to meet before
being allowed to benefit from their activities, including a medical exam and an additional waiver.
6.1.8. Recommendations for disability inclusion in emergency response
To address the challenges and difficulties identified, informants said that general information
management on disability should be improved. Disaggregated data should be available from early on in
the emergency, before the actual implementation of activities for inclusion to take on a less ad hoc
approach. Emergency actors also need to systematically monitor and document data themselves. Lastly,
the actual utilization of available data also needs to be improved.
Many informants mentioned the need for information on accessibility and mainstreaming needs to be
made available before disasters, during the preparedness phase. Disability inclusion should also be
covered in the contingency plans of emergency actors, clusters, and coordinating bodies.
The need for training and capacity-building was also a common recommendation, with informants
saying this is needed at various levels for it to be effective, covering key actors, the community, the
household-level, and the individual level of PWD themselves.
For the organizations and offices of the key informants, technical support and advice on disability
inclusion needs to be provided. However, almost all these actors expressed the condition that support
and advice be feasible, user-friendly, practical, simple, and not too burdensome. All actors agree that
the post-emergency stage of Washi or the subsequent preparedness phase would be a good time for
these efforts to be done.
Advocacy efforts also need to be intensified at both national and local levels, with representation from
local and international disability-focused organizations. Advocacy should take a bottom-up and topdown approach, engaging leadership while building the capacity of local disability organizations as well.
Informants also mentioned the need for disability inclusion to be made systematic rather than the
current ad hoc approach being taken. Suggestions on how to do this include the putting in place and
tracking of monitoring mechanisms for inclusiveness and accessibility, as well as the improvement of
referral pathways and systems between disability-focused organizations, specialized service providers,
and other actors. The possibility of complementary activities between these actors should also be
explored. Informants also thought that increased donor support for disability inclusion was an important
means towards the actual practice of inclusive approaches by NGOs and other actors.
25 | P a g e

26. 6.2.
SURVEY OF CAMP MANAGERS
6.2.1. General Information
A total of 69 camp managers were included in the survey. Of this number, 56 camp managers or 81%
worked in sites located in Cagayan de Oro City, while the remaining 13 camp managers or 19% were
covering sites in Iligan City. The majority of the camp managers surveyed were under the DSWD
management, with 52 respondents or 75%. The remaining 17 respondents or 25% were IOM camp
managers. The camp managers who responded to the survey covered 42 sites in Cagayan de Oro and 10
sites in Iligan. Figure 1 shows the percentage breakdown of all 69 respondents by city and by affiliation
to either DSWD or IOM.
Of the 69 respondents, 10 were camp
managers in more than one site, with 6
respondents handling two sites each, 2
respondents handling three sites each, and
another 2 respondents handling four sites
each. All of these 10 respondents were IOM
camp managers. Table 1 below lists the
sites covered by the respondents by city.
56%
26 | P a g e

27. TABLE 1
Sites covered by camp manager respondents
CAGAYAN DE ORO SITES
Agusan Elementary School
Camaman-an Covered Court
Lumbia Central Elementary School
Amakan 1
Canitoan Elementary School
Macasandig Covered Court
Amakan 2
Carmen Zone 6
Mandumol Transitional Site
Amakan 3
Carmen Zone 8
Mt. Carmel Parish
Barangay 24 Covered Court
Carmen Zone 10
Nazareth Multi-Purpose Hall
Buena Oro Covered Court
City Central School
North City Central School
Bugo Elementary School
Consolacion Covered Court
Patag Covered Court
Bulua Elementary School
Cugman Elementary School
Provincial Capitol Grounds
Bulua Covered Court
Gusa Regional Science High School
Puerto Elementary School
Calaanan 1
Indahag 1
Sto. Niňo Parish Church, Tablon
Calaanan 2
Indahag 2
Tibasak Covered Court
Calaanan 4
Iponan Multi-Purpose Hall
Xavier University - Ecoville
Calaanan 5
KM 5 Elementary School
Xavier Heights Covered Court
ILIGAN SITES
Luinab Diocesan Malta
San Roque Tent City
Sta Elena
Luinab Gym 1
Tambacan Elementary School
Tambo Tent City
Madrasah
Siao Shelter Box
Upper Hinaplanon Elementary School
Order of Malta
On average, the total duration the respondents
had spent as camp managers was 11 weeks,
with answers ranging from 1 to 16 weeks. The
majority of respondents, at 80% or 55 out of
the 69 respondents, had been in their positions
for between 9 to 12 weeks. 9 respondents or
13% did not provide an answer to this
question. Figure 2 demonstrates the length of
time the respondents had spent as camp
managers at the time of the survey.
6.2.2. Knowledge and attitudes of respondents towards disability
A number of questions to measure respondent knowledge and attitudes towards disability were
included in the survey questionnaire. For some questions, there was a noticeable difference in answers
between camp managers working under IOM and those under DSWD. This information will be presented
where the difference can be considered significant.
27 | P a g e

28. When asked about factors affecting
disability, the majority of respondents (69%
or 36 respondents) thought that socioeconomic, environmental, and economic
factors all impact a temporary or permanent
impairment and result to disability. The
remaining 33 respondents thought that only
economic (13% or 7 respondents),
environment (12% of 6 respondents), or
socio-cultural (2% or one respondent)
factors affected disability, with 2
respondents not answering this question.
The camp manager respondents were
asked what means should be taken to
ensure that emergency relief and support
in the camps are inclusive of PWD. Of the
69 respondents, the majority at 58% (40
respondents) answered ‘integrate and
include them and their needs in all camp
planning and activities’. This response
was followed by ‘allot a separate area in
the camp for them so we can easily
identify and meet their needs’, at 30% (21
respondents). 10 percent (7 respondents)
said that they would ‘depend on
disability-focused organizations to help
them’.
When the results are disaggregated between
the respondents from IOM and DSWD, a stark
difference can be noticed, as shown by Figure
5. While 88% of IOM camp managers chose
integration and inclusion as the best
response, only 48% of DSWD camp managers
chose the same response. More importantly,
the disaggregation shows that 37% of all
DSWD camp managers thought that
separation and isolation of PWD was the best
answer. Although this is not the majority, it is
still a high number representing 19 camp
managers working in 19 camps.
28 | P a g e

29. A question regarding children with disabilities asked respondents to choose the statement they thought
the most true between four different possibilities. The option with the most respondents, at 40% (21
respondents) was that ‘activities in child-friendly spaces can be adapted for children with disabilities if
we are familiar with their needs and abilities’. This was followed by ‘it is the parents’ responsibility to
make their children participate in childfriendly spaces and community
activities’, with 31% (16 respondents).
The remaining two options - ‘children
with disabilities need special activities,
so we cannot make them participate in
child-friendly spaces’ and ‘referring a
child with disability to a disabilityfocused organization means we do not
need to worry about them accessing
support anymore’ had 17% (9
respondents) and 7% (4 respondents)
respectively.
Disaggregating responses further shows that answers from DSWD camp managers are more distributed
than those provided by IOM camp managers. This is especially true for respondents choosing the
statement on adapted activities and
those choosing the statement on
children with disabilities being their
parents’ responsibility. While 65% of
IOM respondents chose the previous
statement, only 40% of DSWD
respondents chose the same. On the
other hand, while only 6% of
respondents from IOM chose the latter
statement, this number is 31% for
DSWD. For both organizations, more
than 10% thought that children with
disability need specialized activities and
therefore cannot be made to
participate in activities.
29 | P a g e

30. When asked to choose the statement they thought the most true regarding the physical accessibility of
camp structures, the large majority at 75% (52 respondents) said that ‘Using minimum accessibility
standards can create structures that are safe and functional for all users while promoting the selfreliance and ease of living of persons with
disabilities.’ The remaining 25% of respondents
were relatively spread out between the three
remaining options, with 10% stating that
‘designing a structure to be more physically
accessible is a lot more expensive than one
without accessibility features’; 7% stating that
‘only people specialized in disability can design
physically accessible structures’; and 6% stating
that ‘only persons with disabilities will benefit
from
physically
accessible
structures’.
Disaggregation of results between DSWD and
IOM did not show any significant differences.
Asked about means of communication
with persons who have difficulties
hearing and speaking, 80% (55
respondents) of all respondents said that
they ‘can use gestures, body language,
picture messages, and written text while
I’m speaking to help them understand’.
14% (10 respondents) said that they
‘should just speak directly to and get
information from their caregiver because
these persons will not be able to express
themselves’; while the remaining 6% (4
respondents) said that ‘if I speak louder
and shout, the person will understand
me’.
Statements regarding disability were also included in the questionnaire, and the camp manager
respondents were asked to indicate whether they thought these were true or false.
30 | P a g e

31. The first statement provided was ‘If there
are not many persons with disabilities in
the site, we don’t need to consider their
needs in relief efforts and camp
activities’. A large majority of
respondents, at 90% (62 respondents)
disagreed with the statement, with 9% (6
respondents) agreeing with it. As Figure
10 shows, there was not a lot of variation
between IOM and DSWD responses.
For the next statement, ‘It is the sole
responsibility of the caregivers of persons with
disabilities to make sure they get any information
we disseminate in the camp about relief or
activities’, respondents were more evenly
divided with 55% (38 respondents) considering
the statement as true and 43% (30 respondents)
considering it as false. However, a disaggregation
of this result shows a large difference between
IOM and DSWD responses. The majority of IOM
respondents, at 76%, thought the statement is
false, while the majority of DSWD respondents,
at 65%, thought the statement is true
The next statement was ‘Persons with
disabilities cannot be active participants
in camp and community activities
because of their disabilities’. The
majority of all respondents, at 74% (51
respondents), considered the statement
false; with the remaining 26% (18
respondents) considered it to be true.
Although the majority of responses
indicate a belief that PWD can be active participants in camps and communities, the number of camp
managers believing the contrary is still large enough to cause concern. This 26% represents 18 camp
managers responsible for 20 different sites in both of the studies target cities.
31 | P a g e

32. 6.2.3. Perceptions on inclusive and targeted emergency relief for PWD
Following the questions on knowledge and
attitudes towards disability, the respondents
were asked questions regarding the
emergency relief and assistance being
provided to PWD in evacuation centers,
transitional sites, and relocation sites,
ranging from the identification of PWD to
specific sectoral activities. The respondents
were asked to base their answers on their
actual observations and experiences from
their respective camps. Unlike the data
covered by the previous sections, results
under this section are disaggregated by city to allow for a comparison between the emergency response
provided in Cagayan de Oro and Iligan. When respondents were asked if children with disabilities in their
sites attended activities in child-friendly spaces, the majority said yes with 59% (41 respondents).
However, the disaggregation of results by city shows that while 66% of respondents from Cagayan de
Oro agree with the statement, only 31% of camp managers from Iligan said the same.
Perceptions regarding the access of PWD
to communal facilities in the camps are
almost evenly split, with 48% agreeing with
the statement that ‘PWD are located close
to and can easily access the camp’s
communal facilities’, and 49% disagreeing.
Results from Cagayan de Oro follow this
pattern, with 50% of respondents agreeing
and 46% disagreeing; while results from
Iligan show more variation, with the
majority disagreeing at 62% and the
remaining 38% agreeing.
With regards to food and nutrition programs,
65% of respondents (45 respondents) agreed
that ‘programs take into account the additional
nutritional requirements of PWD’ and that they
are included in feeding programs. When the
results were differentiated by city, this
percentage was higher for Cagayan de Oro,
with 85% of respondents agreeing as opposed
to 61% for Iligan.
32 | P a g e

33. The majority of respondents, at 70% (48
respondents), said that there were no
special food, NFI and water distribution
arrangements for PWD in their camps,
with only 26% (18 respondents) saying
that these arrangements were available.
This pattern is also true for the
disaggregated results, with 66% of camp
managers in Cagayan de Oro and 85% of
camp managers in Iligan saying that
these arrangements were not put in
place for PWD.
For those saying that special arrangements were made for PWD, the following are the examples they
provided:

Items were provided directly to the PWD

PWD are given priority

Specific NFIs were provided to PWD such as wheelchairs, mattresses, crutches, and catheters
When asked about the means of
communication utilized to disseminate
information in camps regarding distributions
and services, the answers were evenly split
with 45% of respondents (31 respondents)
agreeing with the statement that more than
one means of communication is utilized and
the same number disagreeing. This pattern
holds true for respondents in Cagayan de Oro,
with 41% agreeing and 46% disagreeing; while
for respondents in Iligan, the majority agreed
with the statement at 62% with 38%
disagreeing.
Compared to other questions, more
respondents left this question blank, with 7 respondents (10%) not providing any answer.
Examples of the different means of communication used in the camps included:

Through camp leaders who will disseminate information to vulnerable groups

Utilization of megaphones and microphones

Person-to-person information dissemination

Tent-to-tent information dissemination

Through camp information committees and camp public information officers

Neighbors pass the information
33 | P a g e

34. 
Announcements posted on bulletin boards and other written notices

Basic sign language

Through word of mouth

Through meetings where one member per family is present
When asked whether ‘targeted, case-to-case assistance is sufficiently being provided to PWD by NGOs,
LGU, and other actors’, the majority of
respondents at 64% (44 respondents)
said yes while the remaining 36% (25
respondents) said no. Results from
Cagayan de Oro are similar to this, with
68% saying yes and 32% saying no. On
the other hand, a lower percentage of
respondents in Iligan said yes, with only
46%; while 54% said no.
The respondents were also asked to
judge how specific activities for PWD
were being implemented through a
scale with five options: poor,
needs
improvement,
average, good, or very good.
For efforts to locate, identify,
and register PWD and their
specific
needs,
the
respondents were almost
evenly spread out between
those that thought these
efforts needed improvement,
were average, and were
good,
with
23%
(16
respondents),
22%
(15
respondents), and 28% (19
respondents)
respectively.
10% of the remaining
respondents judged these efforts to be poor, while 16% said they were very good. When comparing the
results from the two cities, it can be seen that there is less variation in the responses from Iligan, with
the clear majority saying these efforts were good. On the other hand, respondents from Cagayan de Oro
were spread out between needs improvement (27%), average (21%), and good (23%).
34 | P a g e

35. When asked about efforts of
camp health services to address
the prevention of disability or
the deterioration of an existing
impairment
through
the
provision of appropriate drugs
and assistive devices, 30% of
respondents (21 respondents)
said these needed to be
improved. This was closely
followed by respondents saying
these efforts were average and
poor,
with
25%
(17
respondents) and 23% (16
respondents) respectively.
For camp managers coming from Iligan, the clear majority responded that these efforts needing
improvement, with 62%. For Cagayan de Oro, respondents were evenly spread out between poor, needs
improvement and average, with 27%, 23%, and 25% respectively.
Given the additional vulnerabilities
of and protection risks to women
and girls with disabilities, the
respondents were asked if these
were taken into consideration by
protection activities for women in
their respective sites. The largest
number of respondents said this
needed improvement, with 29%
(20 respondents).
Following
closely were respondents who
thought the inclusion of women
and girls with disabilities in
protection activities was either
average or good, with 23% (16
respondents) and 22% (15
respondents) respectively.
In Cagayan de Oro, 34% of the respondents said this needed improvement, followed by 21% saying this
was average and 20% saying this was good. Respondents in Iligan City were evenly spread out between
average, good, and very good, each with 31% of respondents.
35 | P a g e

36. The respondents were asked about the representation of PWD in camp management activities including
in planning, decision-making, sector-specific camp committees, and coordination. 28% of respondents
(19 respondents) said PWD
representation was average,
followed by those saying
that representation was
good
and
needing
improvement, with 25% (17
respondents) and 17% (12
respondents) respectively.
The largest number of
respondents from Cagayan
de Oro at 30% said PWD
representation was average,
while in Iligan 31% said this
was very good.
Respondents were of the
opinion that the referral of
the needs of PWD to
specialized service providers
such as hospitals,
rehabilitation centers, and
disability-focused groups was
either average, good, or
needing improvement, with
29% (20 respondents), 28%
(19 respondents), and 26%
(18 respondents)
respectively.
Responses from Cagayan de
Oro were spread out
between needs improvement with 30%, average with 27%, and good with 29%. In Iligan, the largest
number of respondents at 38% said referrals to specialized service providers was average, followed by
good and poor, each with 23% of respondents.
36 | P a g e

37. When asked about the
inclusion of PWD in relief
activities conducted by
government agencies and
offices in their camps, the
respondents were evenly
distributed between those
that thought this needs
improvement, was average,
or was good, with 28% (19
respondents) and 26% (18
respondents)
each
respectively.
In Cagayan de Oro, an
almost equal number of
respondents said inclusion in government activities needed improvement or was good, with 30% and
29% each respectively. In Iligan, 31% of respondents said this was average, followed by those saying this
was poor at 23%.
When asked about PWD
inclusion in activities conducted
by NGOs, civil society
organizations and religious
groups, 29% of respondents (20
respondents) said this needed
improvement. This was
followed by respondents who
said this was average and good,
each with 23% (16
respondents).
In Cagayan de Oro, the largest
number of respondents at 32%
said inclusion by NGOs, civil
society organizations and religious groups needed improvement, followed by 27% thinking this was
already good. In Iligan, 38% of respondents said inclusion was currently average, followed by those
thinking this was very good with 23%.
37 | P a g e

38. 6.2.4. Respondents’ confidence and perceived challenges in including PWD in camp activities
In the survey questionnaire, two questions were asked to look at how the respondents perceived their
own capacity to include PWD in camp activities. One question asked about their confidence in working
with PWD, and another one asked what they felt were the main challenges to the inclusion of PWD in
their respective sites.
Of all the respondents, majority
said that their confidence to
identify and integrate PWD and
their needs in camp activities was
either average or good, with 30%
(21 respondents) and 29% (20
respondents)
respectively.
Seventeen
percent
(12
respondents) felt that their
confidence needed improvement,
14% (10 respondents) said their
confidence was very good, while 7%
(five respondents) said this was
poor.
A larger percentage of respondents from Iligan, at 46%, felt their confidence to be average; whereas in
Cagayan de Oro, respondents were mostly split between those feeling their confidence was average
(27%) to those saying it was good (32%). None of the respondents from Iligan judged their confidence to
be poor, compared to 9% for Cagayan de Oro. The percentage of those saying their confidence level was
very good was also very different for both cities, with 31% of respondents from Iligan and only 11% from
Cagayan de Oro.
There are also some differences between the
responses provided by camp managers from
DSWD and IOM. The majority of DSWD
respondents (31%) felt that their confidence
level is good, whereas most respondents from
IOM (41%) judged their confidence to be
average. Almost the same percentage of
respondents for IOM and DSWD judged their
confidence level to be on the lower end of the
scale, with 10% of respondents from DSWD
judging their confidence to be poor and 15%
saying it needs improvement; while 24% of
IOM respondents said it needed improvement.
A higher percentage of respondents from
38 | P a g e

39. DSWD judged their confidence to be good or very good, with 31% and 15% respectively; as opposed to
24% and 12% respectively for IOM.
Regarding
the
challenges
or
limitations in including PWD in camp
activities, of the 69 respondents, 42%
(29 respondents) thought that ‘only
persons specialized in disability are
capable of doing this’. This was
followed by ‘I have no training on
how to include disability in camp
management’
with
30%
(21
respondents); ‘it costs too much to
include them in camp activities’ with
13% (9 respondents); and ‘there are
no persons with disabilities in the
camp’ with 8% (6 respondents).
The pattern of the overall results is followed comparing responses provided by camp managers from
Cagayan de Oro and Iligan, with the majority for both cities saying that only specialized persons are
capable of including PWD in activities, followed by those saying they have no training.
There is a more visible difference in
responses
when
comparing
between
DSWD
and
IOM
respondents, with the majority of
DSWD respondents saying that
inclusion needs people specialized
in disability, and the majority of
IOM respondents saying they have
no training. It should be noted that,
as mentioned in under the results
of the key informant interviews,
neither sets of camp managers
received specific training on dealing
with PWD. In Iligan, there was no
training on this at all; while in
Cagayan de Oro, disability was taken as a protection issue during trainings.
It is also interesting to compare the responses to this question to those provided by respondents when
asked about their confidence to identify and include PWD. 43% of all respondents said that their
confidence level was good or very good. However, when asked about challenges, almost the same
percentage said they felt that only persons specialized in disability are capable of inclusion.
39 | P a g e

40. Other challenges indicated by respondents included:

PWD are sometimes passive participants in camp activities

There are no programs or activities planned for PWD

Some PWD are not capable of doing camp activities

PWD cannot participate in activities due to work
6.3.
FOCUS GROUP DISCCUSION
EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM
WITH
HANDICAP
INTERNATIONAL
A focus group discussion (FGD) was held with members of the Handicap International emergency
response team from Cagayan de Oro and Iligan covering their observations of the emergency response.
They were also asked to give specific examples for the different topics covered by the discussion, which
included beneficiary identification, general emergency response activities, support to specific needs,
physical accessibility, coordination, and general observations on other actors.
6.3.1. Beneficiary Identification
To identify beneficiaries for activities targeting PWD and other persons with specific needs, the first stop
for the field teams of Handicap International are camp managers for evacuation centers, transitional
sites, and relocation sites. In affected communities, the teams go through barangay officials and
barangay health workers or through DPOs where present.
Participants in the discussion observed that while many areas have data available, information is almost
always not complete. After collecting information from the sources mentioned above, the teams
conduct tent-to-tent or house-to-house visits, and collect information from the community. They
estimate that the data provided by camp managers and barangay officials miss out 20% to 30% of PWD
in a given area. They also observed that information tended to be available in barangays where there is
an active DPO, but usually not in others.
The participants said that there is a tendency in camps and in communities to identify only those PWD
with physical, visible disabilities. In some cases, even when camp managers are able to identify PWD,
they have difficulties categorizing those falling under other kinds of disability. The same observation was
made in the communities, where only a few categories of PWD are being counted.
The participants also cited cases where families reject or hide the presence of PWD in their household,
even from neighbors or other members of the community. A number of cases of this were uncovered in
areas covered by the team, mostly of children with disabilities hidden by their parents.
Another challenge in the identification of PWD noted by the participants is that some PWD move from
camps to communities, thereby not being included in data collected in either area. Renters who are
PWD are also not always included by barangays in data collection.
6.3.2. General emergency relief activities
40 | P a g e

41. Participants were asked to describe their observations regarding the inclusion of PWD in emergency
relief activities being implemented in the various areas they cover, and some reports coming from PWD
that they have spoken with and assessed. Observations were shared for activities such as distributions,
health services, education, and psychosocial support activities.
The participants shared that a number of PWD reported difficulties in accessing relief goods. There were
cases where PWD were unable to collect goods themselves and had no one to get the goods for them.
Having non-PWD family members, attend distributions is also not an assurance that their households
will receive relief, as these household representatives will not fall under prioritization criteria. A number
of cases were reported where relief goods had run out before PWD or their households’ representative
could receive any. There were also distributions where stubs or tickets were given with numbers and the
numbers were applied for PWD as well. Prioritization was not practiced.
Of all the PWD assessed, the FGD participants estimated that around 20% are unaccompanied. This
implies that there is a possibility that these individuals are not receiving relief and are being missed by
emergency actors. The participants observed that whoever comes to the distributions get served, but
there is little or no effort to look for those that may especially need assistance. They lamented that even
where data is available to direct relief to these individuals, the information is not being utilized.
Another observation was that existing efforts at disability inclusion tended to be biased towards those
with physical disabilities, those that are easy to identify as PWD, similar to the situation described in the
previous section on beneficiary identification. Individuals with physical disabilities may be prioritized or
be included in activities because of their appearance, while a person who may have severe hearing or
visual impairments may not receive the same attention.
An example was provided where one organization adjusted their criteria for distributions to include one
PWD with a physical impairment seen by their project team. This individual was included in distributions
normally intended for children. This example shows efforts at disability inclusion, but it also shows how
inclusion was done in an ad hoc approach and in a way that was triggered solely by the visual
recognition of the person as a PWD.
The participants perceived access to water as something more equitable than other assistance provided,
saying that having little or no water access in a site is something that affects everyone, not just PWD.
For healthcare activities, the participants did not notice any prioritization given for PWD. Medical
missions to sites as well as site health facilities more often than not do not have the capacity to deal
with complex cases that PWD and other persons with specific needs may present. In addition to this,
they observed that many IDPs were not aware that they could avail of services in the health centers of
the barangays where their sites are located. One organization willing to cater to PWD referred by
Handicap International was mentioned by the participants.
For children with disabilities issues shared by the participants included disrupted access to special
education schools due to displacement. Disruption of schooling was also raised as an issue for children
in general due to loss of financial capacity and of supplies for schooling, in addition to displacement.
41 | P a g e

42. The participants also shared their observations of activities conducted in child-friendly spaces. They
noted that they have not seen any child with disability in the child-friendly spaces they have visited, and
that facilitators are not trained at all on dealing with children with disability. They observed that
communication regarding such activities is mostly through announcements, and there is little or no
effort to seek out children who are not participating. They added, however, that the issue of
participation sometimes also lies with parents who are either too protective or embarrassed of their
child’s disability, or who are unable to accompany their child to the child-friendly space.
Similar observations were made for psychosocial support activities targeted at adults, as facilitators did
not always reach PWD who may have difficulties or apprehensions about participating in such activities
and in camp activities in general. However, the participants shared an example of one site in Iligan
where clear efforts were made by the camp manager to ensure PWD participated in all activities; and of
one NGO where some community workers were able to communicate with PWD with hearing and
speaking impairments through sign language.
In addition to the above issues specific to PWD, the participants identified more general issues in terms
of access to relief. These issues include inequitable relief within some sites, with organizations targeting
one section of residents and not others; and inequitable relief due to ethnicity, religion, or political ties.
Geographically isolated areas affected by Washi received noticeably less support than other more
accessible areas, with a concentration of relief in camps compared to communities.
6.3.3. Physical accessibility
The FGD participants were asked about their views on the physical accessibility of the different sites.
For WASH facilities, the group generally agreed that there are efforts towards accessibility although
these differ from site to site. They also agreed that these can still be technically improved. For instance,
in some latrines fitted with ramps, the ramps are too steep to be used.
The participants were of the opinion that a factor that tends to be neglected is the location of the
latrines. For some of them, this posed a more significant barrier than how the latrines are designed.
Designs may be accessible but if the site is not accessible itself, for instance there are barriers on the
path to the facilities it will still be difficult for PWD or other residents to access. Distance to the facilities
is also an issue. One example was given where a PWD who, in addition to not being able to access water,
had to dig a whole just outside his shelter to use as a toilet.
For shelter designs, participants noted that some accessible designs were already being implemented.
They expressed concern that proposing design changes at the time of the focus group discussion would
be difficult as the bulk of shelter activities were already planned. Regarding the possibility of specific
designs for PWD, participants said that this was challenging as there was no pre-identification of which
lot or house is for PWD beforehand, nor information on which PWD goes to which site.
42 | P a g e

43. Efforts of other actors at improving disability inclusion were also shared such as the mapping of PWD in
sites and the tracking PWD movement from site to site. However, there were also cases of segregation
in some sites where PWD were all placed in separate blocks.
Participants noted that in addition to PWD in evacuation centers, transitional sites, or relocation sites
needing prioritization, universally accessible designs as well as the location of facilities also need to be
considered. They observed that it was rare that these three were considered all together by emergency
actors. For example, PWD may be prioritized in terms of the provision of shelters, but then they are
placed far from a site’s WASH facilities, as was the case for the PWD described above. Although they
acknowledged how challenging it is to consider all factors, participants noted that site planning needs to
be improved in a way that not only places PWD as a priority but also considers their needs in terms of
access to facilities, design-wise as well as location-wise.
6.3.4. Support to specific needs
When asked about support being provided for the specific needs of PWD, the participants were of the
opinion that no significant adaptation of relief or specific support was being given. They observed that
there were some specialized programs that could meet the needs of PWD, but these are focused only on
specific groups such as children, and pregnant and lactating women. They noted that voucher systems
being implemented may provide a way through which PWD can get exactly what they needed.
Participants mentioned that there were some organizations which provided items responding to specific
needs such as assistive devices or technical aids, but their assessments show that some of these items
are not appropriate to the needs of the PWD. For example, there were a number of cases where
another device would have been more appropriate to the beneficiary. There were also cases where
devices were not fitted correctly, such as adult wheelchairs being provided to children.
6.3.5. Observations regarding coordination and other emergency response actors
The participants observed that other emergency actors knew they needed to consider and include PWD
in their activities, but they did not know how to go about this. They noted that when these actors came
across Handicap International teams, they began to reconsider their concerns and sought help. Barangay
officials with whom the team worked with were also willing to learn. The biggest need of these
stakeholders observed by the Handicap International team was for information and support to be
provided to them, on PWD and on disability inclusion.
In terms of clusters and coordination, no other organizations focused on disability are represented. FGD
participants who attended various cluster meetings mentioned that how disability is discussed is quite
variable from cluster to cluster, observing that this is person-dependent, depending on the cluster
leader.
6.4.
SURVEY OF AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS
43 | P a g e