Manila Bay is strategically located and used to facilitate commerce and trade with other neighboring countries. In its heyday, the bay was known for clean and blue water where people could fish and children could play along the shore. It also used to be filled with mangroves, thus capable of protecting the shore from big waves. Today, however, Manila Bay has become quite the opposite as it is mostly known for intense pollution and unsanitary water.
Due to the increasing population, many of the urban poor communities live in or near the coastal areas. Because these vulnerable populations have limited resources, many people cram into these areas and result to high-risk living conditions with the general housing of community made of only lightweight materials.
The Malabon-Navotas-Tullahan-Tinajeros or MANATUTI River System is one of the three river groups draining into Manila Bay. MANTUTI has been classified as a dead river and can no longer sustain forms of life which affect the quality of life of the fisherfolk near these bodies of water. They have to travel to distant waters in order to catch fish, hence increasing their expenses and reducing income. Aside from this, the communities who reside in areas, such as those by Manila Bay or its comprising river systems (usually informal settlers) are most prone to flooding, fire, storm surges, liquefactions, and earthquakes which are expected to be intensified in the next five to ten years due to climate change.
The Manila Bay Rehabilitation Program is simultaneously ongoing with the Manila Bay Sustainable Development Master Plan which is a joint effort of the Philippine government and the Netherlands Government. The latter serves as more of a guide on how future plans for Manila Bay will be carried out, however it is a mere guide that does not have the teeth to enforce its provisions. This is where Partners for Resilience (PfR) steps in. PfR aims to harmonize the process of planning, particularly since one main challenge of large areas such as Manila is that there are simply too many plans.
In Voices of Manila Bay, resilience-building efforts for not only the local government unit officials, but also of the community members themselves through joint and inclusive initiatives and platforms are featured. Through PfR, people from these communities, as well as members of the local government were given an opportunity to create consultations and discussions about their natural environment, their surroundings, their vulnerabilities, and their capacities in order to form a stronger mindset and clearer perspective on the situation. Eventually, this was able to inform the plans and decisions they made for community resilience.
Without PfR, many of the small but most vulnerable communities would not have any idea that there is an ongoing planning and development process for Manila Bay. Therefore, they would not have a chance to share their grievances, inputs, and aspirations about what they want for Manila Bay as the most affected population.
As a whole, this film aims to encourage a dialogue around the participation of communities and local stakeholders in large infrastructure development projects.
To see the full film, please watch the video below.
With each passing year, the frequency and severity of natural hazards is increasing. Coupled with a changing climate and severe environmental degradation, the disaster risks faced by communities living in extremely vulnerable conditions are only magnified.
In 2011, a five-year program, Partners for Resilience (PfR), funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs was conceptualized. The project aimed at reducing the impact of natural hazards on the livelihoods of around 400,000 vulnerable people in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Mali, Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Nicaragua, and Guatemala.
The implementation of PfR was undertaken by a consortium of five partners, namely Netherlands Red Cross (lead agency), CARE Nederlands, Cordaid, Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Center, and Wetlands International. It is the fundamental belief of the five partners that resilience plays an essential role in dealing effectively with disasters.
Partners for Resilience used an integrated approach to mitigate disaster risks and enhance livelihoods, particularly by addressing climate change and ecosystem management and restoration.
In this PfR video, vulnerable communities in the provinces of Bihar and Odisha, India were engaged through improving the management of natural capital and diversifying livelihood options or building livelihood resilience by introducing communities to flood resilient technologies for agriculture and diversified livelihood opportunities including mushroom cultivation, pisciculture, and the formation of Self-Help Groups.
PfR also increases disaster preparedness by being actively involved with the government in formulating district-level disaster management plans in which ecosystem and climate change approaches are incorporated in order to not only foster the people’s resilience, but also to the build capacities of the community and the district. Other undertakings of the PfR program such as Village-Level Risk Reduction Plans and Village-Level Disaster Reduction Committees (VLDRCs) are also featured in this video.
Disasters cause substantial losses not only in lives but also in livelihoods. Chronic disasters cause the adverse impacts of these losses to accumulate by not allowing affected households to rebuild their livelihoods and recover. The accumulated negative impacts of recurring disasters on household livelihoods have long-term effects, reinforcing intergenerational transmission of poverty and pushing poor households further into greater vulnerability.
Years of work on reducing disaster risks among high-risk communities in the Philippines are bearing fruit in terms of saving lives. Equal attention must be given to saving livelihoods in order to achieve household and community resilience. This study documents the various experiences of households and communities that, sustaining serious losses particularly from the Bopha disaster in 2012 and Haiyan in 2013, have emerged successful in adopting strategies that would protect their livelihood assets and capacities from anticipated recurring disasters. From the lessons and good practices, in the context of
largely rural and agricultural communities, the strategies in achieving resilience in livelihoods are identified.
View and download the material here.
Integrated Risk Management (IRM) is an enhanced, holistic approach to increasing community resilience by integrating disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA) and ecosystem management and restoration (EMR).
View and download the material here.
The May 2018 Catmon fire incident in Malabon displaced more than a thousand families. Deployment of ATS was participated by the local government, technical volunteers, and affected communities. Post-displacement interviews reveal that then displaced families appreciate the setup and were able to continue with their lives because they have a safe, decent, and enough space for rest and domestic activities.
Partner cities during a three-day workshop on ATS Systems and Camp Coordination and Camp Management. One of the activities is a tabletop exercise wherein participants plan an evacuation site based on their city’s contingency plan on a particular hazard.
To learn more about the Alternative Temporary Shelter (ATS) System deployed in Catmon, download the file below.
View and download the material here.
What is a resilient community?
Resilience is defined as “The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to, and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management” (UNISDR, 2017). Communities to be resilient should also be able to anticipate, adapt, respond, and transform into hazards, shocks, and stresses.
The MOVE UP Project envisions resilient communities as those that are able to prepare and bounce back from shocks and stresses because: 1) they have the resilience capacities to do so, 2) the society they live in is inclusive and equitable, and 3) good governance provides an environment that enables them to participate in public life and decision-making.
Resilient urban communities, thus, have proper access to natural, physical, human, social, economic, and political resources, which may come in the form of essentials such as land and water, sufficient and durable income levels, structurally sound homes in safe locations, good health, diverse skills and high level of education, health insurance, social inclusion programs, micro-credit, retirement schemes, and disaster preparedness training programs, among other things (Wisner, Gaillard, & Kelman, 2012).
View and download the material here.
Alternative Temporary Shelter System is a range of substitute solutions that immediately address the shelter needs of affected populations in the initial stages of disasters to guarantee human dignity and sustain family and community life.
As the core programming principle of Moving Urban Poor Communities towards Resilience (MOVE UP) project, the ATS System upholds the rights to dignified space through helping meet the survival needs of the disaster-affected population, provide security and personal safety, protection from the climate, and resistance to ill health and disease. To ensure this, the ATS System implementation utilizes four important inputs: hazard information, engineering and technologies, participatory needs analysis, and localized shelter capacities.
The first critical step in setting up an ATS system is to include current shelter conditions as part of community risk assessments. Aside from identifying hazards the communities experience, an inventory of required and used spaces for evacuation is conducted. These assessments are participatory and complement the local experience with scientific methodology in identifying shelter needs.
Aside from risk-mapping, professional/technical partners conduct ocular visits and interact with community members to identify safe spaces/structures. The collaboration with technical/professional groups ensures that technical standards are met and designs are suitable for the context of a specific community.
After coming up with a menu of options, local government unit (LGU) and community members, with partners who have technical expertise evaluate the ATS designs and explore possible adjustments or modifications.
Learn more about Alternative Temporary Shelter (ATS) by downloading the brochure below.
View and download the material here.
From a public health emergency of international concern to a pandemic, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 has continuously crossed intercontinental borders and has infected millions of people around the world. In four months, the United States has overtaken Europe as the pandemic’s epicenter. As of May 11, US has recorded the highest number of deaths at 76,916, followed by the United Kingdom at 31,855 and Italy at close 30,560. The global death toll has reached 280,000 while confirmed cases have surged to 4 million worldwide.
The pandemic has hit global north countries the worst despite their relatively functional healthcare systems and medical infrastructures. The United States confirmed the highest number of cases at 1.2 million followed by Spain (225,000), the Russian Federation (221,000), UK and Italy (219,000). Meanwhile, emerging, underdeveloped, and developing countries with dysfunctional healthcare systems have struggled to cope; analysts said the African continent is a ticking time bomb with its underfunded health programs and medical infrastructures. Governments around the world have sent millions of people into lockdowns and have forced tens of thousands of businesses and livelihoods to close indefinitely. The World Economic Forum projected that in the least developed countries, 900 million people are at risk from the COVID-19.
In the Philippines, just two months after Taal Volcano had spewed ashes in a phreatic eruption that paralyzed the Southern Tagalog Region, the authorities reported the first local transmission of COVID-19. President Rodrigo Duterte then imposed a 30-day Metro Manila lockdown, limiting travel in and out of the capital region until April 14. The rising number of cases and death toll resulted in a national state of calamity and an extended, enhanced community quarantine for high-risk areas until May 15, including the capital region. The government suspended all classes, mass transport systems, public gatherings, and other social activities to reduce transmission. The executive branches continued operations on skeleton staff and work-from-home arrangements; several sectors and other organizations followed suit. In March, the Senate passed the Republic Act 11469 or the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act, authorizing the president to have additional emergency powers and access to funding in dealing with the pandemic, including accreditation of testing kits and facilities, distribution of cash aid, and deployment of added military interventions, among others. Near mid-May, 726 Filipinos have died and 11,086 have tested positive.
As of now, there are only 11 accredited subnational laboratories for testing in the country. The government admitted that limited testing centers pose challenges in determining the actual number of cases. To address this, 60 more laboratories are yet to be accredited by the government, which targets 13,000 to 20,000 testing a day starting on April 27. The testing will prioritize suspect and probable cases of COVID- 19.
In recent weeks, resource-challenged hospitals and medical facilities have encountered many gaps and challenges in fighting the coronavirus. Death among healthcare professionals and the infected ones’ inability to function during a mandatory quarantine period aggravate the long-existing shortage of healthcare manpower in the country. The scarce supply of personal protective equipment and other logistical needs exacerbate the crisis. Saturated COVID-19 centers cannot cater to the increasing number of suspect and probable cases, resorting to home quarantines. In urban settings with relatively high population densities, physical distancing and isolation seem almost impossible. At the community levels, health workers struggle to monitor the conditions of suspect cases due to a lack of facilities for the mandated self-isolation procedures. Besides myths and disinformation, social stigma has also aggravated problems on early detection, monitoring, and treatment. Family members’ prejudice and discrimination towards their presumptive positive relatives also add a burden to the position of the latter.
Given the context of continuously rising cases and the immediate need to address the hospitals’ surge capacity, the Moving Urban Poor Communities Toward Resilience (MOVE UP) Project, with its success in piloting and replicating alternative temporary shelter (ATS) systems as an urban resilience strategy, aims to propose solutions that will help address current gaps in providing adequate facilities for self-isolation and quarantine. The ATS System, originally intended to address the lack of dignified space and shelters for internally displaced families affected by disasters, can serve as base models for designing Community Quarantine Facilities (CQFs). MOVE UP, together with its technical partner for shelter United Architects of the Philippines – Emergency Architects (UAP-EA), intends to present replicable models built on practical design criteria (robustness, affordability, scalability, range of application, and speed of construction) for local government units (LGUs) and communities that need facilities.
To see the full concept note, please download the file below.
View and download the material here.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a new coronavirus strain called SARS-CoV-2. The outbreak began in Wuhan, China in December of 2019. On March 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared the COVIS-19 outbreak a pandemic.
Click the links below to view and download each corresponding situational report.
ACCORD COVID19 SitRep01 – 20200318
ACCORD COVID19 SitRep02 – 20200323
ACCORD COVID19 SitRep03 – 20200323
ACCORD COVID19 SitRep04 – 20200324
ACCORD COVID19 SitRep05 – 20200326
ACCORD COVID19 SitRep06 – 20200331
ACCORD COVID19 SitRep07 – 20200407
ACCORD COVID19 SitRep08 – 20200422
ACCORD COVID19 SitRep09 – 20200329