PDRRMC Biliran

TS Urduja Post Disaster Assessment

/ Lessons Learned Workshop
18 Jan 2018
PEPDMO
A. Disaster Overview

prevailing
Monsoon Rains

TS URDUJA
12 – 19 Dec 2017

TY VINTA TS AGATON
20 – 24 Dec 2017 01- 03 Jan 2018

Earthquake
Dec 21 and Jan 16
 TS Urduja (Kai-Tak) TY Vinta (TEMBIN)
Sit Rep 21, 01 Jan 2018 Sit Rep 17, 7 Jan 2018
Period Dec 12: LPA to Dec 19: out PAR Dec 20: LPA to Dec 24: out of PAR
Areas Affected 2,591 Barangays in Regions 1,153 Barangays
MIMAROPA, V, VI, VIII, & Regions MIMAROPA, VI, IX, X, XI, XII,
CARAGA ARMM & CARAGA
Affected 444,607 families 168,129 families
People 1,861,250 persons 794,663 persons
Evacuation 20,389 families or 87,917 • 15,573 families or 75,896 persons
264 ECs in 53 Evacuation Centers
• 4,470 families / 22,464 outside ECs
Casualty 47 Dead 5 confirmed dead
44 Missing 13 missing

42 Dead, 14 Missing For Validation:160 persons reported

(Biliran Report) dead , 163 missing
Damage 4,162 totally damage 3,641 totally damage
Houses 26,608 partially damage 3,209 partially damage
30,770 total damage houses 6,850 total damage houses
 TS Urduja (Kai-Tak) TY Vinta (TEMBIN)
Sit Rep 21, 01 Jan 2018 Sit Rep 17, 7 Jan 2018
Cost of Damage to 1,089,371,624.54 1,440,995,311.11
Agriculture (Php)
Cost of Damage to 1,082,714,000.00 242,695,110.00
Infrastructures
Declaration of 18 C/ M/PLGU in MIMOROPA & 13 M/PLGU
State of Calamity VIII
Cost of Assistance (Php) 132,836,518.50 30,451,036.00
(DSWD 7 LGUs) (DSWD,LGU, NGO)
Overall Context
• Biliran as a young province
was impacted by TS Urduja
(winds with rains)
• Dec 13 to Dec 16 heavy
rains resulted to high depth
floods (with muds),
landslides
• Biliran was put into
“spotlight” (media, National
Government, CSOs &
Individuals)
– deaths
– isolation (damaged roads /
bridges)
Final / Terminal Report as of Dec 27, 2017
• Affected areas: 132 barangays of the 8
municipalities (100%)
• Affected Population: 30,224 families or
117,143 persons
• Damaged houses: 6, 883 (728 totally
damaged, 6,155 partially damaged)
• Casualty: 42 dead, 14 missing, 42
injured,. Search, Rescue and Retrieval
operations was already terminated
• Cost of Damage: Php 943,677,688.40
• houses (Php 19,027,500)
• school buildings (Php 20,714,188.40),
• roads and bridges (Php 663,040,000.00)
• agriculture(Php 201,000,000.00)
• power (Php 15,000,000.00)
• water (Php 6,032,000.00)
• Warning agencies (PAGASA, MGB) project similar
scenario / hazards may occur in the future
• Heavy rains in 2014 (Cyclones Henry & Ruby)
• 2017: TS Urduja
 Our Reflections
• Good Practices
• Lessons learned / Challenges
• Recommendations

Prevention and Mitigation

Response
Preparedness
Recovery and Rehabilitation
 Prevention & Mitigation
Capacities
• Presence of mitigation structures
• Infra(flood controls and Evacuation Centers)
• Mangrove rehab
• Existing policies
• Early warning “Protocol” (warning agencies, PDRRM)
• Strong coordination
• Build Back Better (Yolanda Framework)
• Empowered DRRMs and available resources on DRRM

Vulnerabilities / Challenges
• “critical structures located in hazard prone areas (schools, refuge areas,
among others
• Existing structures not compliance to standards / building code
 Prevention & Mitigation

Lessons
• need to review policies
• Lack of trained personnel ICS
• Need to revisit DRR-Development Framework

Recommendations
• Need to enhance EWS (systems upgrade) and localized system
• Need to update database, maps
• Strict implementation of building code / building permit
• Geo-hazard clearance (Landslide, flood, etc)
• Soil testing as part of the requirement
• Comprehensive Land Use Plan (review, update)
 Response
Good Practices / Capacities
• Early warning
• through Bandilyo
• Declaration of code alert
• Force evacuation was “strictly” implemented
• ICS established within the agencies
• Standby resources and ready for mobilization
• Good coordination
• Activated sub-clusters on Health (Health, WaSH, Mental Health, & Nutrition)
• Close coordination bet DTI and DPWH to ensure flow of goods
• Monitoring
• Special price monitoring
• Assessment done

Good Practices
• Committed and dedicated responders

Lessons
• Poor implementation of ICS
• Forced evacuation was not
necessary to some residents
• Insufficient PPEs and for SAR
operation
• Information management
• Documentation
• Inconsistent procedures
• Communication
Response
Recommendation
Re-Orientation of ICS
Waiver
Orientation on guidelines and
protocols
Stockpile procurement
Conduct validation / verification
before releasing data
 Preparedness

Good Practices / Capacities

• IECs and warning information “ effective” (radio
guesting, local dialect used, text blast)
• Institionalized EWS
• Institutionalized Operation Centers (24-HR
operations)
• Stable power and communication system
• Good partnership with private stakeholders
 Preparedness

Challenges
• “Capacity / confidence” guest in radio program
• Limited coverage of communication network (Smart
only)
• Limited volunteers and human resources / limited
capacity of volunteers
• Limited supply (medicines)
• “Matigas ang ulo”
 Preparedness
Recommendations
• Limited supply / resources
• Call the shots “ do not be limited to the protocol”
• Need regular updating risk assessment (risk)
• Need to strengthen coordination (between local and national
agencies)
• Improve EWS (radio) and IEC / public awareness (radio program,
improvement of communication network)
• Capacity Building
• MDM, Camp Management, ICS, SRR, radio guesting /
communication
• Need to standardized data management (various form,
templates)
• Level off on policies and mechanism
• Suspension of classes
• Procurement
 Recovery & Rehabilitation

Good Practices
• Immediate restoration or road networks
• Coordination / cooperation of gov’t agencies
• Conduct of Brigada Eskwela

Lessons / challenges
• Lack of equipment and capacity
• Re-design public infra
 Recovery & Rehabilitation

Challenges
• Immediate release of funds (procurement)
• Involvement of communities
• Relocation of critical infra
• Development framework
Gaps / Challenges
• Non-strict implementation of policies
• Varying appreciation / knowledge on risk information, warning,
“matigas ang ulo”
• Limited access to information / communication
• Limited capacity / skills on response
• Not updated baseline information / varying standard on
reporting
• Need to review plans (DRR-CCA, Contingency Plans,
Development and CLUP)
• Limited supply to consider isolation (medicines, critical supplies)
• Limited equipment for clearing (given the risk profile of Biliran,
prone to landslide).
• Limited funds
• Limited skills / capacity on psychosocial support
Recommendations
• Capacity building (continuous up to barangay level)

• Improvement of information management and public awareness /

communication protocol (focal persons and assigned spokesperson)
• Improvement of communication system / facilities (municipal and provincial
level)
• Institutionalized / improvement of early warning system
• Strengthen partnership and collaboration with other stakeholders
• Local shelter plans
• Psychosocial session to survivors, responders, teachers
• Access to information on plans, programs on resposne or recovery initiatives

• Review plans (DRR-CCA, Contingency Plans, Development and CLUP)

• Review of policies, protocols (mechanism)
• Re design infra (Disaster / Climate resilient)
• Relocation of critical infra

• Participatory process (community organizing / CBDRR)

• DRR / CCA Mainstreaming in development plans
• Recovery and rehabilitation planning
Actions / on the Pipe Line
• Rehabilitation of Mother Mary Bridge

Take Aways
• Biliran experience on TS Urduja as model for DRR and
governance