Act of Nature or Act of Man? Tracking the Root

Philippine Geographical Journal Volume 49, Nos. 1-4

January - December 2005

Act of Nature or Act of Man? Tracking the Root Causes of Increasing Disasters in the Philippines Jean-Christophe Gaillard1, Catherine C. Liamzon2,3, Emmanuel A. Maceda2

The Philippines ranks amongst the countries most affected by disasters triggered by natural phenomena. During the second half of the 20th century, the country was indeed affected by a quickly increasing number of disastrous events. The present paper tracks the root causes of disasters in the Philippines by successively testing the potential weight of natural hazards occurrence, changes in society and people’s vulnerability. It further explores the structural causes that subtend the vulnerability of the Philippine archipelago in the face of natural hazards. It concludes that the sharp increase in the number of disasters in the Philippines during the 20th century is not natural in origin. It rather results from increasing people’s vulnerability in a changing society linked to population dynamics, fast urbanization and economic development. In facing natural hazards, the population is rendered particularly unsafe by the complex interaction between the historical and cultural heritages, the political-economy system and the difficulty to access land and resources.

1 Laboratoire Territoires UMR 5194 Pacte CNRS, Institut de Géographie Alpine, Université Joseph Fourier - Grenoble I, 14 bis avenue Marie Reynoard, 38100 Grenoble, France. Email: [email protected] 2 Department of Geography, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1101 3 ANGOC - Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, 6-A Malumanay Street, U.P. Village, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1103

46



“The duty of modern man to my way of thinking is to work for the redemption of humanity, because once man is dignified there would be less unfortunate and more happy men that is possible in this life.” Jose Rizal (1883)

The EMDAT database of the Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) ranks the Philippines amongst the countries most affected by disasters triggered by natural phenomena. Between 1900 and 2002, the country was stricken by 355 disasters that each killed at least more than ten people, hindered the life of more than 100 individuals, or required international aid (CRED, 2005). 340 of these events occurred between 1950 and 2002, following an exponential trend (see Figure 1). Segregated figures show similar quickly increasing trends for the number of people killed, the number of people affected (see Figure 2) and the economic damages. The accuracy of the data may be questionable, especially for the first half of the century when disastrous events may not have been recorded in the same manner as they are today. However, based on the evidences from the last fifty years, it is our contention that the missing accounts would not reverse the CRED-data’s increasing trend. A second issue pertains to the definition of a disaster which is the object of a wide debate in the literature (e.g. Quarantelli, 1998). From a geographical viewpoint, these disasters can be seen as the spatial and temporal conjunction between the occurrence of a harmful natural hazard and vulnerable populations. We can therefore distinguish three different components, which are the natural hazard, the people exposed to the hazard, and a given level of vulnerability for these people. The hazard is the natural phenomenon of potential danger for people and goods within a given area and period. Vulnerability is defined as the propensity to suffer from damages in the event of the occurrence of a given hazard (adapted from D’Ercole, 1994: 87-88) or, in other terms, the condition of a society which makes it possible for a hazard to become a disaster (Cannon 1994: 13). The 18

16

14

Number of events

12

10

8

6

4

2

Years

Fig.1. Annual number of disasters linked to natural phenomena in the Philippines between 1900 and 2002 (after data from CRED-EMDAT) 45

02

99

20

19

93

96

19

90

19

19

84

87

19

81

19

19

75

78

19

72

19

19

66

69

19

63

19

60

19

57

19

54

19

51

19

48

19

45

19

42

19

39

19

36

19

33

19

30

19

27

19

24

19

21

19

18

19

15

19

12

19

09

19

06

19

03

19

19

19

00

0



10000000

9000000

8000000

Number of people

7000000

6000000

5000000

4000000

3000000

2000000

1000000

2002

1999

1996

1993

1990

1987

1984

1981

1978

1975

1972

1969

1966

1963

1960

1957

1954

1951

1948

1945

1942

1939

1936

1933

1930

1927

1924

1921

1918

1915

1912

1909

1906

1903

1900

0

Years

Fig. 2. Annual number of people affected by disasters linked to natural phenomena in the Philippines between 1900 and 2002 (after data from CRED-EMDAT)

increasing number of disasters triggered by natural phenomena can thus be explained by the accentuation of one, two, or both components. A brief reminder on disaster research history shows that, until the mid-1970s, the dominant paradigm explicitly or implicitly acknowledged the responsibility of nature and hazardous phenomena in explaining disaster occurrence and increase. Social researches focused on people’s perception of natural hazards and the eventual efficiency of their behavioral adjustment to the threats. The remedial measures to poorly adapted responses were viewed in terms of transfer of knowledge, experience, and technology as an alternative to poorly adapted human response (Kates, 1971; Burton et al., 1993). There has been a critical twist since the late 1970s when the dominant view started to be vehemently challenged by the proponents of a radical approach (O’Keefe et al. 1976; Hewitt, 1983; Watts and Bolhe, 1993; Wisner et al., 2004). Rather than natural, disasters have henceforth been often viewed as socio-economic and political in origin. Emphasis has been placed on the local context in which the disaster occurs and the geographical, social and political vulnerability of the victims. Drawing on this theoretical framework, the purpose of the present paper is to trace the root causes of disasters triggered by natural phenomena in the Philippines by successively testing the potential weight of natural hazards and people’s vulnerability in the increasing trend. In the final section, we wish to further explore, from systemic and causal angles, the structural causes that subtend the vulnerability of the Philippine archipelago in the face of natural hazards.

46



Increasing natural hazards in the Philippines? A closer look at the CRED-EMDAT database shows eleven natural hazards that triggered disasters in the Philippines between 1900 and 2002. This makes the country prone to one of the highest number of hazards in the world. With 210 events in the span of 103 years, typhoon hazard tops the list of natural phenomena linked to disaster in the archipelago. Indeed, located on the western edge of the Pacific Ocean, the Philippine group of islands is regularly swept by typhoons and tropical storms. These typhoons and tropical storms usually originate from the Western Pacific, between the Marianas and Caroline islands above 5°N before moving westward at an average speed of 15 km/hour. Then, wind velocity increases and can reach 200 km/hour when approaching Philippine shores. In the largest part of the country, the typhoon season stretches from May to December, but some tropical storms can occasionally hit the country from December to April as well (Brown et al., 1991). Typhoon hazard concerns a large part of the archipelago except Palawan Island, the southwestern quadrant of Mindanao and the Sulu / Tawi-Tawi archipelago (see Figure 3). Tornadoes are rarer events which have only been linked to two disasters during the 20th century. The second natural phenomenon triggering disasters in the Philippines is flooding, with 60 events recorded between 1900 and 2002. Floods and flash floods are usually linked to heavy rainfalls during the monsoon season or when typhoons strike. The mean annual rainfall in the Philippines ranges from 965 to 4,064 millimeters and spatially varies according to location of mountain ranges and exposure to moisture-bearing winds (Pajuelas, 2000). Rainfall episodes may last nine days or more in what are called “syam-syam” (“nine-nine” in Filipino language) rainy episodes. Still associated with heavy rainfalls are landslides which have been linked to twenty disastrous events between 1900 and 2002. Earthquakes also implied twenty disasters during the 20th century. The high level of seismicity of the Philippines is attributed to movements caused by the interaction of major tectonic plate boundaries along subduction zones and those generated from active faults. The archipelago is sandwiched by the subduction of the Philippine Sea plate along the Philippine / East Luzon trench on the East and that of the South China Sea plate along the Manila trench on the West. Faulting chiefly, but not exclusively, occurs along the 1,600km-long Philippine fault that stretches from the southern tip to the northern extremity of the country. Except for the western island of Palawan, the whole archipelago is therefore prone to earthquake hazards. Earthquakes sometimes trigger tsunamis which are listed five times in the CRED disaster database between 1900 and 2002. The CRED database also mentions 19 events between 1900 and 2002 associated with volcanic eruptions. Volcanism results from the structural location of the archipelago on the so-called “Pacific ring of fire” that surrounds the world’s largest ocean. There are 22 active volcanoes spread all over the country, and an additional 27 are seen as potentially active. Active volcanoes are those which have erupted at least once during the last 10,000 years. Mt Mayon, Taal volcano, Mt Kanlaon and Mt Bulusan are the most active volcanic edifices of the country while Mt Pinatubo is well known for its gigantic eruption of 1991 after almost 500 years of repose. Other natural hazards associated with disasters in the Philippines include epidemics like malaria or dengue (ten events), droughts (seven events), insect infestations (two events) and fire (one event).

47



N 20°N

Dagupan Agno River Delta

Luzon Baguio

Pinatubo Olongapo

South China Sea

Pampanga River Delta

Philippine Sea

Tarlac Angeles San Fernando Infanta Manila

15°N

Taal Mayon Bulusan

Samar

Kanla-on

10°N

Palawan Cagayan de Oro

Sulu Sea Flood-prone areas

Mindanao

Area affected by more than 23 typhoons in 12 years Area affected by 13 to 23 typhoons in 12 years Area affected by less than 13 typhoons in 12 years Major earthquake epicenter since 1900

Pulangi River Delta

Davao

Sulu Archipelago

Active volcano

5°N

Celebes Sea

Area affected by tsunami during the historical period Town or city

© Jean-Christophe Gaillard, 2005.

120°E

0

200km

125°E

Fig. 3. Areas prone to natural hazards in the Philippine archipelago (after data from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology and the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration) 48



The hazardous location of the archipelago led Filipino geographer T. Luna (1996: 1) to deterministically assert that the high number of disasters “can be explained by the location of the Philippines in the typhoon belt and in the circle of volcanoes along the west central part of the Pacific basin (…)”. This explanation, which underline the causal role of the hazard, are in line with the dominant approach of disasters triggered by natural phenomena. However, a closer examination of the actual figures regarding the numbers of hazardous natural events in the Philippines should temper this view (see Figures 4 and 5). 20

Earthquakes 18

Volcanic eruptions Typhoons

16

Number of events

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

19 00 19 03 19 06 19 09 19 12 19 15 19 18 19 21 19 24 19 27 19 30 19 33 19 36 19 39 19 42 19 45 19 48 19 51 19 54 19 57 19 60 19 63 19 66 19 69 19 72 19 75 19 78 19 81 19 84 19 87 19 90 19 93 19 96 19 99 20 02

0

Years

Fig. 4. Annual number of serious earthquakes (6 or more in magnitude or intensity), volcanic eruptions and typhoons between 1900 and 2002 (after data from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, Smithsonian’s Global Volcanism Network and the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration)

Indeed, recorded data show that typhoons are not more frequent today than one hundred years ago. During the last 19 years of Spanish domination over the archipelago, there was an annual average of 21 typhoons (Algue, 1905). Early in the 20th century, an American scientist quoted that there were on the average, twenty-five typhoons during the year that passed through the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR) (McClintock, 1905). Continuous data for the second half of the century show that this figure did not eventually increase; in fact they still vary between twenty and thirty tropical storms yearly crossing the PAR or an average of fifteen which effectively hit the archipelago (Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration, 2005). However, 12 typhoon-related disasters were reported during the first half of the century and 198 during the second half. Likewise, rainfall amount did not increase during the period of reference in flood-prone areas (see Figure 5). It actually slightly decreased during the second half of the 20th century in a large part of the archipelago (Wernstedt and Spencer, 1967; Jose et al., 1996; Pajuelas, 2000). Yet, all the sixty flooding disasters of the century occurred during the last fifty years. The number of serious earthquakes (6 or more in magnitude or intensity) which have 49



been jolting the archipelago slightly increased during the second half of the 20th century (nineteen events versus thirteen during the first fifty years and then one in 2002) (Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, nd). However, this figure cannot exclusively explain why the number of earthquake-related disasters increased from two to eighteen between the two halves of the century. Volcanic eruptions also maintained a roughly stable trend with 31 eruptions between 1900 and 1949 and then 37 between 1950 and 1999 (and eventually four events between 2000 and 2002) while the number of related disasters increased from one to eighteen (Smithsonian’s Global Volcanism Network, 2005). This overview of natural hazard occurrence during the 20th century is crucial in debunking the role of nature in the explanation of increasing disasters in the Philippines. Indeed, if natural phenomena are not significantly multiplying, the accentuation of disasters in the Philippines should be due to changes in Philippine society and the concurrent increasing vulnerability of the people.

4000

3500

3000

Rainfall (mm)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Ye a 19 r 02 19 05 19 08 19 11 19 14 19 17 19 20 19 23 19 26 19 29 19 32 19 35 19 38 19 41 19 44 19 47 19 50 19 53 19 56 19 59 19 62 19 65 19 68 19 71 19 74 19 77 19 80 19 83 19 86 19 89 19 92 19 95 19 98 20 01

0

Years

Fig. 5. Annual rainfall (in mm) of Manila, Port Area Station, between and 2002 (after data from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration). Note: No data available during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines between 1941 and 1945. 50



Changes in the Philippine society during the 20th century The Philippine society has been changing rapidly since the beginning of the 20th century. Major changes pertain to population dynamics, urbanization and economic development. Those changes mark the transition from an agricultural and rural society to an industrial and urban society. Population dynamics The Philippine population grew at a rate of 2.3 to 3.1% per annum during the second half of the 20th century versus 1.9 to 2.2% in the first half. The inhabitants of the archipelago numbered 76 million in 2000 from only 19 million in 1948 and 8.3 million in 1903. Population growth has been primarily due to natural increase while in-migration has been marginal. In 2000, fertility rate still averaged 3.2 children per woman nationwide and reached 4.7 in rural areas (National Statistics Office, 2005). Population pressure implies a growing number of people occupying long-settled hazardous areas or an increase in density of these hazard-prone sectors. The fast population growth also results in a large proportion of young and dependent people. 36% of the Philippine population is indeed below 15 years old. The youth are physically vulnerable in the face of natural hazards and dependent in time of crisis. A large base of the population pyramid further accentuates the needs for education facilities and health care. Massive movements of populations occurred in the Philippines during the last five decades. Most of these migrations were constrained to available arable lands and urban centers. Impelled by the government to decongest crowded areas and cool down growing agrarian conflicts, pioneer fronts spread to the islands of Mindanao, Palawan, Mindoro as well as toward the Cagayan Valley of Luzon. Spontaneous movements also occurred in response to limited economic opportunities. Population movements led to an increasing number of hazardous areas, formerly avoided, but hitherto settled. It should be remembered that the Philippines is a mountainous country with few significant large plains and narrow coastal lowlands where people crowd. Nevertheless, population density culminated at 280 people per km2 in 2004. Traditional settlement areas such as flood plains, river deltas and volcano foot slopes have become increasingly densely populated while land-bearing capacity reaches a maximum. The demographic pressure and the progressive depletion of available suitable lowlands thus has led many Filipinos to further occupy marginal areas like steep landslideprone slopes, flood-prone river valleys, stream beds and lagoons, as well as seashores on tropical storm tracks. Rapid urbanization Demographic growth and population movements are pinpointed as causes of increasing urbanization as well. From 13% in 1903, the rate of urban population grew to 28% in 1960 and 59% in 2000 (National Statistics Office, 2005). The relationship between urbanization and increasing disaster proneness has been the object of considerable attention during the last few decades. In urban areas, stakes in facing natural hazards are growing with the concentration of population, politico-administrative and economic assets, buildings and infrastructures as well as the ecological imbalance of built-up environments (Davis, 1987; Elo et al., 1996; Mitchell, 1999). An overview of the ten largest Philippine cities shows that all of them lie in acknowledged high hazard-prone areas (see Table 1). All have experienced one or more disasters during the 20th century either due to floods (Metro-Manila, Cagayan de Oro), typhoons (MetroManila), earthquakes (Metro-Manila, Baguio, Davao), volcanic eruptions (Angeles) or landslides (Baguio). The most evident and studied example is the agglomeration around the capital city of Manila (e.g. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, 1993; Zoleta-Nantes, 2000a, b, 2002; Liongson et al., 2000; Bankoff, 2003b). In 2000, Metro Manila numbered more than 10 million people crowded on an earthquake, typhoon and flood-prone site. Urban expansion around the capital is, however, facing strong environmental constraints. The agglomeration is bounded by 51

Philippine Geographical Journal Volume 49, Nos. 1-4 City Metro Manila Davao Cebu Cagayan de Oro Bacolod General Santos Iloilo Bacoor Angeles Baguio

Location Metro Manila Southern Mindanao Central Visayas Northern Mindanao Western Visayas Southern Mindanao Western Visayas Southern Tagalog Central Luzon Cordillera Administrative Region


Population (2000) 9,932,560 1,147,116 718,821 461,877 429,076 411,822 365,820 305,699 263,971 252,386

Hazards Earthquake, typhoon, flooding Earthquake, tsunami Earthquake, tsunami Earthquake, flooding Earthquake Earthquake, volcanic eruption Earthquake Typhoon, earthquake Volcanic eruption Earthquake, typhoon, landslide

Table 1. Top 10 cities of the Philippines and the natural hazards they are exposed to

the Sierra Madre mountain range on the East, Manila Bay on the West, the vast Laguna lake on the South-East, an overcrowded region on the South (the density of population of the province of Cavite reached 1,600 people per km2 in 2000) and a flood-prone delta on the North. This situation pushed the former Marcos administration to engage in building polders during the 1970s. Such land reclamation has allowed the gaining of several square kilometers on the Manila Bay, at the expense of the stability of the reclaimed land in the event of an earthquake (Bureau du Coordinateur des Nations Unies pour le Secours en cas de Catastrophe, 1979). Moreover, the embankments have blocked the natural drainage of flood waters toward the bay and have led to increasing flooding problems in the city behind. Economic development Urban areas are the focus of economic development, which further leads to the increasing concentration of assets in hazard-prone areas. Metro Manila itself gathered 35% of the Gross National Product in 2002 (National Economic and Development Authority, 2005). The much feared “big earthquake” that may strike Manila in the future may therefore paralyze a great proportion of the economic activity in the country. The case of the region surrounding Mt Pinatubo is significant as well. Following the world famous eruption of this volcano in 1991, the Philippine government converted this region into a successful and leading economic center for the country by using the facilities abandoned by the American military forces in the vicinity. This economic development has totally neglected the possibility of future volcanic eruptions in its planning. In the event of such, the consequences may be disastrous for the whole country. Indeed, within a 40-km radius from the summit of the volcano, which was the most affected area in 1991, are the concentration of three special economic zones, several shopping malls of regional importance, and an international airport that the Philippine government wants to make the country’s premier airport. The most recent, devastating disasters caused by natural phenomena in the Philippines have all concerned highly densely populated areas, recently settled hazard-prone areas or major urban centers. The 1990 so-called “Luzon earthquake” struck Baguio City (252,386 people in 2000) and Dagupan City (130,328 people in 2000). One year later, the brutal awakening of Mt Pinatubo and its subsequent lingering lahars affected almost two million people and left heavy damages among four cities of more than 200,000 inhabitants (Olongapo City, San Fernando, Angeles City and Tarlac City). In November 1991, typhoons Uring and Ruping successively lashed at the densely populated Visayas archipelago (275 people / km2 in 2000) and took the lives of more than 8,000 people. Moreover, heavy flooding seasonally hits the Pampanga and Agno river deltas, two of the most densely populated regions of the country, where density easily oversteps the 1,000-people-per-km2 mark. In late 2004, successive typhoons left more than people dead among the migrant communities of Eastern Luzon.

52



People’s vulnerability Changes in Philippine society have been accompanied by an increase in vulnerability. The role of people’s vulnerability in facing natural hazards has been continually emphasized since the 1970s. Today, it is acknowledged that disaster victims are people who are marginalized in three ways: geographically because they live in marginal hazard-prone areas, socially because they are poor, and politically because their voice is disregarded (Wisner et al., 2004). This is what is usually termed social vulnerability. Vulnerability, defined in its broader acceptance in the introduction, can here be associated with a low capacity of resilience in the face of natural hazards. Resilience is viewed as “the capacity of a system, community or society to resist or change in order that it may obtain an acceptable level of functioning and structure” (United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 2004). Cannon (2000) has suggested a five-component matrix to help evaluate social vulnerability and people’s resilience. It includes initial well-being, livelihood resilience, self protection, social protection and social capital. This matrix will serve as basis for the evaluation of the vulnerability of Filipino people. Initial wellbeing The initial wellbeing or the physical strength and resilience of people exposed to natural hazards is defined by their nutritional and health status, which are indicators of their capacity to deal with the impact of environmental extremes (Cannon, 2000). In the Philippines, despite the recent emergence and resurgence of infectious diseases like SARS or tuberculosis, the health status does not stand too poorly. Life expectancy for both sexes was estimated at 69.8 years old in 2002. This figure, seemingly favorable, does not cover the large proportion of the population (36.6% in 2002) below 15 years old who are physically vulnerable, less resilient and dependent in case of disaster. The high fertility rate associated with the so-called “population momentum” does not let hope of an immediate evolution of the age pyramid of the country. United Nations Development Programme (2004) data further indicate that 22% of the Philippine population suffered from malnutrition at the turn of the 21st century. Psychologically speaking, Filipinos have long displayed a range of traditional and cultural coping mechanisms. The most famous of these is captured by the expression “bahala na,” well described by Bankoff (2004). Beyond its literal translation as “leave it to fate”, this idiom indicates “an active calculation of the odds” and “a formidable armor against the suffering brought by disasters” rather than a simple fatalistic attitude (Bankoff, 2004: 103-104). Yet, a certain degree of fatalism appears in the perpetual reference of Filipinos to good luck (“kaswertehan”) or bad luck (“kamalasan”) in quotidian life as well as in times of crisis. Furthermore, in a country where more than 95% of the population fervently believe in God, disasters are often perceived as supernatural and inescapable divine punishments (Bankoff, 2004). Resilience of people and household livelihoods Social vulnerability also depends on the resilience of people and household livelihoods (Cannon, 2000). It measures the ability to cope with the aftermath of a given hazard impact. General figures (United Nations Development Program, 2004; National Statistical Coordination Board, 2005) for the Philippines indicate that the GNP per capita reached US$4170 in 2002. However, 28.4% of the population still lives on less than US$216 per year, the poverty level set for the country. The low financial resources of a large fraction of the Filipino populace are further reflected in the fact that 50% of households spent more than they earned in 1999. This means that 50% of the population is indebted and does not have any savings that may act as buffer or help reinstate livelihood quickly in the aftermath of a disaster. In the event of a catastrophe, victims cannot help but rely on more loans through high-interest pawnshops or informal moneylenders. In 1999, 46% of the working 53



force was further engaged in informal activities in both urban and rural areas (Indon, 2002: 117). The informal sector is vulnerable in the event of a disaster because of the generally low salaries, irregularity of employment and hostile working conditions. Beyond these mere national figures, the situation is particularly dramatic in rural and coastal areas among farmers and fishermen communities. 36% of the Philippine population actually depends on daily agriculture and fishing to make a living and ensure their food security. 41.4% of them live below the poverty line (National Statistical Coordination Board, 2005). Agricultural and fishing activities are highly vulnerable because they rely on basic technologies such as livestock and frail outrigger boats which are particularly fragile in time of climatic disturbances such as typhoons or heavy rainfall. For instance, the coastal communities of the Pacific shore of Samar Island, one of the poorest regions of the Philippines (Human Development Index: 0.511), depend on rice harvests and fish catches for their diet. When strong winds or heavy rains batter the area, rice fields are flooded and fishermen remain in the harbor. Both community incomes and diet are thus affected without alternatives left to the victims. Compelled by the increasing need to feed a growing population, fishermen acknowledge that they are taking more risks today than a few decades ago. A raging sea does not discourage fishermen to go off shore anymore. Self protection Self protection in dealing with natural hazards refers to the ability or/and willingness of an individual or/ and household to provide themselves with adequate protection (Cannon, 2000). It includes the capacity or/and willingness to live and work in hazard-safe areas and to afford resistant housing. As mentioned above, massive population movements led an increasing number of people to occupy hazard-prone areas. For the uplands, this phenomenon was fairly common since it is estimated that there were already 2.8 million migrants out of a total population of 11 million in 1970 (Cruz, 1986; Cruz et al., 1988). Between 1970 and 1990, 2 to 4 million more lowlanders migrated to the Philippine uplands (Umehara and Bautista, 2004). The late-November 2004 typhoon disaster in Eastern Luzon provides an enlightening illustration of this trend. Indeed, most of the 1,000 people who perished buried alive by landslides or who where washed away by torrential floods are former lowland agriculturists deprived of enough space in the plains and who chose to take the road to the mountains recurrently battered by typhoon rains just to ensure a decent living for their families. Ironically, the Eastern Pacific coast of the Philippine archipelago (except for the fertile volcanic lands of the Bicol region) has been traditionally sparsely populated because of its typhoon-prone location. Self protection is also reflected in the building material and architecture of houses. Figure 6 shows two houses affected by the late 2004 typhoons in Infanta, Quezon province, in Eastern Luzon. On the left, the house chiefly made of wood and metallic sheets suffered heavy damages and was abandoned two months after the disaster. On the right, the house is built on an embankment, cemented and possesses a strong roof and a water tank to ensure drinking water availability; it has never been abandoned. Such differential and economically conditioned access to resistant housing is present all over the country. Housing census statistics show that only 30% of the Philippine houses are integrally made of hard material whilst 45% are made of palm and bamboo (National Statistical Coordination Board, 2005). In the face of frequent typhoons as well as landslides and volcanic eruptions, the low quality of housing is of great concern and constitutes a critical element of vulnerability.

54



Fig. 6. Houses similarly hit but differently damaged by the successive typhoons of late November – early December 2004 in Infanta, Quezon province, Philippines (photograph by J.-C. Gaillard)

Societal protection The fourth factor of social vulnerability is the societal protection or the ability or willingness of social and political structures at political or social levels above the individual or household, to provide protection for a particular hazard (Cannon, 2000). In the Philippines, the disaster management system is traditionally reactive and relief-oriented. It is based on the Presidential Decree 1566 of 1978 entitled “Strengthening the Philippine disaster control, capability and establishing the National Program on Community Disaster Preparedness” (Republic of the Philippines, 1978). It is interesting to note that out of six pages, the document only contains five lines dedicated to pre-disaster activities (drills, distribution of leaflets…). In 1988, it led to the setting up of a system of prevention and control (Calamities and Disaster Preparedness Plan) at several administrative levels of action and decision, as shown on figure 7 (National Disaster Coordinating Council, 1988). It delegates to the Coordinating Councils (Disaster Coordinating Councils, DCC) from the national (National-DCC) to the local scale (Barangay-DCC), going through intermediary levels with the Regional, Provincial, Municipal Disaster Coordinating Councils. The National Disaster Coordinating Council, which manages everything, is composed of the secretaries from almost all the Ministerial Cabinets, the Head of the Armed Forces, the General Secretary of the Red Cross, the Director of the Philippine Information Agency, and a secretary from the Executive 55



Office of the President. Its Executive Director is the Administrator of the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) and his operational arm the Civil Defense Operation Center, which places him directly under the umbrella of the Department for National Defense, itself placed under the authority of the President of the Republic. The NDCC plans the guiding activities in the field of communication, warning signals, emergency transportation, evacuation, rescue, engineering, health, rehabilitation, public education and auxiliary services (fire fighting and police). Disaster-related activities are therefore limited to crisis management. What usually happens when seasonal typhoons strike is symptomatic of the reactive orientation of the Philippine disaster management system. Indeed, despite the regular issuance of warnings by the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration (PAGASA), office work and classes are always and only suspended as a result of the heavy rains when the streets of the major cities are already flooded. Besides disaster related activities, societal protection also includes the healthcare services which are of critical importance in defining the physical strength of threatened people and their capacity to recover following catastrophes. Healthcare potential is reflected in the number of physicians per 100,000 people which did not exceed 115 in 2002 (United Nations Development Program, 2004). This figure is cause for concern because the population is growing much faster than the number of physicians and nurses which is deeply burdened by the massive exodus of this category of professionals to greener pastures in North America and Europe. Access to health care is further hampered by its cost and the limited prevalence of governmental health insurance which did not cover more than 60% of the population

Office of the president For decision by higher authority For action

National Disaster Coordinating Council

For information

Office of Civil Defense

Regional Disaster Coordinating Council

Provincial Disaster Coordinating Council

Municipal Disaster Coordinating Council

City Disaster Coordinating Council

Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council

Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council

Fig. 7. Organizational set-up of the Philippine disaster management system (after data from the National Disaster Coordinating Council) 56



as of June 2004 (Philhealth, 2005). Noteworthy is that access to health care was only 11% in 2003, before the presidential election of May 2004. Moreover, lapses in employment or monthly contribution often render insurance services unavailable to many. Social capital The last factor of social vulnerability underlined by Cannon (2000) is the social capital which involves the soft security provided by group or community capacities to enhance or reduce people’s resilience. Philippine communities may be considered as quite well-armed with traditional and religious solidarity networks. First is the indigenous sense of communality or “pagkikipagkapwa,” very much evident in the mutualization of labor named “bayanihan”. The “pagkikipagkapwa” provides invaluable support in times of crisis and allows disaster victims to rely on spared neighbors for their basic needs such as food, clothes or even shelter. On the other hand, “bayanihan” is critical to mobilize labor in emergency preventive actions such as sandbagging or rehabilitation and reconstruction tasks. Moreover, most Filipinos regularly frequent the church and seek its help during times of hardship. Church groups usually actively participate in relief and recovery operations. The large network of 8 million overseas Filipino workers is another potential crutch in times of hardship induced by disasters. Certainly, the Filipino family that does not count an expatriated laborer among its kin who may send emergency remittances should the need arise, is rare. Conversely, social capital is limited in the conflict-stormed areas of central Mindanao Island. Thousands of victims of the three-decade long conflict between the Muslim separatist guerilla movement and the governmental forces, in a region threatened by floods and active volcanoes, are permanently living in precarious evacuation centers supposed to be temporary shelters. Others who are lucky enough to stay at home are pressured by both groups for rations or tributes. The same observation also applies to regions affected for more than five decades by the insurgency / counter-insurgency fights between the leftist guerilla and governmental forces all over the country. The impact of such ‘low intensity’ or ‘counter-insurgency’ warfare on rural households has long been highlighted in the disaster literature (e.g. Wisner, 2003; Wisner et al., 2004; Wisner and Walker, 2005). These five components of social vulnerability and people resilience vary with a number of direct determinants which are class or income group, gender, ethnicity, type of state, civil society strength and science and technology distribution (Cannon, 2000). Table 2 suggests potential weights for each of the factors in determining the global levels of the five components of social vulnerability. The level of incomes turns out to be the most critical factor in defining people’s vulnerability in the face of natural hazards through conditioning access to safe areas, protection measures, health care and financial savings. Other very significant determinants of vulnerability include the characteristics of the political regime and the role the government gives to the civil society, notably ethnic minorities, in the political arena. Such factors are very much rooted in the larger political economy context and its interrelated root causes of vulnerability. Looking for the root causes of disaster vulnerability in the Philippines Several models have been suggested for tracing the root causes of vulnerability in the so-called “developing or emergent countries”. The most famous is probably the “Disaster Pressure Model” (DPM) elaborated by Davis (1987) and eventually formalized by Cannon (1994) and Blaikie et al. (1994). This model asserts that unsafe conditions facing natural hazards, like fragile physical environments, fragile local economies, vulnerable societies, and public actions, are the results of dynamic pressures such as rapid population growth, uncontrolled urbanization, debt service, deforestation, etc. These dynamic pressures originate from root causes of vulnerability which include 57


Determinant Income group Component Initial well-being 2 3 Livelihood resilience Self protection 3 Societal protection 2 Social capital 1 Global weight 11


Gender

Ethnicity

Type of state

Civil society

Global index

2 1 1 1 1 6

2 1 2 3 1 9

2 2 1 3 1 9

2 1 3 1 3 10

11 11 13 13 8 n/a

Tab. 2. The different components of vulnerability and their determinants – Range of importance: 1: low; 2: significant; 3: high (adapted from Cannon, 2000)

limited access to power, structures and representation, and to a larger extent the political-economy context. Another model referred as the “Space of Vulnerability” by Watts and Bohle (1993a, b) inscribes the vulnerability in a three dimensional space including the social relations of production (political economy), the entitlement relations and finally the power/institutional relations. Both models try to replace the vulnerability of societies in the larger social, political and economic context to show that disaster victims are those individuals which are geographically, socially, politically, and economically marginalized. Some other researchers (D’Ercole, 1994: 87) rather view vulnerability to disasters as a “system articulated around a large number of natural and human variables, which dynamics in time and space may imply potentially dangerous situations for a threatened society”. These interacting and interdependent variables include demographic, socio-economic, psycho-sociological, historico-cultural, technical, functional and finally institutional and politico-administrative factors of vulnerability. The root causes of vulnerability of the Philippine archipelago in facing natural hazards can be approached from both causal and systemic lenses (see Figure 8). Three components strongly interact at a structural level to result in the evident situations of insecurity described in the previous paragraph. These three dimensions of vulnerability are the historical and cultural heritage, the difficult access to resources, and the political-economy context. The burden of the historical and cultural heritage The historical and cultural heritage is of critical importance in understanding the present-day social vulnerability of the Philippine archipelago in the face of natural hazards (e.g. Bankoff, 2003a & b). Philippine history consists in more than 300 years of Spanish colonial administration, 48 years of American occupation and then twenty years of Marcos’ hegemonic power. The colonial exploitation set up by the Spaniards resulted in the profoundly unfair distribution of land and resources in the country and the elitist system which regulates the Philippine political and economic system. Both power and wealth have been concentrated in the hands of a few political and business cronies. Figures actually show that 10% of Philippine families control 35% of total family income while the poorest tenth control only 2.1% (Lucas et al., 1992). Limited access to land and resources for a large fraction of the population is a major cause of poverty leading to weak livelihoods and poor personal protection in the face of natural hazards. Colonial governments have further encouraged the production of cash crops (abaca, coconut, sugar, pineapples) at the expense of staple crops (rice, tubers). Today, with the quickly 58


Causality Interaction


Historicocultural heritage

- Elitism - Armed conflict - Filipino personality - Fatalism - Religion

Vulnerability - Poverty - Hazardous location - Fragile housing - Population growth / movements -Environmental degradation

Access to resources

- Debt - Corruption - Poverty - Low social protection - Environmental degradation

Political economy

Fig. 8. Systemic and causal interactions of the factors of vulnerability of the Philippines in facing natural hazards

growing population and the concurrent encroachment of human settlements on farmlands, food security is a major concern in the Philippines. Food and Agriculture Organization (2005a) figures show that the imports of rice have been steadily increasing since the late 1990s while agricultural productivity does not improve significantly. Rice shortages are common in time of disaster. As an example, following the late 2004 typhoon disaster in Northeastern Luzon, the Philippine government had to import more than 300,000 Metric tons of rice from neighboring Asian countries, thus reducing the financial means to input in other disaster activities. Political-economy as a root cause of vulnerability The cash crop economy established by the colonial governments further results in heavy dependence on the global economic context in a classic core-periphery relationship. When the prices of sugar and coconut collapsed on world 59



markets in the 1970s and 1980s, former president F. Marcos had no choice but to turn to massive money loans to fund local development and to purchase oil products whose prices were concurrently rising. Philippine debt amounted to US$ 59-billion in 2002. Debt servicing thus constitutes a huge economic pressure and monopolizes the largest fraction of the budget (11.8%) while health (1.2%) and education (3.2%) sectors only receive the leftovers (United Nation Development Program, 2004). To refund the loans, the Philippine government still partially relies on hazard-prone export agriculture, which still accounts for 16% of the GNP, henceforth accompanied with similarly demand-driven manufacture industry which benefits from cheap labor. In the event of large disasters triggered by natural phenomena, damages to cash crop farmlands may result in significant losses of incomes for the Philippine government that may further worsen the situation of the poor farmers at the bottom of the economic chain. If the ability of the Philippine government to provide protection for its citizens in facing natural hazards is constrained by such global economic pressures is not in doubt, it is its willingness to do so which is questionable. It is first evident in the prevalence of personal interests at the expense of collective concerns. Populations living in hazardous regions are hardly consulted in the planning of structural protection measures. Political and strategic decisions are basically a Manila-centric and elitist affair. As an example, the population of the Pampanga River delta is loudly complaining about the huge structural measures implemented to control seasonal floods in the area that are rather increasing the magnitude of the phenomena by preventing flood water from naturally flowing into the sea. Even scientific recommendations are sometimes overlooked to allow personal enrichment of local politicians which are often project contractors at the same time. For instance, the yearly dike construction/destruction cycles in facing the 1990s Mt Pinatubo lahars have benefited a handful of project contractors and local politicians who became very rich following the eruption (Rodolfo, 1995). Corruption, to the detriment of the Filipino poor, is indeed a major concern. Economic and political networks are said to be among the most corrupt in the world (World Bank Philippine Country Management Unit, 2000; Bankoff, 2005). As an example of the impact of corruption, it is commonly acknowledged that the dramatic decrease of forest cover in the archipelago is to be attributed to illegal loggers who have been gravitating towards the upper echelons of corrupted governments for decades (Kummer, 1992). Today, the forest cover of the country does not exceed 19.4% of the total land area (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2005b), whereas it was 59% in 1948. Deforestation and associated erosion have immediately been pointed as the main causes of landslides that killed hundreds of people in Eastern Luzon following the impact of the successive typhoons in late 2004. Similarly, the quick subsidence of some of the deltaic plains of the country is greatly aggravated by the intense withdrawal of groundwater through an excessive number of deep wells drilled in time of election campaigns. Delta subsidence is today pinpointed as the foremost cause of increasing flooding in Philippine delta plains well before sea level rise (Siringan and Rodolfo, 2003; Rodolfo and Siringan, 2006). These are notwithstanding all the existing environmental laws to prevent illegal logging, air pollution, coral destruction, excessive extraction of groundwater causing delta subsidence, which local authorities commonly bypass in search of more ballots. Stories of relief goods embezzled by local officials or hazard prevention budget illegally tapped by local politicians abound as well (Bankoff, 1999, 2005). The gap between the population and their leaders is further doubled by a Manila / provinces dichotomy. The huge primacy of the capital leaves peripheral areas economically and politically marginalized. If Manila’s surrounding areas (Metro-Manila and the Pampanga River delta notably) receive a big fraction of budgets dedicated to hazard protection measures, the most remote areas similarly affected by recurrent heavy floods, like the Pulangi River delta in Central Mindanao, receive much less attention. The problem of political representation is even more obvious for the 100 ethnic minorities whose voices are often left unheard.

60



The difficult access to resources Closely dependent on the political context and historical heritage is the hardship encountered by many Filipinos to access land and resources. In the rural areas, 36% of Filipino farmers are landless and have to give up as much as 70% of their harvest to powerful landlords. On the other hand, the richest 20% of the population control 56% of the farm lands (Quizon, 2005). However, the fortunate few who do possess land, have pieces of land that are too small to provide enough food to nourish their large families. Census data further indicates that the number of small farms of less than one hectare is alarmingly increasing (from 11.5 to 36% of total farms) due to population pressure and induced land fragmentation (National Statistics Office, 1995). This situation presses many poor lowland farmers to take the road to the mountains to till either their own field or a wider parcel only in order to become food secure. As an example, the areas affected by the successive typhoons in late 2004 have been among the favorite destinations of these landless farmers. Similarly, the foot slopes of Mt Mayon, the most active volcano in the country, are occupied by landless lowland farmers. Bankoff (2003a) provides another startling example when noting a social ‘ghettoisation’ in flood plains abandoned by the wealthier classes of the society whilst the poorer groups, compelled by economic pressures, have no choice but to move into these areas. The impact of income level on the choice of housing and working sites is thus profound. Coastal dwellers whose diet and incomes rely on small-scale fishing face similar difficulties. These are compelled by the progressive depletion of natural resources along the coast of the central part of the archipelago (eg Seki 2004; World Bank – Country Office Manila 2004). Indeed, the population pressure and the growing need for food push fisherfolk to increasingly use dynamite and cyanide to augment their fish catch. These fishing techniques are however destructive to the environment, especially to coral reefs. Similarly, pressured by the increasing need for fuel wood and space to settle, coastal communities are quickly gaining ground on mangroves. The depletion of coral reefs and mangroves both have a dramatic incidence on the reproduction of fishes. The outcomeis that fish catches are declining, thus pushing people to migrate in search of greener pastures less densely occupied but exposed to natural hazards. A number of poor farmers and coastal dwellers have been taking the road to the cities as well. Metro-Manila is the favorite destination. It is estimated that more than 1.6 million people had migrated to the capital region between 1970 and 1990 (Nakanishi, 2002: 62). Incapable of affording scarcely available lands, these migrants flocked to the numerous slums that mushroom all over Manila proper and its suburbs. The proportion of shantytowns in Metro Manila was estimated to be between 35 and 40% in 1993 (Nakanishi, 1999: 12). Many of these slums encroach on rivers and canals and are severely exposed to flooding. The increasing number of these precarious shelters lacking infrastructure and basic services is of major concern in facing natural hazards. These three structural causes of vulnerability are undoubtedly connected with each other and interact as a system (see Figure 8). It is indeed very difficult to dissociate the present-day political economy context and the access to resources from their historical heritage. On the other side, limited access to resources constrains the economic development and accentuates the gap between social classes induced by the political system. These three root factors result in interconnected situations of insecurity. Certain traits of the Filipino personality and the Catholic faith are direct historical and cultural legacies which are accentuated by present-day elitist political practices but which conversely partially induce contemporary poverty. While caused by demographic growth and poverty, the growing number of people exposed to natural hazards and the pressure on resources accentuate the burden of elitist traditions themselves induced by the global and national political economy context. The final output of the system is the high vulnerability and the low capacity of resilience of Philippine society in facing natural hazards. 61



What lies ahead? This study clearly shows that the sharp increase in the number of disasters triggered by natural phenomena in the Philippines during the 20th century is not natural in origin. Indeed, natural hazards occurrence is as frequent as it was a hundred years ago and scientific data shows that the so-called ‘climate change’ and its implications (sea level rise, increasing rainfalls, etc.) cannot be pinpointed as the causes of increasing disasters in the Philippine archipelago. The increase in the number of disasters obviously results from the high level of people’s vulnerability in a changing socio-economic environment linked to population dynamics, fast urbanization and economic development. Those changes in society are of particular importance to explain the increasing impact of disasters on “developing” countries. Indeed, social changes often led to the disappearance of traditional coping mechanisms and flexibility. In the face of natural hazards, traditional societies turn to be resilient through their capacity to change and adapt to the post-disaster environmental, social and economic context (Gaillard, 2006). On the other hand, western industrial societies are well-off enough to ensure social protection and access to resources to people. The transition from traditional to post-modern society constitutes the crucial stage of vulnerability. Worldwide over the last 30 years, 55% of the disasters struck countries whose HDIs were between 0.5 and 0.8. More than 70% of the victims also come from these countries. In facing natural hazards, the Philippine population is rendered particularly unsafe by the complex interaction between the historical and cultural heritages, the political-economy system and the difficulty of access to land and resources. The unsafe condition of a great majority of the Philippine population in the face of natural phenomena is reflected in “daily life” difficulties (Wisner, 1993). Hardship in accessing land and resources, in availing social services and protection or to make people’s voice heard in the political arena are indeed everyday concerns of Filipinos which render them very vulnerable. It is important to consider that short-term interests and benefits weigh much heavier than seasonal or less-recurrent natural hazards. A farmer on the flanks of Mayon volcano will prefer to risk the occasional eruption to a life characterized by chronic food insecurity. Likewise, coastal communities living along the Eastern shore of the archipelego cannot be convinced to abandon their daily livelihoods to avoid seasonal typhoon. In that context, disasters should be considered as the extension of permanent emergency situations rather than the consequence of the occurrence of rare and extreme natural hazards (Hewitt, 1983, 1995; Maskrey, 1989). Understanding the underlying causes and the daily condition of disaster vulnerability is of critical importance in considering the adequate approach to address disaster management in the Philippines. The foregoing paragraphs underline the need to empower people to make them less vulnerable. Hazards assessment, monitoring and prevention as well as contingency plans are compulsory aspects of disaster management which may help limit the number of casualties but these will never prevent disasters from occurring. Mitigating disaster vulnerability requires fair access to land, resources and political representation. It is today acknowledged that one of the most efficient ways to achieve is through community-based disaster management programs coupled with development objectives (e.g. Anderson and Woodrow, 1989; Maskrey, 1989; Delica-Willison, 2004). In the Philippines, a number of non-governmental organizations have achieved great success in reducing the vulnerability of local communities in the face of disasters by adopting such a community-based bottom-up approach (e.g. Anderson and Woodrow, 1989; Delica, 1999; Heijmans, 2001, 2004; Heijmans and Victoria, 2001; Luna, 2001; Allen, 2003, 2004). These projects however remain rare efforts. Indeed, as previously mentioned, the governmental disaster management policy traditionally focuses on emergency and relief operation following a military top-down chain of command. When disaster strikes and overcomes the capacity of response of this system, nature or divine intervention are often invoked as cause of the harm. Such explanations actually serve as an alibi for government and dependent institutions that do not want to face the real issues at the roots of 62 disasters.



Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank Greg Bankoff (The University of Auckland) and Ben Wisner (Oberlin College) for their helpful comments and advices. References Algue, J. (1905) El Clima: Influencias que Afectan las Condiciones Climatologicas – Temperatura – Vapor del Agua – Movimiento de la Atmosfera. In J.P. Sanger (ed.) Censo de las Islas Filipinas – Tomo I: Geografia, Historia y Poblacion. Opisina del Censo de los Estados Unidos de America, Washington: 94-198. Allen, K. (2003) Vulnerability Reduction and the Community-Based Approach. In M. Pelling (ed.) Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World. Routledge, London: 170-184. Allen, K. (2004) Building Community Resilience to Disaster in the Philippines. In International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2004 World Disaster Report: Focus on Community Resilience. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva: 100-119. Anderson, M. and P. Woodrow (1989) Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times of Disasters. Westview Press, Boulder. Bankoff, G. (1999) A History of Poverty: The Politics of Natural Disasters in the Philippines. The Pacific Review 12(3): 381-420. Bankoff, G. (2003a) Cultures of Disaster: Society and Natural Hazard in the Philippines. Routledge, London. Bankoff, G. (2003b) Constructing Vulnerability: The Historical, Natural and Social Generation of Flooding in Metropolitan Manila. Disasters 27(3): 224-238. Bankoff, G. (2004) In the Eye of the Storm: The Social Construction of the Forces of Nature and the Climatic and Seismic Construction of God in the Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 35(1): 91-111. Bankoff, G. (2005) Profiting from Disasters: Corruption, Hazard, and Society in the Philippines. In N. Tarling (ed.) Corruption and Good Governance in Asia. Routledge, New York: 165-185. Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, I. Davis and B. Wisner (1994) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. 1st ed., Routledge, London. Brown, N., L.A. Amadore and E.C. Torrente (1991) Philippine Country Study. In Disaster Mitigation in Asia and the Pacific. Asian Development Bank, Manila: 193-253. Bureau des Nations Unies pour le Secours en cas de Catastrophe (1979) Etude de Vulnérabilité Composite: Méthodologie et Etude Concrète de la Zone Métropolitaine de Manille. Bureau des Nations Unies pour le Secours en cas de Catastrophe, Geneva. Burton, I., R.W. Kates and G.F. White (1993) The Environment as Hazard. 2nd ed., The Guilford Press, New York. Cannon, T. (1994) Vulnerability Analysis and the Explanation of ‘Natural’ Disasters. In A. Varley (ed.) Disasters, Development and Environment. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester: 13-30. Cannon, T. (2000) Vulnerability Analysis and Disasters. In D.J. Parker (ed.) Floods. Vol. 1, Routledge, London: 45-55. Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (2005) EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database. Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, www.cred.be/emdat, accessed 31 March 2005. Cruz, M.C.J. (1986) Population Pressure and Migration in Philippine Upland Communities. In S. Fujisaka, P. Sajise and R. del Castillo (eds.) Man, Agriculture and the Tropical Forest: Change and Development in the Philippine Uplands. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Bangkok: 87-118. Cruz, M.C.J. (1988) Population Pressure and Migration: Implications for Upland Development in the Philippines. Journal of Philippine Development, 15(1): 15-46. Davis, I. (1987) Safe Shelter within Unsafe Cities. Open House International 12(3): 5-15. Delica, Z.G. (1999) Community Mobilization for Early Warning. Philippine Planning Journal, 30(2): 30-40. Delica-Willison, Z. (2004) Vulnerability Reduction: A Task for the Vulnerable People Themselves. In G. Bankoof, G. Frerks and D. Hilhorst (eds.) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan, London: 145-158. D’Ercole, R. (1994) Les Vulnérabilités des Sociétés et des Espaces Urbanisés: Concepts, Typologies, Mode d’Analyse. Revue de Géographie Alpine 32(4): 87-96. Elo, O., E. Palm and L. Vrolijks (1996) Disaster Reduction in Urban Areas. ITC Journal 1996-1: 29-37. Food and Agriculture Organization (2005a). FAOSTAT - Agriculture. www.fao.org, accessed 31 March 2005. Food and Agriculture Organization (2005b) State of the World’s Forests 2005: Realizing the Economic Benefits from Forests. FAO, Rome. Gaillard, J.-C. (2006) Traditional Societies in the Face of Natural Hazards: The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo Eruption and the Aetas of the Philippines. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 24(1): In press. 63



Heijmans, A. (2001) Vulnerability: A Matter of Perception. Working Paper No. 4, Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, University College London, London. Heijmans, A. (2004) From Vulnerability to Empowerment. In G. Bankoof, G. Frerks and D. Hilhorst (eds.) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan, London: 115-127. Heijmans, A. and L.P. Victoria (2001) Citizenry-Based and Development Oriented Disaster Response: Experiences and Practices in Disaster Management of the Citizens’ Disaster Response Network in the Philippines. Center for Disaster Preparedness, Quezon City. Hewitt, K. (1983) The Idea of Calamity in a Technocratic Age, in K. Hewitt (ed.) Interpretation of Calamities. The risks and hazards series #1, Allen & Unwin Inc., Boston: 3-32. Hewitt, K. (1995) Sustainable disasters ? Perspectives and powers in the discourse of calamity, in J. Crush (ed.) Power of development. Routledge, London: 115-128. Indon, R.M. (2002) The Philippine Urban Informal Sector. Philippine Studies 50(1): 113-129. Jose, A.M., R.V. Francisco and N.A. Cruz (1996) A Study on Impact of Climate Variability/Change on Water Resources in the Philippines. Chemosphere 33(9): 1687-1704. Kates, R.W. (1971) Natural Hazard in Human Ecological Perspective: Hypotheses and Models. Economic Geography 47(3): 438-451. Kummer, D.M. (1992) Deforestation in the Postwar Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City. Liongson, L., G. Tabios and P. Castro eds. (2000) Pressure of Urbanization: Flood Control and Drainage in Metro Manila. University of the Philippines – Center for Integrated Development Studies, Quezon City Lucas, F., W. Homicillada and J. Pagsaghan (1992) A Tri-Sectoral Solution to the Philippine Crisis. Report of the First Asian Development Forum – Community Based Natural Resource Management: NGO Experiences and Challenges, New Delhi – 4-6 February 1992, Angoc, Quezon City. Luna Jr., T.W. (1996) Natural Hazards of Severe Occurrence in the Philippines: Impacts on Development. Professional Chair Paper Series No. 96-13, University of the Philippines - College of Social Sciences and Philosophy Publications, Quezon City. Luna, E.M. (2001) Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness: The Case of NGOs in the Philippines. Disasters, 25(3): 216-226. Maskrey, A. (1989) Disaster Mitigation: A community Based Approach. Development Guidelines No. 3, Oxfam, Oxford. McClintock, S. (1905) Geography of the Philippine Islands. In H.J. Roddy (ed.) Complete Geography. American Book Company: New York: 1-40. Mitchell, J.K. ed. (1999) Crucibles of Hazard: Megacities and Disasters in Transition. United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Nakanishi, T. (1999) Poverty, Customary Economy and Migration in Metro Manila: An Analysis of Changes in Social Customs in a Squatter Area, 1895-1994. CIRJE-F-44, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo. Nakanishi, T. (2002) Migration and Environmental Issues in Economic Development. In T. Ohmachi and E.R. Roman (eds.) Metro Manila: In Search of a Sustainable Future. University of the Philippines Press, Quezon City: 61-69. National Disaster Coordinating Council (1988) Calamities and Disaster Preparedness Plan. Department of National Defense, Manila. National Economic and Development Authority (2005) Economic Reports and Database. www.neda.gov.ph, accessed 31 March 2005. National Statistics Office (1995) 1991 Census of Agriculture. National Statistics Office, Manila. National Statistics Office (2005) 2000 Census of Population and Housing. www.census.gov.ph, accessed 31 March 2005. National Statistic Coordination Board (2005) Sectoral Statistics: Population and Housing. www.nscb.gov.ph, accessed 31 March 2005. O’Keefe, P., K. Westgate and B. Wisner (1976) Taking the Naturalness out of Natural Disasters. Nature, 260(5552): 566-567. Pajuelas, B.G. (2000) A Study of Rainfall Variations in the Philippines: 1950-1996. Science Diliman 12(1): 1-28. Philhealth (2005) Stats and Charts. www.philhealth.gov.ph, accessed 31 March 2005. Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration (2005) Tropical Cyclone Statistics. www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph, accessed 31 march 2005. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (1993) Disaster Prevention and Mitigation in Metropolitan Manila. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology Press, Quezon City. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (nd) Earthquake and Tsunami. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology Press, Quezon City. Quarantelli, E.Q. ed. (1998) What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question. Routledge, London. Quizon, A.B. (2005) Asian NGO Perspectives on Agrarian Reform and Access to Land. ANGOC Policy Discussion Paper, ANGOC, Quezon City. Rodolfo, K.S. (1995) Pinatubo and the Politics of Lahar: Eruption and Aftermath, 1991. University of the Philippines Press, Quezon City. Rodolfo, K.S. and F.P. Siringan (2006) Global Sea-Level Rise is Recognised, but Flooding from Anthropogenic Land Subsidence 64



is Ignored around Northern Manila Bay, Philippines. Disasters 30(1): 118-139. Republic of the Philippines (1978) Presidential Decree n° 1566, Strengthening the Philippines Disaster Control, Capability and Establishing the National Program on Community Disaster Preparedness. Republic of the Philippines, Manila. Seki, K. (2004) Maritime Migration in the Visayas: A Case Study of the Dalaguetenon Fisherfolk in Cebu. In H. Umehara and G.M. Bautista (eds.) Communities at the Margins: Reflections on Social, Economic, and Environmental Change in the Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City: 193-221. Siringan, F.P. and K.S. Rodolfo (2003) Relative Sealevel Changes and Worsening Floods in the Western Pampanga Delta: Causes and some Possible Mitigation Measures. Science Diliman 15(2): 1-12. Smithsonian’s Global Volcanism Network (2005) Volcanoes of the Philippines and Southeast Asia. www.volcano.si.edu, accessed 31 March 2005. Umehara, H. and G.M. Bautista eds. (2004) Communities at the Margins: Reflections on Social, Economic, and Environmental Change in the Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City. United Nation Development Program (2004) Rapport Mondial sur le Développement Humain 2004: La Liberté Culturelle dans un Monde Diversifié. Economica, Paris. United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2004) Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. United Nations, Geneva. Watts, M.J. and H.G. Bolhe (1993a) The Space of Vulnerability: The Causal Structure of Hunger and Famine. Progress in Human Geography 17(1): 43-67. Watts, M.J. and H.G. Bolhe (1993b) Hunger, Famine and the Space of Vulnerability. GeoJournal 30(2): 117-125. Wernstedt, F.L. and J.E. Spencer (1967) The Philippine Island World. University of California Press, Berkeley. Wisner, B. (1993) Disaster Vulnerability: Scale, Power, and Daily Life. Geojournal 30(2): 127-140. Wisner, B. (2003) Sustainable Suffering? Reflections on Development and Disaster Vulnerability in the Post-Johannesburg World. Regional Development Dialogue 24(1): 135-148. Wisner, B. et P. Walker (2005) Beyond Kobe: A Proactive Look at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction - 18-22 January 2005, Kobe, Japan. A report for the Swiss Department of Humanitarian Aid, Feinstein International Famine Center, Medford. Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon and I. Davis (2004) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. 2 nd ed.,

65