In reporting disaster risk reduction and management statistics, citizens should be given more meaningful information. Families “affected” is too broad a term for responsive and rehabilitative action. It is broken down into the following categories: displaced families, families with damaged homes, families with loss of livelihood, families with injured or deceased members, and families needing relief assistance.
To translate these figures into targeted actions, local governments must structure and schedule their programs accordingly. There are just too many disparate and standalone government initiatives, all requiring convergence at the local level, to respond to the needs of these affected families. There are several government programs such as the Emergency Shelter Assistance, Core Shelter Assistance Program, Cash-for-Work and Food-for-Work Programs, Livelihood Assistance Grants, and various capacity-building and training programs. The optics of this smorgasbord of initiatives hide the fact that the number of beneficiaries reached by these programs often falls short of the actual number of affected families due to poor planning, budgetary constraints, and logistical challenges. Some programs, like the cash and food for work, are short-term in nature and do not provide long-term livelihood security.
Marginalized groups suffer repeated vulnerability and disaster impact. These groups should now be better profiled in terms of their geographic location, socioeconomic status, and differential access to resources and services like health care, education, and social protection. Presumably, Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Management empowers communities to develop their assessment of risks and develop localized solutions. However, between national government agencies and local government units, the latter lag behind in terms of online service delivery, data management, and digital literacy due to limited resources, lack of technical expertise, and resistance to change. Overall, there are intractable interoperability issues across national agencies and local governments. The interface between citizens and government remains a chasm despite the adoption of citizen charters and the establishment of feedback mechanisms such as online portals and hotlines.
The government uses several report cards to measure its accomplishments across service areas. The Civil Service Commission conducts the Report Card Survey while the Department of Budget and Management has the Budget and Financial Accountability Reports. The Department of the Interior and Local Government publishes a Seal of Good Local Governance report card on the performance of local government units.
The problem is not the lack of a semblance of digital government. The problem is the lack of operational partnerships, alignment, convergence, interoperability, and synergy, and therefore, lack of impact.
What should the whole-of-government approach look like in applying the digital government perspective to disaster risk reduction and management? Here are some key initiatives:
- A unified digital registry: Establish a comprehensive and interoperable digital registry of all Filipino citizens. This should include demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic data, allowing for targeted and personalized service delivery.
- Data-driven decision-making: Integrate data analytics into all levels of governance. This involves not only collecting data but also analyzing it to identify trends, predict needs, and evaluate the effectiveness of policies and programs.
- Transparency and accountability: Make government data and reports publicly accessible through user-friendly online platforms. This includes budget execution reports, program evaluations, and real-time data on disaster response efforts.
- Citizen engagement: Utilize digital platforms to actively engage citizens in policymaking and service delivery. This can be done through online consultations, feedback mechanisms, and participatory budgeting initiatives.
Over the long term, these actions need to be taken:
- Digital literacy and infrastructure: Invest in digital literacy training for both government officials and citizens. Expand internet connectivity and access to digital devices, especially in rural and underserved areas.
- Cybersecurity and data privacy: Develop robust cybersecurity measures and data privacy protocols to protect sensitive citizen information. Build trust in digital systems through transparent data handling practices.
- Innovation and adaptation: Encourage a culture of innovation within the government by fostering experimentation with new technologies and approaches. Adapt digital solutions to the specific needs and contexts of different communities.
- Interagency collaboration: Break down silos between government agencies and promote collaboration on digital initiatives. Establish clear roles and responsibilities for data management, system integration, and cybersecurity.
Digital government and registry thinking offer a transformative pathway for the Philippines. By prioritizing inclusion, transparency, and data-driven decision-making, the government can bridge the gap between policies and the diverse needs of its citizens. The immediate and long-term actions outlined above provide a road map for achieving this goal.
—————–
doyromero@gmail.com