Safer, more livable Philippine cities

In March 2011, northeast Japan was hit by a tsunami that took the lives of over 15,000 people and injured close to 30,000. As many as 3,000 remain missing. In all, 4.4 million were left without electricity and 1.5 million without water. As if that were not catastrophic enough, a severely damaged Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant turned the natural calamity into a longer-term nuclear crisis for the country.

A year later last March, Japan sent high-level individuals to thank the world for its assistance and to speak about Japan’s recovery. Prof. Hatsuhisa Takashima, former director general of NHK News of Japan, spoke at the Asian Institute of Management on disaster management with focus on Japan’s quick recovery from that tsunami.

For the Philippines with its annual dose of major natural calamities, there is much to learn from how Japan managed its recovery in so short a period of time.

In theory, a disaster=calamity (e.g. earthquake, tsunami, typhoon, flood, drought or other) x the degree of severity of that calamity x vulnerability of the community (e.g. levels of poverty, poor health, poor housing, etc.) all divided by local capacity (presence of institutions, levels of preparedness, ability of local communities to solve extraordinary problems brought about by such a calamity).

The numerator (calamity x degree x vulnerability) may be large. But if the denominator (capacity of local organizations and institutions to cope with the calamity) is likewise large, the quotient does not necessarily result in a disaster. It becomes a disaster only when the denominator (capacity) is small and cannot respond to the effects brought about by the numerator (calamity, severity and vulnerability), regardless of how large or small this is.

The ability of Japan to move so quickly from recovery to reconstruction in the face of such a devastating catastrophe indicates a large denominator or institutional capacity. By drawing on its own internal capacity to address uncertainties brought about by such a calamity and cope with the huge demands placed on its own institutions and resources, Japan has managed to move from relief to rehabilitation to recovery and reconstruction in a short one-year period.

While much still has to be done, Japan has managed to contain what could have been a much longer disaster.

As a graduate school of management, AIM needs to look at and study institutional capacity in Japan’s tsunami recovery efforts and connect this to our Philippine experience.

In September 2009, Tropical Storm “Ondoy” dropped a month’s worth of rain in a short eight-hour period, flooding large areas of Metro Manila and the provinces of Bulacan, Rizal and Laguna, leaving thousands dead and displacing tens of thousands of people. In September 2008, Typhoon “Frank” flooded Panay Island including Iloilo City, with electricity and water supply cut off for weeks. In October 2007, Supertyphoons “Milenyo” and “Reming” triggered mudslides along the southeastern slopes of Mayon Volcano in Albay province that buried parts of a number of towns and led to extensive flooding of Legazpi City. In December 2011, Tropical Storm “Sendong” brought devastation, death and displacement to two major urban centers—the cities of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan City—in Northern Mindanao.

In all four cases, there are a number of similarities:

These natural disasters were triggered by extraordinary amounts of rainfall beyond the normal weather patterns experienced in the country.

The levels of flooding occurred in major urban centers affecting much larger populations.

The lack of preparedness of both national and local governments was evident by the inability to respond quickly to the flood situation.

Experts warn of the effects of climate change as evidenced by the changing weather patterns worldwide, the deeper effects of these changing weather patterns (e.g. heavier rains, stronger winds, longer and deeper droughts), and the increasing vulnerability of urban centers because of the larger more densely packed populations.

Given that urban centers will be most affected by these changes, we should be bringing together three distinct but related forms of management to create safer, more livable cities:

Disaster risk reduction and management

+    Climate change adaptation

+    Urban planning and management

=    Safer, livable cities

The idea is to develop platforms for the effective management of cities using the above framework and applying this to different urban settings: metropolitan areas (Mega Manila, Metro Cebu, Metro Davao), major cities and regional centers (Iloilo, Cagayan de Oro), and smaller provincial cities (Lucena, Bacolod).

Integration of the three disciplines could lead to better city planning and management. In the immediate term, we need better plans for disaster risk reduction in urban centers.

In the long term, we should be preparing Philippine cities for climate change adaptation incorporating engineering, changes in lifestyle (less waste, less of a carbon footprint), and national and local governance.

In the medium term, we should be “reengineering” our cities to better deal with climate change and impending disasters.

The management platform would have to develop and strengthen four key areas: leadership (policy, strategy, mission), systems (and structure), project management, and resource management (people, technology, funds).

The bottom line: to make Philippine cities safer, less vulnerable to risk and more livable for all.

Juan Miguel Luz (juanmiguel.luz@gmail.com) is dean, Center for Development Management at the Asian Institute of Management. Those interested in the AIM program may contact the author.