MELBOURNE — An American disaster expert, when interviewed here on Nov. 12, was asked if a developing country like the Philippines would be able to rebuild like New Orleans did in the wake of Hurricane “Katrina.” He replied: “Yes, it can rebuild.” But he raised three essential points for it to work: sustained international assistance, technical expertise, and an intervening layer or impartial third party to mediate between “those at the bottom who have no trust for those at the top” because of large-scale corruption.
I totally agree with him. I believe international aid will sort itself out and manage appropriately, as it always does. I’m also very concerned with the two other points he raised—technical expertise and, especially, the impartial organization to project-manage the delivery of the rebuilding process, as I suspect is and will be the concern of so many others in the Philippines.
I am definitely conscious of the magnitude of work to be done. However, there is a postdisaster/forward planning process that needs to run, NOW! I would like to think that the Philippine government has appointed the “point person” who is looking into this at the moment. But this is highly improbable as the government of the day always seems to be behind the 8 ball in everything it does. At this stage, assessment of a raft of options on ways to engage with the process through case studies and workable forms of intervention adopted from lessons learned in post-tsunami, war-torn and earthquake-devastated countries like Japan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, etc. must have been completed as a first step to beef up the smarts to rebuild, or “reconstruct,” the devastated communities.
The next all-important step is to immediately formulate a long-term, workable and flexible “Philippine Model for a Long-term Social Recovery Plan” (or the master plan) incorporating the long-term capital works program and a socioeconomic program to reconnect people and communities and provide jobs. This will ensure the steady flow of international aid together with an annual government budgetary appropriation to benefit those who need it most.
A recovery plan for Bohol, Cebu and other areas devastated by the Oct. 15 earthquake is nowhere in place. Similarly, there is no “postrebellion recovery plan” for Zamboanga City in place. Admittedly, the government has been faced with one disaster after another, with not enough time in between to address the problems these disasters created. However, it is a major concern when the government cannot produce a short-term action plan within three months and—a visionary document—a master plan within a year after a disaster. As a result, the government is driven by managing the day-to-day situation rather than by the workable situation it seeks to create in accordance with goals/milestone dates it sets.
As for the need for technical expertise, the Philippine government has not expressed interest in seeking the assistance of hands-on experts in the field of reconstruction—for example, experts commissioned at the conclusion of the Balkan wars in the 1990s, or those called in to assist in Fukushima, etc. There is no shame in calling on overseas experts, even if their role can be as limited as “peer reviewers” only for recovery plans prepared by capable local experts for each of the affected cities/municipalities. The knowledge of these foreign experts will be highly valuable in instances where the government encounters complicated or forked-road situations for quick resolution. But, should the Aquino administration insist on hiring pseudoexperts and pay them peanuts, then it will continue to get monkeys, as they say.
The immediate commencement of a short-term action plan is also imperative. A crucial balance must be arrived at, as plans take time whereas needs are immediate. This is where the experience of experts is most needed, so that responsive decisions can be taken, on the spot, even without the benefit of a completed master plan, to meet urgent needs.
The key issue for resolution is whether to restore the built environment to its predisaster conditions or undertake a radical replan to “right the wrongs” of the past, and everything else follows from there. Considering the tabula rasa state of these town/cities, which urban designers can only dream of in the reconstruction of traditional cities, the opportunities to “get it right” once and for all are
limitless.
Moreover, the opportunities to deliver an innovative design response in urban planning, architecture, infrastructure and building regulations are plentiful with the advanced technologies now available. “Yolanda” was massive—its power unimaginable, its destruction colossal. The holistic design response MUST be as powerful and as colossal. Nothing less will be acceptable.
With regard to the third point raised, I believe this is the key that will lock in the success of the reconstruction process. That process cannot operate under the environment where the level of trust in government is at an all-time low and the level of cynicism so high. Given this environment, one can foresee the graft accusations (real or imagined) that will come up once contracts are signed and awarded. This will not only slow down the process but will also cause a significant decrease in foreign aid, if not a total drying up of all future financial assistance. Consequently, once the whole process is compromised, it is bound to fail. This is precisely why there is a crucial need for a detached and uncorrupted group to project-manage the process. A similar model was adopted for the reconstruction of Haiti after the 2010 earthquake.
It will be extremely demoralizing if the Philippine government will not adopt this holistic approach to reconstruction. If it does not, the opportunity to provide the survivors of all these disasters with a better quality of life, and return their pride of place, and the opportunity to provide the world with a model to adopt for future disasters of this nature, will all be lost.
The government has the responsibility to set the right framework plan in place, give it legal grounding, and provide long-term funding commitment so that the next leaders are by default bound to implement it.
Vicente Legarda (v.legarda@bigpond.com) was a practicing architect/urban planner in the Philippines up to the 1980s. He migrated to Australia in the 1990s. He has served as principal urban designer in local government councils in Victoria and currently manages a small-practice urban design consultancy in Melbourne.