Marshall Plan approach needed

There are many definitions of disaster.  My favorite is the one provided by Robert af Klinteberg of the United Kingdom’s International Disaster Institute: “an event which disrupts the functioning of a community to such an extent that it cannot subsist without outside assistance.” Corollary to this, he defined disaster victims as “groups of people unable to subsist without outside assistance.”

And so it was indeed a disaster—a great havoc—that Supertyphoon “Yolanda” wrought in Eastern Visayas and nearby regions. In effect, “the earth stood still” in these regions as they were literally cut off from the rest of the Philippine society. Although not too soon, as many observed, help came not only from the national government and nongovernment organizations, but also from international communities.

Observing the “outpouring of sympathy and financial assistance from around the world,” historian Ambeth R. Ocampo wondered in his column (Inquirer, 11/22/13) “how donated money should be spent to rebuild lives in the typhoon-devastated areas.”  I, too, wonder how the financial assistance, both in-country and international, should be spent.

Because financial aid is pouring in after the disastrous event, it is safe to conclude that the money is partly for assistance in response operations and partly for assistance in recovery programs. But this information, although conclusive, merely identifies two general objects of expenditures. It does not answer how the financial aid is to be spent. W. Nick Carter, in his disaster manager’s handbook (1991), suggested that “the responsibility for dealing with international assistance needs to be clearly defined.” Above this, there should be a good understanding between the donors and the Philippine government, the recipient entity.

Let me share my notes on the recovery program, which is the third in the time frame after the predisaster and disaster time periods. Recovery is composed of three categories of activity: restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction. The problems of the postdisaster period principally concern the reestablishment of a stable and self-reliant environment for the disaster-stricken communities.

Reconstruction, for instance, is typically planned and carried out under severe constraints. This is especially true in developing countries, where resources are scarce. The financial assistance received and which continues to pour in from international communities and from other external and internal organizations, along with the expected supplementary budget that may be allocated through legislative initiatives, can be used not only to recreate the predisaster environment but also to respond to the lessons of the disaster in reducing vulnerability through an integrated disaster risk reduction and development approach.

But before a recovery plan can be developed, there should be a clarification of the objects of expenditures of the financial assistance. Donors may have expressed varied conditions as to where and how their donations should be spent. This is a sensitive matter that the government must consider. Special consideration should also be made with respect to cash donations that went directly to nongovernment organizations. While the recipients are responsible for their disbursement, there should be coordination between the recipient private organizations and the government on the objects of expenditures, if only to prevent redundancy in the overall recovery program.

My answer to Ocampo’s and my similar question is the application of a Marshall Plan approach in the recovery program for the disaster-stricken communities, not only in central Philippines but also in other communities that are still suffering because of the impacts of hazards (for example, the provinces of Bohol and Cebu, which were hit hard by a 7.2-magnitude earthquake last October, and Zamboanga City, parts of which were severely affected by the attack last September of armed groups linked to the Moro National Liberation Front and their consequent skirmishes with government troops). It will be recalled that Europe was devastated during World War II and was under threat of political, economic and social instability.  The US Marshall Plan saved Europe.  As a matter of fact, the concept of international disaster assistance, the kind that we are receiving now, was inspired by the Marshall Plan.

Rolando G. Valenzuela ([email protected]) served with the weather bureau Pagasa. At one time, he was coordinator of the USAID-assisted Program for Disseminating Public Information on Natural Hazards in the Philippines.