(Pre-print)

A Comparative Study of the Disaster Management Organizations in the Philippines, South

Korea, and the United States

Junmo Kim
Professor
Department of Public Administration
Konkuk University, South Korea
Phone: +82-2-450-3371
Email: [email protected]

Seung-Bum Yang (Corresponding Author)

Professor
Department of Public Administration
Konkuk University, South Korea
Phone: +82-2-450-3371
Email: [email protected]

Ador R. Torneo
Professor
Department of Political Science and Development Studies
De La Salle University, Philippines
Phone: +63-2-524-4611 local 570
Email: [email protected]

Acknowledgment:

The authors are grateful to the editorial team and the anonymous reviewers for providing valuable
comments that helped substantially improve this article. This work was supported by the Ministry
of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-
2019S1A5A2A01047718). Also, this paper was written as part of Konkuk University's research
support program for its faculty on sabbatical leave in 2020.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 (Pre-print)
A Comparative Examination of Disaster Organizations in the Philippines, South Korea,
and the United States

Abstract

The Philippines is highly vulnerable to weather-related and other national disasters

given its location in the Pacific Ring of Fire. Its disaster organization, the National
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council or NDRRMC, however, has limited
capacity as demonstrated in its handling of natural disasters in the last twenty years. In
this paper, we adopt a comparative approach and compare the NDRRMC with the U.S.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and South Korea’s Disaster and
Safety Management (DSM) in terms of mandate, organizational structure, resources,
and technical capacity to identify possible areas requiring reform. We observe that the
NDRRMCs working group structure, policy-making, coordination, integration,
supervision, monitoring and evaluation mandate, lack of strong leadership structure,
and limited resources and capacities hinder it from providing swift and effective
response. This warrants a revisiting of policies and benchmarking on other disaster
organizations like the U.S. FEMA and South Korea’s DSM. Our findings lead us to
recommend that the Philippines consider establishing a separate Department of
Disaster Resilience equipped with the mandate, authority, leadership structure,
resources, and technical capability to effectively prepare and respond to disasters
instead of simply expanding the authority of the NDRRMC.

Keywords: disaster management; resilience; climate change; comparative approach;

disaster risk reduction and management; natural disasters

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

A Comparative Examination of Disaster Organization in the Philippines, South Korea, and
the United States

Introduction

Climate change and the associated related natural disasters have been drawing the attention
of the general public, policymakers, and scientists since the 1990s. Globally, one can find
increasing severity and damage from natural disasters such as typhoons, and experts predict these
will worsen along with global warming. Although there is some common ground of understanding
their impacts, preparing for and dealing with the actual disaster events and the accompanying
damages is a challenge for the governments in many countries. The challenge is especially difficult
for developing countries like the Philippines in disaster-prone regions like the Pacific Ring of Fire.

Like other countries in the Pacific, the Philippines is frequently affected by natural disasters
including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and most especially weather-related calamities like
typhoons and accompanying severe flooding and landslides. In the last two decades, its disaster
management capacity has been tested by some of the most devastating typhoons on record,
including the Category-4 Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, one of the most powerful and devastating in
recorded history that killed at least 6,300 people and caused billions in damage. In only 11 years,
the Philippines National Capital Region (NCR) has been inundated twice first by Typhoon Ketsana
that severely flooded and devastated more than 70 percent of the capital, and then again by
Typhoon Vamco in 2020. In between, it has been battered by smaller but devastating typhoons,
volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes. Government handling of these natural disasters as well as the
Covid-19 pandemic demonstrate its limited capability (Torneo, et. al., 2020).

A significant amount of responsibility for disaster response rests on the Philippines’ National
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council or NDRRMC and its corresponding councils.
Its track record of inadequate response, and the frequent repeat of similar scenarios such as the
massive flooding of the capital, however, puts a serious question on the Philippine government's
disaster management capacity and its ability to prepare for, mitigate, and respond to natural
calamities. We ask then, what is it that hinders the Philippines from having adequate preparation
and mounting an adequate response to the many natural disasters it has faced in the last few
decades? Is the problem a matter of policy, structure, capacity, or does it lie elsewhere?

In answering this question, we focus our attention on the Philippines disaster organization,
the NDRRMC. To better identify areas that need attention, we adopt a comparative approach and
examine the Philippines’s NDRRMC in contrast with the U.S. Federal Emergency Management

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

Agency (FEMA), and South Korea’s Disaster and Safety Management (DSM) under the Ministry
of Interior and Safety (MOIS).

We note that there are already several existing studies of disaster management in the
Philippines. For the most part, these consist primarily of case studies (e.g., Luna, 2001; Burton and
Venton, 2009; Dariagan et al, 2021; Abaya, et. Al, 2021) and general assessments of local and
national practices utilizing a variety of lenses and frameworks (e.g., Asian Development Bank,
2013; Brower, et al, 2014; Blanco, 2015; Jovita, et al, 2018). The approach of majority of these
studies has been to examine the Philippine case or sub-cases using a general lens or framework.

We adopt the comparative approach to acquire a broader perspective and a better

understanding of possible issues that affect the NDRRMC as a disaster organization vis-à-vis other
similar organization. Specifically, we adopted the method of comparative public administration
which “considers the workings of government in different socio-economic and cultural settings”
(Otenyo and Lind, 2006 p.1). This approach expands, enriches, and deepens empirical analysis by
adding more cases and data from a diverse range of settings. It helps avoid the pitfalls of a
constrained view from a narrow frame of analysis. Thus far we have only encountered one study
that takes on a comparative approach (i.e., Howe and Bang, 2017) but its focus is on the politics
of natural disaster management of the Philippines and Myanmar. The public policy and
administrative aspects of this topic have not yet been explored using a comparative approach. This
is regrettable as the latter comprise the more readily actionable aspects of the issue.

We chose the U.S. FEMA and South Korea’s DSM as cases for four reasons. The first is
because these countries are also located in the Pacific Ring of Fire region and face similar natural
disasters as the Philippines. Second, the U.S. FEMA and South Korea’s DSM have better track
records of disaster response and can provide better benchmarks for the Philippines’ NDRRMC.
The third is the three countries’ administrative and organizational similarities rooted in a shared
American Public Administration that traces back to the 1950s (Torneo and Yang, 2015; Torneo,
2020). Fourth, we have done substantive work and have a deep familiarity with the three selected
countries in this study and their policies and systems more than any other. We hope that the findings
and insights that will be generated by this study will be useful to similarly situated natural disaster-
prone developing countries evaluating their disaster organizations.

Typhoons in the Philippines and its Economic Costs

The Philippines has experienced disasters and calamities in different forms, such as typhoons,
earthquakes, and even volcanic eruptions. These disasters come at a cost, especially in terms of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

the economy. We briefly describe some of the most deadly and destructive typhoons that have
passed through the Philippines from the 1990s to 2020 to illustrate the costs as well as the chronic
and serious threat of weather-related disasters to the country.

Typhoons domestically named Uring (1991) and Rosing (1995) were considered as two of
the 12 worst typhoons in the Philippines in the 1990s. Uring caused the deaths of 5,101 Filipinos,
mostly from the area of Leyte and Negros Occidental, and inflicted damages worth 1.045 million
pesos. Rosing devastated the country in 1995 with 10.829 billion pesos worth (USD 216.6 million
at USD 1 = PHP 50) of damages and 935 deaths, which mostly came from Catanduanes, Camarines
Norte, Quezon, and the Bicol Region (Typhoon2000, 2010).

In 2006, typhoon Reming arrived at a speed of 250 km/h as it landed in the Bicol region. The
typhoon caused 720 deaths and affected 649,829 families. It also inflicted approximately 1.2
billion pesos of damages. In 2009, Typhoon Pepeng affected the Cagayan Region and Catanduanes.
According to NDRRMC (2012a), a total of 465 people died during the typhoon with a total of
27.297 billion pesos (USD 24 million) in damages across Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, and the Cordilleras.
A total of 61,689 houses were destroyed, along with a loss of 1,052.993 metric tons of crops and
1,531 damaged schools, amounting to 767.45 million pesos (USD 15.35 million).

Typhoon Ondoy (2009) was one of the worst typhoons to hit the Philippines in the 2000s.
NCR (Metro Manila). It is known for its record-breaking flooding that submerged 70 percent of
the capital and damaged the Central and Southern Luzon regions. It caused 921 deaths and around
USD 1.15 billion in damages. Around 329.230 metric tons or 203,477 hectares of crops were lost,
and 1,382 schools and 185,004 homes were damaged. Typhoon Dante (2009), caused the second
least number of deaths (28) but it severely affected the agricultural economy of the Bicol region
as it destroyed 125 billion pesos (USD 2.5 billion) worth of rice, corn, high-value commercial
crops, fisheries, and livestock. It also affected 73,642 families, and 2,387 houses were damaged,
causing a total of 1.2 billion pesos (USD 24 million) worth of damage (NDCC, 2009).

Typhoon Juaning (2011) was third to Ruby (2014), with the least number of deaths (75).
However, it displaced and affected 201,771 families in the area of Camarines Sur, Catanduanes,
and Albay, raising the total economic cost of damages to 2.6 billion pesos (Salaverria, 2011). On
the other hand, Typhoon Sendong that arrived in December 2011 caused 1,257 deaths and
999,946,415 pesos worth of damage (Rappler, 2011). Furthermore, 946.95 million pesos worth of
roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, 22.8 million pesos worth of health facilities, and 28.26
million pesos worth of schools were damaged, while 3,581 houses were destroyed and 8,550
partially ruined (NDRRMC, 2012b). Typhoon Pablo, which arrived in December 2012, affected

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

Mindanao the most, among other areas, inflicting 36.95 billion pesos (USD 739 million) worth of
total damages. A total of 216,817 houses were reported as damaged by the NDRRMC (2012c).

Typhoon Yolanda, known internationally as Typhoon Haiyan is one of the strongest typhoons
ever recorded with maximum sustained winds of 235 kph, gusts of 275 kph, and a diameter of 600
km, resulted in 6,300 deaths, 1,062 missing residents, 28,688 injuries, 16,078,181 affected
Filipinos, and 89.6 billion pesos (USD 1.8 billion) worth of damages (NDRRMC, 2014). Typhoon
Juaning entered the Philippine Area of Responsibility in June 2013 and had its landfall in Masbate
and Samar Provinces. The government spent 280.37 million pesos (USD 5.61 million) on standby
funds, foods, and non-food items (NFIs), and provided service through the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (Rappler, 2013). In December 2014, typhoon Ruby entered the
Philippine Area of Responsibility but caused the least number of deaths (18). It destroyed 42,466
houses and damaged 248,204 homes, resulting in 944,239 displaced families (NDRRMC, 2014).

Table 1

Major Philippine Typhoons During from the 1990s to 2020

Years Typhoons (Philippine Names)

1990s Uring (1991)
Rosing (1995)
2000s Reming (2006)
Pepeng (2009), Ondoy (2009), Dante (2009)
2010s Juaning (2011), Sendong (2011)
Pablo (2012)
Yolanda (2013)
Ruby (2014), Glenda(2014)
Lando(2015)
Ompong (2018)
2020s Ulysses (2020), Rolly (2020)

According to the Emergency Event Database (EM-DAT) of the Center for Research on the
Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), at least 37,641 people died in the Philippines from natural
disasters from 1990 to 2021. A total of 29,619 people in the Philippines died from typhoons alone.
This is not counting those injured and the difficult-to-assess cost of damage in terms of lost homes,
livelihood, infrastructure, and other losses. While natural disasters are hard to predict, effective
disaster planning, management, and response can arguably mitigate these losses.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

Comparison of Disaster Organizations in the U.S., South Korea, and the Philippines

Finding a framework of reference for a disaster organization in a country like the Philippines
is not an easy task. If finding a foreign best practice is a way to improve the current system in the
Philippines, it would be reasonable to find a framework for comparison. Figure 1 is our attempt to
come up with a framework for comparing the overall capability of disaster organizations across
countries. It is based on the fundamental characteristics of all organizations whose significance
has been identified in the DRRM literature e.g., (Baas et al., 2008, Fernandez et al., n.d., USAID,
2011, and OECD 2012). In this framework, we examine the four basic features of disaster
organizations in the Philippines, South Korea, and the U.S. Our examination includes: mandate,
structure, resources, and technical capacity

Figure 1
Analytical Framework for Comparing Disaster Organizations

Technical
Resources Capacity

Overall Capability of
Disaster Organization

Organizational Mandate
Structure

Mandate

Mandate pertains to the authority granted to a disaster organization by an existing public

policy. It defines the duties, scope of responsibility, and the powers granted or delegated to the
organization to carry out its duties and responsibilities. Mandates may be granted through
legislation or executive orders or by delegated authority.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 Lead disaster organizations institutions are “the driving forces to plan, implement, monitor
and evaluate disaster organizations processes and products within a country” (Baas et al., 2008, p.
23). These organizations are involved in developing policy frameworks, risk assessment schemes,
and early warning systems, declaring levels of emergency during crises and communicating with
the public and with other national and local agencies. It is imperative that their roles, scope of
responsibilities, and powers are clearly defined in a formal legal framework, legislated or
otherwise (Baas et al., 2008; Fernandez et al., n.d.).

It is vital to consider not only the mandate of the lead disaster organizations institution but
also the mandates of sectoral agencies that have complementary responsibilities, given that these
organizations are often the ones to implement the plans created by lead disaster organizations
institutions. Further, institutionalized linkages between and among government agencies, research
and knowledge institutions, CSOs, and lead disaster organizations bodies are also important
elements of a holistic disaster organizations system (Baas et al., 2008; Fernandez et al., n.d;
USAID, 2011).

Organizational structure

Organizational structure pertains to the system that outlines how tasks, responsibilities, and
authority are allocated and activities are directed within the disaster organization. It also defines
the composition of the organization, the different positions and their corresponding responsibilities,
and the chain of command or lines of authority. Organizational structures may be described and
classified as flat, functional, divisional, matrix, or network, among others. In government agencies,
they can also be classified as centralized or decentralized.

A strong organizational structure staffed by trained and knowledgeable personnel is integral

to an efficient lead disaster organization (Fernandez et al., n.d.; USAID, 2011). An institutional
architecture that ensures the coordination between national government agencies and sub-national
bodies facilitates the “development of an integrated view on the most significant risks facing the
country and enhances the accountability of a whole disaster organizations system” (OECD, 2012,
p. 20). Frameworks to regulate and guide the interactions of lead disaster organizations and
sectoral agencies are crucial in maintaining consistency in policy implementation and
communication. Institutional setups that allow for the participation of the private sector are
sometimes necessary to provide much-needed inputs and resources.

Resources

Effective DRRM organizations require requisite resources (Baas et al., 2008; Fernandez et
al., n.d.; USAID, 2011). These include but are not limited to: financial, human, technical, and
material resources. It includes the money, materials, personnel, equipment, and other assets that

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

are possessed by and can be directly mobilized by a disaster organization. In the context of this
study, it does not include materials, personnel, equipment, and other assets borrowed from other
agencies. Resources can be gauged based on the annual budget of the organization.

Technical Capacity

Technical capacity broadly defined encompass the technical knowledge and skills of
personnel as well as scientific resources and technical capability available to an organization. It
also includes the organization's ability to effectively tap and mobilize these resources to prepare
for, respond to, and perform post-disaster activities. In practical terms and the context of this study,
these include seismic and weather monitoring equipment, weather satellites, mission aircraft,
amphibious vehicles, protective gear, and other similar rescue equipment.

Related to the discussion on resources, scientific and technical capacities are also vital in
building a culture of safety and resilience to disasters (Fernandez et al., n.d.). For instance,
scientific knowledge is needed to inform any plan for disaster risk reduction. Furthermore,
technological expertise is vital not only for risk identification, assessment, monitoring, and
forecasting but also for facilitating adequate communication with the public and among
government agencies.

Improving risk communication at different levels and raising awareness “impact the way
people face an emergency, get prepared or take a proactive role towards risk reduction” (Fernandez
et al., n.d., p. 9). The creation of information dissemination channels and information systems such
as hazard databases will contribute to the adoption of a culture of resilience among the public.

Disaster Organizations in the Philippines, South Korea, and the United States: A
Comparison of Context

FEMA: The U.S. Context

The FEMA, a federal-level disaster response organization in the U.S., was established in
1979 and became a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (U.S. DHS) in 2003.
In 1979, President Carter's Executive Order 12127 enabled FEMA to absorb the separate disaster-
related programs into FEMA. The functions absorbed by FEMA include that of the Federal
Insurance Administration; the National Weather Service Community Preparedness Program; and
the Federal Preparedness Agency of the General Services Administration; and the National Fire
Prevention and Control Administration. From the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, it absorbed
the Civil defense responsibilities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development absorbed
the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration activities.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 Its mission statement reads: "to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a
nation we work together to build, sustain and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against,
respond to, recover from and mitigate all hazards.” As of 2020, FEMA has an annual budget of
28.7 billion dollars and more than 11,300 employees (U.S. DHS, 2019).

The federal government and FEMA can get involved in the state- and local-level disasters in
case of emergency or major disaster. From a comparative perspective, the FEMA model is the
ultimate disaster organization model, which most countries will not be able to operate. Yet, this
model offers a direction toward which other countries working to improve their disaster
management capabilities should head up.

KMA and the DSM: The Korean context

South Korea suffered chronic floods each year from the 1950s until the 1970s. With
economic development, the government started investing in meteorological administration, which
has grown as the backbone institution that protects society from natural disasters, including
typhoons and earthquakes. It is still true that South Korea’s preparedness in weather and climate
change is much weaker than that of the U.S. in some areas. Several years ago, the Korea
Meteorological Administration (KMA) even invited former high-level U.S. officials in the weather
forecasting field for advice. This shows there is still room for improvement in several areas of
disaster management.

In the research conducted by the KMA between 2002 and 2011, all industrial sectors, from
textile and construction to core manufacturing industries, acknowledged that weather and climate
information is very important to them. The problem was no sector was willing to invest in
meteorology using its budget, knowing that the investment requirement is enormous. This is where
government intervention can be justified for providing public goods-type services to protect and
reduce damages to the economy and society.

South Korea invested heavily in its meteorological services, which included investments in
infrastructure with modern technology; various fields of scientific expertise such as
telecommunications, automated systems for data storage, processing, manipulation, and retrieval
as well as for acquiring observations; and automated numerical weather prediction (NWP)
computing and engineering systems with sophisticated data visualization and integration systems.
The KMA has devoted efforts toward data processing and forecasting systems (DPFS) for decades.
Although it had a rough start, especially when appeasing the public when it purchased its first
supercomputer and the accuracy and perceived value of its DPFS, it was able to show that the

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

investment it made was returned several folds (Lee, 2013).

The KMA focused on two areas: automation of its telecommunications systems and
acquisition of a supercomputer. These are two new strategic breakthrough areas. The automated
telecommunications system became the foundation of its data processing, and the supercomputer
led to several developments that helped obtain additional funding to support software and
application progress. The KMA also invested in young scientists who were attracted to the
innovative environment and continued to adopt technological advancements, which allowed it to
keep its DPFS assets. With this, they have been able to meet the continually growing needs for
meteorological services. The socio-economic environment of Korea made the investment in
meteorological services very valuable as the country has been affected by numerous types of
natural disasters that plague mid-latitude nations.

Emergency management is considered a primary function of the government in South Korea.

Before 2004, disasters were handled by enacting laws and regulations according to the type of
disaster or emergency. Natural disasters fall under the Natural Disaster Counter-Measure Act of
1995, which was based on two previous laws: Flood Disaster and Relief Act and Flood with
Typhoon Counter-Measure Act (Park, 2015). Social disasters were handled separately from natural
disasters.

In 2004, these policies were combined under the Emergency and Safety Management Basic
Act. This combined the Civil Defense Basic Act, the Natural Disaster Counter-Measure Act, and
the Emergency Management Act. Before the Emergency and Safety Management Basic Act, the
responsibility to handle disasters was assigned to numerous organizations and government
agencies. As a result, there was a lot of confusion on who should handle which disaster. Different
policies were set to deal with varying types of disasters. South Korea established the National
Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) in 2003. The NEMA’s functions were absorbed by the
Ministry of Public Safety and Security in 2014, and in July 2017, by the Ministry of the Interior
and Safety. As a result, all disaster management institutions were integrated under the Disaster and
Safety Management (DSM) (Song et al., 2020).

The Vice Minister of the Interior and Safety serves as the head of the DSM with the authority
to command all disaster responses and supervise the Disaster Safety Measure Headquarters down
to the Si (cities), Gun (counties), and Gu (districts). The latter provides the first level of response
to any disasters or emergencies but a more systematic national level response is elevated to the
national headquarters following the ‘National Crisis Management Guidelines.’ Natural and
weather-related disasters were all integrated under one organization in this setup.

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 The Korean experience clearly shows an increased intervention in the weather and climate
fields in the form of making specialized organizational bodies. Its experience is not yet at the extent
and magnitude of experience of the FEMA in the U.S. But what one can glean from the South
Korean case was that with increased government budget to undertake disaster management, the
government has allocated more resources with an expectation that it would bring future societal
benefits. As investment in disaster management, including weather forecasting, requires a long-
term time horizon until the benefits can be materialized, investing like South Korea cannot be
generalized to other developing countries. At the same time, it works as a middle-ground reference
point, from a more conservative standpoint.

NDRRMC: The Philippine Context

The history of the government of the Philippines’ disaster management system began in 1941
when the National Emergency Commission was created under Executive Order (EO) No. 335. The
commission was established to oversee and implement measures for dealing with natural and
human-induced disasters. Under this commission, Provincial Emergency Committees and
Municipal and City Emergency Committees were also established. In 1954, the government
created the National Civil Defense Administration (NCDA) under Republic Act (RA) 1190. The
law established civil defense councils at the national and local levels. NCDA was tasked to
coordinate, oversee, and implement the creation of disaster control units in all government offices,
and political subdivisions, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

In 1972, the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) was created to coordinate the disaster response
efforts of the national government, private institutions, as well as civic organizations. The National
Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) was created in 1978 through Presidential Decree (PD)
1566. The NDCC served became the Philippines' top policy-making body and focal agency for
disaster management. Under the NDCC, local disaster coordinating councils were established at
the regional, provincial, city, municipal, and barangay levels.

The Philippine Congress passed the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
(PDRRM) Act of 2010 and the Climate Change Act of 2009. These laws included in their aims: 1)
“increasing the resilience of vulnerable communities and the country against natural disasters” and
2) “reducing damage and loss of lives and properties due to disasters.” The PDRRM Act provided
“for the development of policies and plans and the implementation of actions and measures on all
aspects of DRRM.” These include “good governance, risk assessment and early warning,
knowledge building and awareness-raising, reducing underlying risk factors, and preparedness for
effective response and early recovery.”

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 The PDRRM Act also established the NDRRMC in the Philippines as a multisectoral disaster
coordinating, planning, and policy-coordinating body. The NDRRMC is organized as a working
group. It includes not only government organizations but also non-government, civil sector, and
private sector organizations. The actual functions of disaster preparedness, response, prevention
and mitigation, and rehabilitation and recovery however are primarily relegated to the appropriate
national agencies for national disasters and emergencies and local ones, at the Local Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Offices (LDRRMO) which exist at the regional, provincial, municipal,
city and barangay levels. This structure is still very similar to the setup under the NDCC in 1978.

A Comparison of Mandates

Each organization has a different focus. FEMA begins its mitigation processes with
information campaigns among the public. They make sure that everyone understands what might
happen and what could happen in case of a disaster. FEMA also makes sure that this phase will
include all activities for emergency prevention, and reduction of the likelihood of emergencies, as
well as reduce the damages that may arise from unavoidable hazards. They also set common
examples in their campaign drives so that it would be easier for the citizens to understand.

In South Korea, mitigation of damages from natural disasters relies heavily on early
warning systems. KMA’s DPFS plays a vital role in this area. KMA’s forecasts and warnings allow
DSM to do mitigation activities before the onset of a disaster. As a country that regularly suffers
from weather and climate-related disasters, investments in meteorological services have very high
returns for South Korea (Dolcemascolo et al., 2011).

DSM is responsible for acting on the early warning from KMA and other related agencies.
For mitigation, they inform the general public on how to deal with disasters through training and
education, although there are only college-level lectures available currently. Lectures for lower
education level students are also being considered (Park, 2015). DSM was formed to be a control
center that would deal with all forms of natural and human-made hazards, but it has been mostly
focused on fires and floods, which occur commonly in the country (Bae, et al., 2015). Since the
integration of DSM to the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, all disaster management institutions
were integrated under the wing of the DSM (Song et al., 2020).

In terms of the second thematic area, namely preparedness, FEMA provides checklists and
toolkits with the help of various agencies in the U.S. to help the citizens survive the impending
disaster, both for individuals and private and government companies. In their checklist, they
provide emergency response plans while various agencies provide preparedness planning for
businesses, emergency preparedness, emergency management, and business continuity self-

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

assessment checklist, and individual insurance forms.

In contrast, preparedness is not as emphasized as response and recovery in South Korea.

DSM attempted to put a stronger emphasis on this thematic area by establishing the role of citizens
and the local government to achieve participatory management. They mapped out clearer
responsibilities for the local government and citizens. Consequently, the death toll from natural
disasters has lowered by 60% and property damage has reduced by 40% since 2004. The death toll
from traffic accidents has even overtaken that of natural disasters (Bae, et al., 2015). DSM also
developed manuals for disaster management education. These were made to inform people how to
act during different disasters, and these are disseminated through advertisements and the Internet
(Park, 2015). Local governments are mandated to draft a standardized crisis response manual.

In the Philippines, the NDRRMC’s mandate is primarily policy-making, coordination,

integration, supervision, monitoring and evaluation. It leads in planning and oversees activities in
various fields including communication, emergency transportation, warning signals, rescue,
evacuation, engineering, auxiliary services, public education, and health and rehabilitation. The
actual functions of disaster preparedness, response, prevention and mitigation, and rehabilitation
and recovery however are primarily relegated to LDRRMOs which exist at the sub-national levels
under the provincial, municipal, city, and barangay governments, which have some degree of local
autonomy but are under the general supervision of the President of the Philippines, through the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). During preparation, these DRRMOs
heighten community awareness of potential hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities. They also
capacitate institutions and communities to cope with the adverse impacts of disasters.

The NDRRMC serves to coordinate the efforts of non-government organizations, national

government agencies, civic, and private organizations. The NDRRMC leads the preparation of the
comprehensive national plans and disaster preparedness plans, policies, and systems vis-à-vis
strengthening partnerships with all stakeholders and key players. It also coordinates efforts in times
of major disasters and emergencies and the responses of the appropriate agencies.

Post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation for major disasters are led by the National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) of the Philippines. This includes restoring the
people’s livelihood, restoring shelter and other buildings or installations, rehabilitating
infrastructure and other public utilities, facilitating continuity of business and economic activities,
and assisting in the psychological and physical rehabilitation of affected persons. In 2013, the
Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery (OPARR) was established as
a dedicated office for coordinating recovery efforts after major disasters or calamities.

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 Local government units are the primary organizations responsible for dealing with disasters
and emergencies. Their LDRRMOs handle the drafting of local disaster preparedness policies,
plans, and systems vis-à-vis strengthening partnerships among all key players and stakeholders.
During these times, the local DRRMs centers at all levels should not only have disaster plans and
prevention in place but should also be prepared to have an immediate response in case a disaster
ravages their immediate communities. The LGUs are answerable to DILG in their preparations at
the local level. Come the time of disasters and emergencies, however, it is the local government
units led by the local chief executives and through their LDRRMOs that serve at the frontlines of
disaster response, mitigation, and post-disaster, rehabilitation, and recovery. When disasters meet
a certain threshold, the local governments can declare a state of calamity to mobilize more funds
and resources and exercise other emergency measures.

South Korea’s DSM focuses more on response and recovery over preparedness and
mitigation (Park et al., 2015). The goal is to immediately restore working order through relevant
government organizations and volunteerism. Korea also supports businesses in making business
continuity plans (BCP) through the Act of Supporting Business Continuity Planning for Corporate
Autonomic Activity by reducing the financial burden through insurance premiums (Ha and Ahn,
2008). DSM also encourages volunteer organizations to participate in response and recovery by
providing training to their leaders. However, it is the local government's role to provide training to
the other members (Jang and Yun, 2017).

A Comparison of Organizational Structure

FEMA’s structure is shown in Figure 2. The Office of the Administrator and program offices
are in the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. FEMA is decentralized and divides the entire
country into ten regions so that there is a specific FEMA office that will focus solely on the
assigned area. These regions have representatives from FEMA who are as capable as the ones in
the main office. As a result, if a disaster happens in a certain region, the response and recovery, as
well as mitigation and preparation, would be of the same quality as that from the central office,
making FEMA’s performance efficient overall. If there is a situation that needs more attention than
the regional office can give, reinforcements from nearby regions can quickly reach the area; no
water bodies separate them, and there is an emergency lane in the free road for emergency vehicles.

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 Organizational Structure of the U.S. FEMA
Figure 2

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 Unlike FEMA, South Korea’s DSM is highly centralized (Jang and Yun, 2017; Park, 2015).
DSM has established Disaster Management Divisions in all 250 local governments in South Korea.
This gives them nationwide network coverage for disaster management. However, there are often
communication problems among these Disaster Management Divisions, causing delays and even
confusion about the extent of the situation (Park, 2015). The DSM’s structure is in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Organizational Structure of South Korea’s Disaster and Safety Management (DSM) under the
Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS)

Meanwhile, in the Philippines, the NDRRMC is organized as a working group or council

comprised of the civil sector, private sector, non-government, and non-government organizations.
The Administrator of the Office of Civil Defense (OCD), an office under the Department of
National Defense (DND), serves as Executive Director. As a working group, the NDRRMC has

17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

only a very limited number of staff and resources of its own. Instead, it relies mainly on the
personnel and resources of its member agencies especially during periods of major disasters or
emergencies. In many instances, it is the local government units through the LDRRMOs and local
offices that are in the frontlines of dealing with disasters and emergencies.

The NDRRMC itself consists of senior government officials, cabinet members, and heads of
agencies and member organizations, as well as heads of nongovernment private and civic
organizations as seen in Figure 4. The expectation is that these organizations will mobilize and
coordinate their units, resources, and efforts following the framework and guidance of the council.

Figure 4

Organizational Structure of the Philippines NDRRMC

Among these organizations, the Philippines NDRRMC is unique in that it is a working group
or council that primarily coordinates the response of other agencies. While it is chaired by the
Secretary of Defense, most of the other members of the council are also co-equal ranking cabinet
members (Secretary or Minister level) and are technically not under the supervision nor direction

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

of the chair. The NDRRMC primarily exists and has offices and staff at the national and only down
to the regional level. As a coordinating body, it has only a very limited budget and resources, has
a skeletal staff, and is highly reliant on the personnel and resources of other agencies.

In contrast, both the U.S. FEMA and South Korea’s DSM are distinct organizations under
one agency. While they are both led by a sub-cabinet level official they have clearly defined
hierarchies and command structures, significant resources, and offices and staff from the federal/
national down to the state level, which they can mobilize along with the resources of other agencies
and organizations during periods of disasters and calamities.

A Comparison of Resources

Table 2 shows the annual allocation given to the Office of the Civil Defense (OCD), an
agency under the Department of National Defense, which serves as the administrative and logistics
arm of the NDRRMC. Also shown is the annual allocation of the National DRRM Fund (NDRMF).
Both the budget of OCD and the NDRMF are based on the General Appropriations Act (GAA)
being legislated by the Philippine Congress every year.

Table 2

Annual budget of the Office of the Civil Defense with the National DRRM Fund, FY 2017 to FY 2021

Item (in
thousand USD) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
**
Personnel
5,813 3,516 4,597 5,183 5,813
Services
Basic Salary 1,646 2,597 3,417 3,892 4,399
Other
Compensation
550 843 1,049 1,175 1,277
Common to
All
Other
173 76 105 116 137
Benefits
Maintenance
and Other
7,198 12,457 12,835 15,514 15,814
Operating
Expenses
Capital Outlays 56 5,372 10,104 4,030 3,276
Total Annual
9,623 21,344 27,536 24,727 24,903
Budget
NDRRM Fund 315,100 392,000 400,000 320,000 400,000
* All figures are based on the General Appropriations Act enacted by the Philippine Congress from 2017-2021 **
Exchange rate is at USD 1 = PHP 50

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 OCD’s budget is mainly composed of three items: personnel services, maintenance and other
operating expenses (MOOE), and capital outlays. Personnel services include the basic salary given
to the permanent employees of the agency, employer contributions to government-mandated
benefits such as PAG-IBIG and PhilHealth, and allowances and bonuses given to employees.
MOOE includes expenditures related to the regular operations of the agency such as travel, training,
supplies and utility, and printing. Lastly, the capital outlay refers to expenditures related to the
maintenance of fixed assets such as machinery and equipment.

While there is a specific allocation for the NDRMF that the NDRRMC can use for disaster
relief and response, they are also mandated to utilize resources from other allocations such as the
specific DRRM fund given to member agencies and local DRRM Funds of Local Government
Units (NDRRMC, 2011).

Table 3
Annual budget of the U.S. FEMA from FY 2017-2021
Organization 2017*** 2018** 2019* 2020* 2021*
(in thousand USD) Enacted Enacted Enacted Enacted President's
Budget
Operations and Support 1,048,551 1,030,135 1,066,258 1,102,199 1,134,195
Procurement, Construction, and Improvements 35,273 85,276 133,830 133,363 86,503
Federal Assistance 3,024,458 3,334,932 3,135,210 3,229,467 2,482,552
Disaster Relief Fund 7,328,515 7,900,720 12,258,000 17,863,259 5,653,366
National Flood Insurance Program 4,795,353 4,982,536 5,050,836 4,983,460 5,176,462
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program 1,048,551 1,030,135 1,066,258 1,102,199 1,134,195
Total 16,231,885 17,332,575 21,643,469 27,310,748 14,533,078
*DHS FY 2021 Congressional Submission p. 17
**DHS FY 2020 Congressional Justification p. 16
***DHS FY 2019 Congressional Justification p. 15

Table 3 shows the annual budget of the U.S. FEMA in the last five years. In comparison
with the NDRRMC, the U.S. Congress directly allocates the Disaster Relief Fund to FEMA for its
use in disaster relief and response (Department of Homeland Security, n.d.-a). The item on
operations and support item mainly funds the logistics and operations of the agency as well as
programs to “…mitigate long-term risks, ensure the continuity and restoration of essential services
and functions and provide leadership to build, sustain, and improve the coordination and delivery
of support to citizens and SLTT [State, local, tribal, and territorial] governments” (Department of
Homeland Security n.d.-a, p. 49).

The procurement, construction, and improvements fund the technology and infrastructure

20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

needed by the agency for its continual operations. Federal assistance includes grants and funds
financing the training and education of FEMA’s stakeholders related to disaster and safety. Their
flood insurance policy rests under the National Flood Insurance Policy Program. And lastly, they
provide SLTTs support “…in the development of off-site radiological emergency preparedness
plans within the emergency planning zones of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed
commercial nuclear power facilities” (Department of Homeland Security, n.d.-a, p. 405).

Table 4
Annual budget of South Korea’s DSM from FY 2017-2021
Organization 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(in thousand USD)**
Safety Management 86,522 52,609 642,609 467,391 547,043
Disaster Management 633,217 639,739 62,348 61,652 766,957
Disaster Safety Technology Development 26,261 38,000 51,217 58,174 78,696
Disaster Safety Informatization 20,435 124,696 152,522 153,304 109,217
Total 766,435 855,044 908,696 740,521 1,501,913
* All figures are based on the Revenue and Expenditure Budget Overview 2017-2021, Ministry of the
Interior and Safety
** Exchange rate is at USD 1 = KRW 1150

Table 4 shows the annual budget given to the Disaster and Safety Management (DSM), an
agency under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety in South Korea. The budget of the Ministry
of the Interior and Safety is legislated by the South Korean National Assembly every year.

DSM’s budget is mainly composed of four items: Safety Management, Disaster

Management, Disaster Safety Technology Development, and Disaster Safety Informatization. The
budget increased from 766,435 thousand USD in 2017 to 1,501,913 thousand USD in 2021.

A Comparison of Technical Capacity in the DRRM context

Guided by previous international commitments on DRRM, The Sendai Framework for

Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 emphasizes the urgent need to address the challenges and
minimize the impacts brought about by disasters through developing capacities of countries and
communities (United Nations, 2015). According to the United Nations (2009), capacity is the
“combination of all strengths, attributes, and resources available within a community, society, or
organization that can be used to achieve agreed goals.” People, organizations, and systems should
be equipped with technical capacities which focus on specific areas of need related to the priorities
for action of a given problem or issue (Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative, 2011).

21

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 Within the DRRM context, technical capacity refers to the ability to effectively respond to
and manage the adverse effects of disasters. At the organizational level, it corresponds to the
capability to utilize available skills, knowledge, and resources for improved disaster prevention,
mitigation, response, recovery, and reconstruction. Technical capacities associated with DRRM
can include expertise in understanding and monitoring disaster risk and vulnerabilities, integrating
disaster risk in governance, implementing strategies, plans, and policies on DRRM, and utilizing
mechanisms and tools on disaster preparedness. To complement the existing capacities on DRRM,
tools, and assets such as hazard-monitoring telecommunications systems, geospatial information
technologies, management information systems, satellites, drones, and other resources can also
contribute to the reduction of risk and vulnerability to disasters and hazards.

Technical Capacity of the U.S. FEMA

The National Preparedness Goal of the Federal Emergency Management System of the
USA is anchored on five mission areas and 32 core capabilities necessary to prevent, respond to
and recover from threats and hazards such as disasters. Each of the capabilities has specific targets
which can be assessed by communities based on their needs and its relevance and appropriateness
based on their exposure to risks. Some of the capabilities aligned with disaster response are risk
and disaster resilience assessment, long-term vulnerability reduction, and natural and cultural
resources (FEMA, 2020).

In the event of disasters, FEMA has an information management system that contains
disaster information, responses, and channels for assistance. To ensure resilience in managing risks
and hazards, FEMA uses different tools for each disaster. For instance, the National Hurricane
Program (NHP) consists of planning and response mechanisms that aim to provide information
and assistance at the state and local levels. Its components include the Hurricane Evacuation
Studies and Planning, HURREVAC Decision Support Tool, Hurricane Liaison Team Operational
Decision Support, Intergovernmental Hurricane Preparedness, and Post-Storm Assessment. These
tools are in the process of integrating new technologies to be more accessible and functional to the
people (FEMA, 2020).

Apart from harnessing tools and resources to help identify and assess risks, a new online
mapping application has also been developed by FEMA. The National Risk Index gathers data and
visualizes risks caused by natural hazards and disasters. It is designed to assist in risk assessment,
emergency operation and hazard mitigation plans, and information dissemination. The maps can
be viewed at the country and census tract level, which makes understanding and managing risks
easier and faster. The index can also be used to formulate more programs and strategies to reduce
potential disaster risks (FEMA, 2021).

Technical Capacity of South Korea’s DSM

One of the national priorities of South Korea is to protect the lives of its people through
the establishment of integrated and effective disaster and safety management. The Ministry of the

22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

Interior and Safety (MOIS) takes the lead role in overseeing the implementation of the country’s
disaster and safety plans. Their programs and protocols are guided by their key commitments to
(1) develop a field-oriented disaster response mechanism, (2) establish a victim-oriented relief
system, and (3) reinforce governmental protection of people’s lives (MOIS, 2021b).

At the core of the disaster management system in South Korea is its DSM. Its existing
capacities focus on disaster management technology through the creation of integrated disaster
management information systems and communications networks. The information system
includes three portals and a mobile application that consolidates information that the citizens can
use for disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. MOIS also works in collaboration with the
National Disaster Management Research Institute to develop a Public Safety Map Service that will
provide real-time information on the possible risks and safety facilities for the people. As of 2017,
a total of 50,000 people downloaded the app on their mobile phones. Lastly, the MOIS launched
Korea Safe-net which is a disaster and safety communication network system for improved
response to disasters and other hazards. Through the network, the response team can easily be
mobilized during emergencies (MOIS, 2021). The innovative approaches and measures in the
disaster response of South Korea demonstrate its technological skills and resources.

Technical Capacity of the Philippines’ NDRRMC

Institutionalizing the country’s response to disasters and hazards, the NDRRMC is tasked
to monitor the implementation of the National DRRM Framework at the national and local levels.
Throughout the years, there has been considerable improvement in the development of DRRM
capacities and structures in the country. In 2020, the Philippines ranked medium in terms of its
lack of coping capacities in the World Risk Index of the most affected country from extreme
weather events. However, the country’s exposure to natural hazards is very high, indicating that
more Filipinos are prone to be exposed to and experience the devastating effects of natural disasters
(Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department, 2021).

Based on the National DRRM Plan 2011-2028, NDRRMC pursues a comprehensive

approach towards achieving its goal to foster “safer, adaptive, and disaster-resilient Filipino
communities towards sustainable development.” Its response mechanisms include strengthening
of its capacities on disaster prevention, preparedness, response, rehabilitation, and recovery.
Among the existing tools and instruments that NDRRMC has developed is its online Geographic
Information System-based Monitoring Dashboard which provides the latest updates on the
Weather Situation, Flood Advisories, Dam Situations, Earthquakes, and Tsunamis, Volcanic
eruptions, and other Incidents all over the country. This dashboard, which is accessible through
their website (https://monitoring-dashboard.ndrrmc.gov.ph/) and is updated in real-time, serves as
a guide in community response on disasters. In addition, to improve its emergency alert systems,
the Emergency Telecommunications Cluster of NDRRMC works closely with the Department of
Information and Communications Technology (DICT) in improving ICT capacities down to the
local level. As a result, timely emergency and coordination telecommunications are cascaded

23

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

through different clusters. Early warning and emergency alerts are also announced to the people
through mobile disaster alerts. Promoting effective information dissemination played a significant
role in disaster prevention and mitigation response in the country.

Summary Comparison of U.S., South Korea, and Philippine Disaster Organizations

Table 5 shows a three-country comparison of the U.S., South Korea, and the Philippines. The
U.S. has a high-end model, which also represents the model of nations that are similar or equal in
terms of meteorological service and disaster management capability. In comparison, the South
Korean model is a middle-ground model, which can be the next step for many developing
countries that are trying to upgrade disaster management capabilities.

Table 5

Summary Comparison of the Three Countries Disaster Organizations

The U.S. South Korea The Philippines

Overall High Moderate Limited

capability

Mandate Federal Emergency National Emergency Leads DRRM Planning and

Management Planning and Planning and Response Coordinating Body for
Response National Response
Structure Decentralized Highly Centralized Decentralized

Federal Body with 11 Central Body and 250 National Working Group and
Regional Units Local Disaster Local DRRM Councils in
Management Divisions provincial, city, municipal
levels
Resources Large Moderate Limited

(USD 14.5 to 27.3 billion (USD 740 million to 1.5 (USD 324.7 to 427.5 million
per year in the last five billion per year in the per year including the NDRR
years) last five years) Fund in the last five years)

Technical High Moderate to High Limited

Capacity
Considerable experience Limited experience

Challenges for the Philippines in Creating a Disaster Risk Reduction Body

The Philippines is confronted with many natural disasters from typhoons, to earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, to severe flooding, and needs a capable disaster organization with similar
capacities to US FEMA or South Korea’s DSM. The country, however, faces impediments and

24

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

challenges that hinder effective DRRM and as well as impedes the establishment of a separate
disaster body that will solely focus on risk reduction, emergency management, and relief
administration. Researchers have spelled out various impediments the country faces.

According to the Asian Development Bank (2013), poor conceptual understanding of DRRM
and resilience in the Philippines remains relatively weak, manifesting in an approach borne out of
a tunnel-vision to the issue. The NDRRMC’s staff who lead the strategy implementation have
limited knowledge. Its leadership has weak budgetary and political standing and thus remains in
the periphery during preparation and budget processing, leading to missed opportunities. The weak
voice of resilience proponents is also a challenge due to their relatively weak political standing.
Despite some exemplary cases, capacity among local governments and their leadership is highly
uneven (Brower, et al., 2014). Many local government units that are in the frontlines have limited
DRRM capacity and expertise in this matter. This considerably reduces the local governments’
capacity to plan. These challenges are further exacerbated by short-sighted political focus, extreme
budget constraints, and mostly inadequate assessment of the risk of disasters in the communities
they serve. Poor vertical and horizontal integration is another impediment on the subnational level
because the DRRM Councils are usually disconnected among the national and local governments.
This may partially account for observed coordination problems (Howe and Bang, 2017)

Disaster management agencies experience insufficient funding, particularly in countries that

have low-income local governments that are largely responsible for implementation. As a result,
policymakers favor investments that create immediate and tangible results rather than investments
against potential hazards in the future. Reliance on the international community is often misplaced
since the local government units think that external support can only give much, but it still entails
some support that the local government can use during rehabilitation (United Nations Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2012). The agency’s expenditure-tracking systems have
also been a challenge, as there are budgets that come across different sectors and require a different
budget proposal leading to loss of monitoring of the transactions made by the agency (Benson, et
al., 2009). Lastly, maintenance budgets for equipment and small-scale hazard maintenance are
often ignored, leaving the infrastructure vulnerable to future hazardous events.

Another impediment concerns the existing political economy as disasters are linked to
poverty and socio-economic inequality. In the Philippines, as well as in other countries, disaster
management is characterized by unequal access (Brower, et al., 2014) disaster risk is focused more
on poorer households, which constitute a part of the society with a limited political voice. Various
misaligned incentives overemphasize highly visible disaster relief, early recovery, and
reconstruction, and encourage an insufficient public focus on disaster risk reduction combined

25

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

with weak systems of accountability. Poor knowledge of the actions of disaster risk reduction
results in favored constituencies being prioritized (Asian Development Bank, 2013).

Brower et. al. (2014) points out that the Philippines is characterized by a focus on disaster
response and recovery with the military and national police as central actors. The problem is that
organizations like the military rank response four out of its six mission priorities (Howe and Bang,
2017). In terms of investment identification, design, and implementation, mandated consideration
of disaster risk is very low. There is also a perceived low net return to investments in resilience.
These influence the design of both public and private investments. There is also a lack of
availability of high-resolution risk and hazard information to support investment in developing
individual resilience. Inadequate risk information is a major challenge. There are considerable gaps
in risk information gathered by local government units, which are most essential for guiding a
community plan as most of the risk-reduction measures are acted upon and conceived upon these
units. Low participation in disaster drills is also a challenge (Asian Development Bank, 2013).

From a policy standpoint, the existing risk-reduction legislation in the Philippines is

fragmented because various laws address different aspects of risk reduction such as emergency
preparedness and response, building codes, water resource management, climate change, financial
regulation, land use planning, and environmental protection. The weak enforcement of crucial
DRRM regulation is another impediment, as enforcement has lagged in the Philippines because of
various combinations of institutional, financial, human resource, and technical limitations; weak
political support; insecure land tenure; and corruption (Asian Development Bank, 2013).

To be fair, the Philippines DRRM Act of 2010 has seen improvements in the country’s
capabilities particularly in the infusion of additional resources to deal with disasters. The full
potential however is not yet fully realized due to what Domingo (2017) notes as issues in
institutional leadership at the national and local levels and “inefficient fund utilization, unequal
resource distribution, inept directional funding, and accounting and auditing issues” among others
(p.17). The deeper issue in the weaknesses in leadership and implementation, however, may be
rooted in institutional barriers that he notes require legislative action. In particular, there is
consensus that ad hoc arrangements under the current policy are major weaknesses that hinder the
effective implementation and realization of the law.

Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the discourse and debates around DRRM in the Philippines
is divided among those who are proposing an expanded DRRM policy and putting more “teeth”
(i.e., authority) and resources to the NDRRMC, and the other is the creation of a new and dedicated
agency tentatively named Department of Disaster Resilience (DDR). The measure has gained

26

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

support in the Philippine House of Representatives but the measure is still stalled and debates are
still ongoing in the Senate and possible hurdles may still be encountered at the executive even if
the measure passes the two houses of Congress.

Concluding Notes

This study ambitiously attempted to compare disaster management functions and

organizations in the U.S., the Philippines, and South Korea. The contexts from which these disaster
organizations were born and managed differ so greatly that it would not be an easy task to
benchmark one from another. We note that in terms of overall capability, the Philippines NDRRMC
is very limited and significantly lags behind the U.S. FEMA and South Korea’s DSM. We trace
the differences not only from the more limited resources of the Philippines as a developing country
but also due to the differences in mandate, structure, resources, and technical capacity by their
respective disaster management agencies.

We noted in the discussion that while they have many similarities in terms of their mandate
to respond to man-made and natural disasters, including those that are weather-related, the
structure and capabilities of the Philippines NDRRMC differ significantly from the U.S. FEMA
and the South Korean DSM. Among the three bodies, the NDRRMC is the only one that is
structured as a multi-sectoral council whose role is primarily limited policy-making, coordination,
integration, supervision, monitoring and evaluation functions. In contrast, the U.S. and South
Korean organizations are distinct government agencies with substantial resources, authority,
personnel, and capabilities to respond to disasters on their own. The NDRRMC’s multi-sectoral
working-group organization and lack of a strong leadership structure can hinder effective
leadership and coordination. The U.S. FEMA and South Korea’s DSM are headed by a single
official with a clear chain of command. The adoption of similar leadership and organizational
structure for the Philippines should be strongly considered.

While the U.S. FEMA is decentralized and the Korean disaster units are also cascaded down
to local governments like the Philippines NDRRMC, the latter is not the agency that directly
responds but is dependent on other agencies and local governments. In itself, the NDRRMC has
limited resources, authority, technical capacity, and personnel and thus causes challenges in
coordination and implementation. Taken together, the total budget for disasters in the Philippines
of USD 324.7 to 427.5 million is considerable even if it is less than that of South Korea and far
behind that of the U.S. The challenge however is that most of this is in the NDRR Fund, a budget
shared by many agencies that comprise the NDRRMC. The actual budget of the NDRRMC only

27

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

ranges from USD 9.62 to 24.90 million per year for the last five years, a paltry amount compared
to the USD 740 million to 1.5 billion per year of South Korea’s DSM and the U.S. FEMA’s
USD14.5 to 27.3 billion per year. This has significant implications on the NDRRMC’s technical
capacity and ability to respond. More resources are necessary for it to develop its overall capacity.

While some advocates and legislators prefer expanding the Philippines current DRRM law,
we argue based on the U.S. and South Korean case that the Philippines capability to deal with
natural disasters, especially frequent weather-related disasters, can best be served if it pursues the
establishment of a separate disaster agency such as the Department of Disaster Resilience being
proposed by some advocates and legislators. This new organization will need the appropriate
mandate, corresponding authority, enough resources, capable personnel, and strong leadership to
overcome the various problems that hinder the NDRRMC in the past and at present. However,
supporters of this new department will also have to overcome significant political not to mention
budgetary hurdles for the new department to be established. To overcome this, they will need to
secure as much public support as possible, and navigate budgetary and political hurdles effectively.
The capability of the Philippines in dealing with future disasters depends on this agency’s success.

This study largely looked at macro-level organizational aspects of disaster organizations so

it is limited in terms of examining in-depth specific dimensions of DRRM and resilience capability.
Many studies of DRRM in the Philippines are similar in the sense that they try to provide a general
assessment or present specific case studies. We recommend that future studies be designed
focusing on more specific aspects or dimensions of DRRM and resilience. Studies geared towards
an in-depth examination of one of the dimensions we covered here (e.g., technical capacity, budget,
organizational structure, or mandate) may find more specific findings and insights. These can
contribute to both scholarship and the development of appropriate policies for the Philippines and
similarly situated countries that are highly vulnerable to and regularly face natural disasters.

28

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 References

Abaya, M. R. T., Le Dé, L., & Lopez, Y. (2020). Localising the UN cluster approach: the Philippines
as a case study. Environmental Hazards, 19(4), 360-374.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2019.1677209
Asian Development Bank. (2013). Investing in resilience: Ensuring a disaster-resistant future.
Mandaluyong, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30119/investing-resilience.pdf
Baas, S., Ramasamy, S., de Pryck, J.D., & Battista, F. (2008). Disaster Risk Management Systems
Analysis: A Guidebook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome.
Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/3/i0304e/i0304e.pdf
Bae, Y., Joo, Y., & Won, S. (2016). Decentralization and collaborative disaster governance: Evidence
from South Korea. Habitat International, 52, 50-56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.027
Benson, C., Arnold, M., & Christoplos, I. (2009). Disaster risk financing consultative brief. Geneva:
ProVention Consortium
Blanco, D. V. (2015). Disaster governance in the Philippines: Issues, lessons learned, and future
directions in the post-Yolanda super typhoon aftermath. International Journal of Public
Administration, 38(10), 743-756. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.979198
Brower, R. S., Magno, F. A., & Dilling, J. (2014). Evolving and implementing a new disaster
management paradigm: The case of the Philippines. In Disaster and development (pp. 289-
313). Springer, Cham.
Burton, C., & Venton, C. C. (2009). Case study of the Philippines national red cross: community-
based disaster risk management programming. Geneva, Switzerland: IFRC (International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies).
Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative. (2011). Basics of Capacity Development for Disaster Risk
Reduction. Geneva.
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/globalplatform/entry_bg_paper~basicofcapacitydevelop
mentfordisasterriskreduction.pdf
Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Emergency Event Database (EM-
DAT). https://public.emdat.be

29

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department. (2021). Facts in Figures: World Risk Index
2020.https://cpbrd.congress.gov.ph/images/PDF%20Attachments/Facts%20in%20Figures/FF
2021-20_World_Risk_Index_2020.pdf
Dariagan, J. D., Atando, R. B., & Asis, J. L. B. (2021). Disaster preparedness of local governments in
Panay Island, Philippines. Natural Hazards, 105(2), 1923-1944.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-020-04383-0
Dolcemascolo, G., Kim, Y., & Mu, T-L. L. (2011). Reducing Disaster Risk in Cities — the Republic
of Korea’s Experience, World Meteorological Organization Bulletin nº, 60(2).
https://public.wmo.int/en/bulletin/reducing-disaster-risk-cities-%E2%80%94-republic-
korea%E2%80%99s-experience
Domingo, S. N. (2017). Institutional issues on disaster risk reduction and management. PIDS
Discussion Paper Series. No. 2017(50).
https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1750.pdf
Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. (2020). Hurricane Planning and Response. U.S.
FEMA website. https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/hurricanes
FEMA. (2020). Mission Areas and Core Capabilities. U.S. FEMA website. Retrieved from
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/mission-core-capabilities.
FEMA. (2021). National Risk Index for Natural Hazards (NRI). U.S. FEMA website.
https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/national-risk-index.
Fernandez, J., Bendimerad, F., Mattingly, S., & Buika, J.(n.d.). Comparative analysis of disaster risk
management practices in seven megacities. https://www.urban-
response.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/comparative-analysis-drm-in-7-
megacities.pdf
Ha, K., & Ahn, J. (2008). National Emergency Management System: The United States and Korea.
Journal of Emergency Management, 6(1), 31-44.
https://www.wmpllc.org/ojs/index.php/jem/article/view/1377
Howe, B., & Bang, G. (2017). Nargis and Haiyan: The politics of natural disaster management in
Myanmar and the Philippines. Asian Studies Review, 41(1), 58-78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2016.1265484
Jang, Y., & Yun, H. (2017). Improving Disaster Management System in Korea for Effective Disaster
Response, International Conference on Civil, Disaster Management and Environmental
Sciences, http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/EIRAI.H0217308
Jovita, H. D., Nurmandi, A., Mutiarin, D., & Purnomo, E. P. (2018). Why does network governance
30

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

 fail in managing post-disaster conditions in the Philippines?. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk
Studies, 10(1). https://jamba.org.za/index.php/jamba/article/view/585
Lee, W. (2013). Valuing Investments in Data Processing and Forecasting Systems, World
Meteorological Organization Bulletin nº, 62(1).
https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/valuing-investments-data-processing-and-
forecasting-systems
Luna, E. M. (2001). Disaster mitigation and preparedness: the case of NGOs in the
Philippines. Disasters, 25(3), 216-226. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-
7717.00173
Ministry of Interior and Safety [MOIS]. (2017). 2017 Revenue and Expenditure Budget Overview.
Sejong-si: Ministry of Interior and Safety.
MOIS. (2018). 2018 Revenue and Expenditure Budget Overview. Sejong-si: Ministry of Interior and
Safety.
MOIS. (2019). 2019 Revenue and Expenditure Budget Overview. Sejong-si: Ministry of Interior and
Safety.
MOIS. (2020). 2020 Revenue and Expenditure Budget Overview. Sejong-si: Ministry of Interior and
Safety.
MOIS. (2021a). 2021 Revenue and Expenditure Budget Overview. Sejong-si: Ministry of Interior
and Safety.
MOIS. (2021b). Disaster and Safety Management> Overview. Ministry of Interior and Safety of the
Republic of Korea website. Retrieved from
https://www.mois.go.kr/eng/sub/a03/disasterAndSafety/screen.do.
National Disaster Coordinating Council [NDCC]. (2009). Sitrep 15 Re Effects of TY “Dante”
(Kujira) (Glide No. TC-2009-000088-PHL).
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/179AEF9526E964DC492575B50019FC7
0-Full_Report.pdf
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council [NDRRMC]. (2011). National Disaster
Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) 2011‐2028.
https://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/reports_resources/DILG-Resources-2012116-
420ac59e31.pdf
NDRRMC. (2012a). Final report on tropical storm Ondoy (Ketsana) and typhoon Pepeng (Parma).
http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/92/Narrative_Report_re_Tropical_Storm_Ondoy
_%28KETSANA%29_and_Typhoon_Pepeng_%28PARMA%29_2009.pdf
31

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

NDRRMC. (2012b). Final report on the effects and emergency management re tropical storm
“SENDONG” (Washi).
http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/1347/Final_Report_on_the_Effects_and_Emerge
ncy_Management_re_Tropical_Storm_SENDONG_%28WASHI%29_Status_of_Early_Recove
ry_Programs_in_Region_X_issued_10FEB2014.pdf
NDRRMC. (2012c). SitRep no. 38 re effects of typhoon Pablo.
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/NDRRMC%20Update%20Sitrep%20No
%2038%20re%20Effects%20of%20Typhoon%20Pablo%20Bopha.pdf
NDRRMC. (2014). Final report re effects of typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan).
http://ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/1329/FINAL_REPORT_re_Effects_of_Typhoon_YO
LANDA_%28HAIYAN%29_06-09NOV2013.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2012). Disaster risk
assessment and risk financing: A G20/OECD methodological framework. Retrieved from:
https://www.oecd.org/gov/risk/G20disasterriskmanagement.pdf
Otenyo, E. E., & Lind, N. S. (2006). Part I: Comparative Public Administration: Growth, Method,
and Ecology. In Comparative public administration. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Park, S. E. (2015). Disaster Management in Korea. International Institute of Global Resilience.
http://aboutiigr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Disaster-Management-in-Korea-by-So-Eun-
Park-May-5-2015.pdf
Rappler (2011). Sendong damage reaches almost P1-B. Rappler.
http://www.rappler.com/nation/485-sendong-damage-reaches-almost-p1-b
Rappler (2013). Typhoon Huaning on track to Taiwan. Rappler.
https://www.rappler.com/nation/special-coverage/weather-alert/33521-20130711-huaning-pm-
update
Salaverria, L. B. (2011). Tropical storm ‘Juaning’ slams Bicol provinces. The Inquirer.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/30793/tropical-storm-juaning-slams-bicol-provinces-9-killed
Song, Y. S., Park, M. J., Lee, J. H., Kim, B. S., & Song, Y. H. (2020). Improvement measure of
integrated disaster management system considering disaster damage characteristics: focusing
on the Republic of Korea. Sustainability, 12 (340): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010340
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. (2013). Public Law 100-707.
Torneo, A. R. (2020). Public administration education in the Philippines 1951-2020: History,
challenges, and prospects. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 26(2)127-149,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2020.1744066
32

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255

Torneo, A.R., Borja, A.L., Florendo, C.B. and Felices, J.B. (2020). Introduction: Towards a
framework on adaptive and resilient governance. In Torneo, A.R. and Hecita, I.J.R. (Eds.)
Adaptive and Resilient Governance in Health Crisis Situations: Policy and Practical
Considerations, 1-29. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Makati City: Philippines

Typhoon2000. (2010). The twelve worst typhoons of the Philippines (1947-2009).

http://www.typhoon2000.ph/stormstats/12WorstPhilippineTyphoons.htm
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2019). FY 2020 Budget in Brief. Retrieved from
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0318_MGMT_FY-2020-Budget-In-
Brief.pdf
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 2012. Financial Tracking
Service. http://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=emerg-emergencies&
section=ND&Year=2010
United Nations. (2009). 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: United
Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).
United Nations. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 - 2030. Retrieved from
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
United States Agency for International Development. (2011). Introduction to disaster risk reduction.
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/26081_kp1concepdisasterrisk1.pdf
Yang, S. B., & Torneo, A. R. (2016). Government performance management and evaluation in South
Korea: History and current practices. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 279-
296. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1108767

33

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869255