RAPID ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF

TROPICAL STORM ONDOY ON URBAN POOR COMMUNITIES

Institute of Philippine Culture

School of Social Sciences, Loyola Schools

Ateneo de Manila University

July 2010

ii

Foreword

Tropical storm Ondoy devastated communities across Metro Manila in late September, 2009. Following the storm a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) was prepared by the Government of the Philippines in partnership with the World Bank, UN agencies, other international development partners and representatives of the private sector and civil society organizations.

As part of the PDNA a rapid Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was conducted in seven urban poor communities in Metro Manila to document and analyze the effects of the storm. The main findings of the rapid social impact assessment were immediately integrated in the overall PDNA. (A separate assessment covering the impact of typhoon Pepeng was conducted in rural areas.)

The longer report presented here on the social impacts of Ondoy provides more in-depth analysis of the impacts, responses, and coping mechanisms used by urban poor communities as they struggle to come to terms with the effects of the storm.

The report also discusses the methodological approach used in the SIA, including an annex that provides details on the range of questions that were used during interviews with residents of urban poor communities, their local government representatives, and other stakeholders.

The report stands as a testament to the resilience of the women, men, and children who faced the power of a mighty storm and who continue their efforts to rebuild their lives and livelihoods. We can draw hope from their experience even as we reflect on the many remaining challenges that require urgent attention.

Mary Racelis Institute of Philippine Culture Ateneo de Manila University

iii

Acknowledgments

The research team at the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) that prepared this rapid social impact assessment (SIA) was led by Angela Desiree Aguirre (Project Director) and comprised Henrietta Aguirre, Ophalle Alzona, Maria Cynthia Barriga, Dioscora Bolong, Kris Paulette Caoyonan, Ma. Lina Diona, Patrick Dominador Falguera, S.J., Marianne Angela Hermida, Bernadette Guillermo, Karen Anne Liao, Angelito Nunag, Gladys Ann Rabacal, Anchristine Ulep, Jon Michael Villaseñor and Ana Teresa Yuson. Mary Racelis and Czarina Saloma-Akpedonu participated in the study as consultants.

The IPC team would like to thank all the NGO-PO partners who participated in and facilitated implementation of the study, and especially all the community members who volunteered their time to share their experiences.

The team would also like to acknowledge staff from the World Bank’s social development team in the Philippines who provided technical assistance to the research team, including Andrew Parker, Patricia Fernandes, and Maria Loreto Padua.

Funding for the SIA was provided through the Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction as part of its support for Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng: Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (2009), which is available for download at pdf.ph.

The views and opinions expressed in the report are solely those of the research team from the Institute of Philippine Culture.

Front cover – photo credits (clockwise from top left): Evangeline Pe, John Paul del Rosario, Nonie Reyes, John Paul del Rosario

iv

Contents

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ iii

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................................. vii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Site Selection .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Data Collection Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Data Collection Activities ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Initial site visits ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Profiling of FGD participants .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Focus group discussions ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

Key informant interviews..................................................................................................................................................... 6

Feedback sessions with the community and NGO-PO research partners....................................................... 6

Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

The Research Team.................................................................................................................................................. 8

The IPC Researchers ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

NGO-PO Research Partners ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Description of the Research Sites ...................................................................................................................... 8

Riverine Communities ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Lakeside Communities......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Control Community ............................................................................................................................................................... 14

Changes in Livelihoods and Employment ................................................................................................... 15

Lost livelihood and the self-employed .......................................................................................................................... 16

Loss or suspension of jobs and the employed ........................................................................................................... 17

New livelihood opportunities ........................................................................................................................................... 17

Shifts in livelihood ................................................................................................................................................................. 18

v

Increased debt burden ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

Changes in everyday life ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

Responses to Changed Livelihood Outcomes............................................................................................. 19

Relief assistance ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Participating in cash for work schemes ....................................................................................................................... 20

Receiving support from family and the workplace ................................................................................................. 20

Borrowing ................................................................................................................................................................................. 20

Saving more, consuming less ............................................................................................................................................ 21

Keeping the faith .................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Children and youth at work ............................................................................................................................................... 21

Disruptions to Social Life and Mobilization of Social Relations ......................................................... 21

Displacement and disruptions in social life ............................................................................................................... 21

Gender and intergenerational relations ...................................................................................................................... 22

Social support networks ..................................................................................................................................................... 24

Cracks in the collective conscience ................................................................................................................................ 25

Local Governance and Institutional Responses to the Calamity ........................................................ 25

Rescue and Evacuation ........................................................................................................................................................ 25

Relief Management ................................................................................................................................................................ 26

Recovery .................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Resettlement ............................................................................................................................................................................ 34

Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 34

Insights and Recommendations from Communities .............................................................................................. 36

Summary Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 39

References ................................................................................................................................................................ 41

Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Annex A - NGO-PO Research Partners .......................................................................................................... 44

Annex B – Research Tools .................................................................................................................................. 45

vi

List of Tables, Boxes and Figures

Tables

Table 1 Research sites, by location and organizational arrangement ................................................................... 4 Table 2: Fieldwork schedule..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3: Selected features of the research sitesa ........................................................................................................... 10 Table 4: Changes observed in the employment/livelihood activities in KV1 ................................................... 17 Table 5: Key lending features ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Table 6: Forms of assistance provided by community groups and individuals .............................................. 27 Table 7: Forms of government assistance ........................................................................................................................ 30 Table 8: Community recommendations for disaster preparedness and prevention .................................... 36 Table 9: Community recommendations to improve relief operations of various groups........................... 39 Boxes

Box 1 Local History of Flooding .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Box 2: Daily living .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Box 3: Vending as a livelihood ............................................................................................................................................... 16 Box 4: Trauma from Ondoy ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Box 5: Selling purified water .................................................................................................................................................. 18 Box 6: Taking out loans ............................................................................................................................................................. 18 Box 7: Relief Assistance in Camacho Phase II ................................................................................................................. 20 Box 8: Relief Assistance in Kasiglahan Village 1 ............................................................................................................ 20 Box 9: High prices of food ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 Box 10: Daily living at the evacuation center .................................................................................................................. 22 Box 11: Studying at the evacuation center ....................................................................................................................... 22 Box 12: Women to the rescue ................................................................................................................................................ 23 Box 13: Men doing domestic tasks ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Box 15: Neighbors embrace each other............................................................................................................................. 24 Box 15: Offering dry clothes ................................................................................................................................................... 24 Box 16: Seeking shelter during Ondoy ............................................................................................................................... 26 Box 17: The Filipino as aid recipient .................................................................................................................................. 29 Box 18: Arlene’s request for help ......................................................................................................................................... 38 Figures

Figure 1: Location of Research Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 4

vii

Acronyms

ADMU Ateneo de Manila University BHW Barangay Health Worker CARD Center for Agriculture and Development CFC Couples for Christ CFC-GK Couples for Christ-Gawad Kalinga CIDSS Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services CO Community organization COM Community Organizers Multiversity CP2HOA Camacho Phase II Homeowners’ Association CSO Civil Society Organization CWL Catholic Women’s League DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government DLSU De La Salle University DOH Department of Health DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development FGD Focus Group Discussion GK Gawad Kalinga GO Government Organization GRDC Goldenville Realty and Development Corporation HH Household HOA Homeowners’ Association HUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council HVG Highly Vulnerable Group ICSI Institute on Church and Social Issues INC Iglesia ni Cristo IPC Institute of Philippine Culture KAAKAP Kapatiran Asosasyon sa Kapiligan KAHA Kapiligan Homeowners Association KII key Informant Interview KMBI Kabalikat para sa Maunlad na Buhay, Inc. KMNA Kasiglahan Muslim Neighbors Association KUMRA Kasiglahan United Muslim Resettlement Association KV1 Kasiglahan Village 1 LCE Local Chief Executive LGU Local Government Unit MFI Microfinance Institution MCNA Marikina Couples Neighborhood Association MLA Montalban Ladies Association MLCE Municipal local Chief Executive MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority MMHA Mejia-Molave Homeowners Association MRB Medium-Rise Building MSO Marikina Settlements Office NGA National Government Agency NGO Non Governmental Organization NHA National Housing Authority NNA Nawasa Neighborhood Association NOKRAI North Kapiligan Riverside Association Inc. Pag-IBIG Pagtutulungan sa kinabukasan: Ikaw, Bangko, Industriya at Gobyerno

viii

PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment PHA Pasig Health Aides PhilSSA Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. PO People’s Organization PSG Pasig Security Guards PTA Parents-Teachers Association PUJ Public Utility Jeepney RASYC Riverside Association of Senior and Youth Corporation RIBANA Riverbanks Neighborhood Association RTU Rizal Technological University SAMAKAPA Samahang Maralita at Kapit-bisig sa Floodway, Maybunga, Pasig SIA Social impact assessment SK Sangguniang Kabataan SNHA Samahang Nagkakaisang-Hanay Association SNKF Samahan ng Kababaihan sa Floodway, Maybunga SV 4 Southville 4 TESDA Technical Education and Skills Development Authority TSPI Tulay sa Pag-unlad Inc. TUPAD Tulong sa Panghanap-buhay sa Ating Disadvantaged Workers UERMMMC University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center ULAP Ugnayang Lakas ng mga Apektadong Pamilya UN United Nations UP University of the Philippines WB World Bank WFM West Bank, Floodway, Maybunga WFMNAI West Bank Floodway Maybunga Neighborhood Association, Inc. YFC Youth for Christ

1

Executive Summary

Immediately after tropical storm Ondoy flooded large sections of Metro Manila and nearby areas in September 2009, the Government of the Philippines carried out a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) with the support of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), World Bank, UN agencies, numerous civil society organizations and academic institutions. The PDNA included a rapid assessment of seven poor urban settlements in Metro Manila, Laguna, and Rizal, which focused on the effects of Ondoy on the urban poor’s livelihoods and employment, social relations, and on local governance. The study chose four riverine and two lakeside communities that exemplified the situation in urban poor settlements affected by Ondoy. Of the six, three were relocation sites (national government or local government supported) while the other three were informal communities. In addition, a control site, not directly affected by Ondoy (Marikina Heights), served as a reference point to enable the team to better understand what social changes observed were more directly linked to the disaster. The selection criteria tested the premise that among urban poor communities equally affected by the storm, those having closer ties with government were more likely to have access to resources to address their immediate welfare needs and advocate for their long-term interests.

The research employed qualitative research methods, primarily focus group discussions with diverse groups of residents and key informant interviews with community leaders and highly vulnerable individuals (including the elderly and the sick). These were supplemented by the collection of secondary data, participant observation, and community walkthroughs. The initial findings were validated through feedback sessions with the residents and NGO-PO research partners.

A diverse mix of income-generating activities was observed in the research sites. Small businesses and home-based livelihoods, particularly in the two lakeside communities (e.g., shoemaking, vegetable farming, fishing) suffered the most significant losses as a result of Ondoy. Salaried workers, particularly those who were able to keep their jobs after Ondoy, were the least affected as they are assured regular wages. The aftermath of Ondoy saw increased employment opportunities for men in construction and automotive repair, as demand increased associated with immediate recovery and reconstruction efforts.

Ondoy not only brought economic disruption but also changes in residents’ quality of life. Purchasing power was reduced. This resulted in limited food availability at the household level and in the lack of adequate nutrition. Some households coped with help from their immediate family and from relatives living in the provinces or abroad. Some children and youth engaged in pangangalakal (“buy and sell” of junk goods) or in scavenging for scrap materials. This was described as a means of helping their households to cope with reduced income. Some, usually women, resorted to borrowing further from both formal and informal lending sources. However, instead of financing productive activities, loans were diverted to cover basic household needs, such as food, medicine, water, electricity, and school allowances.

The nature of livelihood challenges in the affected communities did not differ significantly from the one prevailing in the control site. This trend reflects the precarious nature of livelihoods in poor urban areas. Irrespective of the impact of Ondoy, poor communities face serious economic difficulties. The disaster was found to exacerbate these significantly. The coping strategies observed, however, are those usually resorted to by the urban poor. These included reducing consumption of basic items including food, taking on additional work where available, and

2

having more members of the household (including children) working, as well as incurring further debt and relying on financial support from immediate family members.

Ondoy caught the communities in the sites visited unprepared. During the storm, residents relied on their own families and relatives, friends, and neighbors for help with rescue. Residents whose houses were flooded sought temporary shelter at evacuation centers often ill equipped to handle large groups. Overcrowding, lack of electricity and water, locked washrooms, and inadequate food were some of the complaints reported. Nevertheless, there were a number of instances observed of community solidarity and collaborative behavior as a result of Ondoy. For example, youth (although unorganized) embraced new social responsibilities, helping to remove debris, collect garbage, and repack and distribute relief goods.

Civil society mobilization and intra-community relationships were vital during the rescue phase, and the immediate aftermath of Ondoy. Participants in the discussions reported that Barangay officials were often unable to respond to community needs largely because they were attending to the needs of their own families. In addition, officials reportedly did not receive adequate training in disaster response. Barangays and to some extent the national authorities were, however, active in the relief and early recovery phase that followed. In the communities visited, there appeared to be no plans to provide longer-term assistance to affected families. Most of residents participating in the discussions indicated no interest in leaving their present locations as they did not want to be displaced from their sources of livelihood and employment and the social networks they established over the course of their stay in the community. A combination of organizational factors (e.g., existence of well-organized groups within the community) and geographical location (e.g., accessibility of the community to organizations providing assistance) enabled riverine communities to cope better with the effects of Ondoy than those in lakeside areas.

Residents attributed the flooding caused by Ondoy to a variety of factors, including the release of water from dams, poor garbage management, inadequate drainage systems, poor implementation of zoning and building laws, and the continued cutting of trees and reclaiming of land to make way for subdivisions. Research participants across sites offered similar proposals to prepare for and mitigate the possible impact of similar storms in the future. Most recommendations focused on introducing and/or implementing policies and programs on land use and housing, protection of the environment, and disaster prevention, rescue, relief and rehabilitation, and improving the capacities of local communities to respond to disasters.

3

Introduction

Immediately after Ondoy flooded large sections of Metro Manila and nearby areas in September 2009, a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) was carried out in partnership with government institutions, the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), the World Bank, the United Nations, civil society and academic institutions. In this context, the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) of Ateneo de Manila University was asked to design and implement a rapid assessment of seven urban poor settlements in Metro Manila, Laguna, and Rizal. The study aimed to collect qualitative data on the social dimensions of the tropical storm’s impact on the urban poor that would complement the assessment of economic damages and losses.

This report, presenting the results of the rapid assessment, consists of five sections. The first outlines the objectives and methodology of the study. The second section presents the situational profiles of the research sites which are categorized into formal and informal settlements. The third section of the report examines the impact of tropical storm Ondoy on the livelihoods and employment, social relations, and local governance structures in urban poor communities. Recommendations and proposals from the communities for disaster preparedness and relief management comprise the fourth section. The report then concludes with the summary of the study’s main findings and a presentation of the researchers’ insights.

Objectives

The rapid assessment aimed to determine the effects of Ondoy on the everyday lives of the urban poor in Metro Manila and surrounding areas. It focused on livelihoods and employment, social relations, and local governance. Eliciting and listening to the views and feelings of the urban poor, as well as their recommendations on how best to address their present situation were crucial to achieving this objective. On the one hand, the data pertained to losses incurred by communities. This included the loss of houses and belongings, loss of employment, livelihood, and other assets, deaths, disabilities, illnesses, trauma, and disruption of social bonds. On the other hand, the appraisal assessed how existing social structures worked during the disaster and how resilient communities were. The ensuing resolve of various sectors to be better prepared for the next calamity offered a narrow window of opportunity to set in motion processes toward recovery, rehabilitation, and development that recognize and consider the voices of urban poor communities.

Site Selection

The World Bank and the IPC collaborated with the Community Organizers Multiversity (COM), the Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc. (PhilSSA) and the Institute on Church and Social Issues (ICSI) to identify the study sites. The following were the site selection criteria followed: (1) riverbank settlements; (2) Laguna Lake communities; (3) formal (government-organized settlement/relocation communities) and informal settlements in the locations mentioned above; and (4) a community that was not directly affected by Ondoy as the control site (Table 1).

The selection criteria recognized that among urban poor communities, those directly located along the shores of Laguna Lake and along the main rivers of Metro Manila and Rizal were the most vulnerable to flooding. The selection criteria also tested the hypothesis that among urban poor communities equally affected by the storm, those having close ties with local governments or civil society organizations were more likely to have access to resources to address their

4

immediate welfare needs and to be better able to advocate for their long-term interests. The control site served as a reference point to help identify the social changes in the six affected communities that might directly be associated with Ondoy.

Table 1: Research sites, by location and organizational arrangement

Location Organizational arrangements

Formal Informal

Riverine Kasiglahan Village 1 in Barangay San Jose, Montalbana

Barangay Doña Imelda, Quezon City

Gawad Kalinga Camacho Phase II in Barangay Nangka, Marikina Cityb

Barangay Maybunga, Pasig

Lakeside Southville 4 in Barangay Caingin and Barangay Pooc, City of Sta. Rosa, Lagunaa

Barangay Malaban, Biñan, Laguna

Non-flooded area Barangay Marikina Heights, Marikina (Control Group)c aNational government resettlement site, bLocal government and private sector initiative resettlement site. cA mix of formal and informal settlers.

The study chose four riverine and two lakeside communities that exemplified the situation in urban poor settlements affected by Ondoy (Figure 1). Of the six, three were relocation sites (supported by national government or local government) while the other three were informal communities. The first group, referred to in this study as formal communities, consisted of Kasiglahan Village 1 or KV1 (Barangay San Jose, Rodriguez, Rizal), Southville 4 or SV4 (Barangay Pooc and Barangay Caingin, Sta. Rosa City, Laguna), and Gawad Kalinga (GK)1 Camacho Phase II (Barangay Nangka, Marikina City). Barangay Doña Imelda in Quezon City, Barangay Maybunga in Pasig City (West Bank, Floodway, Manggahan or WFM), and Barangay Malaban in Biñan, Laguna comprised the informal settlements. The control community, Barangay Marikina Heights in Marikina City, is a mix of formal and informal settlements unaffected by Ondoy.

Methodology

The research team designed a qualitative study to ascertain the urban poor’s understanding of their experiences of the disaster. The study recognizes that the responses and the consequences of disaster on vulnerable individuals and groups will vary according to their social locations and positions. It created an opportunity for these vulnerable groups to voice their own perspectives of the event. Perceived by the community as timely and relevant, the study drew much interest and cooperation from the residents who were still trying to make sense of their situation.

Data Collection Methods

The research employed qualitative research methods, primarily Focus Group Discussions (FGD) with different groups from the community and key informant interviews (KII) with community leaders and highly vulnerable individuals (including the elderly and the sick). Data from the FGDs and KIIs were supplemented by the collection of secondary data, observation, and community walkthroughs. The initial findings were validated during feedback sessions with the residents and NGO-PO research partners (Annex A). Within the project’s limited preparation time, a set of research instruments consisting of the FGD guide, KII guide, community profile checklist, and FGD participant profiling tool was developed.2 The pre-test of the FGD guide which was held in Barangay Payatas, Quezon City highlighted the need to prioritize topics

5

according to the type of FGD group. Key data sets that cut across topics could only be collected if permitted by time during the two-hour FGD session. Thus, the FGD with individuals from different occupational groups focused on collecting data on livelihoods and socioeconomic adaptations. Assuming there was still enough time left, the researchers guided the FGD to a discussion on social support networks (for the topic on social relations and cohesion) and relief and recovery response from government, the community, and civil society (for the topic on local governance). With community leaders, the FGD focused on local governance, followed by questions on social support networks and life at the evacuation center, community participation, and social accountability (for the topic on social relations and cohesion) and coping strategies (for the topic on livelihoods and socioeconomic adaptations).

Figure 1: Location of Research Sites

6

Data Collection Activities

Given the need to generate results for inclusion in the PDNA report issued in mid-November 2009, the research team followed a very tight fieldwork schedule based on consultations with partner-PO leaders and barangay officials (Table 2). Data collection was limited to one week, with the researchers facilitating two FGD sessions in a day. In each site, four FGD sessions and at least three key informant interviews were conducted. A community feedback session marked the end of data collection in each of the areas visited.

Initial site visits

Initial visits to the sites enabled the researchers and their PO partners to orient barangay officials and PO leaders about the study, finalize the research schedule, conduct informal interviews with barangay and PO leaders, and gather secondary data (e.g., barangay profile, PO profile). Community walkthroughs which allowed the researchers to observe everyday life in the community and to take note of the community’s physical conditions were also conducted during the initial phase of the study.

Profiling of FGD participants

The selection of FGD participants was aided by the use of a profiling tool which provided the researcher with basic information on potential participants, including name, age, sex, education, address, religion, number of children, source of family/household income, membership in any community or barangay association, position or designation in the community or barangay association. A primary consideration in making the final selection of participants was representation from male and female community members across age groups, occupations, and across all residential clusters (near and far from the community center). Care was also taken to make sure that persons with disabilities were represented.

Focus group discussions

A total of twenty-eight FGD sessions, or four in each site were held, with four different groups representing various livelihoods, women, youth, and community leaders. Discussions had an average of seven participants, with women greatly outnumbering men. Inviting male participants proved difficult given the timing of the sessions.

Key informant interviews

A total of twenty-five face-to-face interviews were conducted with representatives of the barangay local government unit (LGU), community associations, and highly vulnerable groups (as determined by the community) to provide depth to the FGD data. Among those who agreed to be interviewed were barangay captains and kagawad (council members), and PO leaders.

Feedback sessions with the community and NGO-PO research partners

To validate the initial conclusions, the researchers facilitated on-site feedback sessions before leaving the communities. Attendance ranged from 34 (Doña Imelda) to 310 (Malaban) participants. Sessions in non-Metro Manila sites registered a relatively higher attendance (average of 237) than those Metro Manila sites (average of 49). The IPC also shared the initial findings with its major research partner, COM, a month after their first meeting and shortly before the submission of the final report. The meeting was attended by a CO trainer, two community organizers, and thirteen PO leaders. The group confirmed the communities’ observations and recommendations and provided additional information.

7

Table 2: Fieldwork schedule

Research site

Oct 29 to Nov 4 Nov 5

Nov 6

Nov 7

Nov 8

Government relocation site

Camacho Phase II, Nangka, Marikina City

Courtesy calls to municipal/city officials, initial interviews with barangay and community leaders, selection/invitation/ confirmation of FGD participants, collection of secondary data, research logistics, some KIIs (BC in Caingin; community leader and HVI in Camacho Phase II)

KII BC FGD (Livelihoods, Women)

FGD (Leaders, Youth)

Community feedback

KV1, San Jose, Rodriguez

Profiling and invitation of FGD participants

FGD (Livelihoods KII (HVG, BC)

FGD (Women, Youth)

KII (PO) FGD (Leaders) Community feedback

Caingin, Santa Rosa

FGD (Leaders, Livelihoods,) Women

KII (HVG,PO, CO) FGD (Youth)

Community feedback

Informal settlement

Maybunga, Pasig City

Courtesy calls to municipal/city officials, initial interviews with barangay and community leaders, selection/invitation/ confirmation of FGD participants, collection of secondary data, research logistics, some KIIs (BC in Maybunga)

FGD (Leaders, Livelihoods) KII (PO, HVG)

FGD (Women, Youth) KII (HVG, Barangay kagawad council members)

Community feedback

Doña Imelda, Quezon City

FGD (Women, Youth)

FGD (Livelihood, Leaders)

KII (HGV, PO, BC)

Community feedback

Malaban, Biñan

FGD (Women, Youth)

FGD (Livelihood, Leaders)

KII (PO, BC)

Community feedback KII (HVG)

Mix of formal and informal settlers

Marikina Heights, Marikina City

Courtesy calls to municipal/city officials, initial interviews with barangay and community leaders, selection/invitation/ confirmation of FGD participants, collection of secondary data, research logistics

FGD (Leaders, Women)

KII (HVG,BC) FGD (Livelihoods)

FGD (Youth) KII (PO)

Community feedback

FGD - focus group discussion; KII - key informant interview; HVG - highly vulnerable group (individual); BC - barangay captain; PO - people’s organization; CO - community organization; GO - government; KV1 - Kasiglahan Village 1.

8

Box 1: Local History of Flooding Barangay Caingin, Barangay Pooc According to people from Caingin and Pooc, the location of Southville gets flooded almost every six years during the months of September to November. The first flooding they could remember was in 1972, with Typhoon Dading. The flood was chest-high near the lake and head-high in the rice field, where Southville 4 is now located. Floodwaters remained for two months and people used boats to move around. Succeeding floods have occurred every decade since the 1970s. At present, flooding occurs not only because of typhoons but also due to monsoon rains. Barangay San Jose, Montalban In 1929, Wawa Dam broke and water swelled in the Marikina River, leaving San Jose depopulated. Flooding occurred again in 1934 and 2004. In 1934, residents transferred to other areas. Despite these previous experiences, community leaders and residents did not take precaution. Unprepared, more than two thousand families in KVI were affected during Ondoy’s onslaught.

Limitations of the Study

Because of time limitations and its nature as a qualitative study, the rapid assessment does not provide estimates of the affected population in terms of age, sex, or geographic cluster/area. It is also unable provide data on the number of households or families temporarily or permanently displaced, staying in other locations, or still in flooded areas, as no such data were collected or made available by the relevant organizations (e.g., barangay LGU, NGOs).

The Research Team

The IPC Researchers

The research team was composed of seven field teams, each with a researcher and a documenter, to cover the seven study sites. The researchers served as key informant interviewers and FGD facilitators. They also analyzed the results of the FGDs, key informant interviews, and observation notes, and prepared the site reports. The documenters prepared the notes and the full transcript of the FGDs.3

NGO-PO Research Partners

An important element of the rapid assessment was the IPC’s collaboration with NGO and PO partners which provided the necessary links and facilitated the activities of the research teams

in the communities. In five of seven sites, COM2 provided assistance to the research team. An initial meeting which was attended by a CO trainer, three COM community organizers, and twelve PO leaders representing the study sites allowed the partners to discuss the research design, plan initial site visits, and agree on a schedule for data collection.3

During data gathering, the researchers received support from Homeowners’ Association (HOA) officials, mostly women, who guided them during walkthroughs, helped identify FGD participants, and served as respondents themselves. The NGO-PO research partners, in addition to providing field support, commented on the draft report at a meeting convened by the IPC on 28 November 2009. Findings were validated, analyses refined, and recommendations strengthened through this discussion.

Description of the Research Sites

The profiles below selected physical, demographic, economic and organizational features of the research sites that would help explain why there are similarities and differences in how Ondoy affected urban poor communities (Table 3). Of the six affected communities, four have a history of flooding (Box 1).

9

Riverine Communities

West Bank, Floodway, Barangay Maybunga, Pasig City. Barangay Maybunga is home to many informal settlements along the banks of the Manggahan Floodway. One of these is West Bank, Floodway, Manggahan (WFM), which has an estimated population of 23,000 or around 4,400 families. Some 2,011 families among them were still in flooded locations when the appraisal was conducted.

Even prior to Ondoy, limited livelihood and income generating opportunities were key issues for the community. The men were employed mainly as wage workers in construction projects and manufacturing companies in the metropolis. Some were engaged in ambulant vending and driving public vehicles, such as tricycles and jeepneys. Whether formally employed or working from home, many women take on part-time employment at manufacturing firms, tending of sari-sari (variety) stores, food vending, “buying and selling” schemes, dress and crafts making, and micro-lending. Although regarded as a secondary source of income, what they earn from informal work augments the household income significantly.

There is a prevailing divide among the various POs in WFM and the LGU in their position on the issue security of tenure. The Samahang Maralita at Kapit-bisig sa Floodway, Maybunga, Pasig (SAMAKAPA), which is allied with the Pasig LGU, is amenable to relocation, specifically to a medium-rise building (MRB) complex in Maybunga. In contrast, the West Bank Floodway Maybunga Neighborhood Association, Inc. (WFMNAI), which is affiliated with COM, favors on-site development of their existing community.

Barangay Doña Imelda, Quezon City. Part of District IV in Quezon City, Barangay Doña Imelda, occupies the land that stretches from Eulogio Rodriguez Avenue to Aurora Boulevard. It is a community of 17,647 residents whose informal housing structures are located on the riverbank along Rodriguez Avenue, an area vulnerable to flooding (Box 2). It contrasts sharply from the remaining parts of the district and their more affluent households.

The informal settlers in the San Juan River vicinity are found in eight areas, namely, 29 Kapiligan, 42 Kapiligan, 48 Kapiligan, 81 Kapiligan, 100 Kapiligan, 164 Kapiligan, 186 Kapiligan, and Araneta Extension. In each area, a neighborhood association, also regarded as a homeowners’ association, is formed to further the interests of the residents. They work in close collaboration with the barangay, city government, non-governmental and civil society organizations with regard livelihoods and issues such as security of tenure and eviction.

Men in the community, whether adult or young, are generally employed as security guards, janitors, construction workers, masons, helpers, carpenters, drivers, bartenders, and sales staff. Women are generally engaged in small businesses often owning kiosks that are located either in the first floor of their houses or along the sidewalks. Here, a variety of goods are sold from candies and toiletries to rice, cooked meals, barbecued meat, bibingka (rice cake) and bananacue (skewered bananas coated in caramelized sugar). Other residents peddle pirated DVDs and cigarettes while some, especially younger women, work as salespeople in the nearby malls.

Box 2: Daily living Ang baha dito sa amin ay normal na. Karaniwan na ‘yung mababa sa tuhod ang tubig-baha. Tumaas lang ng konti ang tubig sa ilog dahil high tide, lubog na rin kaagad ang bahay namin. (Flooding has become normal here. Flood that is below the knee is a common sight. If the water in the river rises because of high tides, our house immediately gets flooded, too.) – GINA, 40 YEARS OLD, LIVES UNDER

THE BRIDGE

10

Table 3: Selected features of the research sitesa

Barangay Sources of income Community

organizations Demographics

Functional disaster,

emergency, or rescue programs

or teams

Riverine Formal Settlements

San Jose, Rodriguez, Rizal (Phases 1C and 1D, KV1)b, c

Small-scale business Transport services (jeepneys, tricycles, pedicab) Aircon repair/ maintenance, automotive Laundry services Work in beauty parlors Government/ LGU employment (utility workers, street cleaners, security guards) Private sector employment (factory workers, househelp)

Action Group HOAs (in all seven phases) KMNA Citizens Crime Watch PTA Parish Social Services Montalban Ladies Association

280,786 residents

Barangay emergency/ rescue team

Nangka, Marikina Cityd (Gawad Kalinga [GK] Camacho Phase II)

Sari-sari store Construction work Private sector employment (factory workers [shoemakers], gasoline station attendants)

NNA CP2CHOA

287 families in GK Camacho Phase II

Barangay disaster and management program and brigade

Riverine Informal settlements

Doña Imelda, Quezon City (29 Kapiligan, 42 Kapiligan, 48 Kapiligan, 81 Kapiligan, 100 Kapiligan, 164 Kapiligan, 186 Kapiligan, Araneta Extension)

Selling food and non-food items, direct selling Scavenging, construction work (unskilled/semi skilled laborers, masons, carpenters), employment as domestic helpers, drivers, Bartending, LGU employment (street cleaners), private sector employment (salesladies, security guards, janitors)

HOA in each of the eight areas ULAP

17,647 residents Four to five families in a household Average of four persons per family 16-20 occupants per shanty or dwelling unit

No disaster response team in place, in the recollection of residents

Maybunga, Pasig City (West Bank, Floodway, Manggahan or WFM)

Ambulant vending, buy and sell Dress and crafts making Direct selling Micro lending Transport services (jeepneys and tricycles) Wage workers in construction projects Employees in manufacturing companies (full/part time)

SAMAKAPA

WFMNAI

SNKF

23,000 or around 4,400 families in WFM

Fire and rescue response team

11

Barangay Sources of income Community

organizations Demographics

Functional disaster,

emergency, or rescue programs

or teams

Lakeside Formal Settlements

Pooc and Caingin, City of Santa Rosac (SV4)

Laundry services Transport services (including trolley, a form of rail transport) Vending Pataya sa jueteng (informal lottery) Farming and fishing Collecting junk Employment in government and private sector (e.g., factory in Techno Park)

HOA Angat Kababaihan Anak ng Sta. Rosa

4,686 families in SV4

No data

Lakeside Informal Settlements

Malaban, Biñan, Laguna (Barangay Malaban)

Shoemaking Transport services (tricycles and jeepneys) Market labourers Vending Fishing (fish pen operators or small fishermen) Vegetable farming

Sulong Kababaihan ng Malaban, Malayang Samahan Kagawad Biñan, Batang Manggagawa ng Malaban PTA CWL FOCC

As of 2008: 41, 404 residents 8,281 households with an average of 5 to 6 members 3-4 families comprising a household, in some cases

No functional barangay emergency or rescue team in place, in the recollection of residents

Control Site (Riverine)

Marikina Heights, Marikina Cityc

Food vending (barbecue, packed snacks; sari-sari stores Laundry services Regular or contractual employment (drivers, laboratory workers, construction workers)

48 HOAs, including the following three HOAs in the focus areas: Mejia-Molave Homeowners’ Association, Samahang Nagkakaisang-Hanay Association Marikina Couples Neighbourhood Association

440 to 450 people in 92 households in the three HOAs 200 people in 40 households 200 people in 42 households 4 to 5 members in each of the 10 households

No data

aData largely obtained from the individual site reports. bItems in parentheses refer to the focus area or site of the rapid assessment in the barangay. cNational government resettlement site. dLocal government resettlement site.

12

A number of residents are also involved in direct selling of cosmetic products (e.g., Avon and Natasha products). Sewing rugs and dolls, or scavenging (for scrap material) within the community and nearby areas are other common occupations. Inhabitants often turn to formal lending agencies such as ASA Foundation, Pag-asa, and Tulay sa Pag-unlad Inc. (TSPI); informal lenders, and relatives from the province and abroad for financial assistance in paying debts, meeting everyday household needs and financing small businesses (such as kiosks). It is very unlikely to see someone here who has not incurred any debt.

Kasiglahan Village 1, San Jose, Rodríguez, Rizal. San Jose has a long history of flooding. Kasiglahan Village 1, popularly known as KV1, was unprepared for Ondoy with more than 2,000 families affected by the tropical storm. KV1 is a resettlement project of the Philippine government’s National Housing Authority (NHA). It was initially intended for families affected by the Pasig River Rehabilitation Program. Over time, however, it also served as a resettlement site for the families displaced by fire, trash slides,4 and government infrastructure projects. Only less than half (40 percent) of the households originally relocated remain in the area. A greater number have sold their property or property rights, rented out their units, or transferred to other places. Because of its distant location from the barangay center, a barangay extension office known as Barangay Annex B was set up in KV1. Other offices set up by the barangay in the area are the emergency rescue team, waste management office, and an ecological solid management committee.

Community-based organizations and local associations present in the area include the Action Group,5 Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) in its seven phases, Kasiglahan Muslim Neighbors Association (KMNA), Citizens Crime Watch, Parents-Teachers Association, and Parish Social Services. Except for the Parish Social Services, these local organizations coordinate with the barangay. A majority of the barangay officials and staff belong to these groups.

The residents derive their income from various sources, including working for the municipal and barangay government and the private sector within or outside Rodriguez, engaging in small-scale business (e.g., sari-sari stores), selling perishable and non-perishable items, driving transport vehicles (e.g., pedicab/padyak [foot-pedaled tricycles], tricycles, public utility jeepneys, taxis), and providing services such as appliance repair and maintenance, automotive repair, running beauty parlours, and doing the laundry for other households.

Camacho Phase II, Nangka, Marikina City. Camacho Phase II, located just beside the Nangka River, is in Barangay Nangka in the City of Marikina. Many of the inhabitants reside in row of two-story houses divided by concrete pavements. The settlement began as a housing project of the Marikina Settlements Office (MSO) in 2001. Under the supervision of the MSO, informal settlers in the barangays of Calumpang, San Roque, Sto. Niño, and Parang were organized and resettled in Balubad. Balubad has been the main contributing factor in Nangka’s changing demographics. It was designated by the city government, through the MSO, as the formal relocation site for its evicted informal settlers.6 The resettled communities became known as NHA Balubad, New Balubad Settlement Site, Camacho, and Bayabas. This was part of the Mr. Bayani Fernando’s vision of Marikina as a “squatter-free city” when he became mayor in the early 1990s. At present, the Balubad population (3,014 families) comprises a third of the barangay’s total population, according to the latest data from the Barangay Office. This number includes the 287 families (mostly relocated from Tañong, Sto. Niño, Marikina Heights, and Parang) that comprise Camacho Phase-II.

Gawad Kalinga adopted Camacho Phase II in 2004, when forty families from an informal settlement in Provident Village in Tañong, Marikina relocated to Camacho. Organized under the

13

Nawasa Neighborhood Association (NNA), these families sought the help of GK for their housing needs. Since 2005, GK has facilitated the building of two-story houses for about sixty households, which include not only the forty NNA families but also about twenty other families. GK, under its sweat equity program, plans to help continue this initiative of building and renovating two hundred houses.

Before Ondoy struck the community, there was little interaction among the forty NNA families and most of Camacho Phase II residents. Although NNA and the Camacho Phase II Community Homeowners’ Association (CP2CHOA) are civil to each other, many in the Camacho Phase II community are wary of NNA families. In contrast, interactiona between GK and the MSO, and between CP2CHOA and the local barangay, have been very positive as demonstrated by their cooperative efforts whenever GK implements livelihood programs in the community.

Lakeside Communities

Southville 4, Barangay Pooc-Barangay Caingin, City of Santa Rosa. Southville 4 (SV4),7 is a six-phase 70-hectare government relocation site located between the barangays of Caingin and Pooc in the city of Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Construction has been completed in five of the six sites, with housing in the first three blocks (or Phases) already occupied. The biggest in terms of the number of settlers is Phase 1 (situated in Caingin), while the largest in terms of land area are Phases 2 to 6 (found in Pooc). A young community of diverse origins and backgrounds, SV4 is presently made up of 4,686 families, more than half of which came from the informal settlement along the railways in Sta. Rosa. They were the first to be settled in March 2008.

SV4 is a typical resettlement area where settlers seem to have a difficult time adjusting to one another. Groups of settlers tend to socialize based on their former places of residence. For instance, households originally from Taguig or Sta. Rosa would tend to remain together. Their old neighbors in their former residences are also their neighbors in SV4. While this behavior increases intra-group unity, it tends to encourage divisions within the community. Hence, there is little sense of cohesiveness in SV4, and limited integration of SV4 with the surrounding neighborhood. A concrete wall separates SV4 from the rest of Caingin, symbolizing the divide between the “insiders” (SV4 settlers) and “outsiders” (residents outside SV4). In a way, SV4 has taken the characteristics of a private village, especially since there is a gate bounding SV4 from the rest of Caingin. Having their own infrastructure inside the community likewise projects an image of an exclusive settlement managed by the HOA.

When the settlers moved to SV4, they tried to find means to earn a living in formal and informal work settings. Men took on casual employment in construction work, while some were employed on a regular basis as drivers and machinists in nearby towns. Those who are not employed in salaried jobs drive pedicabs or work in electrical or scrap material shops and food stalls. A number of them go as far as Manila to collect scrap material. Women have salaried jobs (e.g., service crew in Laguna Techno Park, an industrial zone located in Sta. Rosa, Laguna) or provide laundry services or do domestic work in households outside SV4. Many are also engaged in small enterprises, such as tending variety stores and selling cooked food. Despite having regular income-earning activities, some women believe they were better-off in their former settlements, where livelihood opportunities such as vegetable farming and livestock rearing (pigs) were plenty. They reported that in their former settlements, they had enough money for their daily subsistence. The nearby Techno Park provides jobs to young men and women who work as integrated circuit (IC) technicians. Some have likewise received free training from the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). However,

14

participation in the training is limited to a certain number of participants and not everyone who completed the training is able to find a job.

Credit opportunities abound in SV4. Most of those who have small enterprises borrow from “lending” organizations and “5-6.”8 Those who cannot access credit, such as the elderly and those with irregular employment, turn to their neighbors, who also charge interest for loans.

SV4 is under the jurisdiction of two barangays, Caingin and Pooc, an arrangement that creates difficulties in the delivery of basic services as it is unclear which barangay is responsible for what services. The NHA-supervised HOA manages SV4. It consists of twelve elected officials drawn from the roster of thirty-five leaders, with each leader representing a residential cluster of one hundred households. SV4 has its own set of barangay tanod (community police, all of which are men) and barangay health workers (BHWs, all women).

Malaban, Biñan, Laguna. Malaban is one of the densely populated barangays in Biñan. In 2008, it had 41,404 residents in 8,281 households, with each household having an average of five to six members. In some cases, as many as three to four families share a housing unit. It has one health center, an elementary school, a high school and seven pre-schools and day care centers.

Shoemaking is the primary occupation of the residents. When cheaper footwear from China hit the Philippine market, the demand for Biñan-made footwear lessened. Shoemakers then focused on making slippers, and workers in shoe factories shifted to other occupations, such as driving tricycles, doing construction work, helping out in the wet market, and lakeside fishing. Others (both men and women) tried their luck abroad as contract workers. Some households rely on vegetable farming along the side of the lake. Women usually sell the produce in Biñan market. Still a number of residents, usually men, go to the municipality of Liliw, considered “the slippers capital of the Philippines”, to work as “maglalapat” (shoe factory workers). Those who engage in fishing are either “pante” (fish pen) operators or hook-and-line fishers.

Because it has an extensive wet market that carries wholesale offers of meat, vegetable and fish products, Biñan is able to attract buyers and traders from nearby Sta. Rosa City and the town of San Pedro. Consequently, selling meat, vegetables and fish products, providing market labor, and driving transport public vehicles have become the main occupations for the people of Malaban. As a result, more and more families have sought to establish residence in the barangay as renters or informal settlers. Likewise, the number of people selling vegetables and fish and operating sari-sari stores has ballooned. Barangay officials are reportedly only present during barangay meetings and required official functions. According to the residents they have not been very active in carrying out their tasks in the barangay. POs come and go, especially in Zone 7. Often short-lived, these POs are either created because a project is being implemented in the barangay or because membership in a PO is a requisite for accessing loans. These projects mostly focus on medical assistance, especially for children. Other POs assist in the social immersion activities in marginalized communities that Metro Manila-based colleges and universities organize for their students.

Control Community

Marikina Heights, Marikina City. Barangay Marikina Heights was established in April 1978 through a Presidential Decree signed by then President Ferdinand Marcos. The natural high terrain of the land and its structure made it a likely choice for a control group in this rapid assessment. The only area in the barangay that was briefly flooded was a small portion of Champaca at Apitong Street which is situated near the creek. To date, there are seven purok (sub-villages) in the barangay with a population of almost forty-eight thousand individuals in

15

about eight thousand households. The barangay’s elevated land area of 325 hectares is now being used for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes. The Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) now total 48.9 Facilities in the area include fourteen private schools and two public schools.

The study focused on three HOAs found along Ipil Street, Purok 1, of Barangay Marikina Heights. Representing a total of ninety-two households with an average of four to five members each, they are Samahang Nagkakaisang-Hanay Homeowners Association (SNHA), Mejia-Molave Homeowners Association (MMHA) and Marikina Couples Neighbourhood Association (MCNA). The MMHA covers two hundred individuals in forty households, of which twenty-six are members of Gawad Kalinga (GK). Members of GK tended to have houses built with better quality materials, when compared to those of non-members.

The SNHA covers around two hundred individuals in forty-two households who would soon have ownership of their land through direct purchase. The leaders of the association are actively pursuing and facilitating the settling of the land title. The MCNA is the smallest of the three associations in the barangay. It has only ten households. Half of the members have decided to continue paying the owner of the land while the other half have stopped, believing that the direct purchasing scheme is in fact fraudulent.

In most households, both parents are working, whether on a self-employment, regular or contractual basis. Men are usually employed in construction projects, while women typically own small business ventures, (sari-sari stores and barbecue stalls). Some women also offer laundry and ironing services for nearby households. A number of teenagers who are high school graduates or college undergraduates have stopped schooling to help supplement the family income. Most of them are employed in laboratories and companies in nearby cities, such as Pasig.

Changes in Livelihoods and Employment

A diverse mix of income-earning activities was observed in the research sites. The decision to engage in particular forms of livelihood and employment depends on the opportunities or resources available on-site and in nearby areas. This is true for all sites, whether the community was affected by Ondoy (such as Camacho Phase II) or not (such as Marikina Heights). Most residents draw income from small-scale home-based livelihood and employment in government and private firms. Small-scale, home-based commercial businesses include sari-sari (variety) stores, food vending, and direct selling. Some of the residents make a living by driving public utility vehicles, doing air-conditioning or automotives repair and maintenance, washing or ironing clothes for other households, or operating beauty parlors. Others are construction workers, masons, domestic or market helpers, carpenters, or drivers. Fishing and vegetable farming are also found to be sources of income in lakeside areas.

In most of the study sites, a number of residents were employed by the local government as utility workers, street cleaners, or watchmen (in the case of KV1) or in the private sector as contractual workers in factories, manufacturing plants and construction projects, or as gasoline station attendants, salesladies, drivers, or janitors. In SV4, the youth are employed in an industrial park as technicians or members of utility and food services crew.

Despite not having been directly affected by the tropical storm, residents in Marikina Heights did mention the effects of Ondoy on their sources of income. On the one hand, customers were often victims of Ondoy and were unable to pay their debts. Participants in the discussions

16

pointed out that customers could not be forced to settle their debts, considering the losses they had incurred. In affected areas, drivers of public utility vehicles had to stop working for approximately a week, since their usual routes were not passable due to the flood. An FGD participant reported not being able to resume her sewing business, as her sewing machine was submerged in water and was still at the repair shop. Other income opportunities, however, emerged. Some young men were hired by Tzu Chi Foundation, a Taiwanese faith-based NGO, to clean houses in affected communities. Some residents have also found alternative sources of income, such as selling snacks and vitamins to their neighbors and nearby communities.

Lost livelihood and the self-employed

Small businesses and home-based livelihoods, particularly in the two lakeside communities (e.g., shoemaking, vegetable farming, and fishing) suffered severe losses as a result of Ondoy. Other affected livelihoods were the “buy and sell” business, sari-sari (variety) stores, eateries, food stalls or ambulant selling/kiosks, and livestock rearing (pigs). The flood caused by continuous heavy rains destroyed or washed out critical resources, including physical

structures, construction equipment, working capital, raw materials, stocks and goods (Box 3). Those in the rug-making business, for instance, could not take advantage of the high demand for rugs after Ondoy due to the loss of raw materials. Debts remained unpaid, as goods or services were not translated into sales. Ambulant street vendors in WFM lost their carts. Even sari-sari store owners unaffected by the flood incurred losses, as they could not compete with the influx of relief goods.

In Malaban (Biñan, Laguna), those making slippers lost their homes, which also served as their workshops. Some shoemakers turned their rooftops into workshops. But even as operations continued for them, sales were low as potential customers spent whatever money they had on immediate needs. Vegetable farms were flooded, affecting the daily subsistence and livelihood of (mostly) female vegetable vendors. Fisher-folk were slightly better-off, as

Ondoy brought about a large fish harvest. However, these gains were short-lived, as the waters turned murky after a few days. Those providing services (such as driving public utility vehicles) could not carry on with their usual economic activities, as there was no or low consumer demand. A female resident in Maybunga (Pasig) shared that her husband, who operated a “tri-bike” school service, lost a week’s income when classes were cancelled.

Changes in livelihood outcomes due to reduced/lost income is the common sentiment of those engaged in “buy and sell” activities in KV1 (Table 4). For example, a slipper vendor who used to earn PhP500 to PhP700 daily, or PhP15,000 to PhP21,000 monthly, tended to earn PhP1,800 to PhP2,400 monthly in the aftermath of Ondoy. To supplement her household income, she began accepting laundry work which enabled her to earn an additional PhP2,000 per month.

Box 3: Vending as a livelihood Ang hanapbuhay ko po ay nagtitinda ng DVD, mga salamin, charger sa bangketa . . . naanod po lahat. ‘Yung mga paninda ko, ‘yung lamesa ko inanod. ‘Yung mga tinda ko na mga charger, mga DVD, utang pa yun sa ASA, hindi ko pa nababayaran ‘yun. (I sell DVD, mirrors, chargers on the sidewalk for a living. The flood wiped out my merchandise and my table. [The capital for] the goods that I sell, such as chargers and DVDs, was just a loan from ASA [lending agency]. I have yet to pay that loan.) – MARIA, 32 YEARS OLD, DOÑA IMELDA

17

Table 4: Changes observed in the employment/livelihood activities in KV1

Before Ondoy After Ondoy

Livelihood/ Employment Income (PhP) Livelihood/ Employment Income (PhP)

Vending slippers (outside KV1)

500–700/day (15,000– 21,000/mo)

Vending Slippers (outside KV1)

150–200/day for three days a week (1,800–2,400/month)

Laundry (outside KV1) 500/day for one day a week (2,000/month)

Rug/bag making 200/week Rug/Bag making 200/week

Local employee (day care worker)

5,000/month Local employee (day care worker)

Payment delayed for 1.5 months, as parents could not pay day care center fees

Domestic helper 2,500/month

Garlic/black pepper repacking and vending

150/day

Loss or suspension of jobs and the employed

Salaried workers, particularly those who had been able to keep their jobs after Ondoy, were relatively less affected as they were assured regular wages. However, their income was insufficient to cover the costs of recovery. There were, however, instances observed during fieldwork where salaried workers had also lost their jobs. In some cases, employers ceased operations temporarily or permanently, such as the shoemaking or sewing businesses in Marikina and factories in Rizal. In other cases, prolonged absences from work (for construction workers, domestic workers, and gasoline station attendants, for example) after Ondoy resulted in job losses. Some of the participants in the discussions had been unable to report for work due to the increase in transport fares. The floods in Caingin (Sta. Rosa), for instance, made the roads impassable. Commuters had therefore to allocate almost a third of their daily wages to cover transportation costs (PhP100, up from PhP34). In addition, a number of the residents cited trauma as the reason for not attending work. Participants reported not wanting to leave for work when it rained, for example (Box 4). No work meant no pay and hence no income and food for the family.

New livelihood opportunities

The aftermath of Ondoy saw increased employment opportunities for men in the construction and automotive sectors, as the demand for house and car repair increased. Drivers of tricycles, jeepneys or pedicab, who had been unable to make their usual trips because of the floods, adapted to the situation by providing transport, oftentimes by improvised boats, to passengers who did not want to wade in the water, collecting PhP50 as fee. They also built makeshift bridges for which they also charged a user’s fee. Some also offered cleaning services to better off neighbors in Doña Imelda (Quezon City), receiving PhP100 for each house cleaned, enough to buy a day’s meals. The huge volume of junk/scrap material brought more income to people who do pangangalakal (“buy and sell”) and scavenging. Scavengers are believed to have generated higher earnings per day, at PhP1,000 than water transport operators, who earned

Box 4: Trauma from Ondoy Pag-umuulan sasabihin, “Mama, alis tayo.” (When it rains, she would say, “Mama let’s leave.”) – WAWA, 9 YEARS OLD, KV1 Ayoko pong mamatay (I don’t want to die) – JUDY, 5 YEARS OLD, KV1 Kapag mag-isa ako, umiiyak ako. Tapos ito ay nangangatal. Bakit ganon? (When I am alone, I cry. Then this [pointing to her jaw] shakes. Why is it like that?) – NANA PURING, 65

YEARS OLD, SV4

18

Box 5: Selling purified water

Malaki ang pagbabago, parang naging times two, kasi yung tubig na business malakas. Pero po tindahan ko, hindi po. Sabi ko sa kanila iinom kayo diyan, ang dumi baka madisgrasya pa kayo. Eh di bumibili sila sa akin ng tubig. (There was a great change [in the business], [the profit] seemed to have doubled. It was because the water business became stronger, but not my store [variety store]. I told the people about the danger of drinking contaminated water. So they bought water from me.) – ELSA, 43 YEARS OLD, DOÑA

IMELDA

approximately PhP300-PhP400. The higher demand for purified drinking water also doubled the income of sellers, partly compensating for the loss of sari-sari store profits (Box 5).

Shifts in livelihood

In Marikina Heights, residents were forced to find other work when the shoemaking business closed or slowed down in the past year – before Ondoy. Most of those who had lost their jobs put up their own small enterprises. Some residents also took on multiple jobs or livelihood activities, resulting in longer working hours. Those engaged in vending, for instance, also did laundry work once a week. There were a number of residents in these areas who traded during the day and worked as watchmen at night. Similarly, in the communities affected

by Ondoy, those unable to return to their old jobs or businesses ventured into new ones. Some examples of these transitions observed during field work were, shifting from farming to being a market helper or from shoemaking to being a tricycle driver.

Increased debt burden

A trend across all research sites was the increasing debt burden among the residents, particularly women. A vicious debt cycle was apparent. Difficulties in repaying existing loans led to difficulties in accessing new loans from microfinance institutions (MFIs). Without new loans (and without recovery assistance), those engaged in livelihood activities will be unable to re-establish their businesses and earn income to settle their outstanding obligations. If this

remains unaddressed, the economic and social impact of Ondoy on community life can be expected to continue in the long term.

Even before Ondoy, procuring loans from formal and informal sources to finance small enterprises had been a common practice in all of the communities visited (Table 5). The women usually obtain loans from MFIs, with interest rates ranging from 10 to 15 percent. They make weekly repayments for six months. Others seek out informal lending sources, including “5-6” moneylenders, who are easily accessible but charge higher interest rates and collect repayments every day for thirty to forty days (Box 6). The residents reported that they did not have difficulty paying debts before Ondoy.

The effects of the storm have indeed disrupted and altered the livelihood of the residents. Lacking working capital for their business or resources to purchase a new stock of merchandise, or having no harvest from their damaged fish pens and vegetable farms, people do not have the income they normally use to repay debts. Compounding these difficulties is the need to repair houses and provide for basic needs. Apparent in all sites was the concern about how debts will be settled and livelihood activities re-established while leaving enough money for basic household needs. The likely implications of this debt cycle could be profound. Debts are likely to rise. There is a significant probability that residents engaged in livelihood activities

Box 6: Taking out loans Kung wala ka talagang makukuhanan ng pera, sa Bombay ka uutang. Pero kung ako may pera, hindi ako uutang sa Bombay kasi magkano ang interes? Malaki, tapos uutang ka na, kailangan mo pa bumili sa kanila ng mga items nila. (If you have no one to borrow money from, you go to the “5-6”. But if I have money, I will not borrow money from them. Aside from the fact that the interest is high, you are compelled to buy items from them.) – NIDA, 40 YEARS OLD, 42 KAPILIGAN

19

will be unable to obtain further credit and that community economies will remain depressed and employment opportunities reduced. The research team considered that higher levels of migration out of these communities in search of employment or alternative livelihoods would be a possible scenario.

Table 5: Key lending features

Lending features MFIs (formal lending) Other typesa Informal lending (5-

6)

Program requirements MFI requirements (social/client investigation, training, group meetings)

Business proposal None

Terms Loan amount

PhP3,000 –PhP5,000 (first cycle) b

PhP10,000

Starts at PhP1,000

Interest rate 10-15% 0% 10-20% (depending on amount and payment schedule)

Amortization scheme

Weekly for six months Daily (30–40 days, depending on agreement)

Forced savings Amount depending on MFI

Others With 1-2 months’ moratorium (Biñan)

Purchase of merchandise required from borrower

Collateral (Sta. Rosa) aRepresentative Mar De Guzman’s “Roll a Business” project in Marikina Heights (control site). bMFI borrowers have to complete payments for first-cycle loans before they can avail themselves of the second loan cycle.

Changes in everyday life

The economic disruptions brought by Ondoy also involved changes in the quality of life in the six affected communities. Purchasing power was reduced, resulting in limited food availability at the household level and lack of adequate nutrition. The residents had to cope with the loss of household assets, depriving them of the comforts they used to have. Some household heads took on multiple livelihood activities or jobs that lengthened their working hours, which also meant less time spent with family.

Responses to Changed Livelihood Outcomes

Relief assistance

Relief and recovery assistance reached all the affected sites, albeit with varying levels of efficiency. Support came from a wide range of providers, including government (national and local levels), private sector, local and international NGOs, religious organizations, schools, and private groups and individuals. Except for SV4, all sites received numerous types and varying levels of relief aid (Box 7 and Box 8). Relief goods helped meet the residents’ immediate needs for approximately a after Ondoy. They mostly consisted of food (e.g., canned goods, usually

20

Box 7: Relief Assistance in Camacho Phase II GK assistance:

Food

Clothes

Blankets

Slippers

School supplies

Cleaning materials and equipment (e.g., soap, wash basins, shovels)

Medical missions (including medicines)

Free use of washing machine (limited to 5 kilograms of load per family)

Tzu Chi Foundation’s “Cleaning Work for Pay” benefited 210 of 287 households. With the income they derived from participating in this initiative, the residents were able to store up to a month’s supply of food and purchase some kitchen wares.

sardines, noodles, and rice), bottled water, clothing, cleaning equipment and non-food items, such as blankets and towels, as well as school supplies. Health assistance was also provided in some of the areas visited.

Participating in cash for work schemes

While the bulk of the relief provided was in-kind, there were two instances of cash assistance observed in the study sites. Immediately after Ondoy, Tzu Chi Foundation and the Quezon City government offered cash for work schemes to residents of Camacho Phase II and Doña Imelda, respectively. In Camacho Phase II, Tzu Chi Foundation’s “Cleaning Work for Pay,” allowed residents to earn extra money (PhP400) per day per person, which some used to purchase lost kitchen wares. A family of five earned PhP2,000 a day, or PhP14,000 per week. The Quezon City government’s “Tulong sa Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged Workers” (TUPAD) scheme generated income for Doña Imelda residents (initially only women but later also men) in the amount of PhP272 for a day’s work. The program lasted three days and benefited fifteen street cleaners who were chosen by the community leaders among those most in need of financial assistance.

Receiving support from family and the workplace

Some households received support from the immediate family and relatives living in the province or abroad, both in kind (rice, temporary shelter) and cash (remittances). Some of the interviewed salaried workers had been given cash assistance by their employers.

Borrowing

A general coping mechanism among urban poor households is borrowing. In the control site (Marikina Heights), in spite of a minimal civil society presence one source of financial support that women often rely on is microfinance groups. Kabalikat para sa Maunlad na Buhay, Inc. (KMBI) is the more prominent one and is easily recalled by the respondents. It is the women who, perhaps due to their traditional role in managing household resources, seek out and obtain loans. To make ends meet, residents from the affected communities resorted to borrowing money from formal and informal lending sources. However,

instead of financing productive activities, in the aftermath of Ondoy, loans were diverted to cover basic household needs, such as food, medicine, water, electricity, and school allowances.

Box 8: Relief Assistance in Kasiglahan Village 1 Salvation Army Relief Assistance provided each household member with a relief sack containing 10 kilos of rice, canned goods, one mat, one blanket, one 5-liter bottled water, and one bottle of antiseptic. “There are six of us in the household so we received 60 kilos of rice, assorted canned goods, six mats, six blankets, six 5-liter bottled water and six bottles of Betadine. The relief assistance will provide enough food for my family for a month. I don’t have to worry where to get money for my family’s food needs. I have shared some of these relief goods with my neighbors. Thanks to Salvation Army.” – ATO, 54 “Each SA relief pack was based on humanitarian standards that would allow each household member to cope with the emergency situation they are in for a number of days or weeks.” – BERING, 63

21

Saving more, consuming less

Even before Ondoy, residents in the control site (Marikina Heights) reported cutting down on certain household expenses, usually modifying the type of food they eat and at times eating only noodles and rice.

Given the increase in the prices of food and their very tight budget, households in the affected communities instituted additional measures such as asking children to bring food instead of cash to school, reducing school allowances, and reducing food portions for lunch and dinner (Box 9). Some women also reported reducing their own share of the food so that other members of the household would have more to eat.

Keeping the faith

With GK and other faith-based groups working in Camacho Phase II and a portion of Marikina Heights, residents reported that a strong and constant relationship with God helped see them through life’s difficulties. Thus, faith and prayers played a significant role in the recovery process. Participants in the discussions in this sites reported that religious belief strengthened their resolve to survive and not lose hope.

Children and youth at work

In Marikina Heights, out of school youth, usually college undergraduates worked in laboratories and research companies to help in the household expenses. Children and youth were also found to engage in pangangalakal (“buy and sell” of junk goods) or scavenging. A similar situation was observed in SV4 and Maybunga, were some children (mostly boys) collected scrap material as a means of supplementing family income before Ondoy. The significant volume of junk material generated by Ondoy was associated with younger children being observed to engage pangangalakal probably for the first time. Parents also appeared more eager to have young people (aged 17 years and above) find work. Graduating college students who were unable to register for the second semester felt they had to find a job to save for their own tuition.

Disruptions to Social Life and Mobilization of Social Relations

The mediations of social capital, defined as the “features of social organization such as networks, norms, … trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam 1993, 35ff) are central to the recovery of individual households and communities. The rapid assessment thus examined forms of displacement and disruptions in social life, changes in gender and intergenerational relationships, and the mobilization of social support networks within and outside of the communities.

Displacement and disruptions in social life

In the six affected sites, residents were evacuated to temporary shelters at the height of the storm. With few exceptions families managed to remain together after Ondoy notwithstanding the overnight or extended stay at evacuation centers. Immediately after the storm, family members reunited to clean their houses and restore normalcy to their lives. In Doña Imelda, those who moved to nearby high-rise buildings or shelters returned to their homes the following day as soon as the water subsided. The same situation was reported in Camacho

Box 9: High prices of food Kasi dati nakakabili kami ng limang pisong talbos ng kamote, ngayon sampung piso na. Ngayon talaga mas mahirap kasi mas mahal. Dati nakakatikim kami ng baboy, ngayon, wala na. (Before, we could still afford to buy a stalk of sweet potato leaves for PhP5, but now, it costs PhP10. Life is harder now because of the high prices of commodities. Before, we could still eat pork, but not anymore now.) – FLORY, 59 YEARS OLD, DOÑA

IMELDA

22

Phase II. Families who stayed in neighboring houses went home once the water receded. In KV1, the evacuees returned to their homes the morning after the storm.

To make it easier to clean their houses, parents in Camacho Phase II sent their younger children (babies and toddlers) to live with their relatives in other barangays of Marikina or towns

outside the city. To aid in their healing process, a number of children were also reported to have stayed temporarily with relatives in the provinces. Such arrangements were, however, not observed in the other study sites. In Malaban, as the flood took longer to subside, the families were distributed to various locations: evacuation centers (school buildings, concrete bridge); houses of relatives, friends, or employers; or houses for rent. With women and children at the evacuation centers, the men were the first to return home or to begin looking for work.

Adjusting to the uncomfortable conditions at the evacuation center was challenging for the residents. Participants in the discussions reported increased expenditures on food (because they prepared separate meals at home and at the evacuation centers) and transportation (because they shuttled between their homes and the evacuation center). In addition, they had to queue to fetch water. They could not do what they normally did at home and had to be careful not to offend or disturb the other evacuees (Box 10).

Participants in the discussion also reported fearing that conflicts might arise, and there were reports of disagreements about neighbors being noisy, for example. Children attending school had difficulties studying at night (Box 11), while women reported feeling uneasy about the lack of privacy and wary of potential sexual harassment.1012

Gender and intergenerational relations

The aftermath of Ondoy further added to the burden typically carried by women. At the height of Ondoy, all able-bodied persons (male, female; adult, young) in the affected sites performed the demanding task of rescuing people, belongings, and important documents. In households where the men were away at work, women took charge of rescuing family

Box 10: Daily living at the evacuation center Malaki po. Nung andun po kami [sa aming bahay] lahat magagawa mo, magpatugtog ka walang magagalit. Eh diyan po hindi po pwede dahil natutulog ang mga bata. So makikisama ka din sa mga ibang nakatira, para hindi kayo mag-away. Hindi ka makakilos ng maayos, hindi ka kumportable di katulad ng sa amin. (There is a big difference between living at home and at the evacuation center. At home you can do whatever you want. You can play music without annoying anyone. There [at the evacuation center], this is not allowed because the children are sleeping. You have to get along with the other evacuees to avoid any fight. You are not comfortable, unlike when you are at home.) – JOVEN, 19

YEARS OLD, MALABAN

Box 11: Studying at the evacuation center Mahirap ho sa evacuation center kasi ho katulad ko estudyante, nag-aaral, siyempre po bago pumasok sa school maliligo po muna . . . eh nagigising po ako mga 4 ng madaling araw dahil po sa poso, igiban po ng tubig eh pipila pa ho kayo bago ka makaligo kaya po minsan po late na po ko nakakapasok.’Yung nasa amin po ako, halimbawa may quiz kinaumagahan, nakakapag-aral po ako. Pero nung dito po hindi na po ako makapag-aral ng maayos, tulad po kanina eh periodical test hindi po ako nakapag-aral kagabi dahil nga po mahirap ang tubig eh ako po ang panganay so mag-iipon pa po ako ng tubig eh konti lang ho balde namin. Kaya ho yung time ng pag-re-review ko pinalit ko po sa pag-iimbak ng tubig, kesa naman po kami’y mawalan ng tubig. (It is hard at the evacuation center for students like me. Of course, before you go to school, you have to take a bath. I have to wake up at 4:00 a.m. to line up by the artesian well to draw water for bathing, so sometimes I am late for school. When I was at home, if there was a quiz in the morning, I could study the night before. Here, I could not really study. Like earlier, we had a periodical test, I was not able to study last night because I had to fetch and stock water because we only had a few pails, and I am the eldest. Instead of reviewing, I fetched and stocked water; otherwise, we would not have enough water to use.) – JOLAS, 15 YEARS OLD, MALABAN

23

members, especially children, elderly, and the sick (Box 12). In Maybunga, after the tropical storm, women were also the ones lining up to receive relief goods. Men, nonetheless, helped in cleaning and repairing their houses. But as they resumed work, women had the responsibility for fixing the house. This added to their usual tasks of maintaining the home, budgeting, and dealing with community concerns, as well as working to augment the family income. Similarly, in Doña Imelda, the women were the ones who led at the height of the tropical storm, in the absence of men. Following the immediate aftermath it was still the women who decided on matters concerning rehabilitation and reconstruction. Understandably, they were in charge of budgeting and knew the immediate needs of their families and homes. Men were reportedly primarily concerned with providing the necessary income to meet the family’s daily needs.

Constrained by a tight family budget, there was greater urgency for women to work or restart or engage in a small business or livelihood. In Maybunga, the women engaged in a number of additional jobs (informal work). For instance, one woman compensated the slow sales of her sari-sari store by selling cosmetic products. There were also women, who took on jobs as domestic helpers in well-off households within the city. In both formal (Camacho Phase II, KV1) and informal settlements (Maybunga, Doña Imelda), the aftermath of Ondoy saw women taking on additional family responsibilities. Women, responsible for daily household chores, simultaneously undertook productive activities, such as small trading (e.g., operating sari-sari stores, vending, and rug/bag making), to add to their husbands’ income.

While Ondoy may have exacerbated the economic burden on women, it nevertheless brought some temporary respite from the gender and generational division of labor within the household. After Ondoy, women had more clothes to wash and cleaning up to do. Performing household chores was harder, as they had often lost their appliances due to the flood. Because of the extent of the damage brought by Ondoy, everyone in the family, regardless of gender and age, generally took part in cleaning the house and in preparing meals. In Camacho Phase II, house chores, such as cooking, doing the laundry, cleaning, and caring for the children, were no longer deemed exclusively women’s tasks. In Malaban, women and men had to “make do with what the situation dictates.” Some young women rowed boats to fetch water from a well located far from their residence. In Doña Imelda and WFM, men and women helped in washing dirty clothes and cleaning the area surrounding their homes (Box 13). Older girls fetched water, and young men learned how to cook rice and take care of younger siblings. Women, children, and the elderly lined up to receive relief goods. There was also a greater desire by youth to find jobs in order to help the family.

Box 12: Women to the rescue Kapag nandyan na, kailangan magligtas ka, wala ng baba-babae. Usually pag ordinaryong araw, yung mga washing machine, ref, lalaki ang nagbubuhat. Nung araw na ‘yun ang babae kahit gano kabigat, binubuhat niya. Wala silang pakialam basta maisalba nila yung gamit nila kasi syempre pinundar nila ‘yun. Isa pa, usually pag maghuhugas ng pinggan at maglalaba babae lang, e sa kapal ba naman ng putik na dumapo sa damit, hindi po kakayanin ng mga babae. Kaya pati tatay, lolo at lola tulong-tulong sa paglalaba. (If it’s there already, you ought to save [lives], [there’s+ no female *issue+. On ordinary days, men lift washing machines and refrigerators. But on that [stormy] day, women, were doing the lifting, no matter how heavy. They did not mind as long as they were able to save their belongings which they had worked hard for. One more thing, usually, if it’s washing plates and doing the laundry, *that’s+ female [work]. But because of the huge amount of mud that stuck to the clothes, the women could not do it alone. That is why even fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers help in doing the laundry.) – CHARI, 18

YEARS OLD, DOÑA IMELDA

24

In Camacho Phase II, the chance to contribute to the household’s income through Tzu Chi Foundation’s cash for work scheme boosted the youths’ role in the family. Having helped save elderly family members and younger siblings, as well as neighbors, during the storm, young people felt more responsible and confident in taking on bigger and more tasks and responsibilities within and outside the home.

However, the collective action that took place in the aftermath of Ondoy generally did not extend to the needs of children. Children’s places of play (e.g., basketball court, park) in WFM, for instance,

remained flooded or muddied. The concerns of this age group were not on the priority list of formal or informal community organizations.

Social support networks

Family members and relatives. Many of those affected by Ondoy received help in cleaning up their houses from relatives and friends living within Metro Manila. In hard-hit Camacho Phase II, families placed their babies and toddlers in the care of relatives for about two weeks, or until their houses were clean. Relatives (in the Philippines and abroad) sent remittances and goods,

such as food, medicines, and money for school allowances. A woman from WFM shared that she requested a share of the production of her family’s small farm in the Visayas. In a household in Doña Imelda, financial help from relatives abroad and in the province, which was originally intended as seed money to restart a business, was reallocated for hospitalization and basic necessities such as food.

Neighborhood support. At the height of Ondoy, there were a number of instances of community solidarity and collaborative behavior reported (Box 14 and Box 15). Differences were set aside as community

members found themselves sharing cramped spaces and food in temporary shelters. Parents looked after each other’s children in evacuation centers. In addition to taking on domestic chores, the youth (although unorganized) helped remove debris, collect garbage, and repack and distribute relief goods. Community sharing of resources, such as food and sleeping quarters (taking turns in sleeping), extended to cover rehabilitation activities. In Maybunga (Pasig City), residents built makeshift bridges and wooden walkways in each flooded pasilyo (alley). They continued to work together in maintaining these temporary structures.

Box 13: Men doing domestic tasks

Nung bumaba na ‘yung baha, sabi ng nanay ko, “Tutal ikaw naman ang nandyan gawin mo na lahat.”Ang ginawa ko naglaba ako ng damit, tapos naghugas ng plato at nagsaing. (After the flood subsided, my mother told me, “Since you’re there, you might as well do everything.” I did the laundry, then washed the dishes and cooked rice.) – FELIX, 21 YEARS OLD, 48 DOÑA IMELDA

Box 15: Neighbors embrace each other

Praise the Lord talaga. Five years na kaming di nag-iimikan ng kapitbahay ko. Nung bagyong Ondoy, nagyakapan kami, di namin alam . . . na kami na pala ‘yun . . . dahil sa bagyong Ondoy. (Praise the Lord really. For five years, my neighbor and I had not been talking to each other. At the height of Ondoy, we embraced. . . we were surprised to learn we were embracing each other . . . all because of typhoon Ondoy.) – MERCY, 57, DOÑA IMELDA

Box 14: Offering dry clothes

Marami akong kapitbahay na hindi ako kinakausap, pero nung time na yun basta tumulong ako. Pagdating nila sa taas, walang damit, papahiramin ko sila, maski kausapin mo ako o hindi, heto damit, magbihis ka kasi basa ka. (I have neighbors who do not talk to me, but during that time, I just helped them. When they arrived in my house, with no [dry] clothes I offered them dry clothes. Whether you talk to me or not, here’s a set of clothes, put it on because you’re wet.) – ZENY, 38, DOÑA IMELDA

25

Cracks in the collective conscience

There were a number of examples of collaborative behaviour noted during rescue operations and the immediate aftermath of the storm. However, FGD participants also reported instances of theft and inequitable distribution of relief. At the height of Ondoy, family members, mostly men took considerable risks to stay behind and guard their homes. In KV1 (Rodriguez, Rizal), FGD participants who were residents of two flooded areas (Phases 1B and 1D) cited instances of sari-sari stores and unoccupied homes being robbed. In SV4, there were allegations that only those close to the community leaders had been able to benefit from the relief assistance. A similar concern was noted in Doña Imelda, where most residents perceived some favoritism in the distribution of relief, with only those close to the barangay officials and pook (community) leaders reportedly receiving help.

Local Governance and Institutional Responses to the Calamity

In this rapid assessment, governance is viewed as both process and context in which individuals and groups take ownership or control of the management of social networks, information sharing and other activities that enable and empower them to manage community resources and needs (adapted from Chong 2004). In particular, the study examined the processes and contexts of rescue relief and rehabilitation. The local government unit is the main actor in local governance. However, organized community groups also contribute to governing a locality.

Rescue and Evacuation

The flooding caused by Ondoy caught communities by surprise, even if in many of the study areas, flooding and storm warnings are normal and part of everyday life. Lakeside communities are in fact recurrently flooded, as monsoon rains also bring moderate seasonal flooding. Believing that Ondoy was hardly threatening, since the flood warning issued was “Signal No. 1”, most residents went about their usual weekend activities, going to work, attending church or sleeping in late. During the height of the storm, community residents, barangay officials among them, relied on their own families and relatives, friends, neighbors, and, to some extent, HOA leaders, to rescue them from the flood. After securing their families, the block leaders in SV4 managed to bring the sick to the hospital. In KV1, the Action Group was able to borrow private vehicles to evacuate the residents. A female PO leader in KV1 stated that the residents’ claim that they relied on each other, as “. . . government was not there to help us. It was only us inside [referring to KV1]. Nobody asked [for help], what happened was instant volunteerism . . .”

FGD participants and key informants reported that no systematic rescue operation was carried out in any of their communities. One reason given was that the barangay officials had themselves been victims of the flood. They had to secure their families and belongings before dealing with the needs of other community members. Although three sites – the formal settlements of Nangka and San Jose and the informal settlement in Maybunga – reported having emergency rescue teams in place, these were not adequately mobilized to respond to the disaster. In Nangka, the unprecedented speed and height of the flood prevented the barangay disaster brigade from giving adequate support. Stranded by the floods, barangay officials admitted feeling helpless as they monitored the situation from the barangay hall. Only in two informal communities (Malaban, Doña Imelda) and one formal settlement (SV4) did barangay officials manage to issue storm warnings which, for the residents, came too late. Using a megaphone, two barangay councillors (kagawad) of Malaban went around the flooded area on a motorcycle, asking residents to evacuate, especially those living nearest the lake and already under deep floodwater. This was after the barangay received news from municipal officials that

26

three dams located in Central Luzon and the Greater Manila Area would release water and possibly cause further flooding in areas along Pasig River and around Laguna Lake.

Residents in barangay Doña Imelda (informal settlement) and barangay Nangka [Camacho Phase II] and San Jose [KV1], both formal settlements reported that rescue operations had been inadequate. In San Jose, municipal-led rescue efforts were hampered by floods at the entry to the resettlement site in KV1 and the lack of rescue personnel and equipment. Moreover, the barangay focused its rescue efforts on the center of San Jose, which is 8 kilometers away from KV1. Although the municipal LGU has an extension office in KVI, the personnel assigned to the barangay could not provide significant assistance, due to lack of equipment. Barangay officials in two sites, one formal community and the other, an informal settlement (San Jose and Maybunga respectively), however, disputed this claim, citing that residents refused to evacuate in spite of warnings. In Maybunga, barangay officials deployed members of the Maybunga Fire and Rescue Response Team to various flooded areas. The barangay provided transportation for displaced people from the roadside to the evacuation center. Moreover, barangay tanod requested residents to move to higher ground or to a temporary shelter. Together with other residents, they helped evacuate people and belongings from the flooded homes.

Residents whose houses were flooded sought temporary shelter at the evacuation centers (e.g., public schools, day care centers, health centers, barangay multipurpose halls). In SV4, people rushed to public buildings for shelter. Those who could not be accommodated in these buildings were sheltered in an unfinished school and unoccupied housing units in Phases 3 to 5. Evacuees to these units, however, resented the NHA’s requirement that they sign a waiver stating that they would return to their respective housing units once the floods receded (Box 16). Poor conditions in the evacuation centers would later prompt many residents of SV4 to return to their houses a few hours after the storm even though their homes were still flooded.

In Camacho Phase II, thirty families moved to nearby Camacho Gym Covered Court, where “home” was a makeshift cardboard partition. Of 2,900 families living at WFM, 1,682 evacuated to Maybunga Elementary School Annex, where they stayed for a week. Those who could still not return to their homes were transferred to the Rosario (Pasig) Complex, where they stayed for another two weeks. KV1 residents who stayed at temporary shelters even for a night could not endure the living conditions there. There was no electricity and water. Space was limited, and food was not enough. The evacuees could not use the washrooms, as these were locked. In Malaban, where residents still could not return to their houses weeks after the storm, they had to share one school room with as many as four families, with curtains serving as partition.

Relief Management

Schools, churches, civic and business groups, NGOs, charitable groups and private individuals mobilized aid to the affected communities (see Table 6). Because there was no assessment undertaken based on reliable data and no clear process of relief distribution and management, problems emerged in the distribution of relief goods in all six sites visited. Many affected households were unable to receive goods, particularly those whose members remained in their

Box 16: Seeking shelter during Ondoy Hindi ito ang oras para ipagkait natin ang kaonting tulong na masisilungan ng mga pamayanan dito sa Southville. Kahit sino, dapat tanggapin kasi hindi ito ang oras ng pataasan ng ano eh, ng katungkulan. Ito ang oras ng pagdadamayan. (This is not the time to deprive people of the little shelter we can provide here in Southville. Anyone should be accepted because this is not the time to assert who has more authority. This is the time to help one another.) – ARTEM, 40 YEARS

OLD, SV4 (BARANGAY POOC/CAINGIN)

27

homes, those living in inner/lower areas, those in areas farthest from the barangay center, and those in severely flooded areas. Research participants noted that those with links or relations with individual donors, facilitating, or coordinating groups were often given priority in relief distribution. As a result, social relations were strained in some sites (KV1, formal settlement) or deteriorated further in others (SV4, formal settlement). The types of relief goods provided were not always adequate to meet the needs of affected people. Participants reported they received too much of one type of good (noodles and sardines for example) and too little of other items (insufficient relief items catering to the specific needs of women, children, and the elderly). This was noted in Camacho Phase II, KV1, Doña Imelda, and Maybunga.

Table 6: Forms of assistance provided by community groups and individuals

Site Category of assistance

Organization Form of assistance

Doña Imelda Rescue Neighborhood Associations Kapiligan Homeowners’ Association

(KAHA) Riverside Association of Senior and

Youth Corporation (RASYC) North Kapiligan Riverside

Association Inc. (NOKRAI) Riverbanks Neighborhood

Association (RIBANA) Bonita Compound Association 48 Kapiligan Neighborhood

Association 81 Kapiligan Neighborhood

Association Kapatiran Asosasyon sa Kapiligan

(KAAKAP)

Conducted rescue operations

Relief Neighborhood Associations KAHA RASYC NOKRAI RIBANA Bonita Compound Association 48 Kapiligan Neighborhood

Association 81 Kapiligan Neighborhood

Association KAAKAP

Coordinated with the barangay, LGU, NGOs and religious organizations

Identifed indigent residents Distributed ration tickets Cooked food (females)

Recovery

West Bank, Floodway, Maybunga

Rescue

Relief Neighborhood Associations: WFMNAI SAMAKAPA Samahan ng mga Kababaihan sa

Floodway, Maybunga (SNKF) Youth volunteers

Sourced, prepared and distributed relief items to non-evacuees

Accounted for households that needed to be covered and handed out tickets for a systematic distribution

Coordinated with COM for relief sourcing

Malaban, Biñan

Rescue Male residents Assisted in rescue operations

Relief

Recovery

28

Site Category of assistance

Organization Form of assistance

SV4, Caingin/ Pooc, Sta Rosa

Rescue

Relief HOA Distributed relief

Recovery

Camacho Phase II, Nangka

Recovery

Rescue

Relief Neighborhood Associations CP2CHHOA NNA

Devised a stub system for distributing relief goods

Served as intermediaries and in most cases facilitated the distribution system in the community

Showed accountability for managing relief activity that involved a huge amount of money

Recovery

KV1, San Jose, Rodriguez

Rescue Action Group Montalban Ladies Association (MLA) Homeowners’ Associations From different phases Kasiglahan Muslim Neighbors

Association (KMNA) Vulcanizing shops Hardware stores

Mobilized rescue vehicles to evacuate the affected residents, particularly the women, children and elderly

Relief Action Group HOAs KMNA MLA

Set up an ID system/green card for relief distributions

Coordinated with other groups for relief assistance and distribution

Facilitated relief distribution from external groups

Recovery Action Group HOAs

Assessed storm victims

Marikina Heights

Rescue Residents Provided shelter to relatives and friends who were victims

Relief Helped in the packing and distribution of goods

Recovery Youth Helped in community cleanup

SV4 residents were reportedly dissatisfied with the distribution of relief goods, as they did not have a clear understanding of the process. For them, the ticket stub system put in place to manage aid distribution did not work for two reasons. Firstly, they did not like having to prove their residency status by showing identification cards (IDs) or proof of billing at a time of disaster. Secondly, not enough stubs were distributed which raised concerns about the fairness of the distribution. In addition to issues about prioritizing evacuees, there were allegations that only those close to the leaders were able to receive benefits.

In SV4, which is under the jurisdiction of two barangays, Pooc and Caingin, it was the city LGU, NHA and politicians who provided relief goods to residents. No relief assistance came from barangay officials. Aware of the insider-outsider divide between SV4 residents and Caingin

29

residents, an SV4 settler participating in the discussions referred to the fact that the barangay captain of Caingin would naturally give aid to his constituency first, (referring to Caingin residents who were also badly hit by Ondoy). Phase 1 residents in SV4, on the other hand, felt the barangay captain of Pooc prioritized their needs as he looked into their living conditions after the storm.

Lines were long and goods were also not sufficient in SV4. There were instances reported of distributors throwing relief goods from the back of trucks into the crowd, which resulted in injuries. According to SV4 HOA officers, this problem was caused by the inadequate supply of relief goods (Box 17). In KV1, social relations (between LGU and residents, among residents, between community groups and residents, between LGU and PO) were strained as relief assistance did not reach all affected areas and residents of Phases 1B and 1D. For most residents of Doña Imelda, the management of aid was severely deficient, as there was no systematic process for the distribution of goods. Moreover, they perceived those close to barangay officials and purok leaders as being favoured in the distribution of relief. On the contrary, barangay officials believed their system was efficient. They relied on purok leaders in giving out assistance. For them, the “insensitivity, greed and lack of discipline” of community members was the cause of problems in relief distribution. In Malaban, residents had opposing views about the relief operations. Those who did not leave their homes complained that only the evacuees in the schools and the zones nearest to the barangay center had benefited from the relief and medical assistance. Evacuees countered by saying there were relief goods distributed to the residents who did not move to the evacuation center which they did not get access to. However, they were unanimous in saying that those living in areas where floodwater was deep received only a limited supply of relief goods. On their part, those still in their houses or from the barangay claimed they did not get any food items and medical supplies.

The perception that there was “politics” involved in the relief distribution was common in the six sites visited. “Political influence” was most felt in the two lakeside sites which received comparably short supply of relief goods perhaps because they were farthest from the center or source of relief (Metro Manila). Residents of three sites (two formal settlements [SV4, KV1] and one informal settlement [Doña Imelda]) noted the way national and local politicians seized the opportunity to advance their own agenda. Community leaders at a lakeside relocation site observed that when high-ranking government officials came to distribute relief goods, they just took pictures. “…[They] just used the people.” A female resident of an informal settlement was likewise critical of a local politician’s staff who asked for residents’ precinct number before distributing rice gruel. She asked if it was necessary to “…ascertain if we are voters from his district before help is extended to us.”

In KV1, the distribution of relief goods by the municipal LGU highlighted the political divide. A community leader confirmed the residents’ view that they were unable to receive LGU assistance because their block leader was allied with the suspended local chief executive.

Box 17: The Filipino as aid recipient Ang Pilipino ang pinakamahirap i-organize sa oras ng sabayang delubyo sa bigayan ng relief goods. Nabigyan mo na lahat, meron pa rin talagang masasabi at ‘yun naman ay hindi namin inaalis sa kanila. Hindi naman kasi rin halos lahat nabigyan. Pag may dumating rin naman kasi ang NGO, example, ang dala lang naman nila ay 100 pieces na relief goods. E, sa dami ng tao, mahigit isang libo ang apektadong pamilya, isang daang piraso lang. (The Filipinos are the most difficult to organize at a time of massive catastrophe in the distribution of relief goods. Those who got something still had something to negative to say. Not everyone was given. And we don’t take that away from them *people complaining for not having received anything]. If an NGO comes, for example, they just bring 100 pieces of relief goods while more than 1,000 families were affected.) – JUN, 40 YEARS OLD, SV4

30

Further confirmation of this perception was given by a PO leader who reported that relief goods bearing the names of donors (a presidential candidate and a TV network) were replaced by the name of the LGU official who replaced the suspended local chief executive.

Assistance to the six affected communities came largely from civil society organizations. NGO-PO collaboration borne out of many land tenure/housing fora was used as a mechanism for facilitating relief efforts in five of the visited sites. As they had good knowledge of their community composition, including the number of families/households and the composition of each household, the leaders of HOAs and neighborhood associations, mostly women, assumed the lead role in distributing relief goods, drawing on their own contacts or networks (Table 7). To systematize the distribution process, each purok or cluster leader was made responsible for his or her own cluster, identifying the most affected households and distributing ticket stubs and relief goods. Research participants perceived the HOA-led relief operations Camacho Phase II and KV1 to be the most organized. In Camacho Phase II, PO leaders adopted the “stub system” for distributing relief goods, in coordination with GK, to ensure an orderly and equal distribution. In addition, they made themselves accountable for the implementation of Tzu Chi Foundation’s cash for work scheme. Any able-bodied family member could join by registering his or her name with the purok leader. This program involved entrusting a large amount of money to the alley leaders, who would disburse the payments to the volunteers. No irregularity was noted in the handling of payments by alley leaders.

Table 7: Forms of government assistance

Site Category of

assistance Barangay

City/

Municipality

Other

government

agencies

Politicians

Doña Imelda Rescue Made “simple”

public announce-

ments

Relief Coordinated with

community

leaders in

administering

relief operations

Administered

relief operations

Distributed relief

goods (DSWD)

Distributed relief

goods

Sen. Manny Villar

Sen. Loren

Legarda

Sen. Mar Roxas

Rep. Nanette Daza

Mayor Sonny

Belmonte

Recovery Launched TUPAD

West Bank,

Floodway,

Maybunga

Rescue Went around

the community

to warn people

to evacuate;

helped

evacuate

people and

belongings

property from

flooded homes

(tanod)

Provided L300

vans to

31

Site Category of

assistance Barangay

City/

Municipality

Other

government

agencies

Politicians

transport

people

Mobilized the

Fire and Rescue

Response Team

Relief Coordinated with

the LGU and, in

some cases,

directly managed

the distribution of

relief goods

Coordinated with

SAMAKAPA (PO)

and mobilized the

Pasig Security

Guards, Pasig

Health Aides, and

CIDSS volunteers

to distribute relief

items and

prepare foods for

evacuees

Recovery

Camacho Phase II,

Nangka

Rescue

Relief Gave out grocery

items

Gave out grocery

items, used

clothes, footwear

(shoes and

slippers), cooked

food, and

medicine for

leptospirosis

Distributed relief

goods or cooked

food

Rep. de Guzman

Mayor Marides

Fernando

Vice Mayor

Andres

Councilor Boy

Ponce

Tañong barangay

captain

Recovery Fielded trucks/

payloader for

clearing

operations

KV1, San Jose,

Rodriguez

Rescue

Relief Assessed storm

victims (did

ocular visit,

listed number of

affected

households)

Coordinated

with

government

offices and

private sectors

for relief

assistance

Helped in the

repacking and

distribution of

relief goods (LGU-

organized Batang

Montalban

Volunteers)

Assessed

affected

families (NHA)

Distributed

grocery items

Distribute relief

goods or cooked

food

Sen. Noynoy

Aquino

Sen. Mar Roxas

Sen. Manny Villar

Recovery

32

Site Category of

assistance Barangay

City/

Municipality

Other

government

agencies

Politicians

Malaban, Binan Rescue Announced the

impending

flooding using a

megaphone

(kagawad)

Relief Distributed relief

cards/tickets and

relief goods from

DSWD and DO)

Conducted

medical missions,

in partnership

with the BHS and

BHWs

Recovery Distributed

bamboo poles to

construct

makeshift

bridges

(barangay

officials)

Helped partner

NGOs and

community

leaders in relief

goods

distribution

Implemented

garbage collection

and sanitation

activities

Provided medical

assistance

Assisted in the

cleanup

initiated by an

NGO

SV4, Caingin/

Pooc, Sta Rosa

Rescue

Relief Escorted

government

agencies and

politicians to

SV4

Assessed the

condition of SV4

residents

(barangay

captain from

Pooc)

Gave out

grocery items,

blankets, and

mats

Conducted

medical

mission

Distributed relief

goods and tents; put

up portable toilets

Makati City Myor

Jejomar Binay

Sec. Joey Lina

Sen. Manny Villar

Vice President

Noli de Castro

with NHA

Former LGU

officials of

relocatees from

Taguig City and

Barangay Dila

Recovery

In KV1, the Action Group was considered the most active in facilitating rescue, relief and rehabilitation efforts. After the storm, they instituted a scheme for assessing/validating affected households and families and distributing relief goods. Its members prepared the list of households most affected by the storm by conducting interviews and visits. They set up a

33

system of ID cards for relief distribution, volunteer orientation, and documentation. In the other informal settlement sites, community leaders likewise took charge of handing out relief goods. The same NGO-PO network scheme was observed in the two other informal settlements in Doña Imelda and Malaban. In the latter, external groups such as Open Heart Foundation, Seventh-Day Adventist, and COM/Ateneo de Manila University linked up with their respective contacts to coordinate the distribution of relief goods.

The main role played by barangay officials was coordinating relief efforts of city/municipal LGUs, national government agencies, politicians, and other groups (see table 7). In Doña Imelda, which covered many informal communities, barangay officials worked closely with the neighborhood associations in the barangay-led relief operations. In the other informal settlements of Malaban, their role was to mobilize affected residents to avail themselves of health services provided onsite in the different zones on different dates by the Department of Health (DOH), Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC), Save the Children International, Care International, and Australian Aid International – Disaster Assessment and Response Team (AAI–DART). They also assisted in the cleanup drive initiated by Save the Children International as part of its relief and rehabilitation program. Together with teachers and barangay health workers, they gave out tickets to the residents to facilitate the distribution of relief goods from the municipal social welfare and development office and DOH. They also coordinated the relief operations of external assisting groups, such as Perpetual College, De La Salle University, ABS-CBN Foundation, and Save the Children International. Some religious groups also gave out relief goods, albeit in smaller quantities.

Except in one of the informal settlements visited (Maybunga), at least one national government agency was seen providing relief response to the affected communities. These agencies included: (i) DSWD, who provided relief goods to selected households in the informal settlements in Doña Imelda and Malaban; (ii) DOH, who carried out medical missions in the informal settlement in Malaban and the formal settlement in SV4; (iii) NHA, who distributed grocery items in the formal settlement in KV1, and carrying out an assessment of affected families; (iv) and the Metro Manila Development Authority, who provided trucks and payloaders for the clearing operations in Nangka (Marikina City).

City and municipal LGU assistance that was evident in all affected sites came in the form of relief goods, medicines, deployment of volunteers, and the one-time cash for work scheme implemented in Doña Imelda by the Quezon City LGU. In two barangays (Maybunga and San Jose), leaders received help from volunteers associated with the city/municipal LGU. Alongside the city LGU, barangay officials in Maybunga coordinated and, in some cases, directly managed the distribution of relief goods. The Pasig City LGU worked with its partner PO, SAMAKAPA, in mobilizing volunteers (Pasig Security Guards, Pasig Health Aides, volunteers from the Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS) to distribute relief goods and prepare food for evacuees. In San Jose, volunteer youth group (Batang Montalban Volunteers) associated with the LGU joined in repacking goods for distribution to storm victims in KV1. Together with PO leaders, LGU officials coordinated with representatives of organizations providing relief assistance on how to proceed with these activities. They played a role in determining target areas, number of recipients and in handling requests for volunteers.

Recovery

Beyond coordinating and assisting external groups in relief operations, barangay LGUs do not appear to have plans or to have initiated activities to provide long-term assistance to affected families. Nor were the national/local government recovery efforts observed in the communities

34

visited considered adequate. In Malaban, barangay officials reportedly waited for cues from the municipal and provincial LGUs on how to assist or relocate residents who had lost their homes. The mayor’s office raffled ownership to one hundred housing units in SV4 in Langkiwa, Biñan. This initiative targeted around 10 percent of the families staying at evacuation centers. The provincial governor referred to providing temporary shelter (using tents) at the back of the municipal hall, but at time of fieldwork, no structures were being put in place. In Maybunga, the LGU took action to clear the WFM danger zones. City personnel marked the post-Ondoy water level of the Manggahan floodway to identify the area that would be cleared of structures. However, at the time of the visit there was still no official word from government about its plans for the residents.

There were no definite recovery plans or efforts being initiated or planned by any civil society group in the affected sites at the time of the rapid assessment. Two exceptions were the interventions by Save the Childern in Malaban and by the Tzu Chi Foundation in Camacho Phase II. The recovery plan of Save the Children International consisted of the distribution of relief goods, conducting medical missions, garbage collection, sanitation, and the establishment of a preschool education program and a day care center. Except the last two activities, which are long term in nature, the organization has implemented its plan in the community. Barangay officials assisted in the cleanup, but residents did not participate actively. The focus of the Tzu Chi Foundation recovery intervention was the cash for work program described above.

Resettlement

The damages caused by Ondoy forced the government to confront the relocation issue of informal settlers, many of whom are already aware of government resettlements plans and concerned about the conflicting information received. Three informal communities in Maybunga (Pasig City), Doña Imelda (Quezon City), and Malaban (Biñan, Laguna) are expected to be relocated. Maybunga (Pasig) and Doña Imelda (Quezon City) residents have long been aware of government plans to resettle them. In Doña Imelda, notices to evict informal settlers along the riverbanks were given before Ondoy. In Maybunga, the informal settlers’ awareness of the various government options appeared inadequate to the research team, primarily because there has been no formal dissemination of information and consultations with the people. In all cases, the renters are excluded from discussions and coverage of relocation program. They are not aware of the options for securing land and housing tenure. When asked about their willingness to relocate, all participants in the discussions indicated no interest in leaving their present locations as they did not want to be displaced from their sources of livelihood and employment and the social networks they have established over the course of their stay in the community. Children, they say, would be taken away from the comfort zones of schools and friends. Poor conditions in known relocation areas further lessen their desire to move. The threat of eviction has become very real for residents in Maybunga (Pasig), who are pushing for on-site development. The situation of informal settlers in Doña Imelda appears to be somewhat different with tentative plans for relocation within the same barangay being discussed.11 Some relocation activities have started to take place with more than a thousand informal settlers from Marikina City being relocated to Southville 5A in Sta. Rosa, Laguna by the Marikina Settlements Office during the period of the rapid assessment.12

Conclusions and Recommendations

In both formal and informal resettlement communities, the significant socioeconomic impact brought about by Ondoy was the loss of resources for small businesses and self-employed residents. Those most affected were people who relied on small home-based livelihoods

35

(mostly women), as well as those involved in fishing and farming in lakeside communities. This was accompanied by the increased vulnerability of women, children, elderly, and the sick. The comparative lens provided by the inclusion of Marikina Heights, does indicate that some challenges in employment and livelihoods have long persisted in poor urban communities and seem to have worsened in the last year.

Civil society mobilization and intra-community relationships were vital during the rescue phase. Barangay officials were unable to respond to community needs largely because they were attending to their own families. In addition, the assessment indicated that they did not seem to have received appropriate training in emergency disaster responses. Barangay officials, and to some extent national authorities, would however play a significant role in the following phases of relief and immediate recovery.

Ondoy highlighted the general lack of government and community structures for disaster prevention and rescue and relief. In the aftermath of the storm, there was also little or no indication in the areas visited that LGUs and communities were putting in place measures to avert future disasters. Residents in the study sites expressed their desire to participate in and present their concerns and needs, particularly in what concerns relocation, relief management, and environmental management. The knowledge of the number and location of the members of their own community enabled intra-community groups and barangay authorities to organize aid distribution. To cope more efficiently with the effects of any disaster, this knowledge, however, should be complemented by demographic and socioeconomic data of affected communities which would also be useful in rehabilitation efforts and in developing or improving rescue and relief management systems.

Points specific to organized and linked communities. The level of organization and external links that a community had were important factors in its subsequent ability to recover from Ondoy. Camacho Phase II in barangay Nangka (Marikina City) and KV1 in barangay San Jose (town of Rodriguez), formal resettlement sites, stood out for having received assistance earlier and in greater quantities from their partners and networks. Camacho II benefited from the immediate relief assistance of Gawad Kalinga and of Tzu Chi Foundation. GK quickly mobilized its network of private sector partners, including a telecommunications company and private universities, to deliver relief goods beginning on the day following the storm to its HOA partners in Camacho Phase II, who then facilitated the distribution over a fifteen-day period. Many of the respondents think that GK support greatly facilitated the quick recovery of the community which they claimed was accomplished in two weeks’ time. In barangay San Jose, a number of donors had direct linkages with POs operating in the community and the barangay LGU. This included faith-based groups through their local congregations (e.g., Diocese of Antipolo through the local Parish Social Services), Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University, Japanese Embassy-Christian Aid, the Salvation Army through COM-assisted Action Group/HOAs, and the “Mango Children’s Home and Papaya School” of Asian Students’ Christian Foundation. Civil society groups (e.g., private sector, NGO, universities) assisting the urban poor communities drew upon their own social capital to mobilize resources for rescue and relief. Politicians and civil society groups tended to favor their own contacts or networks. Assistance to the four communities (one formal settlement [KV1] and three informal settlements [Maybunga, Doña Imelda, Malaban]) being assisted by COM was also coursed through partner POs/HOAs. These associations included Action Group in KV1, various neighborhood associations in Doña Imelda, WFMNAI and SNKF in Maybunga, and partner POs in Malaban. The Pasig City LGU coordinated with its PO partner in WFM (SAMAKAPA) in its relief work and mobilized city volunteers (CIDSS, PSG and PHA volunteers) to receive and distribute the relief items.

36

Thus, there was an overflow of assistance in areas where the communities were organized and accessible and had close relations with the LGUs and civil society. Those that were difficult to access and less organized remained mostly unreached, and unorganized (e.g., Southville 4 in Sta. Rosa City [a government resettlement site with governance issues], Malaban in Biñan, Laguna). Tensions among neighboring communities which were similarly flooded but whose needs were addressed with varying degrees of efficiency were, therefore, observed.

Points specific to the control site. Some of the same economic issues faced in the affected communities were also identified in the control site in Marikina Heights. This finding demonstrates the nature of urban poverty, so whether or not they have been directly affected by Ondoy, urban poor communities face some of the same challenges. Thus, while employing a control site allowed some form of comparison between communities not directly affected by Ondoy and those affected by it, there are limits to the research design’s power of inference. One cannot neatly categorize life in these communities into “before Ondoy” and “after Ondoy.” For the individuals and families in these communities, Ondoy was one in a series of social and economic “emergencies” that they regularly encounter and which aggravated an already difficult situation.

Insights and Recommendations from Communities

Many residents attributed the flooding to several factors, including the release of water from dams, poor garbage management, inadequate drainage systems, and the continued cutting of trees and reclaiming of land to make way for subdivisions. In KV1, quarrying was also mentioned alongside illegal logging and tree cutting to give way to the construction of subdivisions and factories. These have also resulted in the narrowing of the river. The same set of reasons was given in other study sites, whether formal or informal settlements. In SV4, residents referred to the fact that the low-lying area they occupy used to be a rice field. However it is now fully cemented which makes it difficult for water to be absorbed. Added to these are poor garbage disposal practices and lack of proper drainage facilities.

Measures for disaster prevention and preparedness. Residents in the control and affected sites gave similar proposals to avert another flooding event. Most of these relate to working with nature and protecting the environment, increasing community awareness of disaster preparedness and prevention, and improving local capacities to respond to the disaster. To achieve this, the residents believe there must be active and sustained collaboration between LGUs, government agencies, civil society and community groups, and residents (Table 8). These are addressed to government, civil society groups, and to the communities themselves.13

Residents of WFM and Malaban (both informal settlements), SV4 (formal settlement) and Marikina Heights (the control site) believe it is important to address issues related to infrastructure. For WFM residents, flooding continues because the Manggahan Floodway and Laguna de Bay have become shallower due largely to the deforestation of surrounding mountains. Thus, they suggested dredging the floodway and Laguna de Bay so that these could hold more water. They also suggested opening up the Napindan Dike to allow water to drain into Manila Bay. Another proposal put forward was the construction of dikes along the Manggahan Floodway and stopping the construction of the Laiban Dam. Participants in the discussion see the latter as destructive to the environment and a potential cause of future flooding in Quezon and Rizal Provinces. Dredging was similarly recommended (in the case of Laguna de Bay) by residents of Malaban and Marikina Heights, where the only area that experienced flooding during Ondoy was a small portion near the creek.

37

Table 8: Community recommendations for disaster preparedness and prevention

Specific recommendations Addressed to

Infrastructure Dredge and clear the floodway and Laguna de Bay Open water outlet to Manila Baya Construct dikes along the Manggahan Floodway Stop the construction of the Laiban Dam Resettlement/Relocation Programs Resettle households near creeks, rivers, danger zones For NHA to reconsider resettlement sites that are at risk and provide

the necessary structures to ensure the safety of relocatees (two-story or multi-rise buildings instead of one-story housing units)

Institutional/ national government/LGU

Prepare localized disaster management plans (municipal and barangay)

Institute an advance/early warning system Train the disaster-response teams in quick rescue and relief operations

and provide them with the necessary equipment Conduct continuous information education among residents to

highlight vulnerability to such disaster and to keep them alert and prevent complacency (including community initiated flood drills)

Enforce local ordinances on solid waste management and land use, and designate areas where building of houses/dwelling units is dangerous and therefore not allowed.

Barangay, municipal, and city LGU

Cultivate community discipline particularly on solid waste management and proper waste disposal

Be prepared for disasters (survival kit (e.g., flashlight, rope, life jacket, for each household)

Participate in disaster management planning process Reconstruct/clean drainage system Recycle waste materials, plant trees

Communities/households

aThe prevalent view in the communities is that while the Napindan Dike protects Manila from flooding, it also keeps flood water from draining into Manila Bay. Opening outlets to Manila Bay is necessary to address the flooding in the Rizal and Laguna areas.

Residents of Malaban, SV4, and Marikina Heights were in favor of clearing areas beside or near the waterways of structures to “recover the creek” and allow the water to flow. SV4 residents recommended that the NHA allow the construction of a second floor in their housing units (in Phase 1) and, together with the community, build a concrete wall at the back of Phase1.

During consultations, residents likewise called on local governments to prepare disaster management plans with their inputs. Participants in the discussion from Camacho Phase II and Malaban stressed the importance of an effective and credible early warning system to give people ample time to evacuate. Communities in Doña Imelda and Camacho Phase II mentioned the need to form disaster-response teams with the needed know-how and skills. Communities also recommended that disaster-response teams should have motorized rescue boats, ladders and materials that may be used as bridges, as well as appropriate communication equipment. Dona Imelda and Marikina Heights residents suggested that information dissemination/education activities be conducted among residents to keep them alert and prevent complacency. It was further suggested that community associations partner with local governments in conducting flood drills and similar activities. Residents of KV1 and WFM suggested that local governments strictly enforce ordinances on solid waste management.

38

Participants in the discussions held in Malaban recommended that the barangay develop and implement ordinances on land use, and designate areas where building of houses or dwelling units is considered dangerous and therefore should not be allowed.

Residents in Marikina Heights, while not directly affected by the floods, mentioned the need for assistance to enable them to improve their living conditions. This point was similarly raised by FGD participants in the affected sites who pointed out that the response to Ondoy should take into account the longer-term needs of communities (i.e, livelihoods). While short-term actions, such as the provision of clothes, temporary jobs, and money, could help them, a steady and secure job, land tenure, and education would go further (see Box 18). They also called for action at the level of the barangay through the implementation of regulations concerning environmental management. The residents pointed to the need to clear the creek of structures as a case in point. As one of the women interviewed stated: “There would be no need for relief if there were no floods in the first place.”

Box 18: Arlene’s request for help Hindi lang relief ‘yung kailangan ng mga nasalanta. Kailangan nila ng as in talagang tulong. Hindi lang nila kailangan ng pagkain para maka-survive. Kailangan nila ng ng ano, ng tulong talagang tulong. Kailangan natin ng aksyon para hindi na mangyari ulit yung nangyari sa kanila.” Ngayon kase sila, ‘yung mga nasa taas, sila yung may mga kapangyarihan na gumawa isang proyektong makakatulong sa amin. Akala namin itong project na to e mas makatulong siya saamin. Hinde, paran...Naiiyak ako. Naawa ako sa sarili ko na dati hindi kami ganito. Parang, “Ganito na ba talaga ang buhay namin?” Yung gano’n. Kase project nila ito e. ‘Yung project na ‘yun inaasahan namin na mas makakatulong, pero parang yung project na ‘to mas nakapwewisyo pa siya. Kase walang trabaho, tapos hirap pa sa buhay, lubog pa sa baha. Dapat na highlight ito e, kasi project niya. Kailangan dapat gawan ito ng paraan. Hindi e. Pero nung dumaan siya dito, wala lang. Nagbigay lang ng relief, tapos wala na. Ganon lang. Tanggap naman kase namin . . . na ano na . . . na ano ‘to, na relocation. Pero h’wag naman sana i-ano na, “O, relocation lang yan. Tinapon kayo dyan, kaya pagtyagaan niyo.” Parang ang sakit-sakit na, “Hay naku! Bahala kayo sa buhay niyo.” Tinapon na lang kami ng ganun. (We need more than relief assistance here. We need real help, and not only food, to survive. They [barangay officials] need to act to prevent this from happening again. At present, those at the top have the power to create projects that could help us. We thought this *housing+ project would help us. But…it’s like…I want to cry. I pity myself because our life before *SV4+ was not like this. Is this what our life really is now? This is their *government’s+ project. We expected that this would help us; instead, it brought us more trouble. There is no employment. We are hard-up to start with, and then we got submerged in flood. This should have been highlighted because this is his *a high government official’s+ project. Something must be done here. But no. When he visited here, it was just like nothing. Relief goods were just distributed, then nothing more. Just like that. We accept that this is a relocation area. “Hey, that is just a relocation *area+. You were thrown there, so you endure *the life there+.” It’s so painful. “You manage on your own.” We were thrown just like that.) – ARLENE, 25, SV4

Improving relief operations. At the onset of an impending disaster, residents of the study sites believe government institutions, LGUs, civil society groups, the private sector, and the communities should take immediate action to mitigate impacts (Table 9). For the communities visited, it was considered important for government and community leaders to carry out onsite assessments of the affected sites and of those areas, that were most affected. This, together with proper coordination of GO and NGO actions at the community level, was considered crucial in ensuring that the response or relief reaches all the affected areas, especially those in most need of assistance. In addition, both formal and informal settlers believe that a proper assessment of the specific needs of the affected communities, with special attention to the needs of vulnerable groups (women, elderly, and children) will help better plan relief assistance.

39

Table 9: Community recommendations to improve relief operations of various groups

Recommendations addressed to

Major tasks/activities

Municipal and barangay LGUs; community (HOAs, other local groups/ organizations )

LGU and purok/cluster leaders to conduct a joint assessment of affected areas to identify the most affected groups/households/areas. Purok/cluster leaders should be involved, since they know the conditions of their communities. Ocular survey House-to-house visits Identification and listing of affected areas and groups, including highly vulnerable

groups Profiling of communities (tagging and mapping)

LGUs, external and community groups

Coordinate with assisting organizations (LGU, external or community groups) to: assess specific needs of affected peoples/areas to ensure that relief goods are evenly

distributed; set up adequately equipped evacuation centers; consider the type/amount of relief goods needed (for example, during the immediate

emergency phase: food, shelter, healthcare needs/medicines [coughs, colds, asthma, wounds and fungal infections]); and

implement cash for work schemes and a post-disaster strategy to replace lost income and expedite the recovery process (cleaning) with the involvement of affected residents; provide corresponding equipment and materials (boots and cleaning materials)

External groups

Preparations for relief distribution Set up a systematic relief distribution scheme, including measures for transparency

and accountability Dissemination of information on relief activities to be conducted Distribute tickets/stubs to affected households Prepare logistics (venue for distribution, volunteers, schedule, etc.)

Municipal and barangay LGUs

Relief distribution Implement a transparent and equitable relief distribution system and/or other forms

of assistance to the residents affected by the calamity House-to-house distribution through the ticket/stub system. Only community

residents with valid tickets/stubs will be allowed to receive their relief packs.

Community (HOAs, other local groups/ organizations

Ascertain whether the relief goods are being used as intended, and not being sold or used for gambling.

Summary Recommendations

Communities’ proposals for participatory planning called for effective collaboration between governments, civil society groups, and POs in disaster preparedness and response. To plan for better disaster response the following are considered important to support implementation of community recommendations:

Needs and risk assessments: Establish a history of past disasters, and collect information on local organizations involved in disaster management, their resources, and capabilities, among others.

Aid efforts: Determine the specific needs of vulnerable groups such as women, elderly, children (e.g., medicines, sanitary pads for women, diapers for infants, underwear for men, women, and children).

Targeting aid and equity: Establish mechanisms for identifying affected individuals, geographic areas, and groups including highly vulnerable groups.

40

Aid delivery processes: Clarify who will be involved, transparency and accountability mechanisms, cultural suitability, and establish complaints mechanism.

Following are a summary of the key recommendations drawn from this rapid assessment of the social impacts of tropical storm Ondoy:

For the national and local government units to review their policies, ordinances, programs and plans on (1) land use and housing; (2) resettlement, relocation and evacuation; (3) infrastructures along waterways (e.g., dams, lakes, rivers/creeks); and (4) disaster prevention, rescue, relief and rehabilitation to determine whether or not these are appropriate for and responsive to social needs and are being implemented or complied with, and if not, to revise these and enforce their implementation and compliance.14

For the barangay LGU and HOAs to lead in the development of community-based disaster preparedness and prevention (including the implementation of construction and environmental management ordinances), rescue, and relief management programs, and to link these programs to the wider programs and facilities of the municipal/city and national government and non-government sectors.

For government and civil society groups to provide training programs that will develop group values and leadership skills among members of community groups and the barangay LGU, who will lead in community-based disaster preparedness, prevention, rescue, and relief management efforts.

For local communities and affected groups to participate actively in the planning of flood control, waste management, and relocation/resettlement programs, and for the managers and implementers of such programs to ensure participation that is inclusive and not just limited to leaders or representatives.

For institutions charged with disaster-related program planning and implementation to develop a reliable community database to enable programs to address the needs of communities, especially of children and other highly vulnerable groups, and identify priority groups and areas.

For agencies planning and implementing relocation of urban poor communities (both in-city and distant) to make provisions for livelihood and employment opportunities, education, health and security needs, and basic utilities (e.g., water, electricity, transportation) that make up for quality living.

For government and civil society groups to provide zero- or low-interest loans to enable those who lost property and livelihoods in a calamity to restart and to cover basic household needs as well as house repairs, and psychosocial counseling for the traumatized.

The findings of the rapid assessment indicate that the transformation of communities – whether or not in response to disasters – requires two lines of engagement: making existing institutions better fulfill their functions and enabling different actors and groups to interact with one another in new ways. The Ondoy experience has highlighted that among poor communities, some are poorer than others. The poorest of the poor are those without functional barangay or city LGUs, or HOAs, and are therefore unable to mobilize resources within the community (e.g., use of the existing organizational structures in the identification of victims and delivery of relief

41

goods) and outside (e.g., links with various groups providing relief assistance). Addressing the economic and social needs of affected individuals and communities therefore requires a model of community organizing that integrates local governments (e.g., barangay or city/municipal), intra-community groups (e.g., HOAs) and external groups (e.g., private corporations, universities, philanthropic and social development organizations) to each other. Such an approach would help to meet the needs of poor communities for livelihoods and improve their access to social resources.

References

http://www.comultiversity.org.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=61.

Date accessed: 2 December 2009 http://gk1world.com/ aboutus.html. Date accessed: 2 December 2009 http://www3.hlurb.gov.ph/law/FRAMEWORK_FOR_GOVERNANCE.pdf. Date accessed: 10 February

2010. Lim, Joseph. N.d. “Impact of the Global Financial and Economic Turmoil on the Philippines: National

Responses and Recommendations to Address the Crisis.” Unpublished paper. Chong Sheau Ching. 2004/ Empowering homemakers to become homepreneurs and e-homemakers

through a gender governance framework. A final research report submitted to Canadian Center for Health and Safety.eHomemakers/Mothers for Mothers, Kuala Lumpur.

Putnam, Robert. 1993. The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect

13:35–42.

42

1 GK or Gawad Kalinga (translated as to “give care”) is a church-based social development program that

follows a community development model. It has been fuelled by a massive army of volunteers and partners working together in bayanihan (cooperation) to bring about change and restore the dignity of the poorest of the poor, through community housing programs, as shared in its website: http://gk1world.com/aboutus.html.

2 Community Organizers Multiversity (COM) is a non-government organization based in Quezon City. As a

CO learning center, it develops, enhances and nurtures capacities of community organizers, people’s organizations and other development organizations (http://www.comultiversity.org.ph/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=61).

3 The start of data collection was set for 3 November 2009, after the observance of All Souls’ Day, which is

a Philippine national holiday. Tropical Storm “Santi,” however, delayed the start of data collection activities by a day.

4 In 2000, an open dumpsite located in Area B, Barangay Payatas in Quezon City collapsed due to heavy

rains, resulting in at least 200 confirmed deaths. Families affected by the trash slide were moved to Kasiglahan Village 1.

5 Action Group is a community-based organization in KV1 composed of men, women and youth organized

to address the various needs of their own community.

6 Balubad used to be a large tract of idle rural land lying on the outskirts of Barangay Nangka in Marikina

City and thus was targeted by the local government as a relocation site for evicted informal communities around the city.

7 There are five Southville communities in Southern Luzon, numbered from 1 to 5.

8 “5-6” refers to a lending system where lenders charge 20 percent interest on the loan. Those who are

selling merchandise would also require borrowers to buy from them. These range from items that can be consumed by the borrower’s household to supplies for his/her small business.

9 A homeowners’ association (HOA) is composed of the residents in a given subdivision or housing

structure. It endeavours, among others, to “serve the interest of its members through equity and access in the decision making process, transparency and accountability, and the promotion of security in their living areas…, actively cooperate with local government units and national government agencies for the benefit of the residents, and complement, support and strengthen these units and agencies in providing vital services to its members and in helping implement local government policies, programs, ordinances and rules.” http://www3.hlurb.gov.ph/law/FRAMEWORK_FOR_GOVERNANCE.pdf. Date accessed: 10 February 2010.

10 Examples mentioned by FGD participants included women being “stared at” by men, in particular when

“in bath towels” and having to be “watchful at all times for sexual advances.”

11 Residents of Maybunga are fearful they will be relocated and lose their claim to the land awarded them

previously by Presidential Proclamation 1160. Their worries stem from the LGU's post-Ondoy reactions to President GMA's Directive that informal settlers inundated by flood waters should not be allowed to return to their riverside locations pending the conduct of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Accordingly, the LGU informed the Maybunga affected group of some 6000 households that their land Proclamation may be revoked. People are thus very concerned not only that they will lose their already established entitlements, but also be evicted in the process. They are currently questioning the legal aspects of revocation. Unlike other riverside victims, informal settlers in Doña Imelda do not fear eviction because they have started implementing their People's Plan at a relocation site within the same barangay offered

43

by the barangay captain. The Plan brings together the combined efforts of the people's organization, COM for organizing assistance, Foundation for the Development of the Urban Poor (FDUP) for technical assistance, Oxfam GB for funding the planning process, and the Institute on Church and Social Issues for mapping the site. As the near relocation has the approval of the barangay and City Councils and is viewed as a pilot project drawing on the combined resources of civil society, government, and an external donor, the 96 vulnerable households formerly residing under the bridge are assured of secure tenure and decent housing, and thus optimistic about remaining.The PO and COM are currently negotiating with GK on the construction of Medium Rise Buildings as part of the People's Plan, with the occupants furnishing sweat equity counterparts.

12 As disclosed by a staff of the Marikina Settlements Office.

13 A section of the key informant interview and focus group discussion guides were designed to collect

the views of residents, PO and barangay officials on the causes of flooding and how to avert future disasters. These various recommendations were then validated during the IPC’s presentation of initial findings to its major research partner, the Community Organizers Multiversity, in November 2009.

14 An example is the Marikina City’s implementation of ordinances and resolutions related to emergency

preparedness and disaster management (e.g., easement from Nangka (Marikina) River, flood control project, site improvement, dike construction) as mentioned by the community members themselves.

44

Annex A - NGO-PO Research Partners

Name Barangay/city Organization

Abas, Moslemin Central, Quezon City COM

Almodovar, Jacinto Caingin, Sta. Rosa, Laguna CFARMC

Amon, Jessica Central, Quezon City COM

Arevalo, Belen Malaban, Biñan, Laguna Sulong Kababaihan ng Malaban

Barrinuevo, Rodolfo Caingin, Sta. Rosa, Laguna CFARMC

Bonagua, Kreeger Central, Quezon City COM

Chua, Jonathan Central, Quezon City COM

Cosino, Leonilo Maybunga, Pasig City WFMNAI, ULAP Pasig

Dinglasa, Elena Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA I-B

Francisco, Ma. Any Maybunga, Pasig City SNKF, WFMNAI, ULAP Pasig

Gipit, Rodrigo Malaban, Biñan, Laguna PINAGPALA

Labrador, Onizimo Camacho, Nangka, Marikina City Pagkakaisa

Miranda, Ricardo Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA I-C

Morales, Jose Doña Imelda, Quezon City RASYC, ULAP-Doña Imelda

Morante, Vicky Maybunga, Pasig City ULAP Pasig

Padida, Sancha Malaban, Biñan, Laguna Lingap ng Kababaihan ng Ilaya, Malaban

Quindap, Nelda Maybunga, Pasig City WFMNAI, ULAP Pasig

Real, Roy San Isidro, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA

Saberon, Teresita Doña Imelda, Quezon City RASYC, ULAP-Doña Imelda

Serrano, Vangie Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal Action Group

Torres, Sally Kasiglahan Village 1, Rodriguez, Rizal HOA 1-D

Veslinos, Candida Caingin, Sta. Rosa, Laguna SAMAKA

45

Annex B – Research Questions

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) 1. FGD Guide for Women’s Group

Data Set Guide Questions

Personal Experience of Ondoy/Flooding

1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon Ondoy? 2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? What kind of information did you

receive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this information? How much advance warning did you get?)

3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep everyone together? Did you have to move temporarily? How are you able to care for your children/elderly relatives/disabled members now? Who among the family/household was most affected? Why?

4. (If moved temporarily) When did you return home? What made you decide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary accommodation? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances?

5. What caused the flooding in your area?

Livelihood and Socioeconomic Adaptations

Employment/livelihood (Priority questions in bold font)

1. What are the main changes in employment and livelihood opportunities of men and women (and children, youth, and elderly) in the community since Ondoy? a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy? b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the

same sources of income or have they changed? What were these changes?

c. Are children/youth (male and female) moving out of the community or relocating to find work? Where do they go and why? What new types of work do they take up?

d. Did people need to learn new skills for these new kinds of work or new occupations?

2. What employment or livelihood opportunities (inside or outside the community) were lost/gained by men and women (children/youth/elderly) because of Ondoy? a. What economic resources and opportunities remain or are now

present for women? Men? Male/female youth, male/female children, male/female elderly?

b. What markets were opened? Lost? c. Whose economic activities gained or lost access to markets? d. What new types of work/livelihood have men, women, male/female

youth/children, elderly taken up? What are the conditions of work for each of these groups?

3. Were there changes in your daily income? Your monthly income? Are there other sources of income? a. Who manages and decides on how to spend the income? b. What are the usual/regular budget items or expenses (food,

46

Data Set Guide Questions

medicine, cigarettes)? c. Which items are not budgeted/allotted? Or which budget items

were lessened, e.g., school allowance? 4. Have there been changes in the division of domestic chores (cooking,

taking care of children/elderly/sick, washing clothes, fetching water) among men, women, male children/youth, female children/youth as a result of flooding or change in livelihood? In what ways?

5. With these changes in economic activities, how are the needs of children, pregnant women/women who had just given birth, elderly taken cared of?

6. In what ways were the livelihoods/income sources of [families of] vulnerable groups in the community (such as women, children, persons with disabilities, elderly, etc.) affected by Ondoy? a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy? b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the

same sources of income or have they changed? What were these changes?

Coping strategies/ mechanisms (Priority questions in bold font)

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with the disruptions in economic activities? By whom (women, men, children, youth, elderly)? What are entailed of them? a. Did you receive government assistance such as cash/food for work? b. Were there assisting groups (such as the church, private sector,

NGO/civil society, schools, OFWs, etc) who helped you? What types of assistance did you receive from what group/organization?

c. To whom/To which group (in the community/family/household) was the assistance or help directed to? Were female-headed households given equal attention and help?

d. Did you receive help from your own family/relatives? Which relatives and what types of help did they give? To those who receive remittances (local or abroad), how much did they send before and after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)?

2. Are there any particular groups (women, men, children, elderly, inside or outside the area, etc.) unable to access any external support (formal and informal)? How are they (indicate which group) coping?

3. How did you finance your business/livelihood before Ondoy? After Ondoy? a. How easy/difficult is it to secure business loan now after Ondoy?

What are the sources of credit/loan (formal and informal)? b. Who (male, female) is securing, using, and/or deciding on the use of

the loan? 4. Are households getting into debt to deal with loss of assets or income?

a. How much debt did they have before and after Ondoy? b. Who among the community members have the most debt and why? c. Who do they owe to? Are these the same lenders as before Ondoy?

Have there been any changes to interest rates since Ondoy? d. Who (male/female) are getting into debt or paying the debt? e. How is the loan spent by whom?

5. Who is/are the most vulnerable group/s in the community? Why?

47

Data Set Guide Questions

Among the vulnerable groups in the community, have there been changes in daily habits, such as changes in school, work, eating habits? a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being

removed from school to work) b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more work/risky

work than before) c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per

day, type of meals served) 6. What are the additional tasks/work of families/HHs after Ondoy? Who

(female, male, children, youth, elderly) is assuming or doing the additional task/work (indicate the particular type of task/work?

7. Are there cases/has there been a change in the number of human trafficking cases, particularly of women and children after Ondoy?

Social Relations and Cohesion

Displacement (Priority questions in bold font)

1. Has there been an increase (or reduction) in HH size since Ondoy? Are children (boys, girls) being sent to relatives/provinces? Or, Are relatives (males/females, young/old) arriving from the province/other areas in Manila to help?

2. Are some people from this community still living elsewhere (temporary

shelter, evacuation center)? 3. Why did families decide to return to the neighborhood?

What made them decide to relocate? (probe for temporary and permanent relocation) What made them decide to evacuate or remain in the area?

4. Are there relocation/resettlement options offered by the government?

What are these? How did you know of these programs?

Changes in gender and intergenerational relations (Priority questions in bold font)

1. What are the changes in household roles and outside work roles since Ondoy? What are the new tasks or roles of women? Men? Children? Youth? Elderly?

2. Have men/women taken over particular duties from women/men in some cases?

3. Have women (and the male/female youth/children) become more active in decision making or in group meetings in the community?

4. What did male youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What did female youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What did male youth think/feel about female youth after Ondoy? What did female youth think/feel about male youth after Ondoy?

5. Did the additional burden and difficulties result to violence on women? Resulted to abuses on children and youth?

Social support networks, family-based, community-based or otherwise (Priority questions in bold

1. What forms of support or assistance have male/female children and youth received from family members, relatives, neighbors, community, external groups since Ondoy? a. What are strategies for accessing/securing support/aid?

48

Data Set Guide Questions

font)

b. What are the roles of men, women, children, youth, elderly in securing support/aid?

Prepare 2 matrices: [a] assistance received from within community, and [b] assistance from external groups]

2. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the neighborhood/community more participative now since Ondoy? In what ways are they helping each other? Who is helping who?

3. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when physical facilities such as homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What forms of risks/dangers are different groups exposed to?

4. Have problems or tensions arisen in the neighborhood, perhaps in terms of access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) for reconstruction? Which among men, women, leaders, those who are living inside or outside the area) has access or control over the resource/facility?

Impressions on quality of life in the evacuation center: food service/ ration; health, sanitation, illness, grooming (Priority questions in bold font)

1. How were/are the living conditions (for women, men, children, etc.) in the evacuation site? What basic services (water, light, health) were present/missing in the site?

2. What are the specific needs of women, men, male/female youth/children, elderly etc.? a. Were there specific needs of women, children and elderly

neglected or addressed at the evacuation centers? b. How addressed? By whom? (or) Why neglected?

Local Governance

3. What are your recommendations to improve the living conditions for men, women, children, elderly in evacuation sites?

Relief and recovery response (Priority questions in bold font)

1. What institutions or groups within or outside of the community (formal and informal) responded to the emergency? For each group, a. What were the main activities undertaken by each group

immediately/days after Ondoy? b. How was the relief response implemented? c. How quickly did they mobilize people? How mobilized? Prepare matrix indicating name of group, activities undertaken, how implemented, how mobilized.

2. How did the barangay LGU manage aid/relief received? a. How did the barangay identify aid recipients? b. Which groups/individuals in the community benefited? Why them

in particular? c. What problems, complaints, issues were encountered in identifying

aid recipients, distributing relief, etc? How were these managed? 3. Was the response/assistance from [type of group] effective,

appropriate, sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there groups which received more support, or received support faster?) What concerns or issues about the relief or assistance provided were

49

Data Set Guide Questions

raised by the community? 4. Were there specific needs of women, men children and elderly that

were neglected or addressed by the relief operations? a. How/who identified/asserted the needs? b. How addressed? By whom? (or) Why neglected?

Community contributions to relief and recovery response (Priority questions in bold font)

1. Did the community participate in the relief and recovery response? a. Who/which groups in the community were most involved? Why? b. How were they involved? c. What facilitated the involvement of which group? d. What constrained the involvement of which group?

Prepare matrix. 2. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery

response by GO? by civil society groups? 3. What are the immediate needs of men, women, male/female

youth/children/elderly? 4. What can the community contribute to the relief and response effort?

Who (women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.) could join and what would be the role of each one/group?

Role of civil society in responding to Ondoy (Priority questions in bold font)

1. Who were the informal leaders/groups, or civil society or community-based organisations that actively participated in the relief/early recovery? For each group: a. What were the main activities undertaken? b. How quickly were they able to mobilize? c. Are they specific to certain neighborhoods? d. Do they have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on

these in the response to Ondoy? For example: Did they provide assistance directly (distribution of relief goods) and/or did they act as intermediaries between local government and the community?

Prepare matrix. 2. How were men, women, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in

these community mobilizations? 3. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female

youth/children, rich, poor, etc.) was the relief/recovery response?

Community participation and social accountability (in resettlement sites)

Community participation and social accountability 1. How was the decision made to move? Who chose this particular site?

Was this a family/community decision or barangay/municipality decision? What factors influenced the decision? Because there is space for new housing? Because basic services are available? Because people are able to pursue same livelihoods as before? Other considerations? Were there differences in the factors considered by women and men? Whose interests (men, women, male/female youth/children, etc.) were prioritized?

2. What are the living conditions in this site? Provide a brief description of basic services available and housing conditions. What is missing and what needs improvement so that life can return to normal? (Most pressing needs/concerns of the community (and specific groups

50

Data Set Guide Questions

therein) and how might these differ from those in other sites) 3. How do communities get information of the

resettlement/reconstruction process? (Who are targeted as recipients of the information?) Who is their main interlocutor? Have they (women, men, etc.) been consulted on their future needs in the post-disaster phase? What is their role and what are their linkages to local government?

4. Are there active CBOsin these sites? Who are their members? Leaders? Are vulnerable groups within the community able to participate? (why/why not? What would help them participate more actively?)

2. FGD Guide for Livelihoods Group

Data Set Guide Questions

Personal experience of Ondoy/flooding

1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon Ondoy?

2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? What kind of information did you receive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this information? How much advance warning did you get?)

3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep everyone together? Did you have to move temporarily? How are you able to care for your children/elderly relatives/disabled members now? Who among the family/household was most affected? Why?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you return home? What made you decide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary accommodation? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances?

5. What caused the flooding in your area?

Livelihood and socioeconomic adaptations

Employment/ livelihood

1. What are the main changes in employment and livelihood opportunities of men and women (and children, youth, and elderly) in the community since Ondoy? a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy? b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the same sources

of income or have they changed? What were these changes? c. Are children/youth (male and female) moving out of the community or

relocating to find work? Where do they go and why? What new types of work do they take up?

d. Did you need to learn new skills for these new kinds of work or new occupations?

2. What employment or livelihood opportunities (inside or outside the community) were lost/gained by men and women (children/youth/elderly) because of Ondoy? a. What economic resources and opportunities remain or are now present for

women? Men? Male/female youth, male/female children, male/female elderly?

b. What markets were opened? Lost? c. Whose economic activities gained or lost access to markets? d. What new types of work/livelihood have men, women, male/female

51

Data Set Guide Questions

youth/children, elderly taken up? What are the conditions of work for each of these groups?

3. Were there changes in your daily income? Your monthly income? Are there other sources of income? a. Who manages and decides on how to spend the income? b. What are the usual/regular budget items or expenses (food, medicine,

cigarettes)? c. Which items are not budgeted/allotted? Or which budget items were lessened,

e.g., school allowance?

4. Have there been changes in the division of domestic chores (cooking, taking care of children/elderly/sick, washing clothes, fetching water) among men, women, male children/youth, female children/youth as a result of flooding or change in livelihood? In what ways?

5. With these changes in economic activities, how are the needs of children, pregnant women/women who had just given birth, elderly taken cared of?

6. In what ways were the livelihoods/income sources of [families of] vulnerable groups in the community (such as women, children, persons with disabilities, elderly, etc.) affected by Ondoy? a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy? b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the same sources

of income or have they changed? What were these changes?

Coping strategies/ mechanisms

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with the disruptions in economic activities? By whom (women, men, children, youth, elderly)? What are entailed of them? a. Did we receive government assistance such as cash/food for work? b. Were there assisting groups (such as the church, private sector, NGO/civil

society, schools, OFWs, etc) who helped you? What types of assistance did you receive from what group/organization?

c. To whom/To which group (in the community/family/household) was the assistance or help directed to? Were female-headed households given equal attention and help?

d. Did we receive help from our own family/relatives? Who are these and what types of help did they give? To those who receive remittances (local or abroad), how much did they send before and after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)?

2. Are there any particular groups (women, men, children, elderly, those who living inside and outside the area, etc.) unable to access any external support (formal and informal)? How are they (indicate which group) coping?

3. How did you finance your business/livelihood before Ondoy? After Ondoy? a. How easy/difficult is it to secure business loan now after Ondoy? What are the

sources of credit/loan? b. Who (male, female) is securing, using, and/or deciding on the use of the loan?

4. Are households getting into debt to deal with loss of assets or income? a. How much debt did they have before and after Ondoy? b. Who among the community members have the most debt and why? c. Who do they owe to? Are these the same lenders as before Ondoy? Have

there been any changes to interest rates since Ondoy? d. Who (male/female) are getting into debt or paying the debt? e. How is the loan spent by whom?

52

Data Set Guide Questions

5. Who is/are the most vulnerable group/s in the community? Why? Among the vulnerable groups in the community, have there been changes in daily habits, such as changes in school, work, eating habits? a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being removed

from school to work) b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more/risky work than before) c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per day, type of

meals served) 6. What are the additional tasks/work of families/HHs after Ondoy? Who (female,

male, children, youth, elderly) is assuming or doing the additional task/work (indicate the particular type of task/work)?

7. Are there cases/has there been a change in the number of human trafficking cases, particularly of women and children after Ondoy?

Data Set ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME

Social Relations and Cohesion

Social support networks, family-based, community-based or otherwise

1. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the neighborhood/community more participative now since Ondoy? In what ways are they helping each other? Who is helping who?

2. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when physical facilities such as homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What forms of risks/dangers are different groups exposed to?

3. Have problems or tensions arisen in the neighborhood, perhaps in terms of access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) for reconstruction? Which among men, women, leaders, those who are living inside and outside the area) has access or control over the resource/facility?

Local Governance

Relief and recovery response

1. How did the barangay LGU manage aid/relief received, how did they identify aid recipients? Which groups/individuals in the community benefited and why them in particular?

2. Was the response/assistance from [type of group] effective, appropriate, sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there groups which received more support, or received support faster?) What concerns or issues about the relief or assistance provided were raised by the community?

Community contributions to relief and recovery response

1. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery response by GO and civil society groups?

2. What can the community contribute to the relief and response effort? Who (women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.) could join and what would be the role of each one/group?

Role of civil society in responding to Ondoy

1. Who were the informal leaders, or civil society or community-based organisations that actively participated in the relief/early recovery?

2. What were the main activities undertaken by civil society groups? How quickly were they able to mobilize? Are they specific to certain neighborhoods? Do they have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on these in the response to Ondoy? For example: Did they provide assistance directly (distribution of relief goods) and/or did they act as intermediaries between local government and the

53

Data Set ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME

community? 3. How were men, women, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in these

community mobilizations? 4. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female youth/children, rich,

poor, etc.) was the relief/recovery response?

3. FGD Guide for Youth Group

Data Set Guide Questions

Personal Experience of Ondoy/Flooding

1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon Ondoy? 2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? What kind of information did you

receive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this information? How much advance warning did you get?)

3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep everyone together? Did you have to move temporarily? How are you able to care for your children/elderly relatives/disabled members now? Who among the family/household was most affected? Why?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you return home? What made you decide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary accommodation? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances?

5. What caused the flooding in your area?

Local Governance

Community contributions to relief and recovery response

1. Did the community (children and youth) participate in the relief and recovery response? a. Who/which groups of children/youth in the community were most

involved? Why? b. How were they involved? c. What facilitated the involvement of which group? d. What constrained the involvement of which group? Prepare matrix.

2. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery response by GO? By civil society groups?

3. What are the immediate needs of male/female youth/children? 4. What can children/youth (male/female) contribute to the relief and response

effort? What would be the role of male/female children/youth?

Relief and recovery response

1. How did the barangay LGU manage aid/relief received? a. How did the barangay identify aid recipients? b. Which groups/individuals in the community benefited? Why them in

particular? c. What problems, complaints, issues were encountered in identifying aid

recipients, distributing relief, etc? How were these managed? 2. Was the response/assistance from [type of group] effective, appropriate,

sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there groups which received more support, or received support faster?) What concerns or issues about the relief or assistance provided were raised by the community?

3. Were there specific needs of women, men, children and elderly that were

54

Data Set Guide Questions

neglected or addressed by the relief operations? a. How/who identified/asserted the needs? b. How addressed? By whom? (or) Why neglected?

Role of civil society in responding to Ondoy

1. Who were the informal leaders/groups, or civil society or community-based organisations that actively participated in the relief/early recovery? For each group: a. What were the main activities undertaken? b. How quickly were they able to mobilize? c. Are they specific to certain neighborhoods? d. Do they have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on these in

the response to Ondoy? For example: Did they provide assistance directly (distribution of relief goods) and/or did they act as intermediaries between local government and the community?

Prepare matrix. 2. How were male/female youth/children involved in these community

mobilizations? 3. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female

youth/children, rich, poor, etc.) was the relief/recovery response?

Social Relations and Cohesion

Displacement 1. Are children (boys, girls) being sent to relatives/provinces? Or, are relatives (males/females, young/old) arriving from the province/other areas in Manila to help?

2. Are some people (men, women, children, elderly) from this community still living elsewhere (temporary shelter, evacuation center)?

3. Why did families decide to return to the neighborhood? What made them decide to relocate? (probe for temporary and permanent

relocation) What made them decide to evacuate or remain in the area? What was the most important consideration in making the decision? Who [man, woman, both] decided for the whole family? How were other members of the household involved in decision making? 4. Are there relocation/resettlement options offered by the government? What

are these? How did you know of these programs? 5. Have relations in the family and the community been affected by

displacement, separation, or migration of families? In what ways?

Changes in gender and inter-generational relations

1. What are the new tasks or roles (within/outside home) of male/female children/youth since Ondoy?

2. Have male children/youth taken over particular duties from female children/youth in some cases? Have female children/youth taken over particular duties from male children/youth in some cases?

3. Have male/female youth/children become more active in decision making or in group meetings in the community?

4. What did male youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What did female youth think/feel about themselves after Ondoy? What did male youth think/feel about female youth after Ondoy? What did female youth think/feel about male youth after Ondoy?

5. Did the additional burden and difficulties result to violence on women?

55

Data Set Guide Questions

Resulted to abuses on children and youth?

Social support networks, family-based, community-based or otherwise

1. What forms of support or assistance have male/female children and youth received from family members, relatives, neighbors, community, external groups since Ondoy? a. What are strategies for accessing/securing support/aid? b. What are the roles of men, women, children, youth, elderly in securing

support/aid? Prepare 2 matrices: [a] assistance received from within community, and [b] assistance from external groups]

2. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the neighborhood/community more participative now since Ondoy? In what ways are they helping each other? Who is helping who?

3. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when physical facilities such as homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What forms of risks/dangers are different groups exposed to?

4. Have problems or tensions arisen in the neighborhood, perhaps in terms of access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) for reconstruction? Which (among men, women, leaders, inside or outside the area) has access or control over the resource/facility?

Impressions on quality of life in the evacuation center: food service/ration; health, sanitation, illness, grooming

1. How were/are the living conditions (for women, men, children, etc.) in the evacuation site? What basic services (water, light, health) were present/missing in the site?

2. What are the specific needs of male/female youth/children in evacuation centers? a. Were there specific needs of male/female children and youth neglected or

addressed at the evacuation centers? b.How addressed? By whom? (or) Why neglected?

3. What are your recommendations to improve the living conditions of children and youth (male/female) in evacuation sites?

Data Set ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME

Livelihood and Socioeconomic Adaptations

Employment/ livelihood (Priority questions in bold font)

1. What are the main changes in employment and livelihood opportunities of children and youth (male and female) in the community since Ondoy? a. What were the sources of living here in your area before Ondoy? b. What were the sources of income after Ondoy? Are these still the same

sources of income or have they changed? What were these changes? c. Are children/youth (male and female) moving out of the community or

relocating to find work? Where do they go and why? What new types of work do they take up?

d. Did you/young people/people in general need to learn new skills for these new kinds of work or new occupations?

2. What employment or livelihood opportunities (inside or outside the community) were lost/gained by children/youth because of Ondoy? a. What economic resources and opportunities remain or are now present

for male/female youth, male/female children? b. What markets were opened? Lost?

56

Data Set Guide Questions

c. Whose economic activities gained or lost access to markets? d. What new types of work/livelihood have male/female youth, male/

female children taken up? What are the conditions of work for each of these groups?

3. Were there changes in your daily income? Your monthly income? Are there other sources of income? a. Who manages and decides on how to spend the income? b. What are the usual/regular budget items or expenses (food, medicine,

cigarettes)? c. Which items are not budgeted/allotted? Or which budget items were

lessened, e.g., school allowance? 4. Have there been changes in the division of domestic chores (cooking, taking

care of children/elderly/sick, washing clothes, fetching water) among men, women, male children/youth, female children/youth as a result of flooding or change in livelihood? In what ways?

5. With these changes in economic activities, how are the needs of children, pregnant women/women who had just given birth, elderly taken cared of?

Coping strategies/ mechanisms (Priority questions in bold font)

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with the disruptions in economic activities? By whom (women, men, children, youth, elderly)? What are entailed of them? a. Did you receive government assistance such as cash/food for work? b. Were there assisting groups (such as the church, private sector, NGO/civil society, schools, OFWs, etc) who helped you? What types of assistance did you receive from what group/organization? c. To whom/To which group (in the community/family/household) was the assistance or help directed to? Were female-headed households given equal attention and help?

d. Did you receive help from your own family/relatives? Who are these and what types of help did they give? To those who receive remittances (local or abroad), how much did they send before and after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)?

2. Who is/are the most vulnerable group/s in the community? Why? Among the vulnerable groups in the community, have there been changes in daily habits, such as changes in school, work, eating habits? a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being

removed from school to work) b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more work than before) c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per day, type

of meals served) 3. What are the additional tasks/work of families/HHs after Ondoy? Who

(female, male, children, youth, elderly) is assuming or doing the additional task/work (indicate the particular type of task/work)?

4. Are there cases/has there been a change in the number of human trafficking cases, particularly of women and children after Ondoy?

Community participation and social accountability (in resettlement sites)

Community participation and social accountability 1. How was the decision made to move? Who chose this particular site? Was this

a family/community decision or barangay/municipality decision? What factors influenced the decision? Because there is space for new housing? Because basic services are available? Because people are able to pursue same

57

Data Set Guide Questions

livelihoods as before? Other considerations? Were there differences in the factors considered by women and men? Whose interests (men, women, male/female youth/children, etc.) were prioritized?

2. What are the living conditions in this site? Provide a brief description of basic services available and housing conditions. What is missing and what needs improvement so that life can return to normal? (Most pressing needs/concerns of the community (and specific groups therein) and how might these differ from those in other sites)

3. How do communities get information of the resettlement/reconstruction process? (Who are targeted as recipients of the information?) Who is their main interlocutor? Have they (women, men, etc.) been consulted on their future needs in the post-disaster phase? What is their role and what are their linkages to local government?

4. Are there active community-based organizations in these sites? Who are their members? Leaders? Are vulnerable groups within the community able to participate? (why/why not? What would help them participate more actively?)

4. FGD Guide for Community Leaders Group

Data Set Guide Questions

Personal Experience of Ondoy/Flooding

1. Where were you when Ondoy hit?/What were you doing at the height of typhoon Ondoy?

2. How did you manage to keep your family safe during Ondoy? 3. How is your family now? Where is everyone now? How did you manage to keep

everyone together? How are you able to care for your children/elderly relatives/disabled members now? Who among the family/household was most affected? Why?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you return home? What made you decide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary accommodation? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances?

5. What caused the flooding in your area?

Local Governance

Displacement 1. Has there been an increase (or reduction) in HH size since Ondoy? Are children (boys, girls) being sent to relatives/provinces? Or, Are relatives (males/females, young/old) arriving from the province/other areas in Manila to help?

2. Are some people from this community still living elsewhere (temporary shelter, evacuation center)?

3. Why did families decide to return to the neighborhood? What made them decide to relocate? (probe for temporary and permanent relocation) What made them decide to evacuate or remain in the area? What was the most important consideration in making the decision? Who [man, woman, both] decided for the whole family? How were other members of the household involved in decision making?

58

Data Set Guide Questions

4. Are there relocation/resettlement options offered by the government? What are these? How did you know of these programs?

5. Have relations in the family and the community been affected by displacement, separation, or migration of families? In what ways?

Relief and recovery response

1. Was the community warned in advance about Ondoy? a. What information was received from whom/what type of information

source/channel? b. How was the information relayed? Through what channels? c. Who were the target recipients?

2. What institutions or groups within or outside of the community (formal and informal) responded to the emergency? For each group, a. What were the main activities undertaken by each group immediately/days

after Ondoy? b. How was the relief response implemented? c. How quickly did they mobilize people? How mobilized? Prepare matrix indicating name of group, activities undertaken, how implemented, how mobilized.

3. How did the barangay LGU manage aid/relief received? a. How did the barangay identify aid recipients? b. Which groups/individuals in the community benefited? Why them in

particular? c. What problems, complaints, issues encountered in identifying aid recipients,

distributing relief, etc? How were these managed? 4. Was the response/assistance from [type of group] effective, appropriate,

sufficient, immediate, and equitable? Why? (Were there groups which received more support, or received support faster?) What concerns or issues about the relief or assistance provided were raised by the community?

5. Were there specific needs of women, men, children and elderly that were neglected or addressed by the relief operations? a. How/who identified/asserted the needs? b. How addressed? By whom? (or) Why neglected?

Community contributions to relief and recovery response

1. Did the community participate in the relief and recovery response? a. Who/which groups in the community were most involved? Why? b. How were they involved? c. What facilitated the involvement of which group? d. What constrained the involvement of which group? Prepare matrix.

2. What are your recommendations to improve relief and recovery response/to avert future disasters by GO? by civil society groups?

3. What are the immediate needs of men, women, male/female youth/children/elderly?

4. What can the community contribute to the relief and response effort? Who (women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.) could join and what would be the role of each one/group?

Role of civil society in

1. Who were the informal leaders/groups, or civil society or community-based organisations that actively participated in the relief/early recovery?

59

Data Set Guide Questions

responding to Ondoy

For each group: a. What were the main activities undertaken? b. How quickly were they able to mobilize? c. Are they specific to certain neighborhoods? d. Do they have links across neighborhoods? Have they drawn on these in the

response to Ondoy? For example: Did they provide assistance directly (distribution of relief goods) and/or did they act as intermediaries between local government and the community?

Prepare matrix. 2. How were men, women, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in these

community mobilizations? 3. How effective and appropriate (for women, men, male/female youth/children,

rich, poor, etc.) Was the relief/recovery response? 4. What is the relationship of these organizations with local government structures?

Has this changed since Ondoy? For example: Is there a history of collaboration (on what activities?), is this collaboration new (restricted to the relief assistance after Ondoy?) Is the role one of advocacy, or service delivery (complementing that of government), etc.?

5. How were women, men, male/female youth/children, etc. involved in these collaborations? In what venues/levels (formal/informal discussions, barangay/municipal/city levels) were these different groups involved?

ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME

Social Relations and Cohesion

Social support networks, family-based, community-based or otherwise

1. Are people (women, men, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the neighborhood/community more participative now since Ondoy? In what ways are they helping each other? Who is helping who?

2. Do people (men, women, children/male/female youth/children, elderly) in the community feel more/less secure since Ondoy, when physical facilities such as homes, lighting, roads were destroyed? What forms of risks/dangers are different groups exposed to?

3. Have problems or tensions arisen in the neighborhood, perhaps in terms of access to community resources/facilities (e.g.,water pump) for reconstruction? Which among men, women, leaders, those who are living inside or outside the area has access or control over the resource/facility?

Impressions on quality of life in the evacuation center: food service/ration; health, sanitation, illness, grooming;

1. How were/are the living conditions (for women, men, children, etc.) in the evacuation site? What basic services (water, light, health) were present/missing in the site?

2. What are the specific needs of women, men, male/female youth/children, etc.? a. Were there specific needs of women, children and elderly neglected or

addressed at the evacuation centers? b. How addressed? By whom? (or) Why neglected?

3. What are your recommendations to improve the living conditions in evacuation sites?

Livelihood and Socioeconomic Adaptations

Coping strategies/

1. What strategies do HHs/families adopt in order to cope with the disruptions in economic activities? By whom (women, men, children, youth, elderly)? What are

60

ASK IF THERE IS STILL TIME

mechanisms entailed of them? a. Did we receive government assistance such as cash/food for work? b. Were there assisting groups (such as the church, private sector, NGO/civil

society, schools, OFWs, etc) who helped you? What types of assistance did you receive from what group/organization?

c. To whom/To which group (in the community/family/household) was the assistance or help directed to? Were female-headed households given equal attention and help?

d. Did you receive help from your own family/relatives? Which relatives and what types of help did they give? To those who receive remittances (local or abroad), how much did they send before and after Ondoy (US$ of PhP)?

2. Who is/are the most vulnerable group/s in the community? Why? Among the vulnerable groups in the community, have there been changes in daily habits, such as changes in school, work, eating habits? a. Are there changes in schooling patterns/habits? (e.g., children being removed

from school to work) b. Are there changes in work patterns? (e.g., doing more/risky work than before) c. Are there changes in eating habits (e.g., the number of meals per day, type of

meals served)

Community participation and social accountability (in resettlement sites)

Community participation and social accountability 1. How was the decision made to move? Who chose this particular site? Was this a

family/community decision or barangay/municipality decision? What factors influenced the decision? Because there is space for new housing? Because basic services are available? Because people are able to pursue same livelihoods as before? Other considerations? Were there differences in the factors considered by women and men? Whose interests (men, women, male/female youth/children, etc.) were prioritized?

2. What are the living conditions in this site? Provide a brief description of basic services available and housing conditions. What is missing and what needs improvement so that life can return to normal? (Most pressing needs/concerns of the community (and specific groups therein) and how might these differ from those in other sites)

3. How do communities get information of the resettlement/reconstruction process? (Who are targeted as recipients of the information?) Who is their main interlocutor? Have they (women, men, etc.) been consulted on their future needs in the post-disaster phase? What is their role and what are their linkages to local government?

4. Are there active community-based organizations in these sites? Who are their members? Leaders? Are vulnerable groups within the community able to participate? (why/why not? What would help them participate more actively?)

61

Key Informant Interviews (KII) KII Guide for Interviewee from a highly vulnerable group (as indentified by the community)

A. General background information and personal experience of Ondoy

Suggested questions 1. How long have you lived in this community?

How did you come to live in this community?

2. Where were you when Ondoy hit? How did you manage to keep safe during the typhoon?

3. How is your family? Where is everyone at the

moment?

Probing questions (additional information) 1. Where are you (parents/grand-parents) originally

from? What was it about this neighborhood that made you decide to settle here (rather than somewhere else?)

2. What kind of information did you receive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this information? How much advance warning did you get?)

3. How did you manage to keep everyone together?

How are you able to care for your children/elderly relatives/disabled members now?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did

you return home? What made you decide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary accommodations? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances?

B. Livelihoods and coping strategies

Suggested questions 1. How damaged was your house? Your

possessions? 2. Can you tell me what a typical “work week” was

like for you before Ondoy? What about now?

3. How do you feel about the changes since Ondoy?

4. What kind of support have you received from government since Ondoy? (national government or local government)

5. What about NGOs or other groups (church)? What kind of help have you received from

Probing questions (additional information) 1. In what condition is your house now? Can you

describe for me the main (valuable) items that were damaged during the floods? What were you able to recover from your possessions?

2. How far away from home do you go to find work?

(Did you/do you do any work from home?) Who employs you? How much do you earn on average? What about other members of the family? (Before and after Ondoy)

3. Is your/family’s earning sufficient for your basic

expenses? What kinds of expenses are you adjusting/reducing? Does anyone else in your family work? Who works? What kind of work do

62

them?

6. Who else has been helping you to cope? Can you tell what kind of help you are receiving from your family/friends for example?

7. What else are you/the family doing to deal with

the situation since Ondoy?

they do? How about the children? Are they helping? In what way?

4. Have you thought about leaving this area? If yes, where would you think of going? What type of work would you do if you moved (would you be able to continue with your existing work/job?)

If the answer is yes - What do you think about the help you have received from government/from other groups? Or If the answer is no – What makes it difficult for you to receive help? If some help from family is being received - Do you have relatives living/working abroad? Do they usually send you money? How much? How much since Ondoy? Did you get some help from friends abroad? For example – Are you able to borrow? How much (did you borrow before?) For what? From whom? Are you able to make your payments? If they had loans/were in debt before Ondoy: Were you in debt at the time Ondoy struck? From whom? Are you able to continue payments? What new arrangements have been made regarding payments? Have other members of the family taken on more work? Who and what kind of work are they doing? How about children, how are they helping?

C. Social relations and cohesion (looking at the participation of vulnerable groups in community activities)

Suggested questions 1. Could you give me an example of activities

people in this neighborhood have been doing together since Ondoy?

Or Could you tell me about the activities the community associations have been doing in the last two weeks. Identify the associations. Clarify which did what.

Or When was the last time the neighborhood did

something together as a group? Could you

Probing questions (additional information) 1. What about before the floods? What kinds of

things did people used to do together? What has changed/not changed in the way neighbors behave towards each other since the floods? Have you participated in these activities? What was your role? Or What made you participate/not participate? What would have helped you to participate?

63

describe it for me? 2. What is the security situation like since Ondoy?

Or How do you feel about the safety of your family since Ondoy?

2. What do you think contributed to make the

neighborhood safer/less safe?

D. Local Governance and Social Accountability

Suggested questions 1. How/Was the local government before Ondoy

able to deliver basic services to the community? If yes, how? How did it respond during/after the floods?

2. What is your relationship like with the local

government? Did you approach barangay leaders for assistance? Other government leaders and offices? If yes, who/what offices? what was their response? If not, why not?

3. How do you feel about the way in which

support was distributed after the floods? (by local government/by civil society organizations)

Probing questions (additional information) 1. What structures in the barangay are in place to

respond to disaster (e.g., barangay disaster/emergency response team), to maintain security, provide health services, mediate conflicts – structures which are needed after the floods?

2. What major activities were implemented by the

barangay to respond to the disaster? 3. What kind of information did you receive about

the help being provided? Did some groups receive more/less support than others? If yes – which ones? Why do you think they received more/less help? Did you have any specific complaints? How did you handle that (whom did you complain to? What happened as a result?)

E. Concluding remarks and closing 1. How can the local government support be improved? 2. How can the support provided by NGOs be improved? 3. What are your most pressing needs to get your life back to normal now? How can government/NGOs

help? 4. Are you aware of the government’s resettlement schemes? What information do you have about them

(from whom?)? What do you think about these schemes?

KII guide for Community Leader (Community Association or People’s Organization)

A. General background information and personal experience of Ondoy

Suggested questions 1. How long have you lived in (name of barangay)?

How did you come to live in this community?

Probing questions (additional information) 1. Where are you (parents/grand-parents) originally

from? What was it about this neighborhood that

64

2. Where were you when Ondoy hit? How did you

manage to keep safe during the typhoon? 3. How is your family? Where is everyone at the

moment?

made you decide to settle here (rather than somewhere else?)

2. What kind of information did you receive on the storm before it hit? (Who provided this information? How much advance warning did you get?)

3. How did you manage to keep everyone together?

How are you able to care for your children/elderly relatives/disabled members now?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did you return home? What made you decide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary accommodations? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances?

B. Social relations and cohesion (looking at the participation of vulnerable groups in community activities)

Suggested questions 1. Could you give me an example of activities

people in this neighborhood have been doing together since Ondoy?

Or Could you tell me about the activities the

community associations have been doing in the last two weeks. Identify the associations. Clarify which organizations did what activities.

Or When was the last time the neighborhood did

something together as a group? Could you describe it for me?

2. What is the security situation like since Ondoy?

Or How do you feel about the safety of your family since Ondoy?

3. What are the causes of the disaster from the

point of view of the community and leaders? What steps has the barangay taken to avert future disasters?

Probing questions (additional information) 1. What about before the floods? What kinds of

things did people used to do together? What has changed/not changed in the way neighbors behave towards one another since the floods? What are the groups that are more active in these activities? What are the groups that have not participated? How do you explain these differences?

2. What do you think contributed to make the

neighborhood safer/less safe?

65

C. Local Governance and Social Accountability

Suggested questions 1. How do you feel about the way in which support

was distributed after the floods? (by local government/by civil society organizations) Did you work closely with the barangay captain/barangay councilor? Mayor’s office? The governor’s office? National government offices before Ondoy? Which ones and in what ways? If not, why not?

2. What were the groups in the community that

participated in the distribution of support? What was their role? Were there any differences between men and women in distribution of support?

3. How do you feel about the collaboration/What is

your relationship with local government like? With other civil society organizations, local associations, church groups, others?

Probing questions (additional information) 1. What kind of information did you provide about

the post-flood assistance? What kind of information did you receive from local government on the post-flood assistance? What about early warning information? What kind of information did you/communities receive? From whom? Before Ondoy, did you have any training in disaster management or prevention? If yes, from whom? Was it useful? If yes, in what ways? If not, why not?

2. Did you receive support from groups outside the

community? Who were these groups? How did they help? Did some groups receive more/less support than others? If yes – which ones? Why do you think they received more/less help? Did you have any specific complaints? How did you handle that complaint (who did you complain to? What happened as a result?)

3. What was your relationship with them like before

Ondoy? How about now? What do you feel has changed (if anything?)

D. Concluding remarks and closing

1. How can the local government support be improved? 2. What are the most pressing needs of the communities to get their lives back to normal? How can government/NGOs help? 3. Are you aware of the government’s resettlement schemes? What information do you have about them (from whom?)? What do you think about these schemes? Are you or your association participating in any of the decision making on this? If not, would you like to? If yes, how are your views being treated by the Government? By NGOs?

66

KII Guide Tool for Barangay Captain

A. General background information and personal experience of Ondoy

Suggested questions 1. How long have you lived in this community? How did you come to live in this community? 2. Where were you when Ondoy hit? How did you

manage to keep safe during the typhoon? 3. How is your family? Where is everyone at the

moment?

Probing questions (additional information) 1. Where are you (parents/grand-parents) originally

from? What was it about this neighborhood that made you decide to settle here (rather than somewhere else?)

2. What kind of information did you receive on the

storm before it hit? (Who provided this information? How much advance warning did you get?)

3. How did you manage to keep everyone

together? How are you able to care for your children/elderly relatives/disabled members now?

4. Did you have to move temporarily? When did

you return home? What made you decide to return? Who in your family has now returned home? Are there still members of your family in temporary accommodations? Do you expect them to return? When? Under what circumstances?

B. Social relations and cohesion (looking at the participation of vulnerable groups in community activities)

Suggested questions 1. Could you give me an example of activities

people in this neighborhood have been doing together since Ondoy?

Or Could you tell me about the activities the community associations have been doing in the last two weeks. Identify the associations. Clarify which organizations did what activities.

Or When was the last time the neighborhood did something together as a group? Could you describe it for me?

2. What is the security situation like since Ondoy?

Or How do you feel about the safety of your family since Ondoy?

Probing questions (additional information) 1. What about before the floods? What kinds of

things did people used to do together? What has changed/not changed in the way neighbors behave towards one another since the floods? What are the groups that are more active in these activities? What are the groups that have not participated? How do you explain these differences?

2. What do you think contributed to make the

neighborhood safer/less safe?

67

C. Local Governance and Social Accountability

Suggested questions 1. What structures in the barangay are in place to

respond to disaster, maintain security, provide health services, mediate conflicts – structures needed after the floods. How did the barangay respond?

2. What are the causes of the disaster from the

point of view of the community and leaders? What steps has the barangay taken to avert future disasters?

3. How do you feel about the way in which support

was distributed after the floods? (by local government/by civil society organizations)

Did you work closely with the Mayor’s office? The governor’s office? National government offices? Which ones? With adjacent barangay captains? If yes, how? If not, why not?

4. What were the main challenges you faced in

providing assistance? 5. What were the groups in the community that

participated in the distribution of support? What was their role? Were there any differences between men and women in distribution of support?

6. How do you feel about the collaboration with

civil society organizations, local associations, church groups, others?

Probing questions (additional information) 1. What major activities were implemented by the barangay to respond to the disaster? 2. Before Ondoy, did you have any training in disaster management or prevention? If yes, from whom? Was it useful? If yes, in what ways? If no, why not? 3. What kind of information did you provide about the post-flood assistance? What means did you use? To whom was this information targeted? How did you reach the most vulnerable groups? What about immediately before the floods? What kind of information were you able to provide communities? 4. Did you receive support from groups outside the community? Who were these groups? How did they help? 5. Did some groups receive more/less support than others? If yes – which ones? Why do you think they received more/less help? Did you receive any specific complaints? From whom and how did you handle these complaints? 6. What was your relationship with them like before Ondoy? How about now? What do you feel has changed (if anything?)

D. Concluding remarks and closing

1. How can the local government support be improved?, 2. How can the support provided by NGOs be improved? 3. Do you know what plans the government/local government unit has for this community? What are they? What is your opinion of them? Are any leaders or members of the community participating in the decision-making? How? 4. What are the most pressing needs of the barangay at this stage? How can government/other stakeholders provide support? 5. Are you providing communities in your area with any information about resettlement schemes? What information are you providing? To whom and how is it being received?

68

Community Profiling Checklist

To understand community life before Ondoy.

Collect information through observation, secondary data (eg., barangay profile, health or school records) and 1 or 2 key informant interview with barangay and community leaders.

DATA SET PARTICULARS

Physical Map with boundaries; names and number of residential clusters (sitios);

topography and natural resources (rivers, springs, marshland, water sources, mountains, etc)

Land area; land use

Road network

Type and number of community infrastructure and facilities (basic utilities, road, water system, health, educational, recreational, communication, commercial facilities, agricultural, etc.)

Usual mode of access; distance to/from town center; types of transport facilities; frequency of trips

Dry/wet season months

Existing housing arrangement

Types of housing materials used: temporary, permanent, one floor, 2

nd

floor, etc

Social history

History of the barangay: year founded

Religion, ethnicity, languages spoken/written

educational level

means of livelihood: major source of income/occupation; other sources of income/occupation percent of HHs in what source of income

access to credit, microenterprise development

Sources of water; percent of HHs obtaining (potable/domestic use) water from what type of water source?

Means of waste disposal; number of HHs with sanitary latrines

means of disseminating information among the members of the community

access to electricity

Local governance

presence of community organizations; active or inactive; HOAs, POs, NGOs, youth

Barangay structures (Barangay council, BDC, SK, Barangay Emergency Response Team, etc)

Barangay plans, ordinances on solid waste management, disaster response, risk reduction

access to services (internal and external): types of groups/agencies providing what types of services

Population Total population, male/female, age groups, PWD, elderly

No. of households, average HH size