SEPARATING THE DISASTER RISK REDUCTION FUNCTION FROM THE DISASTER RESPONSE FUNCTION

SEPARATING THE DISASTER RISK REDUCTION FUNCTION FROM THE DISASTER RESPONSE FUNCTION

If there’s one thing that recent disasters in the Philippines have made clear, it’s this: while we have made progress in our disaster-related ecosystem, there is still room for reform. And perhaps it’s time we take a hard look at the very structure of how we deal with disasters—specifically, how we combine disaster risk reduction (DRR) and disaster response under a single agency, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC).

As it stands today, both DRR and response functions are bundled under the NDRRMC, a body established by Republic Act 10121 to spearhead disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. While this framework has brought coordination, it may also be causing confusion—because disaster prevention and disaster response are not the same.

Frankly, I’ve always been uncomfortable with the term “disaster management”. How exactly do you manage a disaster? Disasters are not meetings to organize or systems to streamline—they are crises that upend lives, destroy communities, and challenge institutions. What we can manage are our responses to disasters. What we should reduce are the risks that lead to disasters. These are two separate tasks—requiring different mindsets, tools, and areas of expertise.

The Case for Separation

Here’s a thought: What if we place disaster risk reduction and mitigation under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and shift disaster response and recovery to the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)?

You may not see it the way I do, but risk reduction—especially when it comes to landslides, floods, droughts, and oil spills—is an environmental function. These are areas where prevention and mitigation are critical, and that’s where agencies like the DENR, PAGASA, PHIVOLCS, and the DOST come in. In fact, the DOST already spearheads projects like Dynaslope, GeoRiskPH, and Project SARAI—all of which are focused on anticipating hazards and minimizing their impact. So why not formally place DRR under the DENR?

Even manmade disasters, such as oil spills or toxic chemical leaks, fall squarely within the environmental realm. DENR already regulates and monitors industries that pose such risks.

Now let’s talk about disaster response. When floods hit or earthquakes strike, who responds first? It’s the local PNP, the Bureau of Fire Protection, and the local government units (LGUs). These are agencies under the DILG. Even when national mobilization is needed, it’s the DILG Secretary who can more quickly call upon mayors and governors than, say, the Department of National Defense (DND).

Civilian Leadership in Disaster Response

Why the DILG and not the DND? Globally, there’s a clear shift toward civilian-led disaster response, leaving the military to support rather than lead. In our case, while the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) under the DND plays a crucial coordinating role, the actual boots on the ground are mostly civilian. The DND should support, not spearhead, response efforts.

This doesn’t mean removing the DND from the picture entirely. On the contrary, the OCD, though attached to the DND, can still function as a coordinating body, especially when military assets are needed. But overall operational control should lie with the DILG, whose mandate and structure are better suited for rapid deployment and coordination at the local level.

Drawing the Line

So, where do we draw the line?

At the risk of oversimplifying, the DENR should be responsible for preventing disasters or minimizing their environmental impact, while the DILG should manage the actual response when a disaster occurs. This division would bring clarity, accountability, and efficiency.

Of course, we must still retain the NDRRMC, at least until RA 10121 is amended. The NDRRMC remains essential as a policy and coordination body that ensures both sides—the preventive and the reactive—are talking to each other.

Toward a Better System

In truth, this is not about breaking things apart for the sake of it. It’s about refining our system so that each agency can focus on its core strengths. After all, resilience is built not just on good responses, but on good preparation—and that preparation must come from the sectors that know the risks best.

And in the final analysis, this is about balancing efficiency with empathy. We must move away from frameworks that enrich a few and toward systems that empower communities. Because in disasters, it’s the people—not the paperwork—that matter most.

Maybe it’s time we rethink our structure. Maybe it's time to separate disaster risk reduction from disaster response—and bring clarity to chaos before the next big one hits.

Let’s not wait for another disaster to force us into action. Let’s start thinking about this now.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

07-09-2025Top of Form