SWOT Analysis Nika

INTRODUCTION:
Disasters in the past, measured during the period between 1900-2014, illustrate
extreme spatial variability. Frequency and the extent of impacts are unevenly distributed
across the regions, with majority of the events affecting Central Luzon, Cordillera
Administrative Region and the Central Visayas (Doroteo, 2015). On average, about 20
tropical cyclones enter the Philippines waters each year, with approximately eight or
nine making landfall (ESCAP/WMO, 2009; Bankoff, 2003). They are also the largest
contributors to disaster damage. Of all the disasters, cyclones and the accompanying
landslides, storm surges and floods have caused the largest losses of life and property
(Huigen & Jens, 2006; Bankoff, 2003), mostly because majority of the population is
living within 60km from the coast. However, 80% of all the damages and deaths caused
by typhoons between 1970-2014 have been caused by 6 super-scale events, Haiyan
included (Espada, 2018). Based on vulnerability studies, the most vulnerable regions to
tropical cyclones in the country are the National Capital Region (NCR), Southern
Tagalog, Cagayan Valley, Central Luzon, the Cordillera Administrative Region, and
Bicol Province (Cruz, et al., 2017). Visayas and Mindanao are likewise becoming more
at risk due to an increasing number of tropical cyclones entering the southern part of the
country.
With all these, I can see the need to address and identify the Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats of RA 10121.
II. SWOT Analysis
A. Strengths:

1. Strong legal framework and policy regime cutting across sectors

2. Extensive Institutional Infrastructure already in place

3. Rich experience, good practices, and related learning

4. Availability of resources under different programs
B. Weaknesses:
1. Lack of common multi-sectoral vision for disaster management, and related

frameworks, perspectives, plans, and benchmarks

2. The disconnect between policy and practice

3. Primary focus on disaster response and relief, and lack of attention on
risk reduction

4. Gaps in policy, design, and delivery of training and capacity-building programs
C. Opportunities:

1. Various national flagship programs provide a ready platform

2. Growing capacity-building institutions and related infrastructure are
readily available

3. A strong network of civil society organizations is already working on the subject
in vulnerable parts of the country

4. Community organizations are emerging in a fast-growing movement and
can form the base of the national capacity-building effort
D. Threats:
1. Investment in long-term benefits of disaster risk reduction is overshadowed

opportunity costs of short-term projects with immediate gains

2. Ongoing trends of unsafe development are creating risk at a pace faster than risk
reduction efforts SWOT Analysis is carried out in further detail along the primary
areas of the study and some cross cutting issues:
2.1. Training and capacity building

2.2. Research and education
2.3. Public awareness and media
2.4. Organization/institutional development
III. Conclusion:
Strengthening local institutional capacity for DRR is among the highest priorities.
Technical support from national agencies, academia and DRR professionals to LGUs
are the most critical factors to aid in the tangible implementation of DRR actions at local
level. Understanding different capacities and constraints of local governments are
critical. Having no sufficient capability to conduct multi-sectoral risk assessments,
limited funding, and low commitment are among common challenges. Innovative
working modality should be explored and established to ensure all LGUs, especially
those in high-risk zones, are equipped with what is needed for their readiness.
Furthermore, involving local communities and leaders in the official DRR and CR
infrastructure is critical to maintain the mainstreaming of contextualized knowledge, and
to avoid top-down approaches when reducing risks. Local governments and authorities
are often knowledgeable about the local needs and gaps, and their support in the
operations, especially in the remote regions, is important to guarantee the actualization
of intended aspirations for future resilience and sustainability not only in recovery, but
also in preparedness and mitigation.
IV. Recommendation:
There is a need to develop a harmonized and comprehensive planning process with

clear understanding of the linkages between DRR, CR and sustainable development at
the local level. More often than not, mainstreaming the policies, frameworks and plans
with those of the local governments is difficult due to lack of sub-national level capacity
and resources. Furthermore, the scope of different planning tools designed at the
national level (including comprehensive land use plans (CLUPs), local DRRM Plan, etc.)
are overwhelming for the LGUs, and do not always rather ease local planning
processes. It is critical to be realistic on DRR mandates and obligations imposed on the
LGUs.

Cross-cutting issues
Context and Capacity Analysis
Situational analysis, investment analysis, capacity needs assessment
and communicationsneeds assessment comprise the study of context and capacity. The
extent of vulnerability tonatural hazards is a primary determinant, but issues of small
and localised disasters alsoemerged as a significant concern in the field study. The
impacts of climate variability areclearly visible in all the states, and they pose a serious
challenge for risk reduction systemsthat are based on addressing predictable risks. It is
found that the availability of financialresources has increased substantially both at
national and state levels, but brings with itchallenges of managing resources at a large
scale and in a multi-hazard, multi-sectoral andmulti-level manner. Capacity constraints
are found to be severe at all levels, including thecapacity to build capacity.Specific
concerns at the local level context arise from the high proportion of families
belowpoverty line, prevalence of structurally vulnerable housing, lack of disaster
mitigation andpreparedness measures, and the large scale needs of disaster response
and recovery wheredisasters are recurrent and of large magnitude. Climate change is
bringing with it a new setof shocks and stresses, which are still not clearly understood,
resulting in an urgent need tostudy and design systems for climate change adaptation.
Compound disasters, acombination of a number of linked events, is another emerging
risk that is following thepathways of rapid and large scale development. While studying
the potential solutions forrisk reduction, indigenous knowledge emerged as a
very significant local resource, whichwith appropriate support of technological
developments can provide affordable andsustainable answers.The national financial
system for disaster management comprises of the national DisasterResponse Fund
(NDRF), the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF), and various programmesand
schemes that make available resources to states as per their need. For the purpose
ofdisaster risk reduction, funding can also be tapped from various developmental
programmesthat are closely aligned to the subject, since risk reduction is more
developmental in natureas opposed to disaster response. The private sector has also
emerged as a significantresource, and the value of community action and the role of the
informal sector recognisedas valuable elements of a holistic disaster risk reduction
approach.The stakeholder analysis follows the Authority, Responsibility, Accountability
and Capacity(ARAC) framework, and reviews the role of government, non-government,
academic,corporate, media, and community role-players in detail. The resultant
framework ofinstitutions forms the basis for a capacity needs assessment. The key
dimensions of capacityare taken as organisational structure, culture and competencies;
human resources; financialresources; information management, infrastructure
and community coping mechanisms.While existing systems for capacity building were
found in place across all the dimensions,significant gaps were identified across all
dimensions in view of the large scale and variablenature of disaster risks the country
faces. Capacity gaps and needs were found at the policylevel across various
organisations studied, at the district and sub-district level in theadministrative systems,
and also at the local governance and community level. Similarly,communication needs
assessment reviewed the tools and media presence, nature andoutreach, and found
that despite variable penetration levels there is very significantpotential of the media to
address the community level and help build capacity from thebottom up and facilitate
the implementation of capacity building programmes by preparingthe community
appropriately. Messaging, deployment of appropriate media and two-waycommunication
are some key areas where strategic interventions are required.

SWOT Analysis Nika

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SWOT Analysis Nika

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SWOT Analysis Nika

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION:

II. SWOT Analysis

1. Lack of common multi-sectoral vision for disaster management, and related

1. Investment in long-term benefits of disaster risk reduction is overshadowed

2.1. Training and capacity building

There is a need to develop a harmonized and comprehensive planning process with

You might also like