Angelo Kairos T. dela Cruz / Millennial Universe
IN an unprecedented and unfathomable manner, Supertyphoon Yolanda (international code name Haiyan) laid waste to a large part of the Philippines three years ago. Our country’s systems and resources proved insufficient to respond to the needs of its citizens affected by the supertyphoon, but the international community fortunately came to the rescue.
Yet, the fact remains that both the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the Commission on Audit have reported irregularities in the use of Yolanda funds. Just two weeks ago, Social Welfare Secretary Judy M. Taguiwalo announced that around 200,000 Yolanda survivors have yet to receive emergency shelter assistance.
The discussion is slowly becoming a blame game between local implementers and the national government. The possibility remains that those who have provided aid might have double-counted and overreported their contributions.
We keep on trivializing the impoverished state of our fellow Filipinos without addressing one of the root causes of their plight—the lack of a solid and country-led accountability system. This has resulted to massive inconsistencies with our data references, automatically waiving our right to ask for more transparency with contributors and failing to complement our national budget with other sources of financing.
The problem is not the absence of data; it is the lack of sound systems that would allow us to consolidate and assess the multiple data sets that we have. If we compare the reports from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-Ocha), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-Development Assistance Committee (Oecd-DAC), and the government’s own Foreign Aid Transparency Hub (FAiTH), the discrepancies in the figures and reporting entities can create an unnecessary contest of data and potential misinterpretation.
Look no further than their totals of Yolanda aid pledges: According to UN-Ocha, Oecd-DAC and FAiTH, they add up to $865,151,866; $845,686,949; and $1,643,038,278, respectively.
Reporting entities from foreign countries and multilateral entities also differ across the three data sources due to the design of each reporting system. FAiTH differentiates between cash and noncash contributions, while UN-Ocha and the OECD-DAC do not. FAiTH, being a government-led source of data, tallied pledges that almost double that of the UN-Ocha and the OECD-DAC. Country reports also differ across these datasets, with differences as high as over a thousand percent.
So which is the most accurate source of Yolanda aid data?
How much has the government received directly, compared to what it received through intermediary foreign government agencies and humanitarian groups? How much of the aid was in cash and how much was given in kind? And how extensively do these reports reflect actual implementation and impact?
No one really knows, and it is futile to assert that one source is better over the other. But here are some steps we should consider seriously if we want to make every contribution—previous and future ones—count.
First, the Philippines needs to set up a country-led monitoring and reporting platform that consolidates and evaluates all these data sets to ensure consistency and uniformity of reference. The Climate Change Commission must uphold its mandate as the climate finance information hub of the country.
Second, whichever agency that would be tasked in maintaining the data must be empowered to ensure interagency cooperation. Using a single reference point would allow better planning and more responsive budgeting of national and international sources. Third, the legislative branch must do its part in upholding accountability. Oversight bodies in the Lower House and the Senate must have a clear and strong voice in establishing the shared responsibility between contributors and recipient governments. Assuming that responsibility on the receiving end will allow the Philippines to validate reports and leverage better terms in the future.
Climate projections imply that Yolanda and even the more recent Typhoon Lawin will not be the last of their kind to wreak havoc on the Philippines. Preparing for the next extreme weather and climate event should, therefore, involve not only better planning for adaptation and resilience but also institutional strengthening of the government’s resource management and accountability practices.
Angelo Kairos T. de la Cruz is an associate for Climate Policy at the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities, a policy group in the Philippines promoting low-carbon development initiatives, sustainable energy solutions and fair climate policy in vulnerable countries. The views he expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect the BusinessMirror’s.