High Vulnerability Low Response
Content
HIGH VULNERABILITY, LOW RESPONSE: Dissecting the flood problem in Metro Manila
Written by: Karl Barlaan
June 2011
HIGH VULNERABILITY, LOW RESPONSE: Dissecting the flood problem in Metro Manila
“Human neglect has contributed greatly to serious flooding ... In the metropolis ... the drainage system is ‘insufficient’ and ‘century-old.’ Even the government—notably Malacanang—is guilty of occupying areas that should serve as channels for floodwaters.”
The vulnerabilities are a given. The Philippines is an archipelagic nation located at the heart of the typhoon belt with more than 20 typhoons entering and leaving its “area of responsibility” annually. Its readiness, however, to respond to these natural calamities leaves a lot to be desired. The 2004 Dartmouth College Flood Archive (Global Register of Major Flood Events) lists 194 events, 9 of which occurred in the Philippines. Areas cited, including Metro Manila, sustained total estimated damages of $127.2 million (PhP5.3 billion) with more than 2 million individuals being displaced from their homes. Tropical cyclones, monsoonal and seasonal rains caused the said devastation. But even in Metro Manila – the country’s center of government, commerce, industry, and supposedly operational preparedness – is not exempt from floods that accompany this seasonal phenomenon. Metro Manila: A history of vulnerability According to the International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) in a study, “Vulnerability and Flooding in Metro Manila” (Greg Bankoff, 2003), “The National Capital Region (NCR) is situated in a semialluvial floodplain encompassing a land area of 636 square kilometres, open to Manila Bay on the west and to a large lake, Laguna de Bay, on the south-east. As such, it now constitutes a vast urbanized drainage basin that experiences frequent inundations from overflowing rivers and stormwaters, rendering the existing system of esteros, modified natural channels constructed during the colonial period, inadequate. Despite its vulnerability, however, rapid urbanization continues unabated. Solutions are difficult to realize as the metropolitan area is currently divided into twelve cities and five towns with a total population of 10,491,000 and a density of 16,495 persons per square kilometre.” In fact, flooding has been so pervasive in the Metro that occurrences have been recorded since at least the nineteenth century, the first major one happening in 1942. According to the IAAS, major others subsequently occurred in 1948, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1977, 1986, and 1988. Typhoon Miding in 1986 resulted “floodwaters extending to over 16 percent of the total area of Metro Manila” Worsening situation Matters have not improved much of late said the study with “thousands of Metro Manila residents stranded on the streets or trapped in vehicles all night after heavy rains on 28 July 1995, and major flooding incidents happened again on 28 May 1996 and 18 August 1997.” A 29 March 2011 Manila Standard Today special report, “Arrested development: Climate change readiness in the Philippines, writes, “In 2006, the World Health Organization reported that ‘a series of destructive typhoons hit the Philippines during the last quarter of 2006 causing widespread loss of lives, injuries and extensive damage to property. These were named Cimaron, Xangsane, Durian and Utor (local codenames: Paeng, Milenyo, Reming and Seniang, respectively). The total death toll from these typhoons reached more than 1000 persons and the number of injured were 3163.’
Milenyo directly hit Metro Manila – the country’s center of government and commerce where disaster preparedness should be at its operational best – killing at least 18 people, closing offices and financial markets, damaging property, and causing a Luzon-wide power outage. In 2009, Ondoy (Ketsana) came depositing 455 millimeters (17.9 inches) of rain on Metro Manila in all but 24 hours – the most amount of rainfall in 42 years. Again, the WHO reported, ‘the storm flooded Manila, along with villages and roads. More than 435,000 persons are known to have been affected, with some 116,000 taking shelter in evacuation centres. Known casualties include 86 dead, 32 missing and 5 injured, while more than 7,000 persons were rescued.’ After Ondoy, Pepeng (Parma) devastated norther Luzon in October, inundating more than 70 percent of Pangasinan province and causing flash floods in various other provinces (and slowing down recovery from Ondoy in Metro Manila). The National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) estimated P7.172 billion-worth of damage to agriculture and infrastructure, and 544 casualties including 311 fatalities.” Land subsistence: Floods increasing in extent and severity During the past half-century, floods have increased in extent and severity inundating areas that include “low-lying coastal or riverine barangays to encompass the more suburban hinterland neighbourhoods, the newer urban developments, and the shores of Laguna de Bay.” Land subsistence in the last decades has also aggravated the extent of flooding. River deltas with their underlying sediment have high water content that sips out under the weight of deposits – “a process that is greatly accelerated when groundwater is extracted faster than it can be replenished by natural recharge from rain seeping back into the ground,” said the IAAS. Studies at Manila’s South Harbor show that mean sea levels rose about 2 millimetres a year between 1902 and 1960, but that the subsequent rate was about ten times faster. The said rate of increase cannot be attributed simply to climate change or global warming but to the rise in groundwater extraction. Rising sea level around Manila Bay and the sinking of land masses surrounding it contributes to flood – its frequency, magnitude, and consequently, the damage it causes. Juxtaposed against more recent studies by scientists Antonia Yulo Loyzaga and Dr. Gemma Narisma of the Manila Observatory, Dr. Fernando Siringan of the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute and Dr. Alfredo Mahar Lagmay of the University of the Philippines National Institute of Geological Sciences – the situation grows more bleak for the flooding problem in Metro Manila and nearby provinces. As the Vera Files reports, quoting the aforementioned scientists, “Land subsidence—or the sinking of the land because of overuse of groundwater—has likewise caused flooding. Rapid and continuous pumping of groundwater has led to the compaction of the soil because the supply cannot be replenished quickly enough.” (Studies) from 1978 to 2000, Malabon and Caloocan have sunk by 1.5 meters; Manila by 0.96 meters; Quezon City by 0.76 meters; and Makati by 0.57 meters.” Further, the scientists pointed to “human neglect” as having contributed greatly to serious flooding. “In the metropolis ... the drainage system was “insufficient” and “century-old,” with “even the government—notably Malacanang—(being) guilty of occupying areas that should serve as channels for floodwaters.” Poverty, human migration, and population over-concentration Moreover, factors – climatic and environmental – interrelate inextricably with human migration
from the provinces to the cities, specifically Metro Manila, as well as the general inability of the local government units (LGUs) therein to respond adequately and expeditiously to the demands of rapid urbanization and population growth. The size and density of population and the waste it generates, inevitably requires proportionate improvements in waste disposal capability for all LGUs concerned – a matter that has not been addressed with dispatch. The IAAS cites that “since 1939, the number of people living in the metropolitan area has risen from 993,889 inhabitants to 10,491,000 (2000), an increase of over 10-fold” with almostdevastating impact. “The sheer weight of numbers creates considerable pressure on resources and this, in turn, has substantial consequences on the environment and intensifies both the severity and duration of floods.” Often, human migration to Metro Manila is fuelled by the lack of income opportunities in the countrysides. Poverty and the absence of resources thus lead “migrants” to become informal settlers in areas – sometimes near waterways, esteros, and riverbanks on the urban fringes of cities – without the proper infrastructure or carrying capacity for their wastes. Political and statutory weaknesses A confluence of factors – some political, others statutory – are often blamed for the steady increase in the number of informal settlers in the City. During election season, they become a resource-base for votes; in between election season, some sectors point to the Urban Development Housing Act of 1992, otherwise known as the Lina Law, for the LGUs inability, whether intended or not, to deal with the issue of informal settlers. The Manila Standard Today (23 October 2009), in its editorial wrote, “The ill-conceived law, sponsored by then Senator Joey Lina, sought to provide socialized housing to the poor but quickly became the illegal settler’s best friend. Under the Lina law, squatters who illegally occupy land that they do not own may not be evicted unless the government consults with the families involved, gives them 30 days notice and provides them with an adequate relocation site.” “By imposing stringent requirements for the eviction of squatters and the demolition of their illegal structures, Lina all but guaranteed the steady influx of the poor rural into our increasingly crowded cities.” However one views the issue of squatting in Metro Manila – the accompanying socio-cultural and economic factors notwithstanding – the clear disconnect between population and policy leads to logistical nightmares in both flood prevention and mitigation. The resultant makeshift housing, according to studies “often encroaches onto available waterways, blocking the access of maintenance personnel and equipment and, by a gradual process of accretion, narrowing their capacity to handle discharge.” The problem is exacerbated with the numbers, according to the MMDA, ballooning to a record high of more than 500 million in 2009, identified in 13 LGUs (excluding figures from Pateros, Mandaluyong, Marikina, and Paranaque). In 2003, it was estimated that 164,000 informal settlers occupied areas along the banks of the metropolis’ waterways. Inadequate solid waste management programs Though significant, it is not only the garbage generated by informal settlers that pose vast challenges to Metro Manila’s disposal and consequently, flooding problem. A 2005 study by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said that Metro Manila collects 7,500 tons of garbage daily from its more than 12 million residents. This is way beyond the capacity of the National Capital Region’s 8 legal dumps – currently operating at maximum capacity and should have been closed as early as 2003 – that serve its 17 cities and municipalities.
Further, this 75,000 tons collected daily, constitute no more 70 percent of garbage that is taken to landfills. The rest are “solid waste each day that clogs the network of drainage canals, poses a considerable risk to health, and greatly increases the likelihood of flood.” More so, the ADB says that less than 10 percent of the Metro’s garbage is recycled while much of the waste is either dumped illegally on private land, in rivers, or straight into Manila Bay. Even a former Environment Secretary, Michael Defensor, admits that Manila’s garbage output has the tendency to double within the next five years without any “comprehensive, overall waste management plan.” Both the lack of a comprehensive and overall waste management plan as well as the inadequacy of the Metro’s landfills were highlighted during the 2009 floods caused by Ondoy, where plasticclogged drainage and waterways were ostensibly blamed for the disaster. Plastic and political will According to advocacy group, EcoWaste Coalition, “carelessly thrown plastic bags block the drainage systems and waterways (eventually) finding their way into the country’s biggest ‘landfill,’ the Manila Bay, causing massive marine pollution ... plastic bags are exacerbating our nation’s garbage woes and how illegally thrown plastic discard are adding to our people’s sufferings in times of flood and weather disturbances … Let us not forget the lessons of Ondoy.” The EcoWaste Web site writes: “A discards survey in 2006 involving EcoWaste Coalition and Greenpeace volunteers shows that synthetic plastic materials constitute 76 percent of the floating trash items in Manila Bay, with plastic bags comprising 51 percent; sachets and junk food wrappers, 19 percent; Styrofoam containers, five percent; and hard plastics, one percent. The rest of the rubbish found in Manila Bay consisted of rubber (10 percent) and biodegradable discards (13 percent).” Further, “another study published in 2009 by the US-based Ocean Conservancy revealed that 679,957 of over 1.2 million pieces of marine litter of various types that were gathered in seaside areas during the 2008 International Coastal Clean Up Day in the country were plastic bags.” Studies from international advocacy groups and reputable third-party sources notwithstanding, only the city of Muntinlupa has enacted an issuance similar to those in New Delhi in India, Beijing in China, and San Francisco in the USA - City Ordinance 10-109 entitled, “An Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Plastic Bags on Dry Goods, Regulating its Utilization on Wet Goods and Prohibiting the Use of Styrofoam/Styrophor in the City of Muntinlupa.” No national direction And while the lack of physical infrastructure to prevent or at least mitigate floods is obvious, on the national level, the absence of legislative infrastructure for a responsive policy environment is also evident. In a joint report by the Asian Development Bank, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the World Bank, entitled “Climate Risks and Adaptation in Asian Coastal Megacities” – evaluating three major economic centers Bangkok, the city of Ho Chi Minh and Metro Manila – it was said that, “Southeast Asia will see its megacities face harsher storms and floods with disastrous effects in the future if current climate change trends continue.” The Philippines’ own Climate Change Commission in its 2010 yearend report confirms that the country “now faces threats from destructive typhoons, drastic changes in rainfall, sea level rise, and increasing temperatures.” Supposedly the Philippines is “ranked highest in the world in terms
of vulnerability to tropical cyclone occurrence, and third in terms of people exposed to such seasonal events,” it adds. Procrastinating on climate change adaptation and mitigation Further, the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration (PAGASA), predicts that within the next five decades, the rate of annual precipitation or the amount of rainfall per year will also undergo changes of of anywhere from 0.5 to 17.4 percent in 2020 and -2.4 to 16 percent in 2050. It says that, “increases in rainfall are particularly evident in most areas of Luzon and Visayas, while Mindanao is projected to undergo a drying trend.” “Average annual rainfall increase over most parts of Luzon and the Visayas is expected to be 2 to 17 percent by 2020 and 1 to 16% by 2050. In contrast, there is a general reduction in regional and annual average rainfall in Mindanao (approximately 0.5 to 11%by 2020; 2 to 11% in 2050).” Curiously, while Republic Act (RA) 9729 or “The Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009” mandates for “National Climate Change Action Plan” that would harmonize all programs (especially those on the local levels or LGUs) involving climate change adaptation and mitigation, none has thus far been finalized, much less presented to the public. Ho Chi Minh – one of the cities cited in the ADB-JICA-WB study – has been reported to be in the process of drawing up a climate change adaptation plan which includes among others, “infrastructure-based measures (which) could be integrated with ecosystem-based initiatives such as improvement of mangrove clusters and rehabilitation of urban wetlands.” Case in point: The Marikina watershed A similar need for “ecosystem-based initiatives” was realized in the Philippines, more so after Ondoy dumped 45mm of rainfall, in the process inundating Metro Manila. Not only did the lack of physical infrastructure and disaster preparedness, expose the Metro to one of the most catastrophic natural calamities of the century, so was the degradation of the environment exposed as suspect to the tragedy that was Ondoy. According to the Environmental Science for Social Change, the Marikina watershed covering 28,000 hectares or 280 million square meters, has been so vastly depleted - over years of conflicting regulations on land-use zoning, clearing of forest lands to make way for private subdivisions, non-enforcement of environment regulations, and illegal settlers still occupying various parts of the watershed – that its water retention function has been grossly compromised. Theoretically, 28,000 hectares of watershed has an absorption capacity of 95.5 million cubic meters of water – more than the storage capacities of Ipo and Lamesa dams combined. Ideally, a good watershed with 90 percent of its forest cover intact can easily retain 90 percent of the precipitation, recharging underground aquifers, with the remaining 10 percent becoming run-off water which finds its way unto streams and rivers. The Marikina watershed with its compromised water absorption capacity, currently maintains only 20 percent of its forest cover (at most). It is, thus, understandable, that the rainwater that had landed on the watershed during Ondoy, cascaded down the hills and mountains unto the Marikina valley and the lowlands of Metro Manila. With predicted fluctuations in weather conditions due to climate change and the unabated depletion of the country’s forest cover, the worst, and especially without an integrated plan, says experts, is yet to come. Theory and practice And while the national plan of action for climate change will have to be drafted by the CCC, at
least, another agency – the MMDA – has gone as far as creating its framework to address flooding in Metro Manila. Its findings are no different from causes cited in this paper. These are as follows: • Rapid urbanization and development which caused the almost zero absorption of rainwater by the ground due to the highly built-up status of Metro Manila resulting to doubled surface runoff of flood waters. • Clogging and siltation of drainage laterals and waterways due to indiscriminate dumping of garbage which obstruct the free flow of water. • Structural obstructions, encroachment and presence of informal settlements along open waterways which impede the flow of water. • Inadequate flood control structures and limited capacity of existing drainage systems which generally cannot accommodate excessive floodwaters • Lack of integrated land use plans which results to the inefficient allocation, use and management of land and other physical resources of the metropolis. • Excessive and intense rainfall due to climate change which has resulted to the increased frequency of extreme weather events such as La Nina. • In view of these findings, there is an urgent need to come-up with an integrated flood control plan in Metro Manila to address the gap in our flood control capabilities. The aforementioned causes were identified in relation to this situationer: The current drainage system in Metro Manila is composed of 580 kilometers of open waterways, 897 kilometer of drainage laterals and 58.97 kilometers of drainage mains and interceptors. It is estimated that 30 percent of open waterways are not accessible to flood control equipment due to illegal encroachment. In addition to the existing drainage system, Metro Manila has the Manggahan Floodway facility which is composed of the Rosario Weir Control Station with 8 floodgates. This 100-year return period structure was designed to limit the floodwaters in the lower Marikina River and the Pasig River to its bank-full capacity by diverting the excess floodwaters into the Laguna Lake for temporary storage. Another major flood control facility is the Napindan Hydraulic Control Structure which is composed of 4 floodgates and 2 navigational lock gates. The structure is designed to improve the quality of the Laguna Lake water by preventing the backflow of saline and polluted water from the Pasig River into the lake, making the lake water usable for irrigation, domestic and industrial purposes. The Effective Flood Control Operation System or EFCOS is primarily designed for the effective operation of the Manggahan Floodway and the Napindan Hydraulic Control Structure. At present, the EFCOS is operational with three (3) rainfall stations located in Mt. Aries, Boso-Boso and Mt. Oro. it has five (5) water level stations located in Montalban, Rosario, Pandacan, Fort Santiago and Angono. The system also has nine (9) warning stations equipped with sirens along the Manggahan Floodway to warn the residents living along the floodway once floodgates are opened to allow excess floodwaters from Marikina River to flow to the Laguna
Lake for temporary storage. In addition, MMDA operates and maintains 52 pumping stations consisting of 20 large pumping stations, 10 small pumping stations and 22 relief pumping stations in strategic locations in the Camanava Area. As of August 31, 2010, MMDA has dredged 40,427 linear meters of open waterways, declogged 277,779 linear meters of drainage laterals and desilted 2,309 linear meters of drainage mains and interceptors. And while the agency identified a host of “flood-control activities,” both on-going and future, the question remains: “when will these be operational?” The next flood is just another storm cloud away.
___________________________ References: ABS-CBN News (03 March 2010). Metro Manila squatters balloon to half a million families. Found online at http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/03/03/10/metro-manila-squattersballoon-half-million-families Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research (2009). Assessing vulnerability of communities and understanding policy implications of adaptation responses to flood – related landslides in Asia Asian Development Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency, World Bank (2010). Climate Risks and Adaptation in Asian Coastal Megacities Bankoff, Greg (2003). Vulnerability and Flooding in Metro Manila. International Institute for Asian Studies City of Muntinlupa (2010). City Ordinance 10-109, An Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Plastic Bags on Dry Goods, Regulating its Utilization on Wet Goods and Prohibiting the Use of Styrofoam/Styrophor in the City of Muntinlupa Dartmouth College (2004). Dartmouth College Flood Archive. Global Register of Major Flood Events. Found online at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/Archives/2004sum.htm Ecowaste Coalition (2010). Ecowaste Coalition blogspot. Found online at http://ecowastecoalition.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html Environmental Science for Social Change (2010). Historical Mapping for Marikina Flooding: learning from the past - land, people, and science Manila Standard Today (23 October 2009) Editorial. Dealing with squatters MST Special Reports (03, 04 March 2010) Arrested development: Climate change readiness in the Philippines. Manila Standard Today Republic Act No. 7279 (1992) or The Urban Development Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA). Found online at http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7279.htm Republic Act 9729 (2009) or The Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009. Found online at
http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno9729.php Republic of the Philippines Climate Change Commission (2010). 2010 Yearend Report Republic of the Philippines Metro Manila Development Authority (2010). Flood reduction measures in Metro Manila: September 27, 2010 briefer prepared by the Metro Manila Development Authority
Vera Files (24 November 2009). Scientists warn of disappeared rivers, sinking land in Metro Manila. Found online at http://verafiles.org/main/focus/scientists-warn-of-disappeared-riverssinking-land-in-metro-manila/ Wilson, Karl (2006). Terradaily: News About Planet Earth. Manila’s garbage dump provides lifeline for poor. Found online at http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Manilas_Garbage_Dump_Offers_Lifeline_For_Poor.html World Health Organization (2010). Philippine Situation Reports Archive. Found online at http://www.who.int/hac/crises/phl/sitreps/en/index.html
Written by: Karl Barlaan
June 2011
HIGH VULNERABILITY, LOW RESPONSE: Dissecting the flood problem in Metro Manila
“Human neglect has contributed greatly to serious flooding ... In the metropolis ... the drainage system is ‘insufficient’ and ‘century-old.’ Even the government—notably Malacanang—is guilty of occupying areas that should serve as channels for floodwaters.”
The vulnerabilities are a given. The Philippines is an archipelagic nation located at the heart of the typhoon belt with more than 20 typhoons entering and leaving its “area of responsibility” annually. Its readiness, however, to respond to these natural calamities leaves a lot to be desired. The 2004 Dartmouth College Flood Archive (Global Register of Major Flood Events) lists 194 events, 9 of which occurred in the Philippines. Areas cited, including Metro Manila, sustained total estimated damages of $127.2 million (PhP5.3 billion) with more than 2 million individuals being displaced from their homes. Tropical cyclones, monsoonal and seasonal rains caused the said devastation. But even in Metro Manila – the country’s center of government, commerce, industry, and supposedly operational preparedness – is not exempt from floods that accompany this seasonal phenomenon. Metro Manila: A history of vulnerability According to the International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) in a study, “Vulnerability and Flooding in Metro Manila” (Greg Bankoff, 2003), “The National Capital Region (NCR) is situated in a semialluvial floodplain encompassing a land area of 636 square kilometres, open to Manila Bay on the west and to a large lake, Laguna de Bay, on the south-east. As such, it now constitutes a vast urbanized drainage basin that experiences frequent inundations from overflowing rivers and stormwaters, rendering the existing system of esteros, modified natural channels constructed during the colonial period, inadequate. Despite its vulnerability, however, rapid urbanization continues unabated. Solutions are difficult to realize as the metropolitan area is currently divided into twelve cities and five towns with a total population of 10,491,000 and a density of 16,495 persons per square kilometre.” In fact, flooding has been so pervasive in the Metro that occurrences have been recorded since at least the nineteenth century, the first major one happening in 1942. According to the IAAS, major others subsequently occurred in 1948, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1977, 1986, and 1988. Typhoon Miding in 1986 resulted “floodwaters extending to over 16 percent of the total area of Metro Manila” Worsening situation Matters have not improved much of late said the study with “thousands of Metro Manila residents stranded on the streets or trapped in vehicles all night after heavy rains on 28 July 1995, and major flooding incidents happened again on 28 May 1996 and 18 August 1997.” A 29 March 2011 Manila Standard Today special report, “Arrested development: Climate change readiness in the Philippines, writes, “In 2006, the World Health Organization reported that ‘a series of destructive typhoons hit the Philippines during the last quarter of 2006 causing widespread loss of lives, injuries and extensive damage to property. These were named Cimaron, Xangsane, Durian and Utor (local codenames: Paeng, Milenyo, Reming and Seniang, respectively). The total death toll from these typhoons reached more than 1000 persons and the number of injured were 3163.’
Milenyo directly hit Metro Manila – the country’s center of government and commerce where disaster preparedness should be at its operational best – killing at least 18 people, closing offices and financial markets, damaging property, and causing a Luzon-wide power outage. In 2009, Ondoy (Ketsana) came depositing 455 millimeters (17.9 inches) of rain on Metro Manila in all but 24 hours – the most amount of rainfall in 42 years. Again, the WHO reported, ‘the storm flooded Manila, along with villages and roads. More than 435,000 persons are known to have been affected, with some 116,000 taking shelter in evacuation centres. Known casualties include 86 dead, 32 missing and 5 injured, while more than 7,000 persons were rescued.’ After Ondoy, Pepeng (Parma) devastated norther Luzon in October, inundating more than 70 percent of Pangasinan province and causing flash floods in various other provinces (and slowing down recovery from Ondoy in Metro Manila). The National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) estimated P7.172 billion-worth of damage to agriculture and infrastructure, and 544 casualties including 311 fatalities.” Land subsistence: Floods increasing in extent and severity During the past half-century, floods have increased in extent and severity inundating areas that include “low-lying coastal or riverine barangays to encompass the more suburban hinterland neighbourhoods, the newer urban developments, and the shores of Laguna de Bay.” Land subsistence in the last decades has also aggravated the extent of flooding. River deltas with their underlying sediment have high water content that sips out under the weight of deposits – “a process that is greatly accelerated when groundwater is extracted faster than it can be replenished by natural recharge from rain seeping back into the ground,” said the IAAS. Studies at Manila’s South Harbor show that mean sea levels rose about 2 millimetres a year between 1902 and 1960, but that the subsequent rate was about ten times faster. The said rate of increase cannot be attributed simply to climate change or global warming but to the rise in groundwater extraction. Rising sea level around Manila Bay and the sinking of land masses surrounding it contributes to flood – its frequency, magnitude, and consequently, the damage it causes. Juxtaposed against more recent studies by scientists Antonia Yulo Loyzaga and Dr. Gemma Narisma of the Manila Observatory, Dr. Fernando Siringan of the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute and Dr. Alfredo Mahar Lagmay of the University of the Philippines National Institute of Geological Sciences – the situation grows more bleak for the flooding problem in Metro Manila and nearby provinces. As the Vera Files reports, quoting the aforementioned scientists, “Land subsidence—or the sinking of the land because of overuse of groundwater—has likewise caused flooding. Rapid and continuous pumping of groundwater has led to the compaction of the soil because the supply cannot be replenished quickly enough.” (Studies) from 1978 to 2000, Malabon and Caloocan have sunk by 1.5 meters; Manila by 0.96 meters; Quezon City by 0.76 meters; and Makati by 0.57 meters.” Further, the scientists pointed to “human neglect” as having contributed greatly to serious flooding. “In the metropolis ... the drainage system was “insufficient” and “century-old,” with “even the government—notably Malacanang—(being) guilty of occupying areas that should serve as channels for floodwaters.” Poverty, human migration, and population over-concentration Moreover, factors – climatic and environmental – interrelate inextricably with human migration
from the provinces to the cities, specifically Metro Manila, as well as the general inability of the local government units (LGUs) therein to respond adequately and expeditiously to the demands of rapid urbanization and population growth. The size and density of population and the waste it generates, inevitably requires proportionate improvements in waste disposal capability for all LGUs concerned – a matter that has not been addressed with dispatch. The IAAS cites that “since 1939, the number of people living in the metropolitan area has risen from 993,889 inhabitants to 10,491,000 (2000), an increase of over 10-fold” with almostdevastating impact. “The sheer weight of numbers creates considerable pressure on resources and this, in turn, has substantial consequences on the environment and intensifies both the severity and duration of floods.” Often, human migration to Metro Manila is fuelled by the lack of income opportunities in the countrysides. Poverty and the absence of resources thus lead “migrants” to become informal settlers in areas – sometimes near waterways, esteros, and riverbanks on the urban fringes of cities – without the proper infrastructure or carrying capacity for their wastes. Political and statutory weaknesses A confluence of factors – some political, others statutory – are often blamed for the steady increase in the number of informal settlers in the City. During election season, they become a resource-base for votes; in between election season, some sectors point to the Urban Development Housing Act of 1992, otherwise known as the Lina Law, for the LGUs inability, whether intended or not, to deal with the issue of informal settlers. The Manila Standard Today (23 October 2009), in its editorial wrote, “The ill-conceived law, sponsored by then Senator Joey Lina, sought to provide socialized housing to the poor but quickly became the illegal settler’s best friend. Under the Lina law, squatters who illegally occupy land that they do not own may not be evicted unless the government consults with the families involved, gives them 30 days notice and provides them with an adequate relocation site.” “By imposing stringent requirements for the eviction of squatters and the demolition of their illegal structures, Lina all but guaranteed the steady influx of the poor rural into our increasingly crowded cities.” However one views the issue of squatting in Metro Manila – the accompanying socio-cultural and economic factors notwithstanding – the clear disconnect between population and policy leads to logistical nightmares in both flood prevention and mitigation. The resultant makeshift housing, according to studies “often encroaches onto available waterways, blocking the access of maintenance personnel and equipment and, by a gradual process of accretion, narrowing their capacity to handle discharge.” The problem is exacerbated with the numbers, according to the MMDA, ballooning to a record high of more than 500 million in 2009, identified in 13 LGUs (excluding figures from Pateros, Mandaluyong, Marikina, and Paranaque). In 2003, it was estimated that 164,000 informal settlers occupied areas along the banks of the metropolis’ waterways. Inadequate solid waste management programs Though significant, it is not only the garbage generated by informal settlers that pose vast challenges to Metro Manila’s disposal and consequently, flooding problem. A 2005 study by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said that Metro Manila collects 7,500 tons of garbage daily from its more than 12 million residents. This is way beyond the capacity of the National Capital Region’s 8 legal dumps – currently operating at maximum capacity and should have been closed as early as 2003 – that serve its 17 cities and municipalities.
Further, this 75,000 tons collected daily, constitute no more 70 percent of garbage that is taken to landfills. The rest are “solid waste each day that clogs the network of drainage canals, poses a considerable risk to health, and greatly increases the likelihood of flood.” More so, the ADB says that less than 10 percent of the Metro’s garbage is recycled while much of the waste is either dumped illegally on private land, in rivers, or straight into Manila Bay. Even a former Environment Secretary, Michael Defensor, admits that Manila’s garbage output has the tendency to double within the next five years without any “comprehensive, overall waste management plan.” Both the lack of a comprehensive and overall waste management plan as well as the inadequacy of the Metro’s landfills were highlighted during the 2009 floods caused by Ondoy, where plasticclogged drainage and waterways were ostensibly blamed for the disaster. Plastic and political will According to advocacy group, EcoWaste Coalition, “carelessly thrown plastic bags block the drainage systems and waterways (eventually) finding their way into the country’s biggest ‘landfill,’ the Manila Bay, causing massive marine pollution ... plastic bags are exacerbating our nation’s garbage woes and how illegally thrown plastic discard are adding to our people’s sufferings in times of flood and weather disturbances … Let us not forget the lessons of Ondoy.” The EcoWaste Web site writes: “A discards survey in 2006 involving EcoWaste Coalition and Greenpeace volunteers shows that synthetic plastic materials constitute 76 percent of the floating trash items in Manila Bay, with plastic bags comprising 51 percent; sachets and junk food wrappers, 19 percent; Styrofoam containers, five percent; and hard plastics, one percent. The rest of the rubbish found in Manila Bay consisted of rubber (10 percent) and biodegradable discards (13 percent).” Further, “another study published in 2009 by the US-based Ocean Conservancy revealed that 679,957 of over 1.2 million pieces of marine litter of various types that were gathered in seaside areas during the 2008 International Coastal Clean Up Day in the country were plastic bags.” Studies from international advocacy groups and reputable third-party sources notwithstanding, only the city of Muntinlupa has enacted an issuance similar to those in New Delhi in India, Beijing in China, and San Francisco in the USA - City Ordinance 10-109 entitled, “An Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Plastic Bags on Dry Goods, Regulating its Utilization on Wet Goods and Prohibiting the Use of Styrofoam/Styrophor in the City of Muntinlupa.” No national direction And while the lack of physical infrastructure to prevent or at least mitigate floods is obvious, on the national level, the absence of legislative infrastructure for a responsive policy environment is also evident. In a joint report by the Asian Development Bank, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the World Bank, entitled “Climate Risks and Adaptation in Asian Coastal Megacities” – evaluating three major economic centers Bangkok, the city of Ho Chi Minh and Metro Manila – it was said that, “Southeast Asia will see its megacities face harsher storms and floods with disastrous effects in the future if current climate change trends continue.” The Philippines’ own Climate Change Commission in its 2010 yearend report confirms that the country “now faces threats from destructive typhoons, drastic changes in rainfall, sea level rise, and increasing temperatures.” Supposedly the Philippines is “ranked highest in the world in terms
of vulnerability to tropical cyclone occurrence, and third in terms of people exposed to such seasonal events,” it adds. Procrastinating on climate change adaptation and mitigation Further, the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration (PAGASA), predicts that within the next five decades, the rate of annual precipitation or the amount of rainfall per year will also undergo changes of of anywhere from 0.5 to 17.4 percent in 2020 and -2.4 to 16 percent in 2050. It says that, “increases in rainfall are particularly evident in most areas of Luzon and Visayas, while Mindanao is projected to undergo a drying trend.” “Average annual rainfall increase over most parts of Luzon and the Visayas is expected to be 2 to 17 percent by 2020 and 1 to 16% by 2050. In contrast, there is a general reduction in regional and annual average rainfall in Mindanao (approximately 0.5 to 11%by 2020; 2 to 11% in 2050).” Curiously, while Republic Act (RA) 9729 or “The Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009” mandates for “National Climate Change Action Plan” that would harmonize all programs (especially those on the local levels or LGUs) involving climate change adaptation and mitigation, none has thus far been finalized, much less presented to the public. Ho Chi Minh – one of the cities cited in the ADB-JICA-WB study – has been reported to be in the process of drawing up a climate change adaptation plan which includes among others, “infrastructure-based measures (which) could be integrated with ecosystem-based initiatives such as improvement of mangrove clusters and rehabilitation of urban wetlands.” Case in point: The Marikina watershed A similar need for “ecosystem-based initiatives” was realized in the Philippines, more so after Ondoy dumped 45mm of rainfall, in the process inundating Metro Manila. Not only did the lack of physical infrastructure and disaster preparedness, expose the Metro to one of the most catastrophic natural calamities of the century, so was the degradation of the environment exposed as suspect to the tragedy that was Ondoy. According to the Environmental Science for Social Change, the Marikina watershed covering 28,000 hectares or 280 million square meters, has been so vastly depleted - over years of conflicting regulations on land-use zoning, clearing of forest lands to make way for private subdivisions, non-enforcement of environment regulations, and illegal settlers still occupying various parts of the watershed – that its water retention function has been grossly compromised. Theoretically, 28,000 hectares of watershed has an absorption capacity of 95.5 million cubic meters of water – more than the storage capacities of Ipo and Lamesa dams combined. Ideally, a good watershed with 90 percent of its forest cover intact can easily retain 90 percent of the precipitation, recharging underground aquifers, with the remaining 10 percent becoming run-off water which finds its way unto streams and rivers. The Marikina watershed with its compromised water absorption capacity, currently maintains only 20 percent of its forest cover (at most). It is, thus, understandable, that the rainwater that had landed on the watershed during Ondoy, cascaded down the hills and mountains unto the Marikina valley and the lowlands of Metro Manila. With predicted fluctuations in weather conditions due to climate change and the unabated depletion of the country’s forest cover, the worst, and especially without an integrated plan, says experts, is yet to come. Theory and practice And while the national plan of action for climate change will have to be drafted by the CCC, at
least, another agency – the MMDA – has gone as far as creating its framework to address flooding in Metro Manila. Its findings are no different from causes cited in this paper. These are as follows: • Rapid urbanization and development which caused the almost zero absorption of rainwater by the ground due to the highly built-up status of Metro Manila resulting to doubled surface runoff of flood waters. • Clogging and siltation of drainage laterals and waterways due to indiscriminate dumping of garbage which obstruct the free flow of water. • Structural obstructions, encroachment and presence of informal settlements along open waterways which impede the flow of water. • Inadequate flood control structures and limited capacity of existing drainage systems which generally cannot accommodate excessive floodwaters • Lack of integrated land use plans which results to the inefficient allocation, use and management of land and other physical resources of the metropolis. • Excessive and intense rainfall due to climate change which has resulted to the increased frequency of extreme weather events such as La Nina. • In view of these findings, there is an urgent need to come-up with an integrated flood control plan in Metro Manila to address the gap in our flood control capabilities. The aforementioned causes were identified in relation to this situationer: The current drainage system in Metro Manila is composed of 580 kilometers of open waterways, 897 kilometer of drainage laterals and 58.97 kilometers of drainage mains and interceptors. It is estimated that 30 percent of open waterways are not accessible to flood control equipment due to illegal encroachment. In addition to the existing drainage system, Metro Manila has the Manggahan Floodway facility which is composed of the Rosario Weir Control Station with 8 floodgates. This 100-year return period structure was designed to limit the floodwaters in the lower Marikina River and the Pasig River to its bank-full capacity by diverting the excess floodwaters into the Laguna Lake for temporary storage. Another major flood control facility is the Napindan Hydraulic Control Structure which is composed of 4 floodgates and 2 navigational lock gates. The structure is designed to improve the quality of the Laguna Lake water by preventing the backflow of saline and polluted water from the Pasig River into the lake, making the lake water usable for irrigation, domestic and industrial purposes. The Effective Flood Control Operation System or EFCOS is primarily designed for the effective operation of the Manggahan Floodway and the Napindan Hydraulic Control Structure. At present, the EFCOS is operational with three (3) rainfall stations located in Mt. Aries, Boso-Boso and Mt. Oro. it has five (5) water level stations located in Montalban, Rosario, Pandacan, Fort Santiago and Angono. The system also has nine (9) warning stations equipped with sirens along the Manggahan Floodway to warn the residents living along the floodway once floodgates are opened to allow excess floodwaters from Marikina River to flow to the Laguna
Lake for temporary storage. In addition, MMDA operates and maintains 52 pumping stations consisting of 20 large pumping stations, 10 small pumping stations and 22 relief pumping stations in strategic locations in the Camanava Area. As of August 31, 2010, MMDA has dredged 40,427 linear meters of open waterways, declogged 277,779 linear meters of drainage laterals and desilted 2,309 linear meters of drainage mains and interceptors. And while the agency identified a host of “flood-control activities,” both on-going and future, the question remains: “when will these be operational?” The next flood is just another storm cloud away.
___________________________ References: ABS-CBN News (03 March 2010). Metro Manila squatters balloon to half a million families. Found online at http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/03/03/10/metro-manila-squattersballoon-half-million-families Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research (2009). Assessing vulnerability of communities and understanding policy implications of adaptation responses to flood – related landslides in Asia Asian Development Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency, World Bank (2010). Climate Risks and Adaptation in Asian Coastal Megacities Bankoff, Greg (2003). Vulnerability and Flooding in Metro Manila. International Institute for Asian Studies City of Muntinlupa (2010). City Ordinance 10-109, An Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Plastic Bags on Dry Goods, Regulating its Utilization on Wet Goods and Prohibiting the Use of Styrofoam/Styrophor in the City of Muntinlupa Dartmouth College (2004). Dartmouth College Flood Archive. Global Register of Major Flood Events. Found online at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/Archives/2004sum.htm Ecowaste Coalition (2010). Ecowaste Coalition blogspot. Found online at http://ecowastecoalition.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html Environmental Science for Social Change (2010). Historical Mapping for Marikina Flooding: learning from the past - land, people, and science Manila Standard Today (23 October 2009) Editorial. Dealing with squatters MST Special Reports (03, 04 March 2010) Arrested development: Climate change readiness in the Philippines. Manila Standard Today Republic Act No. 7279 (1992) or The Urban Development Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA). Found online at http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7279.htm Republic Act 9729 (2009) or The Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009. Found online at
http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno9729.php Republic of the Philippines Climate Change Commission (2010). 2010 Yearend Report Republic of the Philippines Metro Manila Development Authority (2010). Flood reduction measures in Metro Manila: September 27, 2010 briefer prepared by the Metro Manila Development Authority
Vera Files (24 November 2009). Scientists warn of disappeared rivers, sinking land in Metro Manila. Found online at http://verafiles.org/main/focus/scientists-warn-of-disappeared-riverssinking-land-in-metro-manila/ Wilson, Karl (2006). Terradaily: News About Planet Earth. Manila’s garbage dump provides lifeline for poor. Found online at http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Manilas_Garbage_Dump_Offers_Lifeline_For_Poor.html World Health Organization (2010). Philippine Situation Reports Archive. Found online at http://www.who.int/hac/crises/phl/sitreps/en/index.html
