MENU
CONTINGENCY PLANNING TRAINING OF FACILITATORS (CPTOF)

Two DILG-ARMM personnel, Mauricio F. Civiles, Statistician II/DRR-CCA Focal Person, and Majaramir Y. Sumail, RIO/Alternate Focal Person, attended the four-day Contingency Planning Training of Facilitators (CPTOF) which was held at Ninong’s Hotel, Legazpi City, Albay, on October 4-7, 2016. The activity was attended by the DILG DRR-CAA Focal Persons and Alternate Focal Persons nationwide.

 

On the first day, the program started with the introduction of contingency planning. It was said that contingency planning was pioneered in the Philippines in early 2002 with the support of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR). Initially, it was intended towards the management of the displaced population resulting from the armed conflict situations in Mindanao. Through the years, contingency planning gained attention not only in managing displaced population but also in handling emergencies. Hence, the UNHCR assisted the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) in developing the “Contingency Planning for Emergencies: A Manual for Local Government Units.”

A contingency plan was defined as “a scenario-based plan for specific and projected natural and/or human-induced hazards.” It aimed to address the impacts of the hazard to people, properties, and environment, and/or to prevent the occurrence of the emerging threats through the arrangement of timely, effective, appropriate, and well-coordinated responses as well as the efficient management of resources.

Hazard identification workshop was conducted. One of the vital parts of a contingency plan was the identification of hazards that would serve as the foundation for the development of the scenarios. The hazards were identified through the use of a simple tool that compared the different hazards threatening the LGU/ community/ agency/ office/ organization based on their “Probability” and “Impact”. Next workshop conducted was the anatomy of the hazard. This aimed to describe the root causes, triggering factors, early warning signs and existing mitigating measures for the identified hazard to plan for.

On the second day, the standard for writing the goals and objectives were lectured. According to the resource speaker, they should be anchored to the SMARTER standard. In specific, it meant: in particular, S-pecific, M-easurable, A-ttainable, R-ealistic, T-ime bound, E-xtending, and R-ewarding. Moreover, coordination, command and control were discussed. It was stressed their importance for the LGU/ community/ agency/ office/ organization to have an organized response system in order to accomplish the goals and objectives to provide the necessary services of the affected population.

Cluster identification workshop was conducted. It was intended to describe all the response clusters that would be needed in response to the worst scenario, the lead office/agency for each cluster as well as the members. The examples of clusters given were: food and non-food items; health; law and order; camp coordination and management; logistics; search, rescue and retrieval; and, management of the dead and the missing.

On the third day, workshops continued. In the needs and activities inventory workshop, the output should meet the needs, the offices/agencies responsible and timeline to address the needs before and during the actual situation. In the resource inventory workshop, the output should show all the existing resources of the lead and member offices/agencies. Lastly, in the needs projection and resource gap identification workshop, the participants’ output reflected the current resources versus projected needs as well as the resource gaps and their possible sources.

On the fourth and last day, the emergency operations center and incident command system were taught for better understanding. The planning of their proper organizational charting was put into workshop. The final activity of the day was field exposure.

It is observed that the four-day CPTOF covered relevant procedures to address the preparation gap of agencies and LGUs in disaster preparedness and resiliency in terms of fortuitous event and force majeure. Therefore, it is recommended that the knowledge gathered in the significant activity should be cascade to concerned provincial levels and LGUs.