THE “beyond compliant” rating of Iloilo Province in disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM), coupled with recognition for 31 local government units (LGUs), reflects planning, coordination, and a growing culture of preparedness.
But preparedness is not built on plans alone. It is built on budgets.
The law is clear. Under the DRRM framework, LGUs are required to allocate at least five percent of their estimated revenues to disaster preparedness and response. On paper, this ensures a steady stream of funding. In practice, however, the more urgent question is not whether funds are allocated — but whether they are enough, and whether they are used effectively.
Iloilo’s experience offers both reassurance and a challenge.
The province’s ability to carry out pre-emptive evacuations, maintain trained response teams such as Passi City’s PRiDE and Calinog’s CSAR, and implement programs under the “4K for MoRProGRes” framework suggests that investments are indeed being made. These are not outcomes of underfunding. They reflect deliberate spending on training, coordination, and operational readiness.
Yet resilience is not a static goal — it is an escalating one.
As climate risks intensify, so too must the level of investment. Stronger typhoons, heavier rainfall, and rising sea levels demand more durable evacuation centers, more advanced early warning systems, and more robust flood control infrastructure. The five percent minimum, once considered adequate, may no longer be sufficient for the realities ahead.
This is where the conversation must shift — from compliance to adequacy.
Are LGUs investing beyond the minimum when necessary? Or are they treating DRRM allocations as a ceiling rather than a floor?
Equally important is how funds are used.
There is always the risk that limited budgets are spread too thin — covering a wide range of activities without achieving depth in any. Procurement of equipment without proper maintenance, construction of facilities without long-term planning, or training programs conducted without follow-through can dilute the impact of spending.
Efficiency matters as much as allocation.
Are evacuation centers truly resilient, or merely functional? Are early warning systems reliable and accessible to the most vulnerable communities? Are response teams fully equipped and continuously trained, or only mobilized when disaster strikes?
These are the questions that determine whether every peso spent translates into real protection.
Another concern is the tendency toward seasonal investment.
Preparedness often peaks during the onset of the rainy season or in the aftermath of a major disaster, when urgency is high and public attention is focused. But resilience cannot be reactive. It must be sustained year-round — embedded in planning, budgeting, and daily governance.
Iloilo’s recent recognition should serve as an opportunity to institutionalize this approach.
Rather than easing up after achieving “beyond compliant” status, LGUs must double down on sustained investment. This means regular budget reviews, long-term infrastructure planning, continuous capacity-building for responders, and the integration of DRRM into broader development programs.
It also requires political will.
Investing in disaster preparedness does not always yield immediate or visible returns. Roads and buildings are easier to showcase than evacuation drills or hazard mapping. Yet when disasters strike, it is these less visible investments that save lives and reduce losses.
In this sense, DRRM spending is not an expense — it is an insurance policy. One that pays dividends not in profit, but in lives protected, communities preserved, and recovery made quicker and less costly.
Iloilo has demonstrated that resilience is possible. The challenge now is to ensure that it is financially sustainable.
The true measure of investment is not how much is spent — but how much suffering is prevented. And that is a cost no province can afford to underestimate.
