Page 1

A. Briefly give a summary on what was the disaster it responded to, and when and where
this happened; what services were provided and who provided the services, and if the
information is available, were the services organized by several organizations, or were
the services provided by organizations separately, ie, there was no apparent
communication among the service providers? Also, if available, how long did the effort
was provided?
B. Briefly explain for what reasons you consider each as a good response

Page 2
C. Enumerate the criteria of what your group considers as appropriate post-disaster
response, and a brief explanation for what reasons you consider these as criteria for a
good post-disaster response

Article: #1
Disaster: Typhoon Yolanda

A.
● Where and When: November 8, 2013; Eastern, Central and Eastern Visayas (Regions 6,
7, and 8)
● What services were provided and who provided the services: Recovery period and
demands for NCDs (noncommunicable diseases), mental health, and maternal health
continuing for months and training of health workers in key areas. The massive response
included national and international aid. The Health Cluster was co-led by the Philippines
Department of Health (DOH) and the WHO Representative Office in the Philippines.
● Three disease surveillance systems used during the response to typhoon Yolanda:
Philippine Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (PIDSR), Event-based
Surveillance and Response (ESR) and Surveillance in Post Extreme Emergencies and
Disasters (SPEED).

B.
● (Emphasis on Health) Emphasis on improvisation of health and restoration of a good
well-being, particularly for individuals with disabilities.
● (Optimization of social media) Social media was used by WHO for the first time in the
Philippines and was a key part of the risk communication strategy.
● (Thorough) An assessment of evacuation centers conducted two weeks after Yolanda
suggested a variation in the size of the evacuation centers and mixed levels of services.

Article: #3
Disaster: Typhoon Yolanda
 A.
● Where and When: November 8, 2013; Eastern, Central and Eastern Visayas (Regions 6,
7, and 8)
● NGO-A, a disaster response NGO in Cebu and Bohol region, immediately provided
emergency relief for victims in Medillin. For NGO–A’S goal of ensuring that the victim
could receive a long-term rehabilitation program, they offered a sustainable livelihood
project to them with an international NGO to serve as their funding partner. Moreover,
NGO-A provided necessary livestock, house repairing assistance, school supplies for
the children after emergency relief to the survivors. This is in collaboration with Barangay
Health Worker (BHW), which helped them to search people whom they should provide.
In addition, NGO-A conducted an assistant program that aimed to provide awareness
training through workshops, material provision for livelihood recovery, and workshops to
all the victims. Some topics that were presented in the program include social
management, livestock raising, and community-based disaster management.
● On the other hand, another group, NGO-B, had worked with the fisherfolk sectors, and
NGO-C with farmer sectors. These NGO’s provided assistance in Bantayan Island After
Typhoon Yolanda, and in hope of preventing and being more prepared in the possibility
of another disaster, NGO-A appointed active people to be part of the Disaster
Preparedness Committee (DPC).
B.
● (Not some, but ALL) Giving attention to people who were overlooked–those unseen
and unheard, who were also victims.
● (Commitment) NGO-A's commitment to ensuring long-term recovery and rehabilitation
was a key factor. They initiated a sustainable livelihood project with an international
NGO partner, demonstrating a forward-looking approach beyond immediate relief.
● (Widen Scope) NGO-A's assistance extended beyond emergency relief, encompassing
various aspects of recovery. They provided livestock, house repair support, and school
supplies, addressing the diverse needs of survivors.
● (Collaborative) Collaborating with Barangay Health Workers (BHW) allowed NGO-A to
efficiently identify and assist those in need. This partnership enhanced the effectiveness
of their response efforts.

Article: #6
What: Mt. Pinatubo Volcanic Eruption

A.
● When & Where: June 1991, Central Luzon, Philippines.
● What services were provided and who provided the services: The government in
coordination with the National Disaster Coordinating Council, Department of Social
Welfare and Development, and Department of Health, they mobilized civilian and military
resources to respond to the evacuation, rescue and relief requirements of the affected
populations, providing emergency relief assistance to displaced families and victims in
evacuation centers where they were able to mobilized facilities (schools, hospitals, etc.,)
 and personnel (medical, social workers, teachers, etc.,) to provide basic services, led in
the provision of medical care and public health services at evacuation centers, including
disease surveillance.
● The government developed long-term solutions such as resettlements, delivery of basic
social and relief services, health and nutrition services, livelihood programs focused on
agriculture and industry which can also provide income opportunities to affected families.

B.
● (Vigilant) Careful volcanic monitoring prior to the explosion which led to the early
warnings and evacuation.
● (Deliberate) Swift government action after the disaster as they were able to anticipate its
explosion thus the National Disaster Coordinating Council mobilized civilian and military
resources to respond to the evacuation, rescue and relief requirements of the affected
populations.
● The allocation of significant resources, both financial and human, demonstrated the
government's commitment to addressing the crisis comprehensively. Adequate funding
is vital for implementing large-scale recovery and reconstruction efforts.
● (Extensive) The response wasn't limited to a single aspect of recovery. It encompassed
various dimensions, including infrastructure rehabilitation, psychological support,
economic recovery, and community rebuilding, recognizing that recovery is multi-
faceted.