JDR Vol.15 No.7 pp. 845-854
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2020.p0845


Learning from a Post-Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda Recovery Institution (OPARR): A New Research Agenda for Recovery Governance

Kanako Iuchi*,†, Yasuhito Jibiki**, and Beth Tamayose***

*International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University
468-1 Aza-Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8572, Japan

Corresponding author

**Next Generation Volcano Researcher Development Program, Tohoku University, Miyagi, Japan

***School of Public Policy, University of California, Riverside, California, USA

June 22, 2020
October 12, 2020
December 1, 2020
Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, recovery institutions, recovery governance, OPARR (Office of the Presidential Assistance on Reconstruction and Recovery), literature and ethnographic analysis

In the phase after disasters, particularly those of an unprecedented magnitude, governance structures often emerge specifically oriented toward rebuilding, with a post-disaster institution at its center to head the reconstruction process. However, little is understood about such institutions’ actual operation, impact on recovery, and role in recovery governance. As post-disaster institutions are trending in recovery, it is important to better understand their nature. As a first step to comprehending the role of these institutions, this study explores a framework for evaluating their success and unpacking the implications of managing recovery in a compressed timeframe. Methods included literature and ethnographic analysis using first-hand knowledge accumulated through longitudinal in-person interviews. The case institution is the Office of the Presidential Assistance on Reconstruction and Recovery (OPARR), established after the 2013 typhoon Haiyan (local name Yolanda) in the national government of the Philippines. Two major findings are reported: First, seven themes – “establishment,” “funding,” “coordination,” “politics,” “leadership,” “achievement,” and “post-disestablishment” – are identified as useful to assess post-disaster institutions. Second, concepts of permanency versus impermanency of institutions after disasters and bottom-up participatory versus top-down structured processes are identified as key implications of operating recovery under time compression, and as areas for further research. The proposed framework provides a basis to better understand and ultimately improve these institutions’ operation and will ideally further efforts to research cross-comparisons in various locations. The study results also suggest a first step in increasing knowledge toward more effective institutions and refining methodological approaches to better examine institutional operation and recovery governance.

Cite this article as:
Kanako Iuchi, Yasuhito Jibiki, and Beth Tamayose, “Learning from a Post-Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda Recovery Institution (OPARR): A New Research Agenda for Recovery Governance,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.15, No.7, pp. 845-854, 2020.
Data files:
  1. [1] J. Smart, “The Role of Post-Disaster Institutions in Recovery and Resilience: A comparative study of three recent disasters.” J. Boston, J. Wanna, V. Lipski, and J. Pritchard (Eds), “Future-Proofing the State: Managing Risks, Responding to Crises and Building Resilience,” pp. 229-250, Australian National University Press, 2014.
  2. [2] R. B. Olshansky, L. D. Hopkins, and L. A. Johnson, “Disaster and recovery: Processes compressed in time,” Natural Hazards Review, Vol.13, No.3, pp. 173-178, 2012.
  3. [3] V. Thiruppugazh, “Post-disaster reconstruction and institutional mechanisms for risk reduction: A comparative study of three disasters in India,” R. Shaw (Ed.), “Disaster recovery: Used or misused development opportunity,” pp. 17-39, Springer, 2014.
  4. [4] K. Tierney, “Disaster Governance: Social, Political, and Economic Dimensions,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol.37, pp. 341-363, 2012.
  5. [5] J. Minnery, “Stars and their supporting cast: State, market and community as actors in urban governance,” Urban Policy and Research, Vol.25, No.3, pp. 325-345, 2007.
  6. [6] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), “Discussion paper: Governance for Sustainable Development – Integrating Governance in the Post-2015 Development Framework,” 2014.
  7. [7] S. Mannakkara and S. Wilkinson, “Selecting an institutional mechanism for Building Back Better: Lessons from Victorian bushfires recovery,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.19, pp. 273-279, 2016.
  8. [8] Y. Jibiki and K. Iuchi, “Developing evaluation framework of national level interim reconstruction agencies after mega-disasters: An initial attempt on evaluation by referring to international case,” N. Yoshihara, K. Nitakai, and M. Matsumoto (Eds.), “Records of ‘Restoration’ of the Victims’ Refugee Lives in the Great East Japan Earthquake,” pp. 186-204, Rikka Press, 2017 (in Japanese).
  9. [9] L. A. Johnson and R. B. Olshansky, “The Road to Recovery: Governing Post-Disaster Reconstruction,” Land Lines, Vol.25, No.3, pp. 14-21, 2013.
  10. [10] R. Murai, “Comparing three rebuilding authority in earthquake recovery – Government and administrative change in post-modern Japan,” M. Iokibe and T. Mikuriya (Eds.), “Comparative political analysis on rebuilding process after the great earthquakes: Evaluating three earthquake disasters of Kanto, Hanshin-Awaji, East Japan,” Minerva Shobo, 2016 (in Japanese).
  11. [11] M. Kastner et al., “What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review,” BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol.12, Article No.114, 2012.
  12. [12] Y. Xiao and M. Watson, “Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review,” J. of Planning Education and Research, Vol.39, No.1, pp. 93-112, 2017.
  13. [13] National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), “Reconstruction assistance on Yolanda,” Government of Republic of the Philippines, 2013.
  14. [14] K. Iuchi, Y. Jibiki, R. Solidum Jr., and R. Santiago, “Natural hazards governance in the Philippines,” Oxford University Press (Ed.), “Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science,” 2019.
  15. [15] National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), “Reconstruction assistance on Yolanda: Implementation for results,” Government of Republic of the Philippines, 2014.
  16. [16], “Lacson to step down as Yolanda rehab czar,” December 21, 2014, [accessed June 22, 2020]
  17. [17] E. R. Florano, “Community governance for disaster recovery and resilience: Four case studies in the Philippines,” Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Report No.2014-38, 2014.
  18. [18] K. Iuchi, “‘Build back better’ after Hurricane Yolanda: Initial planning dialogue on land use and risk after the hurricane of November 2013,” Proc. of Int. Symp. on City Planning, 2014.
  19. [19] S. M. Borras, O. Visser, and M. Uson, “Grabbing the ’clean slate’: The politics of the intersection of land grabbing, disasters and climate change; Insights from a local Philippine community in the aftermath of super typhoon Haiyan,” Int. Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University (ISS), 2014.
  20. [20] M. Uson, “Grabbing the ‘clean slate’: The politics of the intersection of land grabbing, disasters and climate change,” Institute of Social Studies, ISS Working Paper Series/General Series 603, 2015.
  21. [21] A. L. Santiago and F. Y. Roxas, “Catastrophic Disasters as Opportunities for Sustainable Reconstruction: The Case of Typhoon Yolanda,” De La Salle University (DLSU) Business & Economics Review, Vol.25, No.1, pp. 143-154, 2015.
  22. [22] L. C. Salazar, “Typhoon Yolanda: The politics of disaster response and management,” Southeast Asian Affairs 2015, pp. 277-302, 2015.
  23. [23] M. Kammerbauer and I. Mateo-Babiano, “Disaster governance for sustainable recovery of infrastructure and housing in Tacloban,” Decentralized Disaster Governance in Urbanizing Asia, National University of Singapore, 2015.
  24. [24] L. V. O. Estevez, “Philippine Compliance with International Standards for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons,” Philippines Law J., Vol.89, No.374, 2015.
  25. [25] A. Gocotano, L. S. Geroy, M. R. Alcido, M. M. Dorotan, G. Balboab, and J. L. Hall, “Is the response over? The transition from response to recovery in the health sector post-Haiyan,” Western Pacific Surveillance and Response J., Vol.6, No.Suppl.1, pp. 5-9, 2015.
  26. [26] K. Iuchi and E. Maly, “Residential Relocation Processes in Coastal Areas: Tacloban City after Typhoon Yolanda,” A. Sapat and A.-M. Esnard (Eds.), “Coming Home after Disaster: Multiple Dimensions of Housing Recovery,” pp. 209-226, Routledge, 2017.
  27. [27] J. C. Cuaresma, “Assessment of the Implementation of the Typhoon Yolanda Rehabilitation Program,” J. of Politics and Governance, Vol.6, Special Issue, pp. 118-143, 2016.
  28. [28] E. E. A. Co, M. B. J. Pamintuan, and L. M. F. Diño, “Building back better: A democratic accountability assessment of service delivery after Typhoon Haiyan,” The Int. Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2016.
  29. [29] G. Paragas, A. Rodil, and L. Pelingon, “Tacloban after Haiyan: Working Together Towards Recovery,” International Institute for Environment and Development, 2016.
  30. [30] D. T. Villacin, “A review of Philippine government disaster financing for recovery and reconstruction,” Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Report No.2017-21, 2017.
  31. [31] M. Kammerbauer, I. Mateo-Babiano, and J. Minnery, “Planning and governance for disaster recovery in Tacloban after Typhoon Haiyan (the Philippines),” G. Forino, S. Bonati, and L. M. Calandra (Eds.), “Governance of Risk, Hazards and Disasters: Trends in Theory and Practice,” 1st Edition, Taylor & Francis, 2018.
  32. [32] Y. Jibiki and Y. Ono, “Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines: Qualitative analysis of institutional and political factors influencing the continuum,” A. Hanatani, O. A. Gómez, and C. Kawaguchi (Eds.), “Crisis Management Beyond the Humanitarian-Development Nexus,” 1st Edition, pp. 185-206, Routledge, 2018.
  33. [33] V. Maynard, E. Parker, R. Yoseph-Paulus, and D. Garcia, “Urban planning following humanitarian crises: supporting urban communities and local governments to take the lead,” Environment and Urbanization, Vol.30, No.1, pp. 265-282, 2018.
  34. [34] S. Jha, P. F. Quising, Z. Ardaniel, A. J. Martinez, and L. Wang, “Natural disasters, public spending, and creative destruction: a case study of the Philippines,” ADB Institute, Working Paper No.817, 2018.
  35. [35] I. Arroyo, “User involvement in housing recovery: Cases from Haiyan affected areas in the Philippines,” Lund University Publications, 2019.
  36. [36] I. Arroyo and J. Åstrand, “Housing recovery outcomes after typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines: a critical realist perspective,” J. of Critical Realism, Vol.18, No.2, pp. 142-168, 2019.
  37. [37] K. Iuchi and J. Mutter, “Governing community relocation after major disasters: An analysis of three different approaches and its outcomes in Asia,” Progress in Disaster Science, Vol.6, Article No.100071, 2020.
  38. [38] The President of the Philippines, “Administrative Order No.5: Creation of an Inter-agency Task Force for the Unified Implementation and Monitor of Rehabilitation and Recovery Projects and Programs in the Yolanda-affected Areas,” 2017.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Mar. 01, 2021