Today’s Top 10

Foreign government donors and UN agencies that helped us

DO YOU know what countries donated money to the Philippines for the victims of Typhoon Yolanda? How much did they give? These infographics give us a glimpse into the flow of aid from abroad based on information gathered by the PCIJ from embassies of donor countries.

top10_foreigngovt_donors copy

INFOGRAPHIC by Cong B. Corrales

And how about aid coming from United Nations agencies?

top10_UNdonation_yolanda copy

INFOGRAPHIC by Cong B. Corrales

More details [Who, what, why, how much“] on our Disaster Aid microsite.

The Aquino Gov’t & Yolanda: A lot of money, impact too little too late

WITHOUT A DOUBT, the Philippine government has tried to match nearly peso for peso the massive amounts of donations that foreign governments, donor agencies, corporate entities, and citizens of the world have raised for the victims of super typhoon Yolanda.

In fact, when the nation marked Yolanda’s first anniversary on Nov. 8, 2014, the government proclaimed that it had released at least PhP52.06 billion for relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction work for the victims and affected communities.

The government has estimated that it would require PhP167.9 billion to complete the work until 2016. But this does not worry Budget Secretary Florencio ‘Butch’ Abad. At a recent assessment forum on Yolanda, he bad guaranteed that full bill would be made available in the 2015 and 2016 budgets — PhP80.31 billion and PhP38.93 billion, respectively, or a little bit more that the projected expense.

“Money is not a problem,” Abad said. “The problem is the assessment, preparation, execution, and delivery (of aid).”

When PCIJ sat down to unpack and parse the government’s numbers, the big data did seem impressive. The small data, however, tended to belie the government’s claims that public funds have so far been released quickly, efficiently, and for all the right purposes, to the communities ravaged by Yolanda.

Among our findings:

* Beyond the mercy missions — or humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations, with publicity stunts for public officials tucked in between — a big portion of the funds released for Yolanda did not flow as promptly and many projects did not roll out as quickly.

* The government sought and secured from Congress a P14.6-billion supplemental appropriation in January 2014 “for relief and rehabilitation services, and the repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction of permanent structures, including other capital expenditures for disaster operations and rehabilitation activities in areas affected by disasters and calamities, both natural and man-made.” The tone of urgency that marked the request soon shifted to sluggish release of funds. Government’s first billing on the supplemental appropriation came only on March 4, 2014, or three months later. Yet again in December 2014, government sought and secured a second P22.5-billion supplemental appropriation from Congress.

* The bulk or 61 percent of the Budget department’s total releases for disaster relief are listed as having gone to Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), which by nature are difficult to account for; only 39 percent are recorded as having gone to Capital Outlay (CO) projects, which are more concrete and require full project documentation.

* Other than data regarding which line departments received how much, the DBM disbursements trail turns thin and cold. There is hardly sufficient information on the identities of the final beneficiaries (towns, provinces, villages, etc.), or more importantly, the exact location and final deliverables or outcomes of projects.

* DBM documents are couched in sparse and general language that does not reveal useful information about the projects. In fact, at least 11 percent of releases under the supplemental appropriations for Yolanda had no project description. About PhP2.3 billion of the other disaster funds had entries of just “rehabilitation and reconstruction program” as project description.

* Of the first PhP14.6-billion supplemental budget, less than a fourth or just PhP3.39 billion were released for the communities ravaged by Yolanda. The bigger balance of about PhP7.5 billion actually went to all sorts of unnamed communities in the provinces visited by a long parade of typhoons with names few people would still remember – Dante, Emong, Isang, Jolina, Kiko, Labuyo, Vinta, Maring, Quedan, Ramil, Santi, Zoraida, Odette, “previous disasters and aggravated by Typhoon Yolanda,” Habagat, “monsoon rains,” and “flashfloods” in 2013, which received PhP3.761 billion or more than that allotted for Yolanda-affected areas.

* At least six of these so-called “calamities” — tropical storms Carina, Quedan, Ramil, Dante, Emong, and Kiko — neither made landfall nor directly affected the Philippines. Funds have also been provided for episodes of “monsoon rains” and “flashfloods” that are by now usual occurrences most everywhere in the nation.

* Traces of the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program or DAP – which the Supreme Court ruled in July 2014 to be unconstitutional in part – have crossed over to government’s work on disasters. The last DAP tranche, PhP4.1 billion in all, was released by DBM on Dec. 27, 2013. Interestingly, on that day, Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) included over PhP3 billion for “Calamity-Related Rehabilitation Restoration Project and Other Priority Projects” coursed through the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP), Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA), National Dairy Authority (NDA), National Irrigation Authority (NIA), and Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA). The last DAP tranche also included direct assistance worth PhP23.33 million provided to the mostly Liberal Party-affiliated mayors of towns in Eastern Visayas and Northern Luzon.

* The government did not only underspend, it also spent slowly and even, by many accounts, inappropriately and with not so good results. It has authority from Congress to use up to PhP127.6 billion of public money from various special-purpose funds for calamities and disasters in 2013 and 2014. As of November 2014, however, only PhP31.3 billion, or less than a quarter of the disaster monies, had been released by DBM. That amount included a substantial portion for recovery efforts from damage wrought by almost a dozen typhoons and calamities three to four years past.

The third set of stories and relevant data tables from PCIJ’s Disaster Aid: The Money Trail project follow:


* The Government and Yolanda: Too much money, impact too little too late
* A throng of typhoons
* Spinning a good project: Reconstituting civil registry records

For related video, photos, data tables, and documents, check out Disaster Aid: The Money Trail.

Yolanda’s donors: Who, what, why?

EXACTLY three months after Yolanda struck central Philippines, the government launched a worldwide campaign to thank everyone who had rushed to the country’s aid in the super typhoon’s aftermath.

Print and TV ads, as well as billboards in nine famous cities across the globe – New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Toronto, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Sydney – expressed the Filipinos’ gratitude for the hand extended to them by people all over the world.

Indeed, while Filipinos themselves rushed to help their countrymen in need, the global response to the tragedy was overwhelming.

The United Nations itself has monitored, through its Financial Tracking Service (FTS), a total of US$845 million (PhP37 billion) of Yolanda aid being raised and donated to the Philippines in the period between November 2013 and October 2014.

Some 22 percent of this amount came from private individuals and organizations. The rest came from various donor-countries.

The latter includes at least 58 foreign governments and the European Commission alone that, according to donor documents, have already given some PhP29.84 billion or US$667.5 million as of October 2014.

The UN said the donations were coursed through 120 operational relief agencies from within the UN system, the international components of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and some international non-governmental organizations (INGO) and faith-based groups.

To track the trail of aid in cash and in kind for Yolanda’s victims, PCIJ moved 188 letter requests for data and documents to a great majority of these donors. The letters included 117 sent to INGOs, NGOs, and private entities; 59 to donor countries and foreign embassies; and 12 to government agencies.

To be sure, a significant amount of the donations might have been reported twice or thrice; some donor agencies themselves had also served as conduits or channels of the donations.

In a number of cases, pledges were bundled with donations that had already been raised and disbursed.

In yet other cases, donor reports were not specific as to their intended beneficiaries (i.e. towns and cities, number of persons, etc.), or even what the general purposes of the funds mean in terms of actual goods and services (i.e. “child protection” or “Water, Sanitation, and Health Services or WASH”).

The database that PCIJ has organized for all the reported numbers and information is a massive file with 53 columns and 994 rows of 14,310 cells or data entries — for the donors alone.

Meanwhile, the database for the PhP52.06 billion in public funds that the Philippine government said had been disbursed for Yolanda’s victims, a year after the disaster struck, is another matter altogether. This second database consists of 26 columns and 780 rows of 15,629 cells or data entries.

Combined, the two databases come up to 79 columns and 1,774 rows of 29,939 cells or data entires.

Yet still, the PCIJ has launched only a seminal effort at retracing the money trail of Yolanda and other recent disasters. Because such funds could spell relief, rescue, and survival for families and communities, integrity and efficiency in their use and release have become a common concern of citizens, public officials, and donor agencies.

The latest PCIj stories for Disaster Aid: The Money Trail follow:


* Yolanda’s donors: Who, what, why, how much?
* Tacloban: Disaster & politics a bad mix
* Relief protocols and rules

For the full data tables, as well as related video, photos, and documents, check out Diaster Aid: The Money Trail.

Disaster aid, the money trail: Or why Yolanda lingers still

DISASTER AID in the time of super typhoons like Yolanda has fortuitously flowed richly, quickly, and from a bounty of donors without fail to assist Filipino families and communities in need. On parallel stream, public funds devoted to relief, recovery, and reconstruction have surged just as abundantly.

But as many as 20 tropical cyclones visit most of the nation’s 7,107 islands every year. Some make a mess, many others destroy. And as the disasters follow in short succession, hopefully, too, disaster aid would come incessantly.

Now more than ever, transparency and accountability in the use, release, and results of disaster aid resonate as legitimate public goals and goods. To document the story of disaster aid and how deficits of integrity or efficiency in the use of donations and public funds could send the victims and the survivors to even worse calamity, the PCIJ staff launched a major investigation project, Disaster Aid: The Money Trail.

This project enjoys support from Christian Aid, an international non-government organization, through its Philippine Country Office that focuses on “resilience and justice to address the persistent poverty and inequality aggravated by disasters and the risks of climate change.”

Christian Aid funded the project “as our contribution to the interest of the public’s right to know how the Yolanda funds are managed and used and that the findings and recommendations are meant to feed into the policy discourse on Republic Act No. 10121 (The Philippine Risk Reduction and Management Plan of 2010) review and the Yolanda budget process.”

Across a two-month period, nine PCIJ editors and writers worked on strong>Disaster Aid: The Money Trail. This was how we did it:

* Gathered, sorted, and analyzed 626 megabytes of 688 research files;

* Sent 188 request letters for data and documents, including 117 sent to international and national nongovernment organizations and private entities; 59 sent to donor countries and foreign embassies; and 12 sent to government agencies;

* Conducted dozens of interviews and three focus group discussions with the affected residents, aid workers, donor representatives, local and national officials, and expert sources;

* Attended and covered eight public briefings, dialogues, and forums on the status of rehabilitation work for victims of Yolanda;

* Wrote and produced a dozen stories; a full-length documentary; nine video shorts; and 12 “Voices” video featuring aid agency and NGO leaders; about 100 photographs; and a microsite that aggregates these editorial products and primary documents from aid and government agencies.

Today, eve of the visit of the Holy Father, Pope Francis, to Manila and Tacloban City on 15-19 January 2015, we are launching PCIJ’s Disaster Aid: The Money Trail microsite to draw focus back on the nation’s huge, unfinished task of recovery and reconstruction from Yolanda, the disaster that lingers still.

For related video, photos, data tables, and documents, check it out!