Leveraging Civil-Military Coordination: Opportunities and Challenges in Disaster Preparedness

Abstract

As natural and human-induced hazards continue to intensify and threaten human-environment systems, effective disaster risk management (DRM) must also evolve and adapt to maximize existing capacities to prepare and respond effectively. This involves coordinating efforts across various levels and multiple stakeholders including civilian agencies and military organizations. This paper explores the current practice of integrating civilian and military efforts in DRM and humanitarian assistance. This practice is recognized through the Civil-Military Coordination (CMCoord) mechanism. While existing practice and literature on CMCoord are focused mainly on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, this paper looks into how CMCoord can further contribute to disaster preparedness. It answers the question: What opportunities and challenges can influence an effective CMCoord in disaster preparedness and planning? With this, the paper provides an initial review of opportunities and challenges in CMCoord focusing on key preparedness aspects such as risk assessment, institutional arrangements, response mechanisms, and coordination. The paper argues and identifies three (3) opportunities and challenges to consider. First, conflicting command and control structures are a significant challenge in fostering a collaborative response and coordination mechanism which may lead to institutional fragmentation. Second, geopolitical shifts and domestic politics can affect institutional partnerships and collaboration. Lastly, the differences in risk assessment and perception between civilian and military organizations underscore the need to bridge this gap to provide a common operating picture. Considering and addressing these challenges and opportunities is crucial for leveraging the strengths of both civilian and military actors to ensure effective and better disaster preparedness outcomes.

Keywords: Civil-Military Coordination, Disaster Preparedness, Command and Control, Risk Assessment, Response Mechanisms and Coordination

1. Introduction

As natural and human-induced hazards continue to threaten human-environment systems, there is also a need to evolve and adapt systems and strategies to maximize existing capacities to prepare and respond effectively. Disaster risk management (DRM) entails coordinating efforts across various levels and stakeholders from the government, non-government, and international partners. This often needs the collaboration, coordination, and sharing of assets, information, and resources between civilian agencies and military organizations.

Given the military’s expansive organization, logistical capabilities, and rapid deployment mechanisms, the integration of civil-military coordination (CMCoord) within existing civilian efforts in preparing for and responding to humanitarian crises, enhances effectiveness and efficiency (Bollen & Kalkman, 2022). The United Nations defines CMCoord as “the essential dialogue and interaction between civilian and military actors in humanitarian emergencies that is necessary to protect and promote humanitarian principles, avoid competition, minimize inconsistency, and, when appropriate, pursue common goals.” CMCoord has been increasingly recognized as a vital component in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief specifically with the adoption of the Oslo Guidelines on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief?in 1992 (UNOCHA, 2023).

2. The need to focus on CMCoord in disaster preparedness

Fostering an effective CMCoord involves several challenges stemming from the differences in organizational cultures, command and control structures, and priorities. Moreover, while the discourse on CMCoord has been well-documented in the literature, recent organizational, geopolitical, and socioeconomic development necessitates the need to rethink existing practices. Additionally, one gap identified in the existing discourse is that it is dominated by its role in disaster response and humanitarian assistance and limited focus on disaster preparedness and prevention aspects (Trajano, 2016). These gaps inspired this paper to contribute to the current discourse on CMCoord by identifying possible challenges in the context of preparedness. Specifically, this paper tries to answer the question: What opportunities and challenges can influence an effective CMCoord in disaster preparedness and planning?

With this, the paper delves into various opportunities and challenges of CMCoord in different aspects of preparedness and planning such as risk assessment, institutional arrangements, response mechanisms, and coordination. To answer this, the paper first provides an initial account of the current practice of CMCoord and how it is integrated into the DRM system. This sets the foundation to understand how CMCoord functions in existing frameworks and structures. The second part of the paper then identifies opportunities and challenges in CMCoord and how various social contexts might affect integration depending on social, economic, or political facets.

3. Current practice and approach in CMCoord

Based on literature and practice on CMCoord, there are various ways how military organizations work with civilian disaster management systems. Rietjens (2008) described this based on different tasks most military organizations are involved into such as providing security to civilian populations, providing logistical support, and directly assisting the affected population. Meanwhile, Shabab et al. (2015) presented five (5) trends in how the military is involved in preparedness and response such as looking into disaster management as military operations other than war, establishment of military disaster response teams, military as a communications hub, utilizing foreign military assets, and conducting training exercises.

In addition, this paper looks into three (3) approaches based on the literature review: military as a “last resort” resource, as members of the DRM structure, and establishment of disaster management teams within military organizations. First, Franke (2006) and Hoffman and Hudson (2009) described that there are systems that view the role of the military as a “last resort” only to be used when civilian resources are overwhelmed and exhausted. This relates to arguments that diverting military resources towards domestic disaster management detracts the military from their primary mandate of ensuring security amidst global tensions (Brewster, 2022). Second, there are systems where they explicitly integrate military organizations as part of the disaster management structure. For instance, the Armed Forces of the Philippines is mandated by the Philippine DRRM Law to be part of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, and the Cluster Approach System as lead of the Search, Rescue and Retrieval Cluster and member of the Logistics Cluster (NDRRMC, 2018). Lastly, there are also systems where specific disaster management teams are established within their respective military organizations. An example is Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force Disaster Relief Teams which have strong capabilities related to medical services, transport of relief items, and water supply activities using water-purifying devices (MOD, 2020).

Overall, approaches to integrating CMCoord in DRM may vary, but the overarching objective remains the same: to leverage military capabilities and expertise to ensure effective preparedness and response. It is, however, important to note that sustaining adequate preparedness necessitates the continuous engagement of civil and military actors considering the intensifying nature of hazards, as well as the emergence of other factors that can shape CMCoord practices.

4. Emerging opportunities and challenges to CMCoord

In this section, three (3) emerging opportunities and challenges of CMCoord in preparedness are highlighted – conflicting command and control structures, geopolitical shifts, and differences in risk perception.

4.1. Conflicting command and control structures

An essential part of effective preparedness and planning is to ensure proper alignment and integration of response mechanisms and coordination. Proper integration enhances operational effectiveness and fosters a collaborative environment among diverse stakeholders including civilian and military organizations (Egnell, 2013). One challenge Laksmana (2010) identified in integrating CMCoord in DRM is the differences in the command and control structures and hierarchies between civilian and military organizations. Command and control (C2) is defined by Uhr and Pettersson (2018) as a tool for generating effects by achieving direction and coordination among resources engaged in response operations. Comfort (2007) emphasized the importance of C2 in building a “common operating picture” which is essential for clear communication and coordination of actions in preparedness and response.

Civilian C2 systems often follow a decentralized structure allowing for rapid adaptation depending on the intensity, magnitude, and requirements of disaster response operations, promoting collaboration and shared decision-making. An example is the use of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS). This flexibility is crucial in dynamic response operations where situational awareness and resource needs can change instantly (FEMA, 2017). The same was recognized by McConnell and Drennan (2006) highlighting the need for pre-crisis planning to be adaptable to new circumstances and flexibility in responses. However, this decentralized approach can also lead to challenges in maintaining a unified direction and structure particularly when other organizations such as those from the military are involved. Franke (2006) discussed that military organizations are often used to operating in a hierarchical command structure with a strict chain of command and centralized decision-making processes. Moreover, the systems used by both civilian and military organizations also use different communication protocols. Civilian organizations, with their emphasis on flexibility and inclusivity, may find it challenging to accommodate the rigid, hierarchical structures of military entities. Likewise, military organizations that are used to centralized command and rapid decision-making may be slow to adopt the more collaborative and decentralized approaches of civilian agencies (Boin & Hart, 2012). These practices and organizational culture often resist change, even when new evidence suggests that adaptation could improve outcomes (Comfort, 2007). This was apparent during the response operations following a massive landslide in the aftermath of Typhoon “Mangkhut” in the Philippines in 2018. Miranda (2020) identified that one of the most challenging aspects of the operations was the "unwillingness of mostly uniformed personnel in the military to reorganize and integrate civilian agencies and volunteers into their highly military-structured organization for multi-agency operations." These instances led Gong and Cook (2023) to argue on the need to “sensitize relevant military officers that they are subordinate to civilian leadership in disaster response since militaries are used to different command-and-control structures of operations.”

This necessitates the establishment of pre-identified command and control structures and convergence in concepts, protocols, and procedures to maintain a clear distinction between responsibilities and avoid institutional fragmentation (McConnell & Drennan, 2006; Banatin, et al., 2015). In addition, bridging this gap also involves the conduct of joint training, exercises, and planning with both civilian and military entities to enhance understanding of each other’s C2 structures and communication protocols. Guercia (2011), Coppola (2020), and Puckett (2021) all argued that these joint exercises can help build trust, improve interoperability, and identify potential bottlenecks before actual response operations. In addition, both Franke (2006) and Holshek (2013) argued for the use of a comparative advantage approach to CMCoord. This approach involves the delineation of roles and responsibilities based on the strengths of civilian and military components. As Jayasundara-Smits (2017) simply put, there is a need to balance between civilian and military capabilities depending on “who can contribute the best under what conditions and when in the operational cycle.” For instance, the military's strengths may include providing security, logistics support, and operational efficiency (Wende et al., 2023). Meanwhile, civilian organizations have technical expertise, established local relationships, and community engagement. By leveraging these comparative advantages, this approach ensures that each entity operates within its strengths, leading to more effective and efficient efforts. Nonetheless, this paper argues that the use of this approach is dependent on the social context specifically how well-established the DRM system is. In countries with highly capable and well-equipped DRM systems, the military’s role might be limited to providing logistical support, security management, or being involved in multinational operations outside of their countries (Chretien, 2007). On the other hand, in developing or least developed regions, the military might play a more prominent role due to the lack of civilian capacity to cope and manage the impact of disasters. Still, it is crucial to ensure that the military’s involvement in such cases should be managed to avoid creating too much dependency on military resources while empowering civilian organizations.

4.2. Global and Domestic Geopolitics

One critical aspect that is often overlooked is how geopolitical and domestic conditions can affect how CMCoord can be conducted. This is relevant because domestic and geopolitical shifts can affect the enabling environment through which trust and collaboration are built in these kinds of institutional arrangements (Coppola, 2020). Moreover, the existing domestic and geopolitical situation can shape the legal and institutional frameworks upon which CMCoord is built. Both aspects are evident and observed in the case of geopolitical alliances such as the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the U.S. and the Philippines and repressive policies such as red-tagging.

The U.S.–Philippines partnership through EDCA has been traditionally seen as a mutual defense agreement. However, in recent years, the agreement expanded to non-traditional security aspects including the establishment of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief facilities, such as command centers, logistics warehouses, evacuation centers, and joint exercises (PCO, 2023).? As pointed out by Armitage and Nye (2008) and Male?i? (2015), involving armed forces in DRM generates soft power and as such, these alliances are seen as a neocolonial tool used to perpetuate dependency and power imbalance between developed and developing countries. True enough, these alliances have increased the presence of U.S. military forces in the Philippines, and this is viewed by China as an interference with its territorial integrity complicating current regional geopolitical relations in the area (Levailant, 2014; Grady, 2023). Joint exercises and capacity-building efforts between the U.S. and the Philippines in disaster preparedness have been seen by China as an effort to expand military presence under the guise of humanitarian action (Strangio, 2023). This tension can negatively affect preparedness efforts in cases where resources are diverted away from preparedness and humanitarian activities to cater to the increasing security tension created by this alliance.

Meanwhile, at the domestic level, building trust between the military and other humanitarian organizations presents significant challenges. This is particularly challenging in the Philippines due to issues of red-tagging of humanitarian organizations perpetuated by President Duterte’s Administration from 2016 to 2022 (HRW, 2022). In 2019, the Armed Forces of the Philippines accused Oxfam Philippines of being a front for local “communist terrorist groups” and its international arm as a funding agency supporting terrorism activities (Patag, 2019). Oxfam responded to the accusations emphasizing their long-standing role in humanitarian aid, and called out the military for jeopardizing the credibility and safety of their humanitarian workers (Cepeda, 2019). These actions by the military can severely hinder trust-building, which is identified by Capili (2017) and Puckett (2021) as essential for effective collaboration in preparedness activities.

Another relevant challenge that CMCoord faces in the involvement of the military in disaster preparedness activities is maintaining humanitarian principles in their missions (Metcalfe et al., 2012). Both Gong and Cook (2023) and Bollen and Kalkman (2022) warned that expanding the role of the military in disaster management can undermine democracy and freedom, pose risks to humanitarian workers, and compromise humanitarian principles such as neutrality. Civilian humanitarian organizations fear losing their perceived neutrality and becoming targets themselves. This concern is illustrated by an incident in the Philippines where a convoy of the Philippine Army and civilians conducting preemptive evacuations for Typhoon Rai, was ambushed by communist rebels (Sadongdong, 2021). The same was experienced during the 2010 Pakistan Floods where many humanitarian workers were hesitant to use armed escorts provided by the Pakistani military as it would put their staff and programs at risk (Madiwale and Kudrat, 2011).????????

With this, one critical aspect to ensure seamless coordination and management of CMCoord is to build trust between civilian and military actors (Shmueli et al., 2021). Nonetheless, this can be challenging based on relevant social context such as the perceived trust of the population in their military organization (Bollen & Kalkman, 2022). In countries with stable political systems and positive relationships between military and civilian actors, collaboration with other actors may face fewer or no obstacles. However, in countries with a history of violence against civilians by military actors, there is often inherent distrust towards military involvement in civilian affairs like disaster preparedness aspects (Jahangiri, 2018). This complicates the effort to build stronger ties and trust among the different actors involved.

4.3. Differences in risk assessment and cognition

As Comfort (2007) argued, effective risk recognition and assessment are pivotal for successful DRM. Cognitive processes enable managers to navigate the complex landscape of planning and real-time response, mitigating the often-observed disparity between theoretical planning and practical implementation (Ibid). Civilian and military organizations, due to their differing missions and operational cultures, tend to approach risk cognition and assessment through different lenses. In the context of CMCoord, the cognitive differences between civilian and military organizations regarding risk recognition and interpretation are crucial yet frequently neglected. This disregard can lead to inefficiencies and conflicts during joint disaster response operations.

Civilian and military organizations typically operate within their spheres, with limited interaction outside of crises. This separation reinforces conflicting cognitive approaches to risk assessment, hence the need for a more collaborative decision-making approach (Kapucu & Garayev, 2011). The lack of a unified approach to risk recognition and interpretation can lead to fragmented responses and missed opportunities for synergy (Haddow et al., 2017). The failure to consider cognitive differences in CMCoord has significant implications for disaster preparedness and response effectiveness. Given the complexity, urgency, and uncertainties in disaster management, it is crucial to ensure a timely and efficient decision-making process between civilian and military organizations. Misaligned risk perceptions and decision-making processes can result in inefficient resource allocation, delayed responses, and increased vulnerabilities for affected populations.

5. Conclusion

The practice of CMCoord is gaining relevance both in practice and literature. Given the lack of focus on CMCoord in preparedness and planning, this paper provided an initial review of opportunities and challenges that need to be addressed. Conflicting command and control structures remain a critical issue that necessitates the need for an integrated framework for interoperability and communication. This requires the adoption of a comparative advantage approach that leverages the strength of both civilian and military actors to ensure more effective and efficient collaboration. Likewise, there is the need to consider geopolitical shifts and domestic politics which can directly affect how institutional partnerships and collaborations are made. This affects preparedness in CMCoord, particularly in how partnerships are forged and how resources are prioritized to cater to both geopolitical tensions and humanitarian activities. Meanwhile, managing the differences in risk perception underscores the need for mutual understanding and conduct of joint exercises to bridge gaps and foster and common operating picture among all involved actors.

This paper hopes to open a new discourse on how CMCoord can be capitalized in the disaster preparedness aspect. This further highlights the need for further knowledge and practice given the limited literature on how the CMCoord is used in disaster preparedness. Exploring and understanding the effectiveness and challenges of CMCoord is important to provide a more informed and effective integration in preparedness beyond humanitarian assistance and disaster relief activities. While CMCoord is not new in terms of practice, considering these opportunities and challenges can shape better disaster preparedness outcomes.

6. References

Armitage, R. L. & Nye Jr., J. S. (2008), ‘Implementing Smart Power: Setting an Agenda for National Security Reform’, Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 24.

Banatin, C., et al. 2015. “Advances in civil-military coordination in catastrophes: How the Philippines turned lessons from Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) into best practices for disaster preparedness.” Accessed May 23, 2024.?https://www.rcrc-resilience-southeastasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2014-CFE-Advances-in-Civil-Military-Coordination-in-Catastrophes-How-the-Philippines-Turned-Lessons-Learned-from-Super-Typhoon-Ha.pdf.

Boin, A., & Hart, P. ’. (2012). Aligning Executive action in times of adversity: The Politics of Crisis Co-Ordination. In Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks (pp. 179–196). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137010261_10

Bollen, M., & Kalkman, J. (2022). Civil-Military Cooperation in Disaster and Emergency Response: Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities. Journal of Advanced Military Studies, 13(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.21140/mcuj.20221301004

Brewster, M. (2022, October 5). The military can’t be the first line of defence in domestic disasters, MPs told. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fadden-military-fiona-hurricane-natural-disasters-1.6605961

Capili, A. 2017. “Trust: The basis for coordination.”?Liaison J.?9: 7–9.

Cepeda, M. (2019, November 6). Red-tagged Oxfam, NCCP slam military for ‘malicious, careless’ attack. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/nation/244252-red-tagged-oxfam-nccp-slam-military/

Chretien, J. (2007). The importance of militaries from developing countries in global infectious disase surveillance. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(3), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.06.037101

Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: cognition, communication, coordination, and control. PAR. Public Administration Review/Public Administration Review, 67(s1), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00827.x

Cook, A., & Gong, L. (2023). Issues, Trends and Developments in Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination in the Asia-Pacific. Nanyang Technological University. Retrieved May 27, 2024, from https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/PR230811_Issues-Trends-and-Developments-in-Humanitarian-Civil-Military-Coordination-in-the-Asia-Pacific.pdf

Coppola, D. (2020). Introduction to international disaster management. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128173688/introduction-to-international-disaster-management

Egnell, R. (2013). Civil-military coordination for operational effectiveness: Towards a measured approach. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 24(2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2013.778017

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2017). National Incident Management System. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/148019

Franke, V. (2006). The peacebuilding dilemma: civil-military cooperation in stability operations. International Journal of Peace Studies, 11(2), 5–25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41852944

Grady, J. (2023, May 5). New EDCA sites are not a response to China, Philippines president says during Washington visit - USNI News. USNI News.? https://news.usni.org/2023/05/05/new-edca-sites-are-not-a-response-to-china-philippines-president-says-during-washington-visit

Guercia, L. H. (2011). Integration of training civilian and military disaster responders. {Master’s Thesis} Naval Postgraduate School, California.

Haddow, G., Bullock, J., & Coppola, D. (2017). Introduction to Emergency Management (5th ed.). Elsevier Butterworth–Heinemann. https://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/14863/1/George%20D.%20Haddow%20%282%29.pdf

Hoffman, C. & Hudson, L. (2009). Military responses to natural disasters: last resort or inevitable trend? | Humanitarian Practice Network. https://odihpn.org/publication/military-responses-to-natural-disasters-last-resort-or-inevitable-trend/

Holshek, C. (2013). Thinking globally, acting locally: A grand strategic approach to civil-military coordination in the 21st century. In V. C. Franke & R. H. Dorff (Eds.), Conflict management and peacebuilding: Pillars of a new American grand strategy (pp. 193–240). Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep11973.11

Human Rights Watch (2022). Philippines: End deadly ‘Red-Tagging’ of activists. (2022, January 20). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/17/philippines-end-deadly-red-tagging-activists

Jahangiri, K. (2018). Military Involvement in Disaster Management: Advantages and Disadvantages. 4th ICMM Pan-Asia Pacific Congress on Military Medicine, Tehran, Iran.

Jayasundara-Smits, S. (2017). Civil-Military Synergy at Operational Level in EU External Action. 10.13140/RG.2.2.11814.93766.

Kapucu, N., & Garayev, V. (2011). Collaborative Decision-Making in emergency and disaster management. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(6), 366–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.561477

Laksmana, E.?(2010).?The?Indonesian?defence?forces?and?disaster?relief:?potential pitfalls?and?challenges.?(RSIS?Commentaries,?No.?160)ks.?Singapore: Nanyang?Technological?University.

Levailant, M. (2024, March 13). Aiding competition: The geopolitics of humanitarian aid and disaster relief in the Indo-Pacific. ECFR. https://ecfr.eu/article/aiding-competition-the-geopolitics-of-humanitarian-aid-and-disaster-relief-in-the-indo-pacific/

Madiwale, Ajay; Virk, Kudrat (2011).?Civil–military relations in natural disasters: a case study of the 2010 Pakistan floods. International Review of the Red Cross, 93(884), 1085–1105.?doi:10.1017/S181638311200032X

Male?i?, M. (2015). The impact of military engagement in disaster management on civil–military relations. Current Sociology, 63(7), 980–998. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392115577839

McConnell, A., & Drennan, L. (2006). Mission impossible? Planning and preparing for crisis1. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(2), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2006.00482.x

Metcalfe, V., Haysom, S., & Gordon, S. (2012). Trends and Challenges in Humanitarian Civil–military Coordination A Review of the literature. Humanitarian Policy Group. https://acfid.asn.au/sites/site.acfid/files/resource_document/Trends-challenges-in-humanitarian-civil-mil-coordination.pdf

Ministry of Defence Japan (2020). International Disaster Relief Activities by the MOD/JSDF. Japan Defence Focus. https://www.mod.go.jp/en/jdf/pdf/jdf_no122.pdf

Miranda, R. (2020). Order in Disasters: Assessing the Reliability and Effectiveness of Incident Command System in the Philippines [Master’s Thesis]. Ateneo de Manila University.

NDRRMC (2018). National Disaster Response Plan for Hydrometeorological Hazards. Office of Civil Defense. https://dreamb.dswd.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NDRP-Hydro-Meteorological-Hazards.pdf

Patag, K. J. (2019, November 6). “We are a humanitarian organization,” Oxfam stresses after AFP labels them terrorist front. Philstar.com. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/11/06/1966485/we-are-humanitarian-organization-oxfam-stresses-after-afp-labels-them-terrorist-front

Pettersson, U., & Uhr, C. (2018). Who Commands Whom? : A Discussion on Bottom-up Behavior and its Consequences in Military Influenced First Response Organizations.

Presidential Communications Office. (2023, April 3). Palace: 4 additional EDCA sites to boost PH humanitarian, relief operations in disasters. https://pco.gov.ph/news_releases/palace-4-additional-edca-sites-to-boost-ph-humanitarian-relief-operations-in-disasters/

Puckett, L. M. (2021). Civil-Military coordination in disaster preparedness and response. Natural Hazards Review, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000446

Rietjens, S. (2008). 2. Civil-Military cooperation. In Civil-Military Cooperation in Response to a Complex Emergency. ??International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology, Volume: 108. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004163270.i-253.15

Sadongdong, M. (2021). CPP, NPA launch attacks vs police, military engaged in typhoon response -- PNP. (2021, December 17). Manila Bulletin. https://mb.com.ph/2021/12/17/cpp-npa-launch-attacks-vs-police-military-engaged-in-typhoon-response-pnp

Shabab, R., Arshad A., Shahid, I., & Maqbol, S. (2015).? “Armed Forces and Disaster Management.”? American Journal of Social Science Research 1, No. 3 (2015): 152–57.

Shmueli, D. F., Ozawa, C. P., & Kaufman, S. (2021). Collaborative planning principles for disaster preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 52, 101981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101981

Strangio, S. (2023, March 21). China warns Philippines over US access to military bases. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2023/03/china-warns-philippines-over-us-access-to-military-bases/

Trajano, J. C. I. (2016). Building resilience from within: Enhancing humanitarian civil-military coordination in post-Haiyan Philippines. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05928

UNOCHA (2023). Regional Consultative Group (RCG) on Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination for Asia and the Pacific: Eighth Session Briefing book. (2023, February 27). OCHA. https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/world/regional-consultative-group-rcg-humanitarian-civil-military-coordination-asia-and-pacific-eighth-session-briefing-book

Wende, A., Mahroza, N. J., Hadisancoko, N. R. E., & Aremu, N. S. O. (2023). Role of the armed forces in military operations other than war in managing natural disasters. International Journal of Humanities Education and Social Sciences, 2(5). https://doi.org/10.55227/ijhess.v2i5.402