Disasters expose our vulnerability

We have been preparing for the “Big One”—a predicted 7.2 magnitude earthquake in Metro Manila—for as long as I can remember. There are ongoing interagency coordinations, and any disaster risk reduction and management personnel at all levels, from central agencies to barangays, have this worst-case scenario in mind. Last Monday, an earthquake of 7.8 magnitude struck parts of Southern Mindanao, resulting in a death toll of 45 as of this writing. At least 77,000 individuals were directly affected, with 32,000 reported to be displaced. It also coincided with the first day of school for many, leading to immediate evacuation and sustained suspension of classes until buildings have been thoroughly inspected.

In times like this, I wonder if we are truly prepared despite years of preparation. Known for our resilience, are Filipinos adequately equipped to deal with such disasters? Yes, we have our go bags. There are big signs directing us to the nearest evacuation center. Schools and workplaces do regular drills for earthquakes and fires. And yet, when the moment actually happens, one can’t help but still feel vulnerable. Our theories and drills are sorely tested once a disaster occurs. Condemned buildings are left to collapse, posing a huge risk to the community. Power remains a fragile infrastructure, taking too long to be restored. We are also seeing how fractious and unstable politics distract our focus from providing the best and most immediate response.

Disasters expose not just the cracks in the building but the cracks in our resilience. We are sorely reminded that we have many vulnerabilities to address. We have our physical vulnerabilities, that is, the susceptibility of buildings and infrastructure to damage in response to disasters like earthquakes. We have our psychological vulnerabilities, which are our susceptibility to stress and overwhelm. We also have to consider our structural vulnerability–how our social, economic, and political dynamics cause marginalized groups to have much greater risk of harm in times of disaster. It is not just physical infrastructure that we need to address; our societal infrastructure contributes to both our resilience and vulnerability to disasters.

We can distill these vulnerability factors into something simple: buildings, people, and politics. For a genuine whole-of-society approach to disaster prevention and response, we must address the three. We must make use of the best science and technology available to make our structures resilient to various disasters, especially earthquakes. We must be vigilant in identifying vulnerable structures that could risk people’s lives and intervene immediately, such as buildings that should already be condemned—or ensure proper dismantling or demolition of such structures. Redundancy is our friend—a town only reachable by a single bridge will be cut off once that bridge collapses. We must design our cities and villages to minimize the risk of being cut off from basic goods and necessities. This also means having alternative evacuation centers when the evacuation center itself has been damaged.

Psychological vulnerability, while experienced individually, also needs to be addressed at the community level. Experiences of fear, uncertainty, helplessness, and loss of control can be mitigated by proper disaster risk communication. If people are well-informed about what is happening and what they can do to keep safe, they are less likely to panic. If people’s mental health is well-managed and supported, they are generally less vulnerable during emergencies.

Addressing structural vulnerability requires that we take a hard look at the socioeconomic inequalities that make some people more vulnerable than others. Urban poor communities, for example, are at much higher risk of fatality, displacement, and damage due to their population density. They lack wide open spaces to which they can safely evacuate. These communities tend to stand on top of fault lines and other geographical hazards, as these are the only places they can afford to live in. They also do not have equitable access to physical and mental health care, making them more vulnerable to illness and disability. They also do not have the financial security to recover from a disaster. It takes money to rebuild. They also do not have the benefit of enough savings to weather days of no income.

We must also recognize that buildings, people, and politics are intertwined. If there is one thing I hope we have learned in the ongoing corruption scandals, it is that corruption harms us all. The siphoning of funds away from infrastructure projects means substandard construction. This poses a huge risk for us during disasters like earthquakes and floods. Corruption also harms the economy, making regular people less financially resilient. Taking money away from government programs means poorer health care and poorer education.