Mt. Kanlaon eruption: Building back safer
The recent eruption of Mt. Kanlaon has affected some 750,000 people in Canlaon City in Negros Oriental and two cities and eight municipalities in Negros Occidental. Directly impacted are around 87,000 people living within 10 kilometers of the volcano who have been evacuated due to exposure to a hazardous mix of hot volcanic gas, ash, and falling fragmented rocks.
After volcanic eruptions, communities are often encouraged to “build back better.” But is it possible to build back safer, and if so, how? What steps can be taken post-disaster to develop resilience against future hazards?
Mt. Kanlaon, the most active volcano in the Visayas, has erupted 30 times since 1819, and as recent as of June last year. Its eruptions are typically phreatic, small to moderate in size, producing minor ashfall near the volcano. The only magmatic eruption was recorded in 1902, which produced small-volume mudflows on the upper slopes. The most recent one is the strongest in recent years.
A pre- and post-eruption effect is the accumulation of ash on the mountain slopes, which during heavy rains can cause a mixture of ash and rocks to flow down into towns and destroy homes and infrastructure. Similar to what happened in the aftermath of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, lahar flows can cause deaths, injuries, and loss of homes and sources of livelihood.
“Build back better” is a mantra central to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction’s post-disaster recovery objective to reduce vulnerability to future disasters and support community resilience to address physical, social, economic, and environmental shocks. The damage caused by Mt. Kanlaon’s eruption provides an opportunity to rebuild homes, infrastructure, and systems that are stronger, safer, and more disaster resilient. This could include introducing local government unit (LGU)-specific building codes and regulations, establishing and implementing land use planning ordinances that limit reconstruction in high-risk locations, or replacing damaged assets with context-sensitive and technologically updated replacements.
Recovery should be considered as an integral part of the affected town or city’s ongoing development process, focusing on how best to restore the capacity of the government and communities to rebuild and recover from disasters and to prevent relapses. The opportunity should be seized to improve conditions in the affected areas and not to view recovery as simple replacement of damaged infrastructure.
Designing a recovery strategy as early as possible following a disaster has proved successful in many recovery operations. The recovery strategy is an effective tool that identifies and prioritizes redevelopment needs based on a thorough assessment of damages, needs, and priorities. It provides strategic guidance and facilitates coordination of a large number of initiatives and the participation of multiple stakeholders. Its specific objectives are to organize the LGU’s response and approach; to assess the recovery needs of the affected communities, aligning these with sustainable development goals; to secure wide support, including financial and technical resources; and to develop a partnership strategy with multiple stakeholders and affected communities.
The recovery strategy must be framed in a concrete period of time and contain precise actions in the larger framework of sustainable development, combining long-term programs with strategic, short- and medium-term interventions. Recovery criteria should be developed on the basis of the general hazard profile of the affected communities and not only on extreme disaster events.
The elements typically addressed in a recovery strategy are: rehabilitation of the built environment and local infrastructure; employment and livelihood; primary infrastructure and lifeline facilities (such as water supply); environmental and water resources management; housing; and resettlement of families (if necessary).
The recovery response must be demand driven, formulating recovery and redevelopment programs based on consensus and stakeholder participation in a sustainable development approach. It must avoid the danger of rebuilding previous vulnerabilities or creating new risks. Recovery is an opportunity to upgrade the city structure and its facilities in a risk-informed manner to better fulfill community needs.
—————
Nathaniel von Einsiedel is fellow emeritus of the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners and principal urban planner of CONCEP Inc.
