Prevention, not cure
THE death toll of the April 25 earthquake in Nepal has reached 7,675 with more than 16, 300 people injured. Many of the historical structures in Kathmandu have been destroyed and rescuers continue to dig in the remote villages covered by landslides which also swept away popular trekking trails and climbers’ campsites. Rescue and relief operations were initially hampered by the closure of the Kathmandu airport and the inaccessibility of mountain communities due to the absence of a good road network.
Just last Thursday, a powerful earthquake rattled the South Pacific nation of Papua New Guinea with a 7.2 magnitude. Like the Philippines, the archipelagic nation sits on the Ring of Fire, the arc of seismic faults around the Pacific Ocean where earthquakes are common.
Many are asking what would happen if an earthquake of the same magnitude hits the Metro Manila area and if the so-called “Marikina Fault” gives way. Dire scenarios are being projected, including the cutting up of Metro Manila into two, isolating areas from rescue and relief operations and the possibility of a waterless Metro Manila if the Angat Dam and other catch basins which are the source of water are destroyed. Current focus of the Aquino government as well as those of local governments is on rescue and relief operations. It is concentrated on measures to take once disaster happens to alleviate the sufferings of the population and to rebuild the communities affected.
Our experience with supr-typhoon “Yolanda” tells us that government and the private sector need to plan better and do more to respond to the calamities that befall the inhabitants of an area. We are also painfully aware that reconstruction will take a long, long time. It makes one wonder whether the prevailing mind-set of “disaster management” should be replaced by “disaster mitigation” or even better “disaster avoidance.”
In the case of supr-typhoon “Yolanda,” if population centers had been located more inland and if the road networks and port infrastructure had been built taking into consideration the vulnerability of sites, fewer inhabitants would have been affected. If construction standards had considered the intensity of natural hazards, many of the buildings and homes would have withstood the ravages of nature. And it is not as if there is no knowledge available. Information is there on which to base better planning and decision-making. It seems we would rather prepare for the disaster with rescue and relief operations rather than prepare by ensuring the least damage to people and property.
In the scenarios for an earthquake-stricken followed by a tsunami-battered Metro Manila, the extent of damage has been projected. Why don’t we lessen this by subjecting all infrastructures to stress tests, demolish those that fail, and build new ones meeting strict standards? Why don’t we look at what is needed to reinforce Angat Dam and other water basins to withstand expected highmagnitude earthquakes? The costs of doing these now will definitely be much lower than the deaths and damage if nothing is done today.
Even the construction and enhancement of alternative airport and port facilities should be prioritized. The Port of Manila is better transformed into a cruise ship port while the main commercial ports should be in Batangas and Subic. The premier international airport should be at Clark and the pettiness that is suspected of not wanting to make the Macapagal airport THE airport rather than the Ninoy Aquino International Airport should be laid to rest. This repositioning makes sense both in times of disasters and also in normal periods.
Hopefully as the Aquino administration nears the end of its term, it will still take the necessary steps to prevent the effects of disasters rather than deal with or cure the consequences.