The earthquake that hit Venezuela, a country that sits at the northern end of South America, has also been making headlines due to a controversial and undemocratic shift in its government leadership. While the political turmoil has drawn significant attention, this new seismic event has captured the public’s focus for entirely different reasons, warranting a thorough investigation and a detailed analysis of the underlying factors. The earthquake struck in the evening at approximately 6:04 PM on June 26, a time when many individuals were likely commuting home from their daily jobs. The streets would have been bustling with people eager to return to their families after a long day’s work. Additionally, sports enthusiasts may have been flocking to local clubs to catch the latest World Cup football matches, a sport that holds a special place in the hearts of many in the country, along with baseball. It was a rare geological event when two large earthquakes struck almost simultaneously, measuring magnitudes of 7.2 and 7.5. The earthquake was shallow focused around 6 miles, which may have triggered the impact on high-rise buildings and other urban infrastructure. These powerful seismic events originated from epicenters in Yaracuy state, located west of the nation’s capital, Caracas. The impact of the earthquakes was felt across the entire country, with reports of tremors reaching as far as neighbouring nations, highlighting the widespread effects of these natural disasters. Venezuelan authorities revealed that La Guaira state was the hardest hit, suffering significant destruction to infrastructure and housing. Many residents were displaced, and emergency response teams were deployed to provide aid and support to affected communities. The double earthquake, a phenomenon not commonly seen in this region, prompted widespread concern and underscored the need for enhanced preparedness for future seismic events.
Current estimates indicate that over 10,000 people have lost their lives, with thousands more injured. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has conducted a Rapid Digital Assessment (RAPIDA) that estimates direct physical damage at $6.7 billion, which is approximately 6% of the country’s GDP. According to Verisk, a leading strategic partner of insurance companies, the economic losses may exceed $10 billion. Assessments of infrastructure damage, economic disruption, and long-term reconstruction needs are still ongoing, with current figures being updated and verified by government authorities.
On the human side, troubling reports reveal that bodies are decomposing, and there are no facilities available on-site to conduct DNA tests, making it difficult for families to recover their loved ones. This situation is taking a significant emotional toll on the affected population.
One surprising aspect of the situation is the national government’s inability to initiate large-scale search and rescue operations effectively. Reports indicate that, despite Venezuela’s status as one of the countries with the largest oil reserves, many large excavators remained idle due to a lack of fuel. As a result, people have been forced to search for their missing relatives and loved ones manually. A prompt and effective response from agencies is essential in addressing this crisis. The lack of generators, heavy machinery, and skilled work force to conduct the delicate search-and-rescue mission has compounded the problem. Despite thousands of foreign nationals, mainly from neighboring countries and the US, reaching the affected sites to provide support remains underutilized due to better coordination. It is important to note that this region has also experienced significant landslides and flooding in 1999, during which the current government was accused of withholding critical data and information. While relief agencies and governments will undoubtedly continue their efforts to respond to the ongoing catastrophe, it is essential to learn important lessons from past major earthquakes that underscore our continued vulnerability. The devastating impact of the 2013 Nepal earthquake, which resulted in widespread destruction and loss of life in this small yet vibrant nation, still resonates with many development practitioners and policymakers. Similarly, the aftermath of the earthquake in Turkiye in February 2023 has raised similar concerns within the international community. Despite these stark reminders, countries in the region seem to have overlooked the recurring patterns of disaster risk.
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) an international framework designed to address disaster risk is in operation for some time. The comprehensive framework outlines a detailed 15-year action plan that urges all nations to prioritise the building of resilience and proactive measures to reduce risks associated with disasters. The framework emphasises several key priorities, particularly the third and fourth priorities, which specifically call for substantial investment in disaster resilience. These priorities highlight the importance of enhancing governance and preparedness systems, as well as adhering to the principle of “build back better,” which ensures that recovery efforts lead to improved infrastructure and stronger communities.
Despite the clear guidelines set forth by the SFDRR, a critical gap remains in the institutional preparedness and investment in capacity building needed to effectively respond to disasters. This includes developing a skilled workforce in several crucial areas: search and rescue operations, medical support capabilities, management of livelihoods, and the restoration of vital infrastructure. While it is understandable that countries like Venezuela, under economic sanctions, may struggle to allocate sufficient resources for disaster preparedness and response, it is perplexing that other regions with stable economies have similarly failed to commit the necessary investments toward building resilience.
In India, there has been a notable legislative development that aims to strengthen disaster management at the local level. A recent amendment to the Disaster Management Act 2025, specifically section 41A, empowers state governments to establish Urban Disaster Management Authorities (UDMAs) that are city-specific. This mandates that each of the state capitals and major cities with Municipal Corporations implement localised disaster governance frameworks. Notably, this requirement excludes the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Chandigarh. The amendment also introduces the establishment of a National Disaster Database, which will serve as a comprehensive repository of information. This database is set to include detailed risk assessments, strategic mitigation plans, and real-time data regarding disasters and their impacts. Additionally, the legislative changes facilitate financial assistance to states via the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and the National Disaster Mitigation Fund (NDMF), achieved through the formation of a High Power Committee. This committee is tasked with overseeing the efficient allocation and utilization of these funds to enhance disaster resilience initiatives across the country.
The effectiveness of legislative decision-making in enhancing the operational readiness of several Indian states facing numerous environmental hazards remains to be determined. Many regions in India are annually affected by devastating floods and are located in high seismic zones, classified as IV and V on the seismic scale. The challenges are further compounded by a dense population and an underdeveloped urban infrastructure. Inadequate housing designs, along with insufficient public services and facilities, increase the vulnerability of residents to both flooding and seismic events. As these states navigate these complex risks, it is crucial to understand the impact of policy decisions on improving community resilience and safety. Consequently, it is important for developing countries like India to adopt key measures that ensure the safety and security of the general population.
A few of the measures could be as follows
- Simply improving building codes will not achieve effective outcomes without robust enforcement and adherence to retrofitting regulations. In India, this significant area requires attention and enhancement. Currently, there exists a noticeable gap between the regulations outlined in building codes and their practical implementation in construction and maintenance practices.
- When it comes to capacity building, India has made commendable strides, particularly following the establishment of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF). India’s two-tier institutional response — the NDRF and SDRF — is a genuine post-2005 success story. The NDRF has grown from 8 battalions at founding to 16 today, roughly 1,149 personnel each, organised into 18 self-contained search-and-rescue teams per battalion complete with structural engineers, canine units, and paramedics, positioned across 15 states and union territories. These organisations have played critical roles in disaster preparedness and response. However, it is essential to recognize the urgent need for a third layer of auxiliary disaster management forces. These teams should be based within communities and actively engage with residents at all times, especially in high-risk areas. Their primary responsibility would be to initiate immediate response efforts in the aftermath of a hazard, providing support and resources prior to the arrival of the more specialized national and state response teams. Can we also think of expanding the role of Aapda Mitra, a volunteer training programme initiated by MHA at community level along with civil defense volunteers?
- Furthermore, the logistics and procurement of necessary emergency equipment pose significant challenges. Items such as cranes, excavators, and medical supplies, as well as the setup of field hospitals, require an array of permits and licenses due to regulatory frameworks. Acquiring these resources often involves negotiations and transactions with private sector entities, which can be time-consuming. Mobilizing human resources for emergency response efforts also demands careful planning and coordination.
- Having standardised operating procedures (SOPs) for the movement of emergency equipment and associated materials across various state borders is vital for improving efficiency. Currently, these processes can be slow and cumbersome, potentially leading to delays that jeopardise the critical 72-hour window for providing aid to affected populations. Addressing these challenges with effective strategies and systemic improvements can make a substantial difference in disaster response efforts across the country.
- Often, countries or societies need external help in the time of a mega disaster, but there seems to be quite a gap in how to receive, deploy, and move the international experts in the hazard zone due to a lack of precise information, which may delay the search and rescue operations. One should have one’s own receiving-nation protocol (not just its deploying-nation one) — customs pre-clearance for USAR (Urban Search and Rescue) equipment, dog quarantine exemptions, and staging area designation. This means expedited customs clearance, biosecurity waivers for search dogs, and immediate onward transport coordination.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
