Short:
• Recent seismic activity in Cebu and Davao highlights the Philippines' vulnerability to natural disasters, emphasizing the need for better disaster preparedness and response strategies.
• The effectiveness of building codes is often compromised due to non-compliance, leading to serious problems.fiThe risks to businesses and communities cannot be afforded during extreme events, especially as climate change exacerbates these vulnerabilities.
• Integrated approaches, including business continuity management systems and public service continuity plans, are essential to ensure operational resiliency and continuity of essential services, ultimately contributing to a more resilient future for the Philippines.
The recent earthquakes in the Cebu and Davao region highlight the Philippines' vulnerability to natural hazards. While initial reports focused on immediate structural damage, a closer look reveals important interconnections between seismic activity, climate change, and disaster preparedness strategies. For businesses and communities, understanding these dynamics is essential for survival and long-term growth.
CEBU AND DAVAO: A COMPARATIVE SNAPSHOT
The Seibu earthquake, although slightly lower in magnitude at 6.9, resulted in widespread property damage, with approximately 72,000 houses damaged and 74 deaths. In contrast, on October 10, the Davao Oriental earthquake was recorded at a magnitude of 7.4, causing 2 earthquakes.fiThere were deaths and more than 50 injuries. The earthquake caused tsunami warnings, mass evacuations and power outages in parts of the province.
local officialis responded immediately. Davao Oriental Governor Nelson Dayanghirang coordinated evacuations in Manay, the epicenter of the earthquake. Mati city mayor Joel Mayo Almario suspended classes and work, urging residents to follow evacuation protocols and cooperate with authorities.
Building Codes and their Limitations
The National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) serves as the primary reference for the design and construction of safe and reliable structures within the country. Its primary purpose is to ensure that all buildings and other types of infrastructure can withstand expected loads, including gravity and lateral forces (earthquake and wind forces) during their service life.
However, the effectiveness of the code's provisions can be compromised by non-compliance during construction, which occurs frequently in the Philippines. Use of inferior materials, DfiAncient workmanship, and unauthorized changes or deviations from approved plans can all impair the expected performance of the structure. Such practices not only weaken the building's resistance to external loads, but also increase the risk of serious damage or collapse during extreme events.
results of in dfiCircumstances may be particularly importantfiNot for businesses. Structural failures or damage can result in prolonged interruptions in operations, reduced productivity, and substantial repair or reconstruction costs. In some cases, they may even pose a serious threat to human safety and have a negative impact on reputation. fiFinancial stability of the organization.
Earthquake and climate threats
Climate change introduces changes that affect structural safety. The warmer atmosphere increases the amount of water vapor in the air, resulting in heavy rainfall. Heavy rainfall can saturate the soil and increase pore water pressure (pressure exerted by water stored within the pore spaces of the soil), which directly affects the bearing capacity of the soil. As the pore water pressure increases, the effective stress decreases, which weakens the load-bearing capacity of the soil, thereby reducing the bearing capacity of the foundation. A building's design may not have anticipated this reduced foundation capacity, making it more vulnerable to damage during even a moderate earthquake.
Conversely, structures already weakened by seismic activity are at greater risk during a typhoon or typhoon. The proportion of intense hurricanes and associated storms is expected to increase in a warming world. This overlap and two-way interaction of threats underlines the need for integrated, multi-risk resilience strategies that balance economic feasibility and long-term sustainability.
The essence of the resilience planning process lies in this balancing exercise, as a structure that is weak or extremely expensive is undesirable. Finding the right middle ground requires data-driven and detailed assessments of the potential impacts and costs of building construction to come up with the most accurate financial estimates that can properly inform decision making.
Continuous Asset Assessment
this is enoughfiIt is advisable to rely only on the original design and manufacturing documents. Regular structural assessment is necessary to determine the current condition of a building and its resilience to extreme events. These assessments should account for regular wear and tear of the building, prior damage and retrofiinterference, and environmental changes such as land subsidence or rising groundwater levels.
To better prepare, businesses should invest in climate and geophysical vulnerability assessments, structural retrofiteeting and architectural upgrades such as earthquake dampers and impact-resistant glass panels, and hazard protection improvements such as strengthened drainage and coastal and riverbank erosion control.
Developing standards and policy recommendations
Recent government initiatives reflect a growing commitment to national resilience. For example:
• The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) emphasizes coordinated response and long-term climate adaptation.
• The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) is promoting 186 climate-responsive infrastructure projects under the Build Better More program.
• The Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved a $200 million loan to support the planning and implementation of climate-resilient infrastructure.
These measures aim to integrate climate projections into infrastructure design, improve early warning systems, and promote stronger public-private collaboration.
BCMS and PSCP
Preparation extends beyond physical infrastructure. Although disasters cannot be predicted, both business continuity management systems (BCMS) and public service continuity plans (PSCP) ensure that private organizations and government institutions can continue essential functions before, during, and after disasters.
BCMS is guided by ISO 22301:2019, the international standard for business continuity. It focuses on identifying critical operations, assessing potential threats, and ensuring recovery measures to maintain the delivery of products and services during disruption.
PSCP, on the other hand, is mandatory for public institutions under NDRRMC Memorandum No. 33, s. 2018, which requires all government agencies and local government units (LGUs) to maintain the continuity of essential public services during times of crisis.
Both systems share a similar structure: risk assessment, preparedness, continuity response, and recovery. However, they differ in scope: BCMS prioritizes revenue and operational flexibility, while PSCP prioritizes seamless public service delivery.
The ultimate goal of both is to save human life.
The main phases of BCMS and PSCP include three major phases: before, during, and after an incident. Before an event, organizations should implement drills, evacuation plans, emergency kits, and communication protocols to prepare for potential crises. During an incident, safety procedures must be implemented, assembly points established, and initial damage assessed. Post-incident, the focus shifts to continuing operations based on minimum objectives, initiating recovery efforts, ensuring data security, stabilizing the supply chain, and supporting employee wellness programs.
Integration and Benefits
BCMS enables private enterprises to protect employees and assets, minimize downtime, and maintain stakeholder confidence during crises. The PSCP ensures continuity of essential government services (healthcare, utilities, law enforcement and emergency response) even under adverse circumstances.
When implemented jointly, sustainability across the public and private sectors reduces systemic risk and accelerates recovery. Data sharing between LGUs and critical businesses (energy, telecommunications, healthcare, logistics) also strengthens coordinated action. Finally, built-in business continuity training in LGU Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM).fiCES supports community-wide flexibility.
Maintaining both BCMS and PSCP frameworks can save lives and reduce fiSustaining financial and reputational loss, and public fraudfiIntensification during prolonged disruption.
Building a more resilient future
The earthquakes in Cebu and Davao Oriental highlight the need for integrated disaster risk reduction. This includes updating building codes, conducting regular property assessments and strengthening preparedness systems. By doing so, the Philippines can better protect lives, safeguard livelihoods, and build a more resilient future.
This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances require. The views and opinions expressed above are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of SGV & Company.
Randolph C. Camaclang, Kevin C. Henson, and Christopher S. Villar is SGV&Co's sustainability senior manager.
