Why the Philippines must prioritize preparedness over response

The global cost of natural disasters has grown exponentially over the past decades. While the Philippines is not alone in facing the social and economic toll of such calamities, the World Risk Poll has ranked the country among the world’s most at-risk nations for the past 16 years.

A 2025 study published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction assigned the Philippines a World Risk Index score of 46.91, the highest among 193 countries surveyed for disaster impact. Recurrent typhoons, volcanic eruptions and destructive earthquakes are among the natural hazards that Filipinos repeatedly endure, with the poorest suffering the most serious consequences to their lives and livelihoods.

How does the Philippines get ahead of the next disaster when government systems and communities are still managing the impacts of the last typhoon, earthquake or volcanic eruption? How do we ask institutions to plan forward when the immediate demands of recovery and rebuilding remain unresolved?

This is the central tension in disaster risk management. In my work across health systems and crisis response, I have seen that preparedness is rarely a visible achievement. It does not announce itself in the way response does. It is often quiet, built into systems, relationships and decisions long before a crisis occurs. Like leadership, we recognize it when it is present, particularly when a system holds under pressure. But measuring its value and impact in advance remains one of the most persistent challenges in our field.

There are many dimensions to preparedness, and it does not look the same across individuals, families, communities or cultures. At its core, disaster preparedness is not a single intervention but a sustained commitment. It requires what we often refer to as a whole of society approach, where government, communities and the private sector, among other critical partners, are aligned long before a crisis occurs; not when it occurs.

The price of prevention

Most hazards cannot be fully prevented, but their impacts are often shaped by human decisions and can be significantly reduced through deliberate risk reduction and sound planning. I often think of preparedness in the same way I think about prevention in health systems. When it works, it is largely invisible. When it fails, the consequences are immediate, visible and costly, and can be devastating for our communities. Media attention, and often public focus, tends to concentrate on response rather than preparedness. Crises draw immediate coverage, attention and resources, while the planning stages that reduce risk receive far less visibility. As a result, performance is often judged by what is done after a disaster, rather than by what was avoided before it. We do not have a natural mechanism to recognize disasters that did not happen.

The same dynamic exists in health. Preventive measures such as vaccinations, early screening and health promotion rarely receive the same recognition as emergency care, even though they are far more effective in reducing harm at scale. In both health and disaster contexts, the most important interventions are often the least visible. Yet it is precisely these investments in prevention and preparedness that determine whether systems absorb shock or fail under pressure.

The Philippines has shown strong response capacity across repeated crises. However, for a country consistently ranked among the most hazard exposed in the world, response alone is not sufficient, nor should resilience to this level of exposure be assumed. The scale and frequency of risk require systems that anticipate and reduce impact, not only respond to it. This is where the real leadership challenge lies.

Redefining resilience

In my role as head of the Stephen Zuellig Graduate School of Development Management at the Asian Institute of Management and alongside my colleagues, I work with leaders across government, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector to design systems that can withstand repeated shocks while sustaining economic and social stability.

One concern I hear frequently from students and practitioners is how the Philippines is described as a resilient population. While there is truth in the extraordinary strength communities have demonstrated, the term is increasingly used in ways that risk normalizing loss. It can imply that repeated disruption is something to be endured rather than prevented.

The greater concern is not any single hazard, but that risks are accelerating faster than our systems are adapting. In this context, resilience cannot be defined as endurance. It must be defined by whether systems reduce predictable harm so that communities are not asked to rebuild from the same losses repeatedly. The growing complexity of climate impacts also raises difficult realities, including the potential need for relocation, with profound social, cultural and economic consequences for affected communities.

At AIM, we focus on building resilience by training leaders to think in systems rather than silos. Through programs such as the Executive Master in Disaster Risk and Crisis Management and the Master in Development Management, we equip leaders with the tools to anticipate cascading risks, integrate climate and health considerations into development planning and align policy with operational realities.

Preparedness requires disciplined prioritization of resources and alignment across all levels of governance. It must extend to local government units, where risk is most directly experienced, while remaining integrated within national frameworks. It also requires clear roles, responsibilities and accountability across sectors, grounded in principles of sustainability, ethics and equity.

A whole of society approach is most effective when each actor understands their role before a crisis occurs. When roles are defined in advance, response is faster, coordination is stronger and recovery is more efficient.

This is not a short-term adjustment. It is a long-term shift and commitment. Moving the Philippines from a cycle of repeated response toward sustained resilience will require consistent investment, institutional discipline and leadership that prioritizes prevention alongside response.