With back-to-back typhoons like “Tino” and “Uwan” hitting our country, and with the reality of climate change becoming increasingly evident through stronger storms, it is prudent not only to hope for the best but also to be constantly prepared for the worst.

The value of preparedness was demonstrated during one of the strongest typhoons to hit in recent years. No casualties were reported when Typhoon Ferdie (international name: Meranti) battered Batanes in 2016 and destroyed an estimated ₱445 million worth of houses, school buildings, infrastructure, and agricultural products.

People in Batanes, who seldom worry about typhoons because of their sturdy stone houses, viewed “Ferdie” as the strongest in modern times. This was corroborated in southeastern China, the next area hit by “Ferdie” after it left the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR), as Xinhua News Agency described it as “the most powerful to hit Fujian province in at least 67 years,” or since 1949 when meteorological records began with the founding of modern China.

Attaining the goal of “zero casualty,” as exemplified in Batanes, ought to be the mindset of all local government units (LGUs). Disaster preparedness is among the criteria used to assess whether an LGU deserves to be awarded the Seal of Good Local Governance, an offshoot of the Local Government Performance Measurement System that I established to accurately rate LGU achievements when I was DILG Secretary.

With objective criteria for assessing excellent performance, local executives are given due recognition for their efforts not only in fulfilling their regular duties but also in pursuing creative and innovative ways to efficiently carry out their roles as local managers: to utilize funds prudently, improve the lives of their constituents especially the poor, and ensure public safety, among others.

In many LGUs, the culture of preparedness to face disasters has evolved to highly improved levels ever since Super Typhoon Yolanda (international name: Haiyan), the strongest in recorded history, carved a wide path across the Visayas and claimed more than 6,000 lives in November 2013.

The capacity to quickly learn from the painful lessons of “Yolanda” was shown a year later when Typhoon Ruby(Hagupit) struck. The weather bulletin that “Ruby” could be “Yolanda-like” was enough to trigger a level of mobilization described by a United Nations agency official as “one of the largest peacetime evacuations in Philippine history” — the movement of more than a million people to safer ground.

The head of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction praised the Philippine government at the time for doing an “excellent job,” saying that its zero-casualty approach was “further evidence of Asia’s leadership role in reducing mortality and tackling economic losses” from disasters.

“We have been telling this story since the Indian Ocean tsunami 10 years ago — that nations and communities have the power to reduce their losses if they are well-organized, understand the nature of risk, and develop the capacity to deliver early warnings and evacuate groups at risk ahead of the disaster event,” the UN head said.

However, the level of cooperation, responsiveness, and preparedness displayed during “Ruby” was not always that good. In fact, the pre-Yolanda period was far worse, especially when Typhoon Pablo battered Mindanao, leaving 1,901 people dead or missing. Typhoon Pablo — adjudged the world’s deadliest catastrophe in 2012 by US-based Impact Forecasting — was particularly frustrating because it came on the heels of Typhoon Sendong, which had struck Mindanao just a year earlier, likewise killing more than a thousand people.

In the same year that “Pablo” struck, Hurricane Sandy hit the eastern United States. Impact Forecasting listed “Sandy” as the “most destructive” catastrophe of 2012, causing property damage estimated at $62 billion — a staggering ₱2.5 trillion — in contrast to Typhoon Pablo’s damage of nearly $1 billion. However, the US death toll was significantly lower: only 132 lives lost, a far cry from that of “Pablo” at 1,901 deaths.

The huge disparity in loss of lives between the two superstorms can be attributed to experience and preparedness. Had Pablo hit perennially typhoon-ready Batanes, with its stone houses and culture of resilience, the outcome would have been far different from that in areas of Mindanao where structures were mostly made of light materials.

Others attribute the disparity to the intensity of US preparations, extensive information dissemination, and the cooperation of residents. A Project NOAH chief once said: “I was in New York during Hurricane Irene in August 2011. It is impressive how they prepare for a storm — it’s like they’re preparing for a tsunami. There’s an abundance of information. All the media in the different states are providing advisories. Everyone’s working together. Even the President was there to check on what’s happening.”

Clearly, government preparedness and public cooperation are both essential. From experience, people assess future risks and mount a level of readiness to face extreme weather. Residents of Metro Manila, especially in Marikina, learned from Typhoon Ondoy. Likewise, lessons from Sendong placed Cagayan de Oro in an excellent state of preparedness for Pablo—not a single life was lost in the city when the typhoon rampaged through Mindanao.

Various experiences — both the best and the worst — become invaluable when we learn from them. As our country lies close to the Pacific Ocean, where most typhoons are formed, maintaining a high level of preparedness is essential to ensuring a safe and secure life for Filipinos amid the new normal of climate change bringing stronger typhoons. ([email protected])