What’s At Stake When We Call Disasters ‘Natural’?

There is no such thing as a “natural disaster”. However, despite campaigns by disaster risk experts to correct this misnomer, the term is still widely used in news reports, policy documents, and even in academic journals. Mainstream messaging, though appearing subtle, is complicit in fueling a dangerous myth: disasters are nature’s doing, devoid of human influence. No system, no institution, no person is to blame. 

When government entities like the Department of Public Works and Highways, National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, or our local government reinforce the inevitable, a critical truth is blurred. Words reduce urgency. Accountability from these responsible institutions fades from the picture. 

Terminologies (and their appropriate usage) hold power in understanding the risks connected to natural phenomena like floods, storm surges, and landslides. Language here is never just descriptive, it is political in the sense that it can shape perceptions on these events, assign or absolve blame, and limit or improve capacity for action. 

The terms ‘hazards' and 'disasters' in particular suffer from inconsistent and misleading use in the mainstream, as reflected in the popular use of “natural disaster”.

According to the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, hazards may be natural; disasters are not. While natural hazards like typhoons, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions cannot be prevented, disasters can be. These hazardous events can escalate into a disaster as a result of their interaction with other risk factors, such as conditions of exposure, vulnerability, and poor adaptive capacity. Natural hazards on their own do not result in disasters.  

A disaster stems not just from the acts of nature, but also from the man-made structures that harm vulnerable communities, causing deaths and damage to property, the economy, and the environment.

"Ang Pilipinas ay ang perfect laboratory for studying disasters, ” said Alfredo Mahar Lagmay, head of the Nationwide Operational Assessments of Hazards, during a lecture on the Basics of Resilience. 

He further explained that maximizing available technologies would help in identifying and evacuating people from hazardous areas. “Even if there was a natural hazard, there would be no disaster,” he said, stressing that better investment could have prevented the impact caused by natural hazards.

For instance, tropical cyclones, which make landfall in the country about 8 or 9 times per year, become a natural hazard when people in an exposed area, like densely populated, low-lying coastal communities, are vulnerable to its impacts. It becomes a disaster when the event overwhelms the population's ability to cope. 

Super Typhoon Yolanda in 2013, marked by a number of humanitarian organizations and news outlets as the “most deadly ‘natural disaster’ to ever hit the Philippines”  was a natural hazard that devastatingly turned into a disaster. More than 6,300 people lost their lives, four million people were displaced, and over 16 million were affected, a number larger than the   entire population of the National Capital Region.

Its aftermath bared the nation's poor adaptive capacity. Evacuation centers experienced massive flooding because they were located within storm surge areas. Disaster response relied too much on privatized reliefs, which reached the victims late due to transport and communication constraints.  In its most critical hours of need, the national government was not felt. 

The typhoon went down in history as a prime example, a harsh lesson of government failure in disaster preparedness and response. Nature alone wasn't responsible for the destruction.

Calling disasters "natural" deflects accountability from institutions, policymakers, and decision-makers. It permits these responsible entities to simply shift the blame to nature. 

When the natural-ness of a disaster is emphasized, government responses default to reactionary, short-term policies. Resources go to post-disaster relief and rebuilding, rather than being invested in improved hazard mapping and risk assessments needed for proper land-use zoning, watershed management, and relocation planning

Without socially sensitive, long-term solutions, systemic vulnerabilities persist. Severe hazards would still escalate into a disaster.

Severe Tropical Storm Kristine in October 2024, which did not even intensify into a typhoon, brought massive and unprecedented flooding to the Bicol Region. This resulted in the displacement of over 100,000 families, caused at least 151 casualties, and affected around 8.8 million Filipinos overall.

When asked if he was satisfied with the government relief responses to the calamity, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said, ''It's never enough. I wish we could do more.” This remark starkly contrasts what he claimed during SONA 2023 that the country was "over-prepared for such ‘natural disasters’".  

Whether this statement was a political performance or a sign of learned helplessness, the chief executive publicly expressing resignation can reduce urgency to create proactive disaster management.

 

The Philippines ranks first as the most vulnerable nation globally, according to a report from the World Risk Index, which measures vulnerability and exposure to natural hazards.

Disadvantaged communities are hit hardest by the adverse effects of climate change, making it even more difficult for them to reduce their exposure, control the impacts, and cope from disasters. This, in turn, only leads to greater inequalities.

Fifteen years ago, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 or RA 10121 was enacted to law, bringing with it the promise of shifting from reactive disaster response to proactive disaster risk reduction. Yet, constant devastation such as Severe Tropical Storm Kristine only reveals the government’s negligence in addressing the impact of disasters.

Systemic issues spoil the law’s supposed proactive framework. Uneven capacity, such as lack of manpower and limited technologies, hinders LGUs to implement disaster risk reduction into the local level. And while victims of calamities face the effects of weak pre-disaster planning, corruption and politicking still dictate disaster response. Relief goods and funds have been weapons to serve political ends. 

Effective disaster risk management requires rethinking how we describe disasters. If people of power perpetuate the idea that the root cause of disasters is solely natural, they limit areas to encourage comprehensive and pro-people policy-making.

To shift the discourse, experts, may it be in the media or academe, must be more careful and consistent in the words they use. They should move past using the term “natural disasters” and instead emphasize in news reports, modules, and research journals how a man-made vulnerability plays a critical role in turning hazards to man-made disasters.

 Language, again, is political. Imprecise wording fuels misinformation, and being ill-informed in this climate crisis could only lead to greater danger.