Mónica Amaral Ferreira, Seismic Risk Specialist at the European Centre for Urban Risks em Expresso:
Cities, buildings, schools, hospitals, fire stations, and other critical infrastructure can be planned, built, and rehabilitated to better withstand earthquakes. The problem is not a lack of technical knowledge—it’s a persistent lack of decision-making.
Portugal is a country with seismic risk. It always has been. And it will continue to be. Even so, the risk remains systematically pushed to the bottom of the political agenda, as if silence could postpone the next tremor. It cannot. A moderate earthquake, with magnitudes between 5.5-6.5 occurring near a large urban center, is enough to cause extensive damage, disrupt essential services, and compromise the social and economic well-being of a country for decades.
However, cities, buildings, schools, hospitals, fire stations, and other critical infrastructure can be planned and rehabilitated to better withstand earthquakes. The problem isn’t a lack of technical knowledge – it’s a persistent lack of decision-making.
The recent European Union Special Eurobarometer 547 survey (2024), which surveyed citizens of the 27 Member States about their level of awareness and preparedness for disaster risk, paints a clear – and unflattering – picture of Portugal. Around 68% of Portuguese people say they don’t feel prepared to face a disaster, 67% say they are not well informed about the risks that could affect them, more than half report having difficulty obtaining information about risks from the authorities, and 61% don’t know how they would be alerted in an emergency. In all these indicators, Portugal performs significantly worse than the European average, revealing structural failures in public communication, risk education, and public engagement.
Despite growing concern about climate, economic, or health risks, most citizens still lack clear guidance on how to act or where to obtain reliable information. Practical issues – such as assessing whether housing is earthquake-resistant, what to do to reinforce a building, or how to react to a forest fire – remain largely unknown. The Eurobarometer thus sends a clear warning: preparing the country for catastrophes is not just an emergency matter, it is also a challenge of governance and civic education.
On the political front, the contrast between the widely known diagnosis and concrete action is alarming. In March 2023, several proposals to mitigate seismic risk, such as building assessments, risk indicators, disaster funds, and strengthened regulations, were discussed in the Assembly of the Republic. None were approved. Governments come and go, and the risk conveniently remains outside the central debate.
After each earthquake felt in the national territory, such as those recorded in 2024 and 2025, the discourse that “Portugal is prepared” is repeated. It is not. Attempting to calm the population by conveying a false sense of security discourages prevention and does not reduce risk, increasing the likelihood of casualties in future events. Without structural measures, this statement is nothing more than rhetoric. Added to this are frequently contradictory official communications that dilute responsibilities, minimize urgency, and distance society from the debate about risks, whether earthquakes, floods, fires, or other technological hazards.
The country’s fragility is also reflected in the numbers. Approximately 80% of buildings lack seismic insurance, and only about a third of homes have multi-risk or fire insurance. Most families lack the financial capacity to reinforce vulnerable buildings; many are not even aware of the risks to which they are exposed. This reveals, on the one hand, a lack of awareness of the risk and, on the other, an absence of accessible financial mechanisms that allow citizens to prepare, while anticipating a heavy burden for the State, which ends up assuming a large part of the uninsured losses, with direct impacts on public debt and financial instability.
Mitigating seismic risk is possible. Assessing, reinforcing or replacing old buildings, promoting adequate insurance and investing in education and effective risk communication costs incomparably less than rebuilding after a catastrophe. Even so, prevention continues to be seen as an expense and not as a strategic investment in collective security and the country’s sustainability.
It is possible to live in earthquake-resistant cities, but only if there is strategy, planning and territorial management based on risk knowledge, education and effective risk communication, consistent public policies, demanding oversight and quality construction. Without these pillars, seismic resilience will continue to be a discourse and not a reality.
December 16, 2025 17:00
