Share

During the GEM Conference in Zagreb, two powerful earthquakes struck Venezuela in quick succession. As news emerged and the scale of the disaster became clearer, with thousands of lives lost and many more people injured or displaced, our conversations about earthquake hazard and risk assessment suddenly felt much less theoretical.

Only afterwards did it occur to me how extraordinary the timing had been. The conference had brought together many of the scientists and practitioners behind the world's leading rapid earthquake impact systems, including ShakeMap, PAGER, GDACS and GEM, to discuss how earthquake impact information can be made faster, more reliable and more useful. Coincidentally, the conference also marked the release of GEM's new generation of global earthquake hazard and risk models, the result of several years of collaboration with partners around the world. Within hours, many of those same tools and models were being used to produce an initial picture of the earthquake's impacts.

Through GEM's role in the ARISTOTLE consortium, we shared our rapid impact assessment for the Venezuela earthquakes with the European Union's Emergency Response Coordination Centre. It was an early estimate, not a substitute for information from those on the ground. But in the first hours after an earthquake, this type of analysis can help identify where the impacts are likely to be greatest, providing valuable situational awareness while more detailed information is still emerging.

Earthquake risk modelling can often sound highly technical. We talk about hazard curves, exposure databases, vulnerability functions, loss estimates and uncertainty. These are all essential, but behind them lie some very practical questions: where is the ground likely to shake or deform, how often might it happen, who and what is at risk, and how can that information help people make better decisions before and after earthquakes?

Those questions are becoming more urgent because the world exposed to earthquakes is changing. Cities continue to grow. Infrastructure systems are becoming increasingly interconnected. Buildings, populations and economies are evolving. The consequences of earthquakes are no longer measured only by damaged buildings, they also affect transport networks, utilities, hospitals, livelihoods, supply chains and public finances.

This means our models need to evolve as well. That idea was reflected throughout this year's conference and underpins GEM's latest global model release. The aim is not simply to update datasets, but to broaden our understanding of earthquake risk and provide information that is more relevant to the decisions governments, businesses, emergency managers and communities face before and after earthquakes. This includes expanding our understanding of topics such as infrastructure risk, future exposure and the environmental consequences of earthquakes.

None of this can be achieved by a single organisation. One of GEM's greatest strengths is its ability to bring together researchers, governments, civil protection agencies, development banks, engineers, insurers and many others around shared tools, data and models. Earthquakes cross borders, and the science we use to understand them has to be collaborative too.

Looking back, what stays with me most from the conference is not only the scientific advances that were presented, but how quickly they became relevant. Within hours of discussing new approaches to earthquake hazard and risk assessment, many of those same methods were being applied to help understand a real disaster unfolding thousands of kilometres away. It was a reminder that our work is never just about developing better models. It is about helping societies prepare before earthquakes happen and supporting better decisions when they do.

Of course, better models will never prevent earthquakes from happening. But they can help countries identify where risk is highest, prioritise investment, strengthen infrastructure, prepare financially and respond with better information when disasters occur.

That is the main message I took away from Zagreb. If we want to reduce future losses, we need to keep investing in the models, data and partnerships that turn scientific advances into better decisions.

##