Before the next flood

Bangkok’s severe flooding in late September overwhelmed roads and neighborhoods, reminding us how quickly a major city can become helpless against extraordinary rainfall. We Filipinos are no strangers to urban flooding; however, it must come to a point when we resort to drastic measures to make substantial changes to flooding.

Before the flooding, Thailand had already approved government-funded disaster insurance, with coverage beginning on 1 October for approximately 30 million households. The program failed to cover September’s losses, but it shows that governments can arrange financial protection before the next calamity instead of deciding on assistance only after people have lost their homes.

The Philippines again ranks first in the 2026 World Risk Index, which measures both exposure to natural hazards and vulnerability to their consequences. Yet recent typhoons and monsoon rains have produced painfully familiar scenes of submerged Filipino communities, displaced families and interrupted livelihoods. Our experience with disasters should have produced stronger protection, rather than another cycle of evacuation, relief distribution and promises to improve.

The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) flood-control scandal that unfolded last year has compounded the problem through questionable projects and delays in infrastructure delivery. In August, Secretary Vince Dizon acknowledged that only 32 percent of DPWH’s proposed projects for 2026 had been awarded, citing stricter measures following the scandal. Investigations and safeguards are necessary, but the government must also ensure that legitimate projects proceed because exposed communities cannot wait indefinitely for protection.

Filipinos least able to recover live beside flood-prone creeks, beneath bridges or in makeshift houses that insurance companies would hesitate to cover. Their homes may have little commercial value, but the loss of bedding, cooking equipment, clothing and livelihood tools can destroy everything they have accumulated. A publicly funded insurance program must therefore protect these families, rather than concentrate on properties that are easiest to insure.

Parametric insurance deserves consideration because it pays an agreed amount when a measurable condition, such as flood depth in a defined community, reaches a specified threshold. Eligible households could receive recovery money without first establishing the replacement value of their homes or waiting for individual damage assessments. The Philippines has already used this mechanism to protect government agencies and provinces, giving us experience on which to build household protection.

Such a program would require reliable measurements, verified beneficiaries and transparent payments, with assistance retained for families whose losses fall outside the trigger. Insurance must also accompany safer housing and functioning flood-control infrastructure, because paying for repeated losses cannot make a dangerous location safe.

Emergency food and cash remain essential, but ayuda or publicly funded assistance should never be presented as a politician’s personal generosity or create an obligation at the ballot box. We should move toward protection governed by clear rules, dependable funding and benefits established before disaster strikes. Before the next flood, government must give families a credible path to recovery that lasts beyond a relief distribution ceremony and the next election.

For comments, email darren.dejesus@gmail.com.