Disaster management during DANA events in Spain has long relied on a reactive approach, arriving late far too often. After a history of floods and sudden downpours in Valencia province, it is still common to hear comparisons to the floods of 1957. To understand why this happens, one must examine the warning and alert systems—the technical side—in tandem with the decision-making process, which is political.
Protocols and established mechanisms are not the problem; the issue lies in how responsibilities are distributed and, more importantly, how those roles are put into practice. If there is an operational center called integral known as Cecopi, under the Consellera of Justice who makes the political choices, analyzing how alerts were issued and how the technical decisions were synchronized reveals a serious mismatch with political action. And it is not that predictive tools, comparisons, or statistics are missing; what matters is how quickly decisions are made, because speed can determine how many lives are saved.
There is a recognition that every disaster needs a fast, coordinated response, and that the difference between a controlled event and a catastrophe often hinges on how swiftly authorities translate warnings into action. A fully integrated approach would connect early warning signals to pre-approved measures and resource mobilization, so that when signals reach certain thresholds, response teams spring into action rather than waiting for political clearance. The speed of reaction matters because every minute can prevent more injuries, evacuations, or property loss.
On the day before the crisis escalated, regional meteorological services issued warnings about a significant weather event and the days ahead. For example, the governance body responsible for Cecopi could have triggered preventive measures given the forecast. At least three entities were already taking preventive steps the day before, with universities and scientific committees suspending classes or modifying schedules, thereby protecting tens of thousands of students and staff.
In another example, the city council canceled public activities and closed offices and facilities in anticipation of risk. This shows two clear precedents where preventive action worked. Regional emergency teams signaled red flags and advised extreme caution, advising against unnecessary travel and warning against crossing rivers or flood-prone routes. The pattern demonstrates that preventive actions exist and can be deployed quickly when authorities coordinate decisively.
Predictive elements
Beyond anecdotes, comparative and predictive analyses reveal a spectrum of signals that could have prompted earlier evacuations or mobility restrictions. Historical data on similar floods in the region offers essential baselines, and similar patterns have emerged in other countries where climate-driven weather events produce megafloods or rapid river rises. The key question becomes whether Cecopi’s technical and political leaders rely on these statistics to inform decisions and whether Valencia’s historical record of downpours remains central to current planning. When rainfall and river-flow metrics rise to levels seen in comparable events, evacuation or shelter protocols should activate without delay. When hydrological forecasts reach high-risk thresholds, authorities must be ready to implement protective measures—closing roads, opening shelters, and coordinating with municipalities—before the worst begins. The measurements, forecasts, and advisories exist; the challenge is linking them to timely operational steps that protect residents.
Furthermore, the communication chain matters. If a meteorological service issues a red alert and the hydrographic authority records escalating flows, there needs to be a clear path from warning to action. The overarching theme is that technical data must translate into public safety measures in real time. Transportation, utilities, and healthcare planning should reflect these patterns, ensuring that populations in vulnerable zones are prepared to move or shelter when thresholds are exceeded.
There is a push for a more integrated crisis-management model, one that includes municipalities, regional associations, and private sector partners such as commerce and suppliers who keep critical goods flowing. When disasters strike, the scale of resources available has already outstripped many local capabilities; what matters is how effectively those resources are mobilized, allocated, and executed. If an initial estimate assumes a certain level of response, but the reality requires a much larger deployment, authorities must be empowered to adapt rapidly. In some regions, early deployment of a unified force or rapid-response unit has meant the difference between containment and escalation. The question is not about whether resources exist, but whether they are mobilized quickly enough and in alignment with the moment’s needs.
If a crisis affects 150,000 people, 77,000 homes, and 50 municipalities, the distribution of assets must be anchored in those numbers. That means the immediate deployment of personnel—military and civilian—should reflect the geographic footprint of impact. All too often, there is misalignment in the early days: a surge in the first 24 hours, then a second wave; leaders are blamed, but the core issue is mobilizing the state’s resources early and in a coordinated way across levels of government and with private and nonprofit partners as needed.
Rescue
When a catastrophe unfolds, rescue is just one part of the story. It is essential to maintain life-saving operations while simultaneously delivering aid to those who are injured or most vulnerable. There are lessons from international responses where rapid, well-coordinated aid reduced casualties. For instance, a foreign humanitarian framework deployed mobile medical units, airborne supplies, and surgical readiness when on-the-ground access was constrained. If land routes are challenging, coordinating land delivery with local authorities can still reach people in need, ensuring access to water, food, and essential medications. In parallel, medical teams must address wounded and vulnerable groups—elderly residents, people in care homes, mothers with infants, and chronically ill patients who rely on continuous care. Protecting basic needs and health services can prevent secondary humanitarian crises while rescue efforts continue. It is equally crucial to ensure communication channels with municipalities remain open, including redundancy measures like satellite phones to maintain contact when primary networks fail. A robust plan places municipal leaders at the center of communication strategies and equips them with the tools to disseminate critical information quickly.
The review of crisis management should incorporate statistical, comparative, and predictive models, but it must also address how efficiently all available resources can be activated. The persistent gap between technical analysis and political decision-making must be closed. And as megastorms, megadroughts, and megafires become more common, it is vital to educate the public—and policymakers—about the need for preparedness and decisive action when warnings arrive. A forward-looking approach means building resilient infrastructure, rehearsing response protocols, and ensuring communities understand what to do when danger looms.