1. Home
  2. Update
Author(s): Sébastien J. Schillé

A lesson in vulnerability: How Nevado del Ruiz changed risk disaster management

Source(s): University College London (UCL)
Upload your content
The Nevado del Ruiz volcano in Colombia, seen from above
Ric Photography/Shutterstock

Introduction 

“When ash started falling on Armero on the eve of the eruption, I went to church to ask for advice. The priest told me to enjoy this beautiful show, it will never be seen again” - Resident Gabrielina Ferruccio [1]. On the 13th November 1985, the villages surrounding the Nevado del Ruiz volcano faced one of the deadliest volcanic eruptions in history. This catastrophe led to a cost of 34.94 billion pesos (US $218 million) in damages and affected over 200,000 people [2]. The lack of preparedness led to miscommunication, poor response times and many avoidable deaths. However, the ripple effect from this catastrophe has reshaped national and international disaster risk management, reducing the vulnerability of people from around the globe to similar hazards.

The eruption 

The Nevado del Ruiz volcano (meaning “snow covered volcano”) is a stratovolcano composed of lava and pyroclastic rocks covered in ice [4]. Being located above the Nazca plate, it has been highly active in the past centuries and will likely be so for centuries to come. The initial eruption was moderate in magnitude ( VEI=3 ), and while earthquakes could be felt and ash filled the sky, residents were told to stay indoors. The eruption occurred at around 9 pm, but what followed three hours later was the formation of several deadly lahars that engulfed the nearby town - killing 70% of the population [5]. Melted snow from the volcano’s glaciers began to accumulate creating nearly 30-meter-high lahars that rushed down the volcano’s slope at 30 km/h. These lahars engulfed everything in their path collecting more debris and momentum. When these lahars reached the town of Armero, the local population was left exposed and vulnerable – resulting in 23,000 deaths. Other damages led to the destruction of 50 educational institutions, two hospitals, 6,000 acres of farmland and infrastructure such as roads, bridges, fuel pipelines, water and sewage systems [2].

The technical director of the Colombian Geological Service (SGC) was studying the volcano one month before the eruption. Their team had reported the likelihood of an eruption in the coming months to the Colombian Congress, describing the geological history of the site. The local authorities had been warned about the risk to life and the evacuations that should have taken place, but they decided to ignore the warnings until it was too late [1]. 

Why was the local population so vulnerable? 

Risk can be seen as the combination of physical exposure, socio-economic inequalities and institutional preparedness. The ability to mitigate, respond and recover must all be encompassed in disaster risk management. The local population was largely caught unaware of the risks and communication broke down disabling an effective evacuation.

Before the catastrophe of the 1985 eruption, hazard maps were not widely available, and the population of Armero were unaware that the geographical location and nearby topography make the town highly exposed to lahars and mudslides. Densely populated areas with poorly constructed houses significantly increase the local population’s vulnerability to damage and exposure to a lahar or mudslide. The local population of Armero are socio-economically vulnerable due to the low income of the area and reliance on the local fertile lands for income - this makes evacuation and relocation highly challenging. Time spent away from their farmland will impact their income and many could struggle to feed their family. If locals don’t trust the authorities to provide food and shelter, they may rather risk staying.  
   
Cultural factors were also at play, leading to the mistrust of local authorities. The history of civil war and corruption in Colombia strongly affected the trust of the local people when in communication with any official governmental body. Additionally, fatalism could have also played a role in the lack of response from locals. Locals had witnessed a lot of precursory activity beforehand, and they were reluctant to believe that this time an eruption would in fact cause so much damage. The volcano was given the name “the sleeping lion” as it had not erupted for nearly 150 years [7].

The warning systems and communication chain were underdeveloped and led to the collapse of any emergency response. Locals were not trained to recognise risks or told where to evacuate to during an emergency. On the contrary, a local citizen, Edilma Loiza, remembers how at 6 pm, “a fire truck went through town telling everybody to stay at home, to not leave home or panic.” [1]. The evacuation call was attempted following the eruption; however, they were unable to contact the locals due to a power cut in the village. The correct infrastructure is essential to ensure communication can be held regardless of weather, electrical power, or any other foreseeable event. “A good partnership between science and civil authorities is essential to protecting people” – Marso, local scientist [5].

How did the government respond? 

Marso who arrived a couple days after the eruption said, “Once we got there, our primary focus was to quickly establish monitoring, because at that point, we didn’t really know what had happened — or what could happen,” [5]. Following the eruption, around 90% of the ice was still present at the top of the volcano, creating a vulnerable environment for the response teams working in Armero.

Shortly after the disaster, a governmental response team called Resurgir (‘to rise again’) was formed to help coordinate the efforts between the private and public sectors. They prioritized access to food, housing, employment and worked on urban redevelopment [9]. The introduction of the National System for Prevention of Disasters in 1989 was the first step Colombia took to focus on disaster risk management rather than disaster response [2]. However, a report by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) suggests that there is still improvement to be made in these departments [10].

The shift from disaster response to disaster risk management led to the development of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. This Framework was developed by the United Nations Office for Risk Reduction (UNDRR) and outlines seven clear targets and four priorities for action to prevent new and reduce existing disaster risks. The SGC has partnered with local universities and schools to produce educational content in the form of posters, videos, and online resources. These social projects were introduced to reduce the vulnerability of citizens by educating them. Citizen science projects are also highly important for scientists to gather additional data from the field.

How do these changes prevent a repeat event? 

Today, there are now more than 600 stations that monitor and investigate 23 active volcanoes in Colombia – information managed and collected by SGC. This network provides valuable data for scientists to use for research and monitoring of these hazards. Colombian volcanologists have identified the importance of sharing their research and knowledge in a way that both policymakers and the public can understand. The Nevado del Ruiz catastrophe consequently helped fund the groups and committees necessary.

Just 4 years after the Armero tragedy, when the Nevado del Ruiz erupted again, there was no human loss. Why? The correct procedures were in place along with a successful evacuation led to it being “the first success in volcanic monitoring and therefore in volcanic risk management in Colombia” [12]. On the 20th November 2008, the Nevado del Huila erupted leading to the formation of lahars that covered the village of Belalcázar. A scientist collaborating with the SGC noticed a sign of eruption from the seismic data and declared a prediction for eruption [13]. The necessary teams were on standby when the evacuation order was declared - as a result loss of lives was limited.

However, in 2014 a GFDRR report, it was found that damage to property, livelihood and infrastructure was still occurring due inadequate urban growth planning, land use planning, and environmental management. Since this report, Colombia has been working with the UNDR to implement the MRC2030 framework in Colombia. This framework has been developed and implemented across the globe to improve cities’ understanding of risk and secure their commitment to local disaster risk reduction and resilience.

The Nevado del Ruiz catastrophe demonstrates the critical need for governments to take responsibility for understanding risk and vulnerability. This involves implementing policies and creating governmental bodies to reduce avoidable deaths and economic losses. Achieving this depends on the collaboration of scientists and authorities, educating local populations, creating coherent response and recovery plans that build resilience for future disasters.

References

[1] Florez, S. & Garzon, C. (2021). How the Armero tragedy changed volcanology in Colombia. UNDRR, PreventionWeb. Available at: https://www.preventionweb.net/news/how-armero-tragedy-changed-volcanology-colombia
[2] UNDRR, PreventionWeb. (2021). Colombia: 1985 Nevado del Ruiz eruption. Available at:  https://www.preventionweb.net/collections/colombia-1985-nevado-del-ruiz-eruption
[3] NASA. (2010). Volcano: Nevado del Ruiz, Colombia (NASA: International Space Station Science). Available at:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasamarshall/4575749678/in/photostream/
[4] Rendle, J. (2024). Armero tragedy - Nevado del Ruiz, Colombia, 1985. StoryMaps. Available at: https://storymaps.com/stories/74bde275df2b4b20907b41dcf24e460f
[5] Augliere, B. (2016). Benchmarks: November 13, 1985: Nevado del Ruiz Eruption triggers deadly lahars. Earth Magazine. Available at: https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/benchmarks-november-13-1985-nevado-del-ruiz-eruption-triggers-deadly-lahars/
[6] The National Archives Catalog. (1985). An aerial view of the town of Armero covered with mud following the eruption of the Nevado del Ruiz volcano. Available at: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6401917
[7]  BBC ON THIS DAY | 13 November | (1985). 1985: Volcano Kills Thousands in Colombia. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/13/newsid_2539000/2539731.stm
[8] Wright, T. L. & Pierson, T. C. (1992). Living with volcanoes . USGS Report, Circular 1073, 70 p.  doi:10.3133/cir1073
[9] National Academies Press (1991). The Eruption of Nevado Del Ruiz Volcano Colombia, South America, November 13, 1985. Available at: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/1784/chapter/9
[10] GFDRR (2014). Colombia. Available at:  https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/country-program-update-2014-colombia.pdf
[11] Bouchard, P. (2024). Nevado del Ruiz Snowline (Colombia). Flickr. Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pbouchard/430174963
[12] CNN Español. (2023). ¿Dónde Está El Nevado del Ruiz y Cuándo fue la última vez que entró en erupción? Available at (Spanish):  https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2023/04/06/donde-esta-el-nevado-del-ruiz-cuando-hizo-erupcion-orix [13] USGS (Volcano Disaster Assistance Program). Successful Eruption Forecast and Evacuation at Huila, Colombia 2008. Available at: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vdap/huila.html

Further Reading

Read the original story here

Editors' recommendations

Explore further

Hazards Volcano
Themes Disaster risk communication Early warning Governance
Country and region Colombia

Please note: Content is displayed as last posted by a PreventionWeb community member or editor. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of UNDRR, PreventionWeb, or its sponsors. See our terms of use