The current “storm train” has once again exposed a fragility that is no longer cyclical or exceptional: Portugal continues to face systemic risks with a Civil Protection model designed for a reality that no longer exists.
We are not facing isolated or unpredictable phenomena. We are facing a succession of impacts – climate, energy, technological and social – that interact with each other and increase pre-existing vulnerabilities. The problem is not the intensity of the wind or rain. The problem is a State that continues to treat risk as episodic and not as a permanent condition of governance.
Portuguese Civil Protection was built to respond to accidents delimited in time and space, with sectoral decision chains and a sequential intervention logic. This world is over. Today, the risks are prolonged, linked and simultaneously affect the functioning of the State, the economy and daily life. However, the system continues to operate in silos, with entities that plan, decide and communicate autonomously, linked mainly by formal coordination mechanisms. In pressure contexts, this fragmentation does not contain the risk – it amplifies it.
The lack of operational integration and real-time decision making generates delays, overlaps and gaps in responsibility, transforming an initial impact into a succession of secondary crises. It is this dissonance between systemic risks and a fragmented institutional response that today aggravates the effects of extreme phenomena and weakens collective trust.
This is why the public discourse of a generic appeal for “tranquility” is insufficient and potentially dangerous. In contexts of real risk, reassuring is not protecting. It can release citizens, operators and decision-makers from responsibility, delaying critical behaviors. What is required is seriousness, clarity and shared responsibility.
There is also a dimension that is often underestimated: a large part of critical infrastructure and essential goods – energy, telecommunications, water, transport, logistics, food supply – is managed by private operators. Without its full integration into the crisis management architecture, any Civil Protection model is incomplete from the outset. It is not enough to coordinate public entities among themselves. It is essential to integrate the private sector as a structural actor in collective security, with clear rules, sharing information in a timely manner and responsibilities defined before the crisis – not just during it.
The failure of the current model is not the result of a lack of resources or the commitment of professionals on the ground. It results from a maladjusted institutional architecture, excessively focused on formal coordination and poorly prepared to function as a system.
What is at stake is not just reforming Civil Protection. It is to redefine the civic and operational contract between the State, the private sector and society. Go from exception to permanence. From perception management to vulnerability governance. From rhetorical tranquility to conscious responsibility.
Today, protecting is not calming. It’s about preparing together!
*Security and Defense Specialist
Leave a Reply