DANA victims call for a review of the ES-Alert protocol

Associations representing victims of the October 29, 2024 DANA have criticised the timing of the ES-Alert sent during the rainfall episode in the province of Valencia on September 16. The message reached phones at 22:08, when, according to the organisations, flooding and road closures had already occurred, and people were facing difficulties getting home. They are calling for an explanation of the decision and a review of the activation criteria.

The criticism does not mean that the associations are calling for indiscriminate alerts every time it rains. In a separate statement, during an OECD summit held in Valencia, representatives of the victims called for the use of the system to be better governed by protocols: the message should arrive sufficiently in advance and be tailored to the severity and characteristics of each emergency. They also warned that alerts issued without proper calibration could make the system less effective, while failing to warn people in time can leave the public without useful information to protect themselves.

Associations question the timing of the alert

The Valencia DANA Victims and Those Affected Association said that the alert was issued after incidents had already been reported and many people were exposed to danger on roads and in industrial estates. The organisation called for a public explanation of the criteria and the timing of the decision to activate the alert, at a time when an orange rainfall warning was in place and hydrological alerts had been issued over possible rises in the levels of several waterways.

The Association of Fatal Victims of the October 29 DANA also described the message as late. It argued that an alert is less useful if it arrives when roads or tunnels have been closed and garages flooded. For the affected families, the episode rekindled the fear associated with the 2024 floods, although the association itself distinguished between the two events and noted that the rainfall conditions were not the same.

They call for clear protocols and tailored communication

At the OECD summit, Rosa Álvarez, spokesperson for the Association of Fatal Victims of the October 29 DANA, summed up the demand by saying that the alert “cannot arrive late, or every time it rains”. Mariló Gradolí, spokesperson for the October 29 DANA Victims Association, argued that the message should be communicated in a measured and effective way, and recalled that an orange alert is not experienced in the same way in the municipalities affected by the flood as it is in other areas.

Elisabet González, spokesperson for the Horta Sud DANA Victims Association, described the loss of trust and the emotional impact that continue to affect some families. The organisations are not calling for the ES-Alert to stop being used: they propose that there should be known guidelines on when it is activated and what members of the public and the authorities should do when they receive the message.

The Government Delegate in the Valencian Community, Pilar Bernabé, also argued that emergency mechanisms should be governed by clearer protocols, so that the response does not depend on who is in charge and it is clear what institutions and the public should do. This statement was made in the debate on a general review of emergency mechanisms; it does not constitute a ruling on the specific handling of the September 16 alert.

The Generalitat defends its technical criteria

The president of the Generalitat, Juanfran Pérez Llorca, said that the decision to send the alert was made in accordance with technical criteria that he considered “acceptable”, given the forecast that the flow of the ravines could increase considerably. He also maintained that the ES-Alert is not sent simply to warn that it is going to rain and, in his view, the message was issued “at the right time and in the proper manner”. He added that, according to his explanation, preventive alerts are reserved for red-alert situations; an orange alert was in force during the episode.

The associations’ statements express their criticism and demands; the president’s statements set out the Generalitat’s defence. The information available does not, by itself, establish an independent conclusion on responsibility, nor does it determine that there was a general obligation to suspend work activity.

The Association of Fatal Victims did question why the working day was not suspended in the afternoon. It said that some workers were trapped on the Pista de Silla on their way home and called for work activity to be taken into account, including the journeys made by people who work in shops and other services that close late. This is a demand made by the organisation, not a mandatory measure established by the information available.

The episode once again brings two related but distinct issues to the fore: the timing of a specific alert and the need for clear criteria for future emergencies. The associations argue that the system must provide information sufficiently in advance, without being activated indiscriminately; the Generalitat maintains that the decision was made in accordance with technical criteria. The protocol review they are calling for aims to reduce the gap between detecting a risk and communicating it in a way that enables the public to act in time.