By Salmanuddin Shah
Historically, people in mountainous regions have responded to natural disasters through localized mechanisms, rarely relying on external assistance. Communities in areas such as Gilgit-Baltistan have faced earthquakes, landslides, floods, and avalanches with remarkable resilience, often attributing these events to the will of God. Life in the mountains has long been intertwined with natural hazards, and over generations, people developed their own coping strategies to survive and recover. However, as time has passed, the lives of mountain people have changed. Once strongly focused on disaster resilience, communities have shifted their priorities toward alternative livelihoods, especially off-farm income, and investing in education and health as more sustainable long-term strategies. While this shift is positive in the long run, it also means that when disasters strike, communities often struggle to respond and recover. Once highly resilient and self-reliant, many now increasingly depend on external support during and after disasters. As a result, a number of specialized agencies have been created at both government and civil society levels to assist communities in times of crisis. These agencies, however, do not replace the importance of community based responses; rather, institutional efforts depend heavily on strong community action.
During the disasters of 2025 and the recent 5.8-magnitude earthquake in Chipursan Valley of Hunza District on January 19, 2026, communities themselves acted as first responders, playing a critical role in saving lives and protecting property. The “golden hours” of any disaster response belong to first responders, and in most cases, these are the people directly affected. The initial phase of a disaster is both critical and emotionally intense. While affected communities receive strong support during rescue and emergency response, external assistance often fades over time, leaving communities in a very difficult position to recover. Recent examples include Hassanabad in Hunza and Tali Das in Ghizer, where rehabilitation efforts have been partial or poorly managed. The impacts of these incidents will continue to shape lives for years to come.
Chipursan Valley in Hunza District struck by a strong 5.8-magnitude earthquake that damaged village infrastructure in Zhudkhon, Shithmerg, and Ispanj, with partial damage across the valley. According to local reports, around 300 houses were completely destroyed, and almost all houses suffered partial damage. It is important to note that no lives were lost, except for minor injuries to three individuals. Relief efforts are being led by local communities, the Gilgit-Baltistan Disaster Management Authority (GBDMA), and agencies of the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN). Families from the affected villages were moved into tents, while the most vulnerable including elders, women, and children are being hosted by families in various villages of Gojal Hunza. The response from communities across Gilgit-Baltistan has been commendable, providing both emotional and material support during this critical time. At the same time, people are criticizing authorities and concerned institutions for not being proactive in strengthening preparedness, despite reports of minor to moderate tremors over the past six months. Predicting the exact timing and intensity of an earthquake is extremely difficult. Still, many believe authorities could have strengthened community preparedness through focused scenario planning and resource planning. Instead of moving people into tents in freezing temperatures or relocating them, community level buildings could have been prepared and equipped as safe havens.
Moving forward, all stakeholders including local communities must develop a unified and comprehensive response plan covering relief, recovery, and rehabilitation. The key actions to be included in the plan and overall resilience planning should include, but not be limited to, the following:
Comprehensive Damage and Needs Assessments: Traditionally, assessments focus on damages and needs within UN sectoral frameworks. This event highlights the need to broaden assessments to include climatic conditions, local capacities, remoteness and access, socioeconomic conditions, and overall disaster resilience.
Community-Led Response Planning: Leadership for initiating response planning should rest with local communities through Local Support Organizations (LSOs), while key stakeholders such as GBDMA and AKDN provide technical and financial assistance.
Unified Resource Management: Stakeholders, including donors, authorities, and NGOs, should channel resources through a single account to fund a unified response plan. Strategic guidance and supervision can be provided to LSOs by relevant institutions.
Habitat and Housing Planning: A relevant agency should lead habitat planning. This should include micro-seismic assessments to support informed construction. Localized, cost-effective, and climate-resilient housing designs must be a top priority. Investing heavily in short-term transitional shelters makes less sense than starting immediately on designing, planning, and building permanent, climate-sensitive housing.
Rehabilitation of Key Infrastructure: Road networks, channels, community buildings, and powerhouses must be rehabilitated immediately. Community buildings should be strengthened, designated, and equipped as safe havens to prevent future displacement, with arrangements for evacuation, hosting, and emergency medical access.
Strengthening and Revamping Community Disaster Preparedness: Conventional preparedness programmes have mainly focused on awareness-raising and training sessions on first aid, fire safety, and basic rescue. These now need to be better aligned with the legal and institutional frameworks of NDMA and NDRMF. The key focus areas could include:
- Shift toward scenario and resource planning, supported by simulation exercises. Using the recent earthquake as a scenario, all stakeholders should participate in joint drills.
- Community preparedness should move from stockpiling approaches to safe haven models. All communities should identify safe havens equipped with necessary items to support at least 20% of the population. This approach should be applied only in remote and isolated areas. Villages and settlements with easier access to resources should be excluded.
