How can structural engineers support Venezuela after the earthquake

The devastating earthquake sequence that struck northern Venezuela on 24 June 2026 has created one of the most significant structural engineering challenges in the region’s recent history. The event comprised two major earthquakes, measuring Mw 7.2 and Mw 7.5, occurring just 39 seconds apart (EERI, 2026). The shallow nature of the rupture, combined with strong ground motions affecting densely populated areas including Caracas and La Guaira, resulted in widespread damage to buildings, transportation networks and critical infrastructure. At the time of writing, thousands of people have been killed or injured, while many more have been displaced, and over 30,000 people are still missing.

As images of collapsed buildings and disrupted communities circulate globally, many structural engineers will naturally ask how they can help. The answer is not always obvious. Experience from major earthquakes in Indonesia, Haiti, Nepal, Ecuador, Türkiye-Syria and elsewhere has shown that expert engineering support can be invaluable, but only when delivered in ways that complement local capacity and established recovery processes.

The Venezuela earthquakes underscore the need to not only to assist affected communities today, but also to reflect on broader lessons about how structural engineers can best contribute after major disasters.

A key lesson from decades of earthquake recovery is that neither recovery nor prevention are primarily design problems. They are multi-faceted implementation problems, spanning governance, politics, economics, and wider societal issues as well as technical challenges. Most technical solutions already exist. The challenge lies in applying them effectively through institutions, construction practices, governance arrangements and community-led recovery processes. Structural engineers have an important role to play, but their greatest contribution often comes through supporting these wider systems rather than providing standalone technical solutions.

What happens after a major earthquake

The events unfolding in Venezuela broadly follow a pattern that has been observed after major earthquakes around the world.

In the immediate aftermath, the priority is saving lives. During the first days following the Venezuela earthquakes, local residents became the first responders, searching through damaged buildings and assisting neighbours before external help arrived. Communities themselves almost always perform the majority of rescues in the first critical hours.

As the scale of the disaster became apparent, international assistance followed. More than 49 Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) teams from 28 countries deployed to support local emergency services. Alongside search and rescue operations, medical assistance and the provision of emergency shelter, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) became immediate priorities.

Once immediate life-saving operations begin to wind down, attention gradually shifts towards recovery. In parallel with recovery, humanitarian emergency needs will remain high for an extended period, as secondary causes of morbidity and mortality continue to manifest themselves. This gradual evolution of the response is already beginning in Venezuela and will continue for months and years. As for structural engineers, they will progressively move from emergency assessments towards understanding why particular structures failed, determining which assets can be repaired, and supporting reconstruction efforts.

Experience from previous disasters demonstrates that recovery is not simply about replacing damaged buildings – it is an opportunity to reduce future risk by improving construction quality, strengthening institutions and promoting safer development. The concept of “building back better” (Lyons and Schilderman, 2010) remains as relevant in Venezuela today as it was after previous earthquakes.

However, safer reconstruction in Venezuela will likely face additional challenges linked to existing economic, governance, societal and institutional constraints. For both key decision-makers and affected communities, this may mean that as time passes the imperative to rebuild more robustly will not be prioritised, compared with the urgencies of providing livelihoods and mitigating the daily hazards people face which may become far more urgent to them than a possible future earthquake (Kennedy & Newby, 2018). Similar challenges have influenced recovery outcomes in many disaster-affected countries, highlighting the importance of realistic, locally led approaches. It is important that the affected population themselves gets to decide what is meant by building back better. An important role for engineers is to help those populations make well-informed decisions, but not to control their recovery (Crawford, Newby & Baron, 2015). Communities generally have an excellent appreciation of their own needs and the more frequent hazards that are in their living memory, however they may be less aware of rarer but potentially disastrous events, such as flooding, earthquakes, tsunamis and landslides.

How will communities be rehoused?

One of the most pressing questions arising from the Venezuela earthquakes is how displaced communities will be rehoused. Past disasters illustrate that housing recovery is rarely a rapid process. Permanent quality housing cannot be delivered at the scale required within weeks or even months. As a result, affected populations often experience a prolonged period between the disaster and the restoration of adequate permanent housing. Venezuela is unlikely to be an exception. Following the 2010 floods and landslides, which displaced more than 130,000 people, many affected households remained in temporary accommodation for over a year while permanent housing was being developed and allocated. This illustrates the timescales typically associated with large-scale post-disaster rehousing programmes in Venezuela (EFE, 2011).

In the immediate aftermath of earthquakes such as in Venezuela, the most common emergency response is the distribution of simple shelter kits consisting of tarpaulins, rope, tools and locally available construction materials (IFRC, 2021). These kits enable families to create basic temporary shelter adapted to their own circumstances, and are quicker, more flexible, and more cost-effective than tents. How affected people move from this immediate emergency shelter to durable housing is the major challenge.

Evidence from previous disasters shows that, with a few exceptions, most households ultimately self-recover (ODI, 2017). Families rebuild their own homes using their own labour, resources and social networks, often with very limited formal assistance. Government agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international organisations may support thousands of households, but they rarely have the resources to directly rebuild for everyone affected – and certainly not in an acceptable timeframe. This reality has important implications for engineers. Historically, the international community has repeatedly attempted to provide standardised shelter solutions after disasters. From imported prefabricated housing to flat-pack shelter systems, these approaches have generally performed poorly because they fail to reflect local climates, cultures, construction practices and household needs (IFRC and OCHA, 2015). Shipped in international standardised systems also tend to be expensive without providing durability,

The response to these shortcomings evolved following disasters such as the 2010 Haiti earthquake, where ‘transitional’ shelters, designed to be upgradeable or re-usable for other purposes, were promoted as an intermediate solution. While these achieved some success, they also highlighted the limitations of externally designed standardised housing approaches, in particular the high costs and long implementation times (Shelter Centre, 2012; Sanderson et al., 2014; Crawford, 2018).

Consequently, current humanitarian shelter practice focuses on supporting people in their own recovery process rather than supplying externally designed buildings. What that looks like is different in every context, but usually involves a mix of technical assistance and training, supplying construction materials and distributing cash directly to affected people.

Cash assistance allows households to prioritise their own needs, whether related to shelter, food, water, livelihoods or healthcare (Romtveit, 2025). Evidence from multiple disasters shows that affected communities are best placed to decide how limited resources should be used to meet their own needs. It has the added benefit of mobilising the local markets and private sector to respond, which they typically do much more quickly than international assistance can manage.
 

How can structural engineers best support Venezuela?

Structural engineers can therefore best help support Venezuela (and other similar disasters) by: 1) Cash donations; 2) provision of specialist technical support where required and not available locally.

For most engineers or engineering firms wishing to help, unrestricted financial support to credible organisations will be the most effective contribution. Cash donations without restrictions (but targeted to a specific crisis response) allow these organisations to respond to evolving needs and purchase goods and services locally whenever possible (USAID Saves Lives, 2022). The more local the response, the better – so giving cash direct to Venezuelan responders is best. Recognising that can be difficult, donating to well-established international organisations with good local partners or presence is a good alternative. Note also that recent significant international aid cuts mean that donations from the private sector are now even more important.

For Venezuela in particular, examples include organisations involved in search and rescue, medical support (such as Medecins sans Frontières, https://www.msf.org/), or emergency shelter and long-term recovery (such as the members of the UK Disasters Emergency Committee, https://www.dec.org.uk/).

Do not give physical things. Unsolicited material donations create logistical burdens, occupy valuable transport capacity and divert attention from more urgent priorities (Schwartz & Ryan, 2010). The same lesson has emerged repeatedly in previous disasters (Loy, 2018). One study found that 50-70% of the goods that arrive during emergencies should never have been sent and interfere with recovery efforts (Brooks, 2017). While responding to the earthquake in Nepal, one of the authors of this article has himself had to spend valuable time disposing of a warehouse full of donated jeans and airline blankets which where climatically and culturally inappropriate and couldn’t be distributed.

The engineering profession can therefore contribute significantly by supporting effective humanitarian organisations financially, enabling specialists already engaged in the response to operate at scale.
 

Specialist technical support

The second area where engineers can add value is through carefully targeted specialist technical expertise. Following any major earthquake, engineers may wish to travel to the affected area to help. However, experience from Haiti and other disasters has shown that self-deployed volunteers do unintentionally complicate emergency operations (Harvard School of Public Health, 2018; Aleccia, 2010). Technical support is most valuable when invited and coordinated through recognised organisations and when responding to identified needs.

A priority in Venezuela will be the rapid assessment of damaged buildings. Initial inspections allow unsafe structures to be identified, occupied buildings to be categorised according to risk, and recovery planning to begin. Systems such as ATC-20 (ATC, 2026) provide established frameworks for this work and can often be implemented rapidly using local engineers supported by experienced specialists where necessary. Fully remote virtual inspections were trialled after the Mexico 2023 earthquake, and could have some potential, but need to be conducted with care. Photos may not illustrate the full damage of the building and therefore don’t necessarily give the remote inspector the complete picture.

As recovery progresses, more detailed structural investigations will be required. Engineers will need to evaluate residual structural capacity, determine whether buildings should be repaired or demolished, and identify opportunities for seismic retrofit. Seismic retrofit is a complex specialist topic, and therefore it is essential to involve experienced seismic engineers if conducting such assessments.

As with all other aspects of the response, engineering activities should be locally led wherever possible, drawing on the considerable expertise that remains within Venezuela’s well-established engineering profession. While the prolonged economic crisis has contributed to a significant outflow of highly skilled professionals – including engineers, technical specialists and academics – the country retains a strong base of experienced practitioners. Research on Venezuelan migration identifies engineers, oil-sector specialists, professionals and students among the early waves of emigration, while professional bodies have estimated that more than 30% of Venezuelan engineers and architects left the country during a six-year period (Ortiz Morales, 2023; CAV, 2019). At the same time, recent initiatives led by the Colegio de Ingenieros de Venezuela (CIV) demonstrate the profession’s continued ability to organise and mobilise technical expertise at scale, including the rapid training of more than 1400 engineers, architects and allied professionals to undertake post-earthquake structural damage assessments following the June 2026 seismic events (CIV, 2026). International engineering support should therefore complement and strengthen local capacity rather than substitute it, ensuring that knowledge, skills and institutional learning remain embedded within Venezuela and contribute to the long-term development of the profession.
 

What should reconstruction look like?

The damage observed in Venezuela is already highlighting the importance of context-appropriate reconstruction. Reinforced concrete is widely used throughout the country and is familiar to both engineers and contractors. When properly designed and constructed, reinforced concrete performs very well during earthquakes. For larger buildings, it will likely remain one of the most suitable reconstruction materials. However, the reconstruction effort must avoid simply reproducing the vulnerabilities that existed in the damaged building stock. This can be hard to achieve.

For lower-rise housing, the Venezuela recovery can include promotion of proven alternatives including confined masonry (EERI, 2011; Carlevaro et al., 2018. Kaminski et al., 2019) and reinforced hollow block masonry (Brzev & Anderson, 2018), both of which have demonstrated good seismic performance across Latin America. In suitable locations, improved timber and bamboo systems may also offer resilient and affordable solutions (Kaminski et al., 2023). It is important that unfamiliar or unwelcome materials and technologies are not imposed on communities who don’t want them – as history shows they will not be kept or maintained if not aligned to people’s needs or aspirations for their homes.

The broader lesson extends well beyond Venezuela. Reconstruction is most successful when it builds upon familiar materials, established skills and locally available supply chains (Global Shelter Cluster, 2018). Communities generally do not require innovative imported technologies; they require safe, durable and affordable housing that can be constructed, maintained and adapted locally (IFRC and OCHA, 2015; da Silva, 2010). Communities should be involved throughout the reconstruction process (Lyons & Schilderman, 2010; IFRC, 2010). For this reason, engineers should be cautious about promoting unfamiliar construction systems, imported housing products or architecturally driven solutions that lack local ownership and technical support. Communities also deserve dignity and the same level of professional care and standards that we might apply to our own direct clients (CROSS, 2025).

The international community can also support by creating and sharing good practice through their networks. This might include the provision of specialist training, or simply the authoring of context-appropriate guidance, codes and standards. In many cases, good guidance already exists, and may simply need to be shared, translated or adapted for the local context.
 

Conclusion

The 2026 Venezuela earthquakes provide a powerful reminder of both the devastating consequences of seismic risk and the important role that structural engineers can play in recovery. The most effective contributions are rarely the most visible. Experience from many previous disasters shows that successful recovery depends on supporting local capacity, strengthening existing systems and enabling communities to rebuild safely according to their own priorities.

Structural engineers undoubtedly have an essential technical role in assessment, repair and reconstruction. However, the lessons emerging from Venezuela suggest that our greatest contribution may be ensuring that engineering expertise supports community-led recovery and local engineering capacity rather than attempting to replace it. By combining sound engineering judgement with humanitarian good practice, we can help affected communities recover not only more quickly, but more safely and more sustainably.
 

Summary

Do not:

• Donate physical things.
• Travel to Venezuela unless invited and co-ordinated through recognised organisations, and responding to identified needs.
• Do not work beyond your competence and experience – seismic design and working in the humanitarian and international development sectors are specialisms.

Do:

• Give unrestricted cash donations.
• Contribute relevant specialist expertise if you have it.
• Apply the same level of professional care and standards, for both paid and pro-bono work, that we might apply to our own direct clients.

Some firms take a strategic approach to this by forming longer-term partnerships with humanitarian organisations providing both funding and targeted technical support so that they are more ready and able to respond when emergencies like this happen.

References

Aleccia, J. (2010) Disaster do-gooders can actually hinder help. NBC News. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34958965#.Waq6YdOGPeQ. (Accessed July 2026).

ATC (2026) ATC-20 Building Safety Evaluation Forms and Placards. ATC. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.atcouncil.org/atc-20. (Accessed July 2026).

Brooks, J. (2017) Want to help after a disaster? Give your cash, not your clothing. The Guardian. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/25/disaster-aid-cash-not-clothing-relief-hurricane-harvey. (Accessed July 2026).

Brzev, S., Anderson, D. (2018) Seismic design guide for masonry buildings, 2nd Ed. Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association. Toronto, Canada.

Carlevaro, N., Roux-Fouillet, G., Schacher, T. (2018). How to build safer houses with confined masonry: A guide for masons. Practical Action Publishing. Rugby, UK.

Colegio de Ingenieros de Venezuela (CIV) (2026) CIV capacita a profesionales para evaluar daños estructurales ocasionados por los terremotos. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.civ.net.ve/noticia/civ-capacita-. (Accessed July 2026).

Colegio de Arquitectos de Venezuela (CAV) (2019) 30% de ingenieros y arquitectos venezolanos emigraron en los últimos seis años. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://cav.net.ve/30-de-ingenieros-y-arquitectos-venezolanos-emigraron-en-los-ultimos-seis-anos/. (Accessed July 2026).

Crawford, K. (2018) Danger! Weird Ways Engineers Think and Talk about Disasters in Cities. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://resilienturbanism.org/kcrawford/danger-weird-ways-engineers-think-and-talk-about-disasters-in-cities/. (Accessed July 2026).

Crawford, K., Newby, T., Baron, R. (2015) Enabling Post-Disaster Shelter Recovery – Changing our standard approaches to risk and success. Shelter Projects 2015-2016, Global Shelter Cluster, Geneva.

CROSS UK (2025) Key considerations in seismic design for developing countries. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.cross-safety.org/uk/safety-information/cross-safety-report/key-considerations-seismic-design-developing-1399. (Accessed July 2026).

da Silva, J. (2010) Lessons from Aceh: Key Considerations in Post-Disaster Reconstruction. Practical Action Publishing. Rugby, UK.

EERI (2011) Seismic design guide for low-rise confined masonry buildings. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.confinedmasonry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ConfinedMasonryDesignGuide82011.pdf. (Accessed July 2026).

EERI (2026) Learning From Earthquakes Virtual Earthquake Reconnaissance Team (VERT): Phase 1 Response to M7.2 & M7.5 Venezuela Earthquakes, June 24, 2026. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://learningfromearthquakes.org/wp-content/uploads/2026.06.24-Venezuela-EQ-Phase-1-VERT-Report.pdf. (Accessed July 2026).

EFE (2011) El Gobierno de Chávez inicia el traslado de 130.000 damnificados a viviendas nuevas. ReliefWeb. Available from: https://reliefweb.int/report/venezuela-bolivarian-republic/el-gobierno-de-ch%C3%A1vez-inicia-el-traslado-de-130000-damnificados. (Accessed July 2026).

Global Shelter Cluster (2018) Construction good practice standards. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.sheltercluster.org/construction-standards-working-group/documents/construction-good-practices. (Accessed July 2026).

Harvard School of Public Health (2018) Using lessons from Haiti earthquake to improve humanitarian aid. Harvard University. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/lessons-haiti-earthquake-humanitarian-aid/. (Accessed July 2026).

IFRC (2010) Owner-Driven Housing Reconstruction Guidelines. IFRC, Geneva,
Switzerland.

IFRC (2021) The IFRC Shelter Kit. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.ifrc.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/IFRC_shelter-kit-guidelines-EN-LR.pdf. (Accessed July 2026).

IFRC & OCHA (2015) Shelter after disaster. 2nd Ed. IFRC & OCHA. Geneva, Switzerland.

Kaminski S., Lopez L., Trujillo D., Escamilla E., Correa-Giraldo V., Correal Daza, J. (2023). ‘Composite bamboo shear walls – a shear wall system for affordable and sustainable housing in tropical developing countries’. SECED 2023 Conference, September 2023, Cambridge.

Kaminski, S., Schacher, T., Lopez, J., Franco, G, Molina-Hutt, C., Roux-Fouillet, G., Carlevaro, N., Stone. H. (2019) The April 2016 Muisne (Ecuador) Earthquake –behaviour of low-rise RC frames with masonry infill, and recommendations for new construction. SECED 2019 Conference, September 2019.

Kennedy, J., Newby, T. (2018) Just one small part of the jigsaw – Why shelter response must serve complicated human realities. The State of Humanitarian Shetler and Settlements 2018, Global Shelter Cluster, Geneva.

Loy, I. (2018) High heels, skis, woollen blankets: what not to send to a tropical island when disaster strikes. The New Humanitarian. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/disaster-aid-cyclone-Gita-cash-Tonga. (Accessed July 2026).

Lyons, M., Shilderman, T. (2010) Building Back Better, Delivering People-centred Housing Reconstruction at Scale. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, UK.

ODI (2017) Self-recovery from disasters: An interdisciplinary perspective. Working paper 523. ODI, London, UK.

Ortiz Morales, J. (2023) How Can Venezuelan Migrants Transform the Spaces of Opportunities in Bogotá? A methodology to propose a strategic framework for urban re-activation using migrant entrepreneurship as a force for integration. Master's Thesis, Politecnico di Torino. Available from: https://webthesis.biblio.polito.it/27322. (Accessed July 2026).

Rogers-Tizard, W. (2026) Personal Photo collection.

Romtveit, G. (2025) 6 reasons why we are putting cash directly in people's hands. NRC. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.nrc.no/news/2025/march/6-reasons-why-we-are-putting-cash-directly-in-peoples-hands. (Accessed July 2026).

Sanderson, D., Sharma, A., Kennedy, J., Burnell, J. (2014) Lost In Transition: Principles, Practice And Lessons From Haiti for Urban Post-Disaster Shelter Recovery Programs.

Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management. Vol. 6, No. 2 (2014) 131–151.

Schwartz, R., & Ryan., J. (2010) HAITI EARTHQUAKE: Be Careful About Those 'Impulse' Donations. ABC News. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://abcnews.com/Blotter/HaitiEarthquake/haiti-earthquake-careful-impulse-donations/story?id=9551890. (Accessed July 2026).

Shelter Centre (2012) Transitional Shelter Guidelines. [ONLINE]. Available from: https://www.sheltercluster.org/resources/documents/transitional-shelter-guidelines. (Accessed July 2026).

USAID Saves Lives (2022) Why “Cash is Best” for International Disaster Relief. [ONLINE]. Medium. Available from: https://usaidsaveslives.medium.com/why-cash-is-best-for-international-disaster-relief-4cea7a725b65. (Accessed July 2026).

Authors:

Seb Kaminski, Associate, Arup, Chair of IStructE Humanitarian and International Development Panel
Step Haiselden, Global Shelter Team Leader, CARE International; Vice-Chair of IStructE Humanitarian and International Development Panel
Tom Newby, Partner, Buro Happold
Luis Bohorquez Grateron, Structural Engineer Buro Happold

Venezuela Earthquake, photo credit: UK Search and Rescue Team