Granada lives the silence of Sánchez, Feijóo, and Abascal after a morning marked by the earthquakes

In Spain, the President of the Government plays a central role in managing major emergencies such as earthquakes, but combines political and coordination leadership within a framework strictly governed by the Constitution and laws. Immediate operational management falls to Civil Protection, autonomous communities, and other specialized services, while the president activates the State's exceptional instruments and sets the overall response.

1. Constitutional framework and exceptional states

The Spanish Constitution (Article 116) provides for states of alarm, exception, and siege, developed by Organic Law 4/1981, of June 1, on states of alarm, exception, and siege (text in BOE).

• State of alarm: the Government, “exercising the powers granted by Article 116.2 of the Constitution,” can declare it by Royal Decree agreed in the Council of Ministers when there are:
  • Catastrophes, calamities, or public disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, or fires.
  • Health crises, paralysis of essential services, or severe shortages.
• The decree sets the territorial scope, duration (max. 15 days), and effects. Extensions require express authorization from Congress, which can modulate scope and conditions.
• For the state of alarm, the competent authority is the Government; it may delegate to the president of an autonomous community when the emergency affects only its territory.
• During its validity, measures such as the following may be adopted:
  • Limit circulation or presence of people and vehicles in certain areas or times.
  • Temporary requisition of goods, imposition of mandatory personal services.
  • Temporary intervention and occupation of industries, operations, or premises (not homes).
  • Rationing of essential services or products.

All this is done under the Government's direction, headed by the president; Organic Law 4/1981 makes clear that declaring these states does not interrupt the functioning of constitutional powers, but grants the Executive extraordinary and concentrated powers to restore normality.

2. National Security and major crises

Law 36/2015, of September 28, on National Security (text in BOE) strengthens the president's role in large-scale emergencies, even if an exceptional state is not declared.

• It is the Government's responsibility to “establish and direct National Security policy and ensure its execution.”
• Specifically, it is the President of the Government's responsibility to:
  • Direct National Security policy and the National Security System.
  • Propose and submit to the Government the National Security Strategy and its revisions.
  • Declare the Situation of Interest for National Security, a figure that allows activating a reinforced coordination level without reaching a state of alarm.
• The president directs the System assisted by the National Security Council, which he himself chairs and which coordinates ministries and other state actors in complex crisis scenarios.

3. Civil Protection and inter-administrative coordination

In the field of catastrophes such as earthquakes, the main instrument is civil protection, regulated by Law 17/2015, of July 9, on the National Civil Protection System (text in BOE) and the Basic Civil Protection Standard, approved by Royal Decree 524/2023, of June 20 (text in BOE).

• Law 17/2015 assigns the fundamental responsibility for civil protection to the Ministry of the Interior, “under the political direction and superior coordination of the Government.”
• The Government, chaired by the president, approves by Council of Ministers agreements:
  • The Basic Civil Protection Standard.
  • The State civil protection plans for various risks (seismic, floods, tsunamis, etc.).
• The law provides for the declaration of emergencies of national interest; in these, superior direction corresponds to the General State Administration, under the Government's authority, while coordinating autonomous and local resources.
• The use of the Military Emergency Unit (UME) is integrated, whose organization is regulated by Order DEF/160/2019; its activation and coordination fall within the Government's decisions on civil protection and defense.

4. Limits, controls, and distribution of responsibilities

Although the President of the Government has very broad powers of direction and activation of legal instruments, his actions in emergencies are subject to:

• Parliamentary control: periodic information to Congress on states of alarm and extensions, debate on National Security policy, appearances before the Joint National Security Committee.
• Proportionality and temporality: both Organic Law 4/1981 and Law 17/2015 require that measures be strictly necessary and proportional.
• Respect for the distribution of powers: autonomous communities maintain their powers in civil protection and health, integrated into a cooperation scheme; the State assumes superior direction only when the emergency justifies it (emergency of national interest, situation of interest for National Security, or exceptional state).

In summary, in the face of earthquakes or other serious catastrophes, the President of the Government can declare or propose exceptional states, activate the situation of interest for National Security, direct the State's strategic response, and coordinate the different administrative levels. Practical execution —rescues, evacuations, emergency services— is deployed through civil protection plans, competent ministries, autonomous communities, local entities, and specialized units such as the UME.

The activation by an autonomous community of its Special Emergency Plan for Seismic Risk is not a purely discretionary decision but is framed within a set of state regulations that establish common minimum requirements. The core is in Law 17/2015, of July 9, on the National Civil Protection System, the Basic Civil Protection Standard, approved by Royal Decree 524/2023, the Basic Guideline for Civil Protection Planning against Seismic Risk (Council of Ministers Agreement of April 7, 1995, published by Resolution of May 5, 1995), and the State Civil Protection Plan against Seismic Risk (Agreement of March 26, 2010, published by Resolution of March 29, 2010).

1. Prior planning requirements

Even before activation, the Basic Guideline for Seismic Risk establishes which autonomous communities must have special plans and with what minimum content:

• Special civil protection plans against seismic risk will be developed in those autonomous communities whose territory includes areas of seismic hazard. In any case, the communities and provinces where earthquakes of intensity equal to or greater than grade VI (MSK scale) are foreseeable for a return period of 500 years, according to the seismic hazard map of the National Geographic Institute (IGN), are expressly cited.
• Plans must be based on a hazard and vulnerability analysis and the preparation of risk maps estimating expected victims, damaged buildings, impact on infrastructure, essential services, and possible associated risks (fires, hazardous substance leaks, etc.).
• The autonomous plan must meet the minimum requirements of the Guideline: structure, management and coordination bodies, intervention measures, integration with territorial and local plans, and specific consideration of persons with disabilities and vulnerable groups.
• To be legally effective within the national system, the plan must be approved by the autonomous community and endorsed by the National Civil Protection Commission, in accordance with the Basic Civil Protection Standard.

2. Technical conditions for activation

The Basic Guideline defines the elements that must concur for autonomous authorities to activate the plan:

• Existence of a relevant seismic event, accredited by information provided by the IGN National Seismic Network. At minimum, the date and time of the earthquake, latitude, longitude, depth, magnitude (Richter scale), estimated intensity in affected municipalities, and affected area must be available.
• Cross-checking of these data with the hazard and vulnerability maps included in the plan: this is the basis for estimating expected damage to people, buildings, infrastructure, and essential services.
• Rapid assessment of the actual or foreseeable consequences: geographical delimitation of the affected area, damage to homes, hospitals, and basic facilities, status of transport, electricity, water, telecommunications networks, existence of associated phenomena, and preliminary estimate of the number of victims.

Based on this, the Guideline sets the phases and situations that serve as a reference for activation:

• Phase of intensified monitoring and information: includes situation 0, for widely felt earthquakes but without significant damage; focuses on population information and reinforced monitoring, without full emergency deployment.
• Emergency phase: begins when the earthquake has caused damage or victims.
  • Situation 1: damage manageable with means and resources available in the affected area.
  • Situation 2: severity or extent requires mobilizing external resources to the affected area.
  • Situation 3: when it is considered that national interest is at stake and is declared as such by the competent minister; in this case, direction passes to the State, but the autonomous plan remains an essential operational piece.
• Normalization phase: once the emergency is controlled, focused on restoring basic services, rehousing affected population, and securing or demolishing damaged buildings.

3. Legal and procedural requirements

Strictly legally, the requirements for activating the autonomous plan can be summarized as:

• That the community's territory is part of the defined seismic hazard areas and that its special plan has been approved and endorsed according to the Basic Guideline and the Basic Civil Protection Standard.
• That there is a seismic event which, based on its magnitude/intensity and actual or foreseeable damage, fits into one of the situation levels foreseen in the plan itself (at least situation 0; normally 1 or 2 for broad operational activation).
• That the competent autonomous authority (usually the head of the department responsible for civil protection, or the body foreseen by the territorial/autonomous plan) issues the formal declaration of emergency situation and plan activation, following internal procedures of the autonomous civil protection system.
• That the foreseen management and coordination bodies are activated (autonomous operational coordination center, advisory committees, information offices) and, when appropriate, an Integrated Operational Coordination Center (CECOPI) with the State is established, under the terms set by the Basic Guideline and the State Plan.
• That information and alert to the population is guaranteed, with special attention to persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, according to specific requirements introduced both in the Guideline and in the most recent civil protection regulations.

In summary, the autonomous community activates its Emergency Plan for Seismic Risk when, faced with a real or imminent earthquake in a recognized hazard area, IGN data and damage assessment justify framing the situation within the levels foreseen by its plan, and the competent authority formally declares the emergency and activates the organization and civil protection measures defined, in coordination with the State Plan when necessary.

With the information available in the consulted institutional databases and open sources reviewed in this very search, it is not possible to provide a reliable and closed number of parliamentary initiatives on seismic emergencies presented in the Congress in the last legislature. We have not found either an official aggregated count or a specific statistical analysis by the theme “seismic risk/emergency” that could answer your question exactly.

The institutional database that collects Congress initiatives allows locating proposals, questions, and motions by many variables (type of initiative, proposing group, body, processing phase, etc.), but its thematic classification is not fine or homogeneous enough to extract, in one go, “all initiatives on seismic emergencies” in a complete legislature. In the search performed, terms such as “earthquake,” “seism,” “seismic,” “seismic risk” and related expressions were prioritized, but the results obtained did not return a consolidated count nor a stable list that could be quantified with certainty.

Added to this is another practical limitation: many initiatives are formulated in a generic key of civil protection, natural disasters, or risk management, without necessarily mentioning the word “earthquake” or “seismic risk” in the heading or main section. In such cases, although the content may refer to seismic scenarios within a broader framework (civil protection plans, risk maps, critical infrastructures, etc.), they fall outside any search based solely on keywords. Any figure offered now would depend on incomplete filters and could be misleading, because:

• It would include initiatives that mention “earthquake” only incidentally (for example, to refer to an event in another country or an earthquake as a political metaphor), without really being initiatives on seismic emergencies in Spain.
• Or it would exclude relevant initiatives that regulate or inquire about the response to this type of emergencies but do not literally use those terms in the title or summary.

In parallel, the search in parliamentary and political press also does not yield a ready-made work that we can use. We have not found, in the consulted sources, studies or articles that have systematically counted “how many” initiatives on earthquakes, seismic risks, or seismic emergencies have been presented in the last legislature, nor a breakdown by type (PNL, questions, appearances, etc.). There is press analyzing global volumes of activity —for example, how many questions are presented in total per legislature or group— but not with the thematic detail you propose.

For all these reasons, the honest answer is that there is no consolidated data directly accessible with the consulted tools and it would not be rigorous to invent or extrapolate a number from a few examples. Obtaining that count would require a specific exploitation of the Congress database (or the historical initiatives) with advanced search criteria and subsequent manual text-by-text filtering, something more appropriate for an internal work of the Chamber itself or an academic research project than a one-off query.

If you need the most approximate calculation possible, the most solid way would be:

• Use the Congress of Deputies initiative search engine, combining terms like “earthquake,” “seismic risk,” “seismic emergency,” “civil protection,” and similar.
• Narrow the search to the last complete legislature (for example, the XV Legislature, if that is the one you have in mind).
• Download or export the results and classify them manually to keep only initiatives that substantively address seismic emergency management (and not just tangential mentions).

With that method, you could reach a reasonably reliable count, but it would involve manual work beyond what the standardized sources consulted in this search allow. Until there is an official or academic study that has already done that thematic filtering, it is not possible to offer an exact and verifiable number of initiatives on seismic emergencies in Congress for the last legislature.