1

Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management ProjectKVERMP

Action Plan for Kathmandu

KVERMPScenario and Action Plan

–Earthquake Hazard assessment –Loss estimation & Earthquake scenario–Action Plan for earthquake risk management

School Earthquake Safety Program (SESP)–School Building Vulnerability Assessment–Structural intervention for improving seismic performance of school buildings

–Implementation of retrofitting of school buildings–Training of Masons–School Earthquake Preparedness Planning

Awareness Raising–Earthquake Safety Day–Publications–Advocacy for building code implementation

Institutional Development - NSET as an ERM center in Nepal

2

Step by step….

Step 1Project design workshop Mar ‘9760 senior participants from government and other related agenciesDonors

Step by step….

Step 2Loss estimation

RADIUS Scenario on 1934 quakeLow costConvince need for actionUse of existing data and info

3

Earthquake Risk of Kathmandu Valley

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000Year

Population Earthquakes with Intensity IX or g

NSET - Nepal GeoHazards International

KATHMANDU VALLEY INTENSITY MAP OF 1934 EARTHQUKE

VIII: Damage to masonry buildings.

IX: Poorly built masonry structures collapse; all

structures are damaged. Underground pipes

broken.X: Most well-built masonry

and frame structures and bridges are destroyed.X.

IX

VII

VIII

VII

VIII

VIII

Kathmandu

Patan BhaktapurThimi

4

High Liquefaction PotentialModerate Liquefaction Potential

NSET - Nepal GeoHazards International

LIQUEFACTIONSUSCEPTIBILITY MAP OF KATHMANDU ,LALITPUR & KIRTIPUR

Kathmandu

PatanKirtipur

NSET - Nepal GeoHazards International

KATHMANDU, LALITPUR & KIRTIPURTELEPHONE DAMAGE

MAPS

60% to 100% damaged30% to 60% damaged30% to 60% damaged10% to 30% damagedTelephone line

Telephone exchange

5

NSET - Nepal GeoHazards International

Water System Functionality:

One Week after the Scenario Earthquake

<30% users served

30% to 60% users served

60% to 100% users served

100% users served

Urban areasMajor roadsMajor riversBoundary of Kathmandu Valley

NSET - Nepal GeoHazards International

<30% users served

30% to 60% users served

60% to 100% users served

100% users served

Urban areasMajor roadsMajor riversBoundary of Kathmandu Valley

Water System Functionality:

One Month after the Scenario Earthquake

6

NSET - Nepal GeoHazards International

AIRPORT HAZARD

MAP

10% unusable

60% - 100%unusable

30% unusable

Oil Tank

High Liquefaction Potential

30% unusable

MORTALITY AND INJURY EST. for KV for scenario Earthquake

SOURCE DEATHS INJURIES(Thousands) (Thousands)

1934 KV Earthquake 22 25

JICA STUDY 2001 (intensity VIII MMI in KV) 18 60

7

Estimated Building Damage in KV due to Scenario Earthquake

(Based on results of UNDP Building Code Project)

PlacePlace Building Stock Building Stock DamagedDamaged(Beyond Repair)

Kathmandu 60%Lalitpur 60%Bhaktapur 75%Entire ValleyEntire Valley 60%60%

HOMELESSNESS IN KVHOMELESSNESS IN KVSOURCESOURCE NO. OF HOMELESS NO. OF HOMELESS

(,000)(,000)

Estimate Based on Expected Building 900Collapse in Kathmandu Valley

8

Per Capita Risk of School Casualty

Step by step….

Step 3Share the scenario

Workshop February 1998Representatives from 30 critical facilitiesScientistsEngineersOther professionals

Comments, critique, changes

9

Step by step….

Step 4Draft plan

A hybrid of Ideas from workshop participantsNational Action Plan, NepalExperiences around the worldWorkshop October 1998

Components of the Action Plan

8 Objectives1. Improve emergency response planning and capability2. Improve awareness of issues related to eq risk3. Integrate seismic resistance into new construction4. Increase the safety of school children & school buildings5. Increase the seismic performance of existing buildings6. Improve the seismic performance of utility and

transportation systems7. Increase experts knowledge on earthquakes, vulnerability,

consequences and mitigation techniques8. Improve long-term community recovery after impact

10

Evaluat i ng poten t ial mit igat ion prand pr i or i t ies

Define action selection criteriapolitical, economic and social feasibilityDoes the initiative appeal to common sense? Does itobviously reduce earthquake risk?

ÿ Is the initiative supported by the organization required for itsimplementation?

ÿ Is the initiative easy to implement?ÿ Does the initiative appear to be cost-effective?ÿ Is the initiative politically realistic to implement?ÿ Is the initiative technically practical to implement?

Pointers with hindsight………….

Step by step….

Step 5

Plan Implementation

11

IMPLEMENTING THE ACTION PLANBuilding Support for the Plan andEarthquake risk Management in generalSupporting Individual Initiatives

ÿ Keeping the Plan Current

Building Support

Using Transparent & Inclusive ProcessesMaking Decisions Rationally

ÿ Using Open Financial Policiesÿ Building Relationship with Other Groupsÿ Raising General Awarenessÿ Educating Decision Makersÿ Conducting Regular Public Hearingsÿ Formally presenting Plan to Governmentÿ Informing International Community in KV

12

KEEPING THE PLAN GOING

Monitoring the Actions PeriodicallyEvaluating Objectives peridiocally

ÿ Creating a new edition periodically

Step by step….

Step 6

Monitoring and EvaluationAUDMP requirement for project implementation

13

Community work ะ very effective andstrong

ÿ Disaster Management Committees are formedin 3 wards of K athmandu

ÿ Several training programs conducted byDMCs

ÿ Community watching, Disaster ImaginationGame (resource/risk mapping and actionplanning at community level) conducted

ÿ DMC34 - Data for Disaster preparedness forhousehold level being prepared

Achievements of KVERMP

Mason Exchange Program (India)q Kathmandu-Kobe School Exchangeq Kathmandu-Kabul Exchangeq Hospital Assessmentq MERMP

ÿ 58 municipalities in 5-8 yearsÿ A package consisting of:

v Scenario & action Planning, SESP, mason training,v Awareness

Achievements (contd…)

14

Translate past research findings intoimplementation

q Low-tech approach was optimalq Transfer ownership of knowledge to communityq Direct message also to country’s leadershipq Scenario is a very strong confidence-building toolq Focus on the Earthquake Safety of School and

hospitals is highly desired by communitiesq Seismic retrofitting of the non-engineered buildings

is an affordable & feasible solution in case ofdeveloping countries

ÿ But Community involvement is a MUST to bring anychange!

Lessons Learned

What is acceptable and doable is moreimportant than what is necessary asindicated by sciences

q Approach should be gradual increasingsafety

q Involve all stakeholders in planningq Select initiative that insures maximum

participants by stakeholders

Lesson Learned: Mitigation Planning and Implementation

15

There should be education and publicawareness elements in each activities

q Concept like ESD are easy toinstitutionalized

q Not transfer of knowledge but also thetransfer of ownership

q Target all levels from individual,neighborhood to central government

q Target all sectors (Health,Transportation…)

Lesson Learned: Evaluation and PublicAwareness

Engineeredฅ Training to professionalsฅ Follow up of rules and regulation

q Non-engineeredUse and provision of mandatory rules of thumbDevelopment/transfer of appropriate technologyTraining to masons (Grass root levelstechnicians)Awareness raising to community

Building productionm e c h a n i sm

E ng in ee re d

N on -e ng in ee re d

R e s o u r c e s t o t r a i nn e c e s sa r y m a n p o w e r

N on -e ng in ee

En g i ne e r e

Le ss on L ea rned : Pr omot ing Sa fe r Bu i l d i ng C

16

All activities should be based upon theparticipation of all stakeholders includingcommunity

q Consider lack of state-of-the-art knowledgeand low awareness level

q Understanding the nature of community isimportant

Priority (May be high forrecurrent/frequent hazards but not forinfrequent/rare occurrence hazards)Generally, do not have strong inertiaBut need to develop trust

Low-tech approachLess complexities in implementationTransparency

Lesson Learned: Community Participation in DisasterMitigation

Step by step….

Step 7

Documentation