1

Nilgün Okayokayn@itu.edu.tr

Istanbul Technical UniversityDisaster Management Center

How Istanbul has Prepared Itself in Response to the

Threat of Earthquakes

2

Outline

• Vulnerability of a mega-city• Lessons learned from the recent

disaster • Countermeasures• Progress in mitigation• Challenging issues

3

ISTANBUL:a high-risk megacity

• 13-14 million people• Increase rate 35%

– High annual internal migration: 500.000– High annual growth rate: 3.5%– High concentration of informal settlements:

60%– High population density:

• 1750 persons/km2 vs Turkey: 81 persons/km2

• 20% of Turkey’s population lives in Istanbul

4

Legistation:a Dual Organization

An appointed Governor– Conducts pro-active role in managing emergency

situations and response (Disaster Law) – Civil protection, public safety, schools, hospitals, and

telecommunication etc.

An elected Mayor and District Mayors – With city council and municipal organizations – Under the authority of the governor in the emergency – Administrate land-use planning and building

constructions, mitigation (Development Law)– Municipality-owned entreprises:

• Including gas, water, transportation companies

5

• More than 17,000 dead• 70,000 injured • 600,000 made homeless

1999 Marmara Earthquakes

• 113,000 buildings collapsed • 254,000 various damages

• 10-15 billion US$ loss

6

Lessons From the Recent Disaster

1. Delay of first response

2. Weaknesses in Turkish DMS

3. Losses and damages

4. Resource gap

5. Lack of knowledge: assessment of needs

6. Lack of preparedness and mitigation

7

Lesson 1Delay of First Response

Communication• Communication failed, mobiles did not function• Telephone lines were out of order in first 48 hours

First Aid & Rescue• Lack of organization + coordination in search & rescue activities• Emergency services failed• Almost entire traffic system destroyed• Chaotic situation• Bureaucracy inhibiting efficiency and effectiveness• Insufficient logistic support• Voluntary personnel were not trained and organized

Government and Municipality not prepared for a major disaster• Coordination among sectoral institutions• Participation, partnerships and communication

8

Countermeasure 1

• Establishment of Istanbul Disaster Coordination Center and Istanbul Disaster Management Center

• Communication, coordination and cooperation

• Build, train and prepare search & rescue teams

• Update rescue vehicle, equipment, network• Continously determine, observe, monitor risks

and collect and update geological and geophysical data and report

9

– Legal insufficiency for management– Lack of implementation for sustainable

disaster management activities– Lack of coordination, cooperation and

communication • Duplication of efforts and responsibilities of various

agencies– No national mitigation strategy and mitigation

planning • Short & long-term

Lesson 2 Considerable Weaknesses

in Turkish DMS

10

Countermeasure 2

• Prime Ministry Turkey Emergency Management General Directorate (TEMAD)– Regulates nationwide all relations between

governmental & non-governmental, military, and civil organizations

– Organizes Crisis Management Centers – Coordinates

• Response and rescue operations • Donation management• Activities of local Civil Defense branches and NGOs

• Crisis Management Center of Prime Ministry – Regulates preparation and response activities

11

• National Council of Earthquake – Links between governmental and non-governmental

institutions – Planning for mitigation strategies

• Five-year Development Plan of Turkey (2001-2005)– Disaster risk reduction – Establishment of appropriate legal, social, institutional

and technical structures w/effective measures for disaster mitigation

12

Legislative Changes for Mitigation Activities

1- Legislation for building design and construction supervision (2000):

• Mandatory design checking and construction inspection of all buildings in ıstanbul by government-licensed private “supervision firms”

• Public buildings are excluded• Supervision firms must be owned by a majority of expert

professionals• The law holds the supervision firms responsible for any

losses

13

• Turkey’s government-mandated Catastrophic Insurance Pool (TCIP) Coordinates insurance companies in the country for

mitigation activities

• National Disasters Insurance Organization (DASK) The TCIP supported through a $100 million loan facility and funded to– Reduce country’s financial vulnerability to earthquakes

• Government exposure to earthquake damages – Transfer catastrophic risk to int’l insurance markets

• Encourage risk mitigation – Practice safer construction through the insurance

mechanism

2- Compulsory Earthquake Insurance (1999)

14

3- The Law of “Greater City Municipalities” (2004)

• Drawing up city master plans • Approving and supervising their implementation • Vacating and demolishing dangerous buildings • Partnering with local municipalities and private firms • İnstituting financial organizations and undertaking

many forms of partnerships in comprehensive urban regeneration projects

• Building and operating the major infrastructure installations such as– Water and sewage system – Waste treatment plants, gas

15

Lesson 3Losses and Damages

• Loss of lives– İmportance of local community and

volunteers– Lack of awareness– Sensitivity for disaster issues

• Building damages• İndustrial damage• Damage to environmental • Financial losses

16

Countermeasure 3After the ‘99 disasters Turkey

showed some progress

Increase in sensitivity of public and private sectors, and NGOs for disaster issues

– Community education, training and raising awareness– Providing DM skills, training volunteers– Networking and participation of local community in DM– Education, DM training programs and projects for

government & municipality officials, private sector, NGOs by the universities and international institutions

17

Lesson 4Financial Losses and Resource Gap

18

Procurement of Resources

• Public resources • İnstitutional resources• Private property owners saving/debt capacities• Extending TCIP • Budget allocations• Local authority allocations• Allocation of resources for mitigation

• New methodsTourism/art-culture/sports/Recreational sector contributionsTransit trafficLarge-scale project development

• External resourcesInternational fundingEU resources Donations/credits

19

Countermeasure 4Improving of Knowledge for Istanbul

No local knowledge on risk, hazard identification, vulnerability assessment

The need for better knowledge was urgent:

1. Istanbul Microzonation and Seismic Risk Assessment Project, Case scenarios

2. Earthquake Master Plan for Istanbul

20

1- Istanbul Microzonation and Seismic Risk Assessment Study (2002)

Scenario studies helpful in understanding the risk and damage assessment:

• Loss of lives• Damage to buildings• Homeless and shelter needs• Business losses and interruption• Financial losses

Establish:• Disaster prevention +

mitigation program• Seismic microzonation• Technology transferInclude:• Earthquake analysis • Scenario studies• DM issues• Damages and

causalties • Urban vulnerability • Preparedness

21

I E M P components

RISK SECTORS

• Infrastructural systems• Building stock• Dangerous uses • Emergency uses• Special areas

LOCAL ACTION PROGRAMS

• Physical transformation• Density reduction• Retrofitting of buildings• Community organization• Investment Programs

SUPPORT - RESEARCH

• Public relations• Financial resources• Legal arrangements• Administrative alternatives• Info engineering• Scientific/technical research

2- Istanbul Earthquake Master Plan

22

Lesson 5Lack of Mitigation/Preparedness

•No local/district-level risk analysis, mitigation planning and emergency-operation planning

•Weak public awareness about mitigation activities

•No local debris management strategy•No local donation management•Lack of training and exercising in DM issues

23

Countermeasures 5Mitigation Projects for Istanbul

• Imm-zeytinburnu pilot project• Seismic retrofit of viaducts and bridges• Wb-supported mitigation projects

– Erl, meer, ısmep• Istanbul seismic risk mitigation and

emergency prepredress project

24

Imm-zetinburnu Pilot Project2003-2010

• Identify buildings under the high risk• Develop strategies for seismic hazard reduction• Focus is on a joint development platform where public and

private actors can work together• Istanbul Metropolitan Planning and Urban Design Center.• Several stages that encompass:

– Demolishing the buildings at risk – Widening streets, opening evacuation corridors and gathering areas – Establishment of community centers – Strengthening public infrastructure – Regeneration of housing areas in high priority risk areas, – Removal of the industries from the district and/or transformation of

industry into trade and service

25

The Vulnerability of the Istanbul Buildings

• Much higher than in most developed countries• Absence of a public housing program• Poor building material and construction resulted from illegal

housing-ringed with settlements: ”gecekondu”– Large-scale development and industrialization– High rate of urbanization which created the demand for

inexpensive housing• Ineffective control of design and construction

– poor inspection contributes to the problem• Modern buildings, research laboratories, hospitals and offices,

museums and art galleries – Damage to the unbolted expensive equipment, furniture and

exhibited pieces

26

Investigating Risk Mitigationin Istanbul-ısmep Project (2005)

Under the Governorship of IstanbulIstanbul Special Provincial Administration/ Istanbul Project Coordination

Unit 1. Increasing emergency preparedness

– Emergency communication systems– Emergency management information system– Upgrading emergency response capacity– Public awareness: Support to community volunteer groups

2. Seismic risk mitigation/retrofitting of critical public facilities• Strengthening/reconstruction of hospitals, schools, dormitories, public

administration buildings• Lifelines and vital infrastructure• Cultural heritage buildings

3. Enforcement of building codes and land-use plans– Public awareness campaigns– Development of regulatory framework– Accreditation program for engineers– Improvements in building permits issuance

27

Challengıng Issues

• Regulatory Issues:– Disaster Law– Construction Law (Building Design Code)– Retrofitting Regulation– Building Inspection Law– Laws and Regulations concerning finance

• Enlarging the risk insurance base• Finalizing reorganization of disaster management functions:

– Between Prime Ministry and Ministries– At central-local government levels

• Awareness raising– Capacity building in all organizations – Public/private/citizen partnerships– District-level public preparedness

• Retrofitting of existing buildings – Implementing city rehabilitation projects

technically feasible, financially affordable, economically justifiable, socially acceptable

28

Conclusions

• Risk mitigation is not only a technical issue but mostly a legal and socio-political issue

• The reduction of disaster risk is an endless challenge:– It raises difficult legal, institutional, social and financial issues

• Legal and institutional issues need to be clarified• Better understanding of the gaps and needs• Better understanding of the resource needs• Better understanding of the role of the stakeholders• An overall plan that adresses all the issues • The ultimate goal is to build a disaster-resilient community in

Istanbul by creating a culture of prevention