Upload
lexuyen
View
232
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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