THE RISK PROFILE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT ...okayn/Disaster05 WBI.pdfTHE RISK PROFILE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF TURKEY Nilgün Okay 1) Background Information Turkey between

THE RISK PROFILE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF TURKEY Nilgün Okay

1) Background Information Turkey between 35-42 north latitude, and 25-44 east longitude covers 779,452 sq km and has borders with Bulgaria, Greece, Georgia, Armenia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. The road distance from Edirne on the Bulgarian border to Kars on the Armenian one is over 1700 km. The coastlines along the Black, Aegean and Mediterranean Seas total almost 8400 km. The country is geographically diverse, with snow-capped mountains, rolling steep broad rivers, long rocky shorelines and rich agricultural valleys. Going from west to east the climate changes from Mediterranean climate (sub-tropic) to hot and dry in summer and very cold in winter. Rainfall along the Black Sea coast where the mountains come right down to the sea is two to three times the national average. Turkey is a bridge between east and west geographically and have a socially, economically, and strategically vital role in the region. Turkey has a population approaching 70 million. Since 1980’s the population growth rate has been decreasing from almost 3% to 2%. The most of the population (67%) lives in cities. Two-thirds of the population is under 25 years old. GDP per capita 6.700 US$ (2003 estimation) Sectoral distribution of GDP, for agriculture 11.7%, industry 29.8% Turkey is progressing to overcome its present difficulties. Its economy trough many respects prosperous and dynamic, is saddled with a heavy burden of debt and deficit, inflation and unemployment. Turkey has embarked on some ambitious projects in recent years. There is a host of new roads, bridges, tunnels, dams, factories and universities. Due to globalization and new economic policies Turkey approached to open market economy. The foreign trade capacity reached to US$ 86 billion in 2002. The highest proportion in GDP is the industrial sector that has a proportion increased to 28%, the agricultural sector’s proportion reached to 12% in 2003. There are 81 city provinces, 850 towns and 36,527 villages in Turkey. Almost 30% of total population lives in the three-metropolitan cities (Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir). The dual organization of local administration in Turkey, with appointed governors and elected municipal officials (mayors), establishes the basis for their distinguished role in disaster management. Provincial governors are agents of the central authority, therefore they conduct pro-active role in managing emergency situations as it stated in the Disaster Law-7269. The mayor and municipal organizations stay under the authority of the governor in the emergency. On the other hand, according to the Development Law-3194 land-use planning and building constructions are administrated by the municipalities. The current compulsory earthquake insurance system, Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool (TCIP) is running by an insurance administration (DASK) which is also considered for leadership in mitigation activities to reduce losses, is relatively small, however, it has been growing rapidly in recent years. All of Turkey’s big cities are now ringed with settlements –gecekondu- inhabited by migrants from the countryside who come looking for work. Many are escaping from the south-east Turkey where a burital terrorism and also wars in the Gulf occurred. The absence of a public housing program, cheaply built, illegal housing and the country’s poor inspection system contribute the problem in the major cities. For Istanbul another most important and complex issue in mitigation is the retrofit of existing buildings.

WBI-Natural Disaster Risk Management Program-Final Project Nilgün Okay 2 May 2005

2

Risk Profile of Turkey

More than 95% of the country lies in one of the most active earthquake and landslide regions in the world. Large earthquakes can occur anytime along the North Anatolian Fault Zone which crosses the entire country (Figure 1). There are 3 different major fault systems tectonically control Anatolia from east to west. Although their occurrences are also different but

� 70% of the population lives in areas highly vulnerable to earthquakes (Figures 2 and 3). � 66% of the country is located on active fault zones. � 75% of damaged buildings and %64 of total disaster losses in the last century are due to

earthquakes Population growth continues to increase development pressures that in turn lead to mostly uninsured residential, commercial, and industrial poor construction in the alluvial plains (soft soil) along the North Anatolian Fault System (NAF). The resulting potential for social, economic, and devastation has been demonstrated time and again – e.i. the 1999 Earthquakes. The greatest landslide risk is within the Black Sea region. Due to climatic changes cities along the rivers are at greatest risk from floods and landslides. Unfortunately, these areas are also exposed to flooding yearly. Vulnerable to floods;

� Mostly in coastal plains and exacerbated by deforestation, erosion and ignorant development. � 15% of total disaster losses are due to floods. � Annual average losses exceed 100 million US$

Most earth mass-movements (landslides) are secondary hazards of earthquakes and floods. • 25% of country area is exposed to landslide hazard. • 11% of total population is located in landslide areas. • 16 % of total disaster losses are due to landslides. In the fifteen years Turkey faced heavy natural disasters: Erzincan Earthquake (1992), Flood in Black

Sea Region (1998), Adana-Ceyhan Earthquake (1998), Marmara Earthquake (1999), Hakkari

Earthquake (2004), and Sivas Landslide (2005). Direct economic losses due to natural disasters is expected 1% of GDP ever year. The losses like down in the market, production losses and unemployment are even more greater. The probabilty of economic losses exceeding 11.4 billion US$ in one year is about 0.5 percent. This is about 6% of the country’s GDP. The probability of annual losses exceeding 3.5 billion US$ is about 5%. For Istanbul, a worse-case scenario earthquake of 7,5 is assumed to take place along the Main Marmara Fault of North Anatolian Fault Zone. Probability of occurence of a large earthquake in the next 30 years is greater than 65%, in next 10 years is greater than 20%. Approximately 70 thousand dead people, 120 thousand heavyly injured people, 400 thousand injured, direct economic loss is 30 billion US$ (Erdik, 2003). Secondary impacts may be triggered by an large earthquake, liquefaction nd subsidence of soil, landslides along the coastal areas damaging transportation lines, infrastructure, fires from particulary natural gas pipeline ruptures.


3

2) Brief Description of the Selected Disaster Event The 1999 Earthquakes in Turkey The event caused a surface rupture up to 4.9 meters which passes through several major lifelines and transportation systems. Damaging ground shaking intensities covered an area of almost 2 thousand square kilometer in the province of Izmit and Istanbul in the NW Turkey. Search and rescue teams brought thousands of bodies out from the collapsed buildings. More than 17 thousand deaths have been decleared and another 20 thousand people were missing or presumed dead. The results of these disaster was tragic- live lost, families torn apart, homes destroyed, and jobs lost. Businesses failed, and communities were in chaos in months. Forty percent of the country’s annual manufacturing production comes from this region. Over 1 thousand individual plants were on special risks including contries largest refinery which burned six days after the earthquake. The Istanbul-Ankara highway, the country’s major transportation line, and railroad were sustained for a week. The disaster response system was failed in the 1999 earthquake since significant coordination problems were rised. Donation and debris managements were important issues. Piles of debris bloked roads, making response impossible. Relief operations lasted for about three months. Disaster Impacts 1. Humanitarian Effects

� People lost their families; families pulled apart; � People were forced to live houses, half of them became homeless and had to stay in tens and

temporary residences months. � Many survivors affected and went trough psychological post-disaster effects; Children left

deeply traumatized � People lost their jobs; The social life stopped � People forced to migrate to major cities causing more problems

2. Ecological Effects

� Debris randomly dumped to land causing the damage to ecosystem � Landslide along the coastal areas in the Izmit Gulf � Because of the large fires along the Gulf severe damage caused in agriculture and dying

fishes in the sea and air/water pollution; besides that the dust from the debris caused lung diseases

1. Economic Effects Direct losses Disaster victims were not the only ones who pay the consequences of living in areas of hazard risk. This major disaster affected all Turkey by diverting resources from other important public and private programs and by reducing the productivity of the national economy (even other cities effected). Tax-payers had to shoulder the cost of governmental disaster relief because of desicions by developers and builders, insurance and banking industries, and the disaster victims themselves –desicions that have the effect of increasing the vulnerability of both the built and natural environments to natural hazards. Damage is estimted at 1,100 to 3,000 million US$ for the housing sector, 70 million US$ for infrastructure, 78 million US$ for roads, bridges and highways, 38 million US$ for telecommunication systems, 60 million US$ for power-supply, 1,100-2,600 million US$ for the business sector (Peynircioğlu, 2003). Estimates of the total economic loss for this disaster vary widely, but many reports predict the total to be 7-10% of Turkey’s Gross Domestic Product. The provision of temporary residences has revealed that the cost of each dwelling was 1,928 US$ and the cost of reconstruction was about 475 US$ per building (Peynircioğlu, 2003). The government built permenent residences at a cost of 42,000 US$ including the cost of utility connections and other infrastructure. The burden imposed on public finance by the disaster was about 6,2 billion US$ (Erdik, 2003). About 3,5 billion US$ of this amount was utilized for post-disaster housing constructions. The special eartquake taxes and paid military service generted about 3 billion US$ in one year fter the earthquake. Foreign finances (World Bank, European Union and others) contributed another 2,5 billion US$. Indirect losses The indirect losses (only loss of value added and emergency rescue) by the State Organization for Planning (DPT) are estimated about 2,8 billion US$ of total 16-20 billion US$. Small- and medium –scale firms were heavily damaged and many could not recover at all.


4

Secondary (Macroeconomic) effects

� There are significant macroeconomic impacts occurred in the event of year: � GDP fell in the year of the event and year after growth slowed � Public deficit increased due to increased spending needs � Trade deficit worsened, as reduction of exports and increase of imports � Tax revenue decreased; a series of new taxes came � Rise in external debt � Substantial long-term negative impacts � Disaster affected short term growth very significantly, and longer-term growth significantly � Severe negative economic impacts � Negative effects on income distribution and reinforcement of poverty � agriculture in the region also hit most strongly

Table: Impact Summary of the Marmara Earthquake (WB, 1999).


5

3) National Disaster Management System According to Disaster Law 7269 and Development Law 3194 the current DM structure in Turkey is a typical centralized system. At the central level there are: Governmental organizations, the Military, Red Crescent, municipalities, universities, NGOs. Governmental institutions and organizations are the most responsible from the actions against disasters. After the 99-Izmit earthquake, Turkey showed some progress toward establishing a modern decentralized emergency management system:

� General Directorate of Turkey Emergency Management Agency, newly established � Crisis Management Center of Prime Ministry regulating preparation and response activities � General Directorate of Disaster Affairs Agency responsible for damage assessment and

reconstruction after the disaster � General Directorate of Civil Defense Agency responsible for response, search and rescue

after the disaster � General Directorate of Red Cresent responsible for food, aid and sheltering after the disaster � National Council of Disasters � DASK were established � Five-year Development Plan of Turkey includes issues such as disaster risk reduction,

establishment of appropriate legal, social, institutional and technical structures with effective measures for disaster mitigation

� Local level, Crisis Centers of Provinces control response and rescue operations, donation managements, activities of local Civil Defence branches and NGO’s

� Local municipalities (Istanbul, Izmit, Bursa, Yalova, İzmir, Sivas) conduct some mitigation, (hazard analyses, microzonation) public awareness, and education projects

� Increase in sensitivity of public and private sectors, and NGO’s for disaster issues

At the central level:

Prime Ministry Turkey Emergency Management General Directorate – regulates all relations between goverment and non-goverment, military, and civil organizations, and organizes Crisis Management Centers. Civil Defense General Directorate of Ministry of Interior – organizes, coordinates preventive civil defense, emergency search and rescue activities. Ministry of Public Works and Development - search and implement regulations for preventing, reducing risk and mitigation, provides sheltering, plans for recovery. Turkish Armed Forces – the most trusted national institution provides organized, equipped human and also technical resources (trained Military Search and Rescue Teams, Civil Military Cooperation Brigade), and distributes relief supplies National Security Council- besides its role in crisis management during the response phase, aims at developing cooperation between military and civil authorities in the pre-disaster period. Turkish Red Crescent – provides immediate humanitarian aid (food, medicine, sheltering) for disaster victims, organizes activities for preparedness (raising public awareness, voluntary activities, non-structural mitigation efforts). National Council of Earthquake – newly developing organization links between govermental and non-governmental institutions (planning for mitigation strategies for the country) National Disasters Insurance Organization (DASK) – Turkey’s goverment-mandated catastrophe insurance pool coordinates (TCIP) insurance companies in the country for mitigation activities. The TCIP is supported trough a $100 million loan facility and funded by WB to create a pool that would accumulate reserves to reduce the country’s financial vulnerability to earthquakes; to ensure that all property owners have earthquake insurance coverage; to reduce government exposure to earthquake damages; to transfer catastrophic risk to int’l insurance markets; to encourage risk mitigation; and to practice safer construction through the insurance mechanism. Since the program began, insurance


6

coverage has more than tripled. Today, the TCIP is the largest government insurance program in the world, providing coverage to about 2 million home owners (Push, 2004). Others are universities NGOs and international organizations. Middle Eastern and Istanbul Technical Universities (ITU) and Bosporus University have Disaster Management Centers for research for mitigation activities (in geological, seismological, and structural studies), train and education activities around the country. ITU has already started the master’s degree program in DM. NGOs and public sector are contributing an important role to the system with volunteered human resources, coordination and cooperation activities. International organizations such as World Bank, European Bank, Int’l Monetary Fund, JICA, UNDP, Red Cross, FEMA have been financially, technically supported to initiate and establish DM system, training programs, mitigation research projects and risk financing and management programs in Turkey. The government in cooperation with WB and other int’l organizations is preparing a comprehensive emergency preparedness and risk mitigation programs. A major portion of the government’s coasts will be for housing, business, and infrastructure reconstruction. To initiate reconstruction, Turkey has negotiated more than 1.8 billion US$ in loans from WB and 400 million US$ from the EB for construction and development. It also approved to the IMF for assistance, which has already approved a 325 million US$ credit (RMS, 2000). At local level: Metropolitan City Municipalities – coordinate, construct, implement, monitor mitigation measurements, risks, vulnerability assessment studies, master plans, emergency plans (i.e., Istanbul AKOM has main role in mitigation efforts and is also responsible for the activities of the Fire, Utility and Transportation Departments), and community preparedness activities. Istanbul Provincial Authority - Disaster Management Center (AYM) is mostly responsible for crisis management (emergency operations, security, civil defense) and coordinates relations between goverment and city.


7

4) Strengths and Weaknesses of the National Disaster Management System Turkey began establishing a modern decentralized EMS, however, the progress toward reconstructing has been slow and incomplete. Large-scale earthquake can occur at anytime in the Marmara region where 70% of the country’s population lives and 75% of industrial facilities are located. There is serious concern that Turkey would not be prepared for a catastrophic event. Under the Disaster and Development Laws there is a lack of mechanisms that mainstream disaster risk reduction within institutional functions. The rigid bureaucratic structures are not adapted to cross-organizational cooperation and integration. There is still lack of knowledge of modern disaster risk factors, therefore, that results in lack of action and weak awareness of population and institutions. There is an inefficient use of resources. The country has no national strategy for managing and reducing the risks of disasters. Proper enforcement of building codes and standards remains the most critical challenge for Turkey to reduce the vulnerability of the building stock. Although local institutions do not have full authority to deal effectively with disasters, many municipalities have taken initiative steps to upgrade the local emergency response system, to conduct micro-zonation studies, and to initiate important planning efforts. The Istanbul municipality and the government is preparing a detailed master plan and modeled with mitigation activities, and a compherensive emergency preparedness and risk mitigation program. Number of insurance policies reached to 20%, however, after reaching 2,4 million insured dwellings, there was a significant drop in the number of policies. TCIP has unique features. It is an earthquake insurance and not a compensation. The payment will be proportional to actual losses. The amount of payable by DASK covers essentially the minimum amount required for modest new accomodation in Turkish conditions. TCIP coverage is for property only, and does not extend to contents or life. National DMS has a response-based strategy. There is a budget for only post-disaster activities (response, search and rescue, sheltering). There is a considerable weaknesses in Turkish DMS:

� legal insufficiency for management � lack of implementation for sustainable disaster management activities � there is no national mitigation strategy and mitigation planning (short- and long-term) � lack of coordination, cooperation, communication (duplication of efforts and responsibilities of

various agencies) � weak public awareness and education on mitigation activities � insufficient technical capacity, � Turkish Catastrophic Insurance System (TCIP) does not work � lack of training and exercising in DM � no local hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, risk analysis, mitigation planning and

emergency-operation planning � no local debris management strategy � no local donation management � no mahalle-level (district) planning, training, practicing


8

5) Recommendations for Improvement

An effective disaster mitigation strategy that includes strict building construction supervision, transparency of design plans, and accountabilty of public officials to reinforce safety considerations is urgently required.

Central authorities should:

• Our National Disaster Management System has a response-based strategy; it must be improved in terms of risk management (mitigation): moving from crisis management toward risk management, risk financing.

• Improvement of Disaster and Development Laws 7269 and 3194 • Make mitigation the highest priority in recovery efforts following all disasters • Shifting resources from post-disaster functions to preventive of disaster losses

• Local authorities should be supported by central authorities (acccessing resources, reforms, cross-functional integration with relief agencies, responsibility, perseverance). Only cumulative contribution of full community will result in resilient society, therefore there is a need to empower local administration

• Reorganization of disaster management functions between Prime Ministry/Ministries, at central/local government levels

• Develop administrative structures to support implementation of mitigation programs and priorities

• Collaborate, coordinate, communicate with all interested parties academia, national standards and code-writing groups, NGO’s and the private sector to speed the development and application of mitigation technologies

• Clerify role of each stakeholder in the disaster management system • Update and improve building-, retrofitting-, building inspection-, cadastre-, and land

improvement- regulations • Adopt and enforce all-hazards building codes, good standards and continuing

education of engineers on how to design against the natural hazards • Provide technical assistance to the agencies and local governments regarding

mitigation actions • Complete and publish a national hazard risk assessment

• Inventory risk-zones and analyze the risks, and model techniques for measuring risk exist

• Based on modeling at national, regional and minicipal levels critical buildings and infrastructure can be constructed

• Design effective penalties in the risk-zones for unauthorized construction • Developments in early warning systems for flooding and landslide, improvement of

emergency and communicating systems • Develop new financial instruments to aid the recovery effort and provide funds for

recovery • Enlarging the risk insurance system

• Improve the insurance system that can operate as a tax on property depending on risk level (similar to French system) or

• Property taxation could provide a useful risk mangement tool in the encouragement or discouragement of development and land use, or

• Obligate homeowners to hold insurance documents when opening accounts for gas, water, electricity and telephone services

• Allow municipalities to play an active role in encouraging households to adopt insurence and apply to DASK

• TCIP should take measures to encourge building owners to conduct retrofitting programs by supporting efforts

• Allow more market penetration to the system • Promote structural measures to reduce the vulnerability of low-income

housing assets, and • Improve economic welfare of such communities • Subsidizing risk transfer for poor households and businesses • Develop public information and education on insurance system


9

• Building “disaster resistant community”: increase public awareness, more citizen participation and “capacity building” in all organizations: private partnerships, training at all levels

• Develop a program for vulnerable groups (children, elderly women, and poor) who may suffer irreversible damage; include private sector, NGO’s and academia to help

Local authorities should:

• Develop a Local Disaster Risk Management Action Plan (Mitigation Plan) is essential for understanding mitigation parameters and developing strategies in the Community-based Disaster Management Program that should include strong social consciousness, shared perception of social organization, access to resources, adaption to innovations, and institutional framework and accountability.

• Develop a Disaster Management Master Plan that consists of assessment, mitigation, preparedness, response/relief to increase local capacity in a disaster; and implemented in urban development, land-use planning, capital planning and public safety directly related disaster issues

• Transfer both planning and construction supervision functions to the private sector • Local hazard analysis, risk and vulnerability assessments (for different hazard-type),

emergency planning • Identify risks and vulnerable areas • Implement effective penalties in the risk-zones for unauthorized construction

• Develop mechanisms of sustainability (vision, strategy, systematic long-term planning connected with development, efficient use of local resources and involvement of all the active local organizations, agents, institutions)

• Develop community response plan as a part of national plan

The private sector should:

• Share role in both planning and construction supervision functions on behalf of the municipality

• Develop business interruption plans and implement • Market actors as stakeholders, should more concern with managing disaster risk • Develop incentives for mitigation with insurance and banking institutions • Promote awareness of hazard risk and mitigation solutions among customers and the

public. NGO’s should play an active role in risk reduction programs (such as public awreness, insurance education). Academia should involve risk analysis, desingning new mitigation measurements, education, public awareness, and knowledge network-type risk reduction programs. Citizens should:

• Become aware of natural disasters that may affect them and their communities • Support adoption and enforcement of measures designed to reduce their vulnerability • Take other appropriate actions to protect their lives and property against the natural

disasters. As a Nation:

We must • protect our people and our built and ntural environments from the risks posed by

natural disasters • support new and ongoing efforts that are effective in reducing damage and injury from

these events, allowing our communities to recover from their impacts as quickly as possible

A National Mitigation Goal will describe our destination and the National Mitigation Strategy will point the way of our development and our future.


10

References Erdik, M., Earthquake vulnerability of buildings and a mitigation strategy: Case of Istanbul. WBI

Workshop, Istanbul, April 28-May 2 (2003). Freeman, P.K., The role of local governments in reducing the risk of disasters. WBI Workshop,

Istanbul, April 28-May 2 (2003). Gurenko, E., Lester, R., Rapid onset natural disasters, The World Bank, Policy Res. Working Papers

3278 (2003). Kunreuther, H., Public-private partnership for reducing seismic risk losses. In: Mitigation and financing

of seismic risks, by P.R. Kleindorfer, and M.R. Sertel (eds.), Kluwer Acad. Pub., 73-99 (2001). Peynircioğlu, N., Disaster management policies in Turkey. WBI Workshop, Istanbul, April 28-May 2

(2003). Push, C., Preventable Losses: saving lives and property through hazard risk management. The World

Bank, DRM Working Paper Series No. 9 (2004). RMS, Event Report Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake (2000). UNDP, A global report: Reducing disaster risk, a challenge for development (2004). The World Bank, Turkey Country Office, Turkey Marmara Earthquake Assessment, Sept. 14, 1999 The World Bank Institute - Natural Disaster Risk Management Program On-line Course Materials

(2005)


11

Figures

Figure 1. Three different earthquake zones of Turkey

Figure 2. Disaster Risk parameters developed by UNDP (2004).

Figure 3. Relative vulnerability for earthquakes (UNDP, 2004).

Figure 4. Historical development of earthquake threat along the NAF.

1

3

2

Documents

THE RISK PROFILE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT ...okayn/Disaster05 WBI.pdfTHE RISK PROFILE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF TURKEY Nilgün Okay 1) Background Information Turkey between