Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
a Joint Centre of
CERAH working paper
The Role of First Responders and South-South Cooperation
during Earthquake’s Response and Management
Jessica Yohana Ramírez Mendoza
CERAH Working Paper 46
2016 - 2017
Dissertation
Master of Advanced Studies in Humanitarian Action
Academic Year 2016-2017
The Role of First Responders and South-South Cooperation during
Earthquake’s Response and Management
Submitted by
Jessica Yohana Ramírez Mendoza
Examining Board:
Supervisor: Mr. Bonaventure Gbétoho Sokpoh
President of the Board: Prof. Gilles Carbonnier
Expert: Mrs. Sandra D’Urzo
September 2017
i
Abstract
In the 20 years from 1996 to 2016, over half of deaths caused by natural disasters were linked to
earthquakes. Nevertheless, some deaths are preventable through cost-effective investments in pre-
paredness. Despite initiatives to promote capacity building and preparedness worldwide, sustaina-
bility of these activities remains a challenge, and communities particularly those from the Global
South remain vulnerable to earthquakes. This research explores whether a framework for SSC
knowledge exchange can be designed to improve the capacity of first responders from countries
prone to earthquakes, and provides an analysis of early response and management during three
major earthquakes (Nepal, Ecuador, and Haiti) to identify lessons learnt worth sharing. Qualitative
and quantitative information on vulnerabilities and capacities of countries at very-high risk of
earthquakes and high mortality, combined with interviews with experts facilitated the development
of the SSC framework. Potential challenges for implementation of SSC were highlighted and in-
clude major funding gaps combined with the inappropriate documentation and monitoring of SSC
activities. The case studies revealed the strong apprehension from humanitarian actors to work in
cooperation with governments during earthquake response and missed opportunities to utilize local
capacities. Advocacy for SSC preparedness programs that integrate communities prone to earth-
quakes with the humanitarian and development actors may help shift this trend.
Keywords: Disaster Risk Reduction; Earthquakes; First Responders; Knowledge Exchange; Local
Capacity; South-South Cooperation
ii
Acknowledgements
First and for most, I would like to thank God for being me light, my rock and my strength.
I am eternally grateful to my supervisor, Bonaventure Sokpoh for all his expert advice, thoughtful
comments, patience, constant encouragement, and critical perspective, without his guidance I
would have not been able to improve and learn.
I would like to thank the immense contribution of the experts, Winston Chang, Sandra D’Urzo,
Jesper Holmer Lund, Jorge Martínez, and Zenaida Willison, whose knowledge enlighten this re-
search. I am touched by your openness, time and desire to contribute to this work.
I am also indebted to the members of the International Cooperation Division (ICD) of the Embassy
of Switzerland in Beijing, Huo Li, Liyan Wang, and Qi Tingting, whose work, thoughtful comments
and suggestions from afar inspired me and demonstrated me the beauty of this subject.
I am grateful to the Université catholique de Louvain’s Centre for Research on the Epidemiology
of Disasters for granting special access to the EM-DAT database for the purpose of this research.
I would like to thank the CERAH’s members of the faculty, associate lecturers, and classmates for
providing me with their expertise, encouragement, and inspiration.
I am grateful to my borrowed family in Switzerland, Verena Ehrich merci de m'encourager. Sans
ton aide, je n'aurais pas pu completer mes études.
Especialmente agradezco y dedico este trabajo a mi hermosa familia por mantenerme motivada,
por su infinito amor y por ser mi ejemplo a seguir.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ ii
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ v
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Why Earthquakes Matter? .................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Greater Progress in Measuring Earthquake’s Intensity than in Measuring Their
Consequences ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Rapid Urbanization Growth among the Greatest Aggravating Vulnerabilities ............... 4
2.3. A Focus on the First Responders - Who Are They? ........................................................ 5
2.4. Efforts Required to Mitigate the Negative Effects of Earthquakes .................................. 7
2.4.1. Need to address current funding gaps for DRM activities. ...................................... 7
2.4.2. Need to develop international standards for capacity building of CFRs. ................ 8
2.4.3. Ensure knowledge transfer is not lost by documenting SSC experiences. ............. 10
3. Countries that Might Benefit From SSC Knowledge Exchange ...................................... 12
3.1. Where Are the Greatest Earthquake Risks? ................................................................... 12
3.2. A Focus on Asia ............................................................................................................. 15
3.2.1. Identified vulnerabilities. ....................................................................................... 16
3.2.2. Identified efforts to improve local capacity building. ............................................ 17
3.2.3. Identified examples of SSC initiatives targeted to DRR. ........................................ 18
3.2.4. Identified Opportunities For Knowledge Exchange and SSC. ............................... 19
4. An Analysis of Earthquake Responses—the Cases of Ecuador, Haiti and Nepal .......... 21
4.1. The First 72 Hours: A Review of First Responders and National Coordination ........... 21
4.2. The First 72 Hours: A Review of Requests for International Assistance ...................... 22
4.3. The First 72 Hours: A Review of International Deployment ......................................... 24
4.4. The Way Forward ........................................................................................................... 26
4.5. Opportunities for Knowledge Exchange ........................................................................ 27
4.6. What are the Expected Challenges of SSC? ................................................................... 28
iv
5. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................... 29
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 32
Appendix A – Largest Earthquakes in the World ..................................................................... 44
Appendix B – The Response Framework ................................................................................... 45
Appendix C – Methodology for Analyzing the InfoRM and EM-DAT Databases ................ 46
Appendix D – List of Countries at Very High Risk Exposure to Earthquakes, and Their
Associated Earthquake Events and Mortality from 1996 to 2016 ........................................... 48
Appendix E – Regional Distribution of Earthquake Related Mortality (1996-2016) ............ 52
Appendix F – Vulnerabilities among Countries at Greatest Physical Exposure to
Earthquakes in Asia. .................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix G – Identified Opportunities for SSC Knowledge Exchange ................................. 54
Appendix H – Country Specific Mortality Trends over the Period of 1996 to 2016 .............. 56
v
Acronyms
AADMER ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response
ADRRN Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BAPA Buenos Aires Plan of Action
CBDRM Community-Based Disaster Risk Management
CFR Community First Responder
CRED Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
DCPRR Disaster & Crisis Prevention, Response & Recovery
DPC Direction de la protection civile
DRCS Dominican Red Cross Society
DRDC Disaster Reduction Demonstration Community
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
EM-DAT Emergency Database
EMT Emergency Medical Team
FCSS Field Coordination Support Section
GoE Government of Ecuador
GoN Government of Nepal
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action
HNRCS Haitian National Red Cross Society
IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
InfoRM Index for Risk Management
INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation
INSARAG International Search and Rescue Advisory Group
LRRD Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development
NRCS Nepalese Red Cross Society
NS National Societies
NSESP Nepalese School Earthquake Safety Program
NSET National Society for Earthquake Technology
vi
OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OSOCC Virtual- On-Site Operations Coordination Centre
RDRT Regional Disaster Response Teams
RIT Regional Intervention Teams
SGR Secretaría de Gestion de Riesgos
SIMEX Simulation Exercise
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
SSC South-South Cooperation
S&R Search and Rescue
TCDC Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries
TrC Triangular Cooperation
UN United Nations
UNDAC United Nations Disaster Assessment Coordination
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
USAR Urban Search and Rescue
USGS United States Geological Survey
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WB World Bank
WHS World Humanitarian Summit
1
1. Introduction
From 1996 to 2015, a total of 7,056 disasters took place worldwide killing approximately 1.35
million people; and half of these deaths were associated with an earthquake (CRED, 2016a; CRED,
2016b). During the recent and devastating earthquakes of Ecuador, Nepal, and Haiti alone (2016,
2015, and 2010 respectively) more than 230,000 lives were lost (CRED et al., 2016). Thus, ongoing
worldwide efforts in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) have not translated into a reduction of mor-
tality (UNISDR, 2005; UN, 2015). As such, earthquakes deserve a closer review particularly in
developing countries where the majority of deaths occur and where capacities and resources may
be limited (HLA, 2016; Field et al., 2012).
When an earthquake strikes most lives are lost during the first hours after onset; during those crit-
ical hours aid is usually provided by first responders which include a range of emergency service
professionals as well as members of the community (Alexander & Klein, 2009). Unfortunately, the
lack of technical skills among first responders reduces the likelihood of rescuing people alive
(OCHA, 2015); furthermore, delays in the timely access of professional teams due to the devastat-
ing nature of earthquakes, and the inability of overwhelmed governments to coordinate the re-
sponse further increases vulnerabilities and by consequence enhances mortality. Thus, improving
the capacities of first responders (both professional and non-professional) is essential and should
be one of the priorities of local authorities, and the humanitarian and development community.
Communities in earthquake-prone areas may benefit from the expertise, skills, and lessons learnt
of their peers. This type of collaboration may enhance “real aid” which according to Thomas et al.
(2011) is the one that supports affected communities to create their own priorities, empower deci-
sion-making, and improve governance and economic development while enhancing cooperation
across communities. Hence, a peer-to-peer collaboration such as South-South Cooperation (SSC)
may prove valuable in reducing earthquake mortality and improving the local capacities.
South-South Cooperation is defined as a framework for collaboration between two or more devel-
oping countries (i.e. Global South) to share knowledge, skills, technical expertise, and resources
(UNOSSC, 2016a; HLCSSC, 2012). Although this type of cooperation has been used mainly in
economic development, it has been proliferating for knowledge exchange and technical expertise
of disaster preparedness. Nevertheless, documentation about the usefulness and challenges of SSC
are scarce. Thus, the purpose of this study is to design a framework for SSC as a potential tool for
knowledge exchange among first responders by determining the local capacities and vulnerabilities
2
of countries prone to earthquakes, and by critically analyzing the early stages of earthquake’s re-
sponse and management. As such, the research question was formulated as follows: are there op-
portunities for SSC among earthquake-prone countries to learn from each other and improve the
capacity of first responders? Furthermore, what type of opportunities and challenges should be
expected from this type of cooperation?
Furthermore, the following hypotheses were defined: i) earthquake-prone countries from the
Global South have local capacities that can potentially be shared through SSC as co-learning op-
portunities among first responders; ii) lessons learnt from recent earthquake responses can be used
to improve the effectiveness of the future earthquake responses in the Global South via SSC.
To address the research question and to validate the hypotheses, a mixed methods approach was
used. The Emergency Database (EM-DAT) from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of
Disasters (CRED) was merged with the Index for Risk Management (InfoRM) results from the
Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Task Team for Preparedness and Resilience and the Eu-
ropean Commission to identify countries prone to earthquakes, their 20-year history of earthquake
events, and mortality. Major work on raw data proved to be useful in determining countries with
the highest physical exposure to earthquakes, those with the highest earthquake associated mortal-
ity, and the highest occurrence; this process also helped narrow down the analyses of vulnerabilities
and local capacities to a set of countries from Asia—where improvements to mitigate the effect of
earthquakes deems to be highly required. Mortality trends and urbanization data from the World
Bank (WB) were used to determine countries that may benefit from SSC (i.e. the solution seekers).
The qualitative information from the literature review helped evaluate DRR efforts worth sharing
to identify the potential solutions providers.
Complex humanitarian responses from the earthquakes of Ecuador (2016), Nepal (2015), and Haiti
(2010) were explored as case studies with a focus on first responders in the spirit of identifying
areas for improvement for future international cooperation. To this end, semi-structured interviews
were conducted with experts from the Ecuadorian Secretariat for Risk Management (SGR)1, Emer-
gency Services Branch (ESB) and Field Coordination Support Section (FCSS) of the United Na-
tions Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the International Search and
Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG), and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Cres-
1 Secretaría de Gestión de Riesgos (SGR) del Ecuador, in Spanish acronym.
3
cent Societies (IFRC). Furthermore, an interview with a SSC advisor for the United Nations De-
velopment Programme (UNDP) and WB was extremely valuable for identifying barriers to SSC.
This methodology is not aimed to be an exhaustive investigation of all earthquake-prone countries
but rather to be used as a framework for potential SSC opportunities for knowledge exchange
among countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes. Future research and better documentation
of lessons learnt from SSC experiences during earthquake response may bring more light into this
area. Nevertheless, results may be used by researchers interested in DRR strategies, early earth-
quake response, and international cooperation.
Three sections create the structure of this document: the first, presents the global picture of earth-
quakes, and a critical analysis of first responders and SSC. The second section, contains the meth-
odological framework for identifying potential SSC; followed by the analysis of lessons learnt from
the early response and management of the case studies. Lastly, conclusions and key recommenda-
tions for future SSC implementation are provided.
2. Why Earthquakes Matter?
This chapter provides an overview of the history of earthquakes and the factors influencing vulner-
abilities; a review of the phases of emergency earthquake response and the conceptual definition
of first responders is explored, followed by an analysis of mechanisms for mitigating earthquake-
related disasters and a discussion about the challenges and initiatives for SSC.
2.1. Greater Progress in Measuring Earthquake’s Intensity than in Measuring Their Con-
sequences
Recorded as early as 1117 B.C. in China, earthquakes occur in areas where the tectonic plates align
predominantly along the area surrounding the Pacific Ocean (i.e. the Ring of Fire) (Sundermann,
Schelske & Hausmann, 2014; USGS, 2016). The largest earthquakes in the world have occurred as
early as the 1900’s in the Ecuador-Colombia earthquake to as recent as the 2012 earthquake in
Sumatra; furthermore Alaska, Chile, and Sumatra have been hit more than once by earthquakes of
extremely high magnitude (see Appendix A) (USGS, 2016). Luckily, technological advancements
to monitor earthquakes have been made and include real-time information sharing worldwide.
Nevertheless, it is easier to measure earthquakes than to accurately measure their consequences.
To truly measure the consequences of disasters it is essential to quantify the harm caused to people
(i.e. number of people affected or dead) but equally important is to measure the long-term economic
and social impact by estimating the total damages or reconstruction costs (IRDR, 2014; CRED,
4
2009). Additionally, estimating the indirect or intangible losses such as the effect on mental health,
or cultural losses has been recommended (Coppola, 2007). Lack of standard definitions hinder the
full estimation of total infrastructural damages, number of people disabled due to injuries, those
left homeless, orphaned, or displaced. This information gap hampers the understanding of the real
impact disasters have in communities (Guha-Sapir & Hoyois, 2015; IRDR, 2014). For purposes of
comparability, this document focuses on the number of deaths caused by natural disasters according
to definitions from CRED where total deaths are defined as the result of the combination of deaths
(“number of people who lost their life because the event”) and missing people (“number of people
whose whereabouts since the disaster are unknown, and presumed dead based on official figures”)
(CRED, 2014).
As displayed in Figure 1, a review
of 20-year mortality revealed that
56% of deaths caused by natural
disasters worldwide are attributed
to earthquakes, followed by storms
(18%), extreme temperature
(12%), floods (11%), and others
(3%) (CRED et al., 2016). Never-
theless, deaths associated to earth-
quakes include both ground shak-
ing and tsunamis (CRED, 2016b);
and furthermore, two exceptional events—Haiti’s 2010 earthquake and the 2004 earthquake and
tsunami in Sri Lanka alone, account for almost 80% of all 20-year earthquake’s mortality com-
bined. Thus, earthquakes are among the most destructive and difficult type of hazards to tackle in
DRR programs (GoH et al., 2016; NDVF, 2000).
2.2. Rapid Urbanization Growth among the Greatest Aggravating Vulnerabilities
Risk is referred as a function of three elements: hazard’s exposure, the vulnerability of a given
community, and their capacities to cope with the adverse event (Mornière & Sanchez, 2015; WB
& UN, 2010; Coppola, 2007). This concept corresponds to definitions accepted in the humanitarian
field but slightly differs from the one developed by the United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) in which risk is defined as “the combination of the probability of
Figure 1. Total Number of Deaths Worldwide by Disaster Type (1996-2016)
Source: Author based on EM-DAT database (CRED et al. 2016).
Drought; 22 295;
2%
Earthquake;
748 621; 56%
Extreme Temperature;
165 869; 12%
Flood; 150 061;
11%
Landslide;
17 674; 1%
Other (Mass
Moverment,
Volcanic
Activity,
Wildfire); 2 551;
0%
Storm; 239 125;
18%
5
an event and its negative consequences” (UNISDR, 2009). Nevertheless, definitions for hazards
and vulnerabilities in this document are based on the terminology developed by UNISDR in which
hazards are defined as dangerous phenomenon that may harm people (injuries or loss of life), com-
munities (loss of livelihoods, services and economic disruption), or the environment (Mornière &
Sanchez, 2015; UNISDR, 2009). Likewise, the environmental, social, and economic characteristics
of communities that makes them susceptible to hazards are better known as vulnerabilities
(Mornière & Sanchez, 2015; Birkmann, 2013; UNISDR, 2009).
It has been estimated that disasters occur often in densely populated places and although an earth-
quake’s epicentre may not necessarily fall on urban areas (Maynard, Phillips, & Chirico, 2008),
Haiti’s experience showcases the complexities that urban vulnerabilities posed which has been
considered a “game-changer” in the humanitarian field (WB & UN, 2010; Clermont et al., 2011).
A review of major disasters by the IFRC revealed that over a 10-year period, large-scale disasters
were concentrated in cities and that urban earthquakes killed the greatest number of people (IFRC,
2010). In fact, close to 300 million people from 616 cities around the globe could potentially be
affected by an earthquake and cities like Jakarta, Manila, and Tehran are at substantially higher
risk (Sundermann et al., 2014). By 2050, the projected number of people exposed to earthquakes
in large cities will rise exponentially from 370 to 870 million (WB & UN, 2010).
The aggravating factors caused by rapid urbanization include changes in the use of land for infor-
mal shelter, lack of urban planning, and inappropriate land management; moreover, authorities are
outgrowing the capacity to provide public services, roads, water, and disposal systems (GoH et al.,
2016; Grünewald, 2016; Sundermann et al., 2014; Field et al., 2012; Clermont et al., 2011; WB &
UN, 2010; Maynard et al., 2008). Therefore, the concentration of poverty in specific areas of a city
combined with poor DRR strategies further exacerbate both the risks, and the complexities of the
humanitarian response.
2.3. A Focus on the First Responders - Who Are They?
“Communities respond first in the midst of chaos because people care for others but with limited resources at their
hand, everyone helps their communities and friends first and only then others”
Reflections as a Gujarat earthquake survivor and humanitarian worker2.
Most victims are rescued within the first 24 hours of an earthquake by members of the community
which are often untrained and improperly equipped (UNISDR, 2012; WB & UN, 2010; Delica-
Willison, 2006; NDVF, 2000). Soon after, local emergency services (i.e. firefighters, emergency
2 In Memorandum to a Concerned Citizen (WB & UN, 2010).
6
medical teams [EMTs], or civil defense) are deployed to respond, however depending on the coun-
try, the level of organization, the earthquake’s magnitude, and area affected (urban vs. rural); it may
take several hours for professional teams to respond (OCHA, 2015a; NDVF, 2000). And when the
impact of the event exceeds the capacities of the affected country, international assistance may be
requested which can take up to days or weeks to reach affected areas (OCHA, 2015a).
The people responding during the initial phase of the response are better known as first responders
which includes non-professional responders (PAHO, 2016; WB & UN, 2010; Delica-Willison,
2006), and professional teams (OCHAa, 2015). However, this concept differs from one organiza-
tion to another as it is closely associated to the organizational mandate. For the IFRC for example,
first responders include local residents and volunteers who are on the area and are able to respond
immediately (PAHO, 2016; Interview conducted by author on July 6, 2017 with Sandra D’Urzo,
Senior Officer, Shelter and Settlements at the Disaster & Crisis Prevention, Response & Recovery
[DCPRR], IFRC 3 ). Similarly, UNISDR’s definition includes members of the community
(UNISDR, 2012), whilst for technically oriented organizations such as INSARAG this definition
is too broad and only encompass professional emergency management and response personnel such
as local police, EMTs, fire services, civil defence units or volunteer organizations (Interview con-
ducted by author on July 6, 2017 with Winston Chang, Worldwide Focal Point for INSARAG Sec-
retariat4; INSARAG, 2015; OCHA, 2015b). Three separate first responders’ levels are defined by
INSARAG: community-based spontaneous volunteers, specialized responders such as local Search
and Rescue (S&R) teams, and international Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) teams (OCHA,
2015b).
In this document, the term Community First Responders (CFRs) will be employed to refer to non-
professionally trained responders. First responders hereinafter, relates to professionally trained per-
sonnel as per INSARAG’s definition as well as, trained volunteers from the Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement. A distinction was created on this document because the lack of knowledge,
training, and equipment among CFRs may induce harm (NDVF, 2000). Nevertheless, communities
at risk can take preventive steps to manage risks to be self-sufficient during the first hours of the
disaster in the absence of immediate assistance and services (Delica-Willison, 2006; Muttarak &
Pothisiri, 2013; Khon et al., 2012). In fact, CFRs may be able to manage the emergency at the
3 From this point forward referred as D’Urzo, 2017. 4 From this point forward referred as Chang, 2017.
7
household and the community level (Delica-Willison, 2006) and in many instances, be the link
between the government and the public (Chu, 2015). The importance of building the capacity of
first responders lays in the inverse relationship between the likelihood of rescuing people alive and
the level of technical capacity of responders (see Appendix B) which may be attributed in part to
the time-lapsed between the moment the earthquake hits and the arrival of international assistance,
added to the ability of local governments to coordinate and facilitate their arrival (OCHA, 2015a).
2.4. Efforts Required to Mitigate the Negative Effects of Earthquakes
It is the responsibility of authorities to take care of the victims of natural disasters by initiating and
coordinating the humanitarian assistance (OCHA, 2015b). As such, several strategies have been
adopted to mitigate the devastating effects of earthquakes such as the implementation of national
policies for Disaster Risk Management (DRM), capacity building, and international cooperation,
to name a few. Through this research, key areas of improvement for the aforementioned strategies
were identified as major factors to be addressed by the humanitarian sector and they include: i)
need to address current funding gaps for DRM activities, ii) need to develop international standards
and guidelines for capacity building of CFRs, and iii) ensure knowledge transfer is not lost by
improving the documentation of SSC experiences.
2.4.1. Need to address current funding gaps for DRM activities.
The combination of risk reduction activities (planning, mitigation, prevention, and preparedness)
with disaster management activities (response, reconstruction, and recovery) are known as DRM
and entails the development and implementation of guidelines and policies to identify the underly-
ing and direct hazards risk in order to find ways for mitigation; hence, DRM is the operational
implementation of DRR initiatives (Mornière & Sanchez, 2015; UNISDR, 2009; Geis, 2000). Pro-
motion of DRM started as early as 1989 by the United Nations5 (UN), and was followed by the
Yokohama Strategy of 1994, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) of 2005, and the Sendai
Framework of 2015 (UN, 2015; Coppola, 2007).
For a number of years, the humanitarian community has recognized the need to shift from emer-
gency assistance to DRM (Delica-Willison, 2006); however ongoing debates about the inter-rela-
tion between risk reduction activities (those long-term) and disaster management (short-term) re-
main. Often, DRR is regarded as a separate component that follows rehabilitation however DRR is
an integral part of relief and recovery that can start as early as the emergency phase (D’Urzo, 2017;
5 Resolution 44/236 (UN, 2015).
8
Clermont et al., 2011). There is a donor/mandate driven need to differentiate development organi-
zations from those providing immediate relief; and not surprisingly, a very small proportion of
funding is targeted towards development activities (Interview conducted by author on July 7, 2017
with Zenida Willison, SSC Advisor for the UNDP & WB6; WB & UN, 2010). In fact, models to
reduce funding gaps have been developed such as the concept of Linking Relief, Rehabilitation
and Development (LRRD) (Ramet, 2012). For organizations covering the full range of emergency
and risk reduction activities such as the IFRC, in reality, emergency and recovery phases are not
easily differentiated as they are highly interrelated (D’Urzo, 2017). Furthermore, humanitarian re-
lief can set the foundation of resilience even during the emergency phase (IFRC & ECHO, 2012).
As such, reducing the vulnerabilities and by consequence the negative effects of hazards, should
be the priority not only of local governments and development organizations but also, of commu-
nities at risk and all humanitarian actors involved.
2.4.2. Need to develop international standards for capacity building of CFRs.
“I tried to remember what I knew about earthquakes, and it was precious little.”
Reflections as a Gujarat earthquake survivor and humanitarian worker7.
Many stakeholders recognize the value of building the local capacity of communities at risk
through mobilization of funding, technical assistance, and knowledge exchange; the latter is de-
fined as the systemic approach to connect decision-makers, practitioners, academia, and the public
in order to share practices, work experiences, successes, and challenges (UNICEF, 2015; Coppola,
2007). Preparedness and capacity building are among the most cost-effective ways to empower
citizens and prospective CFRs to reduce their own vulnerabilities by improving evacuations pro-
cedures, enhancing individual resilience, reducing potential harm, and in some cases by becoming
local emergency coordinators (Muttarak & Phothisiri, 2013; Coppola, 2007; NDVF, 2000). Addi-
tional, benefits of community preparedness include environment, social and economic opportuni-
ties (Geis, 2000) and consequently enhance sustainable community development (CADRI, 2014).
However, communities are not ready to cope with disasters and gaps between the actual and the
perceived preparedness remain after education is provided (Kohn et al., 2012; Coppola, 2007).
For many years, capacity building for communities at risk has been identified as a priority. The
Yokohama Strategy notes: “the development and strengthening of capacities to prevent, reduce and
6 From this point forward referred as Willison, 2017. 7 In Memorandum to a Concerned Citizen (WB & UN, 2010).
9
mitigate disasters is a top priority area to be addressed during the decade (…) preventive measures
are most effective when they involve participation at all levels, from local community through the
national government to the regional level and international level” (UN, 1994). In 2000, it was
recommended to build community preparedness from the grassroots level respecting the commu-
nity values as opposed to imposing it from the top-down (Geis, 2000). Nevertheless, after more
than 20 years since the Yokohama Strategy, the same message was reiterated once again during the
World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) through commitments to reinforce national and local systems,
to build community resilience, and to invest in localization of aid (WHS, 2016). Thus, a question
is raised: what are the major roadblocks to achieve capacity building and community preparedness?
First, to attain community preparedness and empowerment, effective and sustained capacity build-
ing needs to be provided on an ongoing basis (Coppola, 2007) but community preparedness cannot
be achieved by communities alone, it needs political will to become sustainable (Delica-Willison,
2006). Consequently, the second obstacle is the lack of available funding on a long-term basis
given that unfortunately many donors are not willing to fund these activities (Willison, 2017).
Third, even though there is a close relationship between poverty and disasters (UNDP, 1998), poor
communities may not put DRM strategies at the top of their concerns, particularly among those
heavily relying on external assistance (Zhang, 2015; Geis, 2000). It may be insensible to ask gov-
ernments to prioritize preparedness over their efforts to ensure economic and food security (Chang,
2017). On the other hand, some governments may ignore risks and prefer receiving equipment than
building their own capacities (Interview conducted by author on June 26, 2017 with Jesper Lund,
Chief ESB & FCSS, OCHA8). In fact, only in the face of a major disaster, governments and com-
munities may be willing to take action to reduce their vulnerabilities. Lastly, behavioural attitudes
such as mistrust of the authorities particularly among minority groups, and even lack of cognitive
recognition of a threat posed additional barriers for effective community preparedness (Kohn et al.,
2012).
Nevertheless, global efforts to improve the capacity of first responders include the IFRC’s training
on S&R interventions for those working within the first 72 hours, as well as training on damage
assessment and safe building return for those working at later stages (D’Urzo, 2017). Additionally,
a comprehensive international framework for capacity building of first responders has been devel-
oped by INSARAG comprising a range of activities such as risk assessment to determine local
8 From this point forward referred as Lund, 2017.
10
rescue needs, continuing education, minimum training standards, staff retention, and physical and
mental health (OCHA, 2015b). Additionally, accreditation procedures and external classification
of teams is part of INSARAG’s priorities to facilitate the coordination of the international response
(Chang, 2017; Lund, 2017; OCHA, 2015b).
Although gaps in community preparedness vary from country to country, capacity building frame-
works targeted for CFRs on areas such as light S&R interventions, first aid, evacuation procedures,
and appropriate referral to functioning health structures (Grünewald & Carpenter, 2014) may prove
beneficial for countries aiming to reduce their vulnerabilities and to improve their coping mecha-
nisms. In fact, adapting the capacity building framework from INSARAG’s to specific activities
for CFRs may be a good step to follow.
2.4.3. Ensure knowledge transfer is not lost by documenting SSC experiences.
Knowledge exchange activities that include the dissemination of best practices and technical assis-
tance have been identified as key areas of improvement in the humanitarian sector (HLA, 2016;
WHS, 2016; UN, 2015), and luckily these areas are essential components of SSC. Cooperation
among developing countries started in 1955 from the Afro-Asian Conference in Indonesia (Zahran,
Roman, & Inomata, 2011). The concept of technical cooperation among developing countries
(TCDC) was created by the UN and was later promoted as a vital instrument for cooperation in the
Buenos Aires Plan of Action (BAPA) of 1994 (Special Unit for TCDC, 1994); in 2004, the concept
of TCDC evolved into what is now better known as SSC (UNOSSC, 2017a; UN, 2015).
South-South Cooperation is a partnership among multi-stakeholders, including the private sector,
civil society, academia, and others (UNOSSC, 2016a; HLCSSC, 2012; UN, 2010). There are mul-
tiple SSC approaches, the most well-known involves the cooperation among developing countries
(i.e. South-South), nevertheless Triangular Cooperation (TrC) in which traditional donor countries
from the Global North (i.e. industrialized countries) facilitate SSC is part of the SSC approach;
furthermore, a component often missed is the South to North aspect on the premise that there is
much knowledge the North gains and carries from the South’s experience (Willison, 2017). How-
ever, the concept of SSC is misunderstood with regular technical cooperation programs (Zahran et
al., 2011).
Since its inception SSC has grown exponentially, in 2014 more than 1,000 SSC initiatives were
launched in Ibero-America alone (SEGIB, 2016). Programs for SSC include economical and sus-
11
tainable development on areas such as food security, information technology, and industrial devel-
opment (UNOSSC, 2016b; UNOSSC & JICA, 2013; Zahran et al., 2011). Knowledge exchange
programs can be applied at a local level (i.e. livelihoods, agriculture, and disaster preparedness),
or can be highly technical (i.e. research, DRM policies) (UNOSSC, 2017b; Willison, 2017).
As part of the benefits of SSC, two of its objectives: i) “fostering self-reliance of developing coun-
tries by enhancing their capacity to find solutions while protecting their aspirations, values and
specific needs”, and ii) “promoting self-reliance among developing countries via knowledge ex-
changes and the sharing of technical resources” (UNOSSC, 2016a) can be highlighted as possible
solutions to reduce aid dependency—a key priority to tackle in the humanitarian sector (WHS,
2016). The principles of SSC include the respect of national sovereignty free from attached condi-
tions; nevertheless, the final responsibility to seek solutions lays with the developing country itself
(UNOSSC, 2017b; UN, 2010). In this regard SSC may help transform the traditional top-down
approach of humanitarian aid (UNOSSC, 2017b; Thomas et al., 2011).
Traditional aid has been questioned since in some cases, it addresses the needs and goals of donors
as opposed to the recipients of aid (UNOSSC, 2017b). During the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
and tsunami almost 13.5 billion dollars were collected, however funds were not allocated based on
identified needs but imposed by donors (Telford & Cosgrave, 2007). The level of mistrust from
donors towards developing countries can only be changed when countries of the Global South take
initiatives to create effective solutions and more importantly when they are accountable and trans-
parent about the outcomes achieved.
At the community-level, SSC approaches are considered amongst the best strategies for DRR as it
closely links sustainable development (Willison, 2017; Delica-Willison, 2006). However, not many
donors are willing to fund SSC activities; and SSC need to be supported and budgeted within the
organizations (Willison, 2017). In 2011, less than 0.5% of the core UNDP budget was allocated to
SSC (Zahran et al., 2011). Furthermore, donors prefer to wait and see evidence that the learning is
worth supporting (Willison, 2017). Nevertheless, poor compliance to measure progress and weak
reporting mechanisms for SSC have been identified despite the fact that a framework of indicators
was developed by the UN (Zahran et al., 2011; UN, 2003). Consequently, poor documentation
further limits the availability of funding for SSC and it hinders the identification of areas for im-
provement. In order to detect improvements in community preparedness, standard monitoring and
12
evaluation indicators for SSC need to be reported over a long period of time. The systematic doc-
umentation and sharing mechanisms of lessons learnt may help break this vicious cycle. The fol-
lowing chapter aims at identifying countries at risk of earthquakes that may benefit from SSC.
3. Countries that Might Benefit From SSC Knowledge Exchange
Several countries are at risk of earthquakes but some experience them with more intensity and
frequency than others. This chapter aims at: i) identify top countries at risk of earthquakes, ii)
identify “solution seekers” based on earthquake’s mortality, iii) and determine possible “solution
providers” based on the evaluation of local capacities.
3.1. Where Are the Greatest Earthquake Risks?
Countries prone to earthquakes were determined using the 2017 results from InfoRM—a measure
that identifies countries at risk of humanitarian crisis and disasters. Results for the risk of physical
exposure to earthquake indicator were used to identify countries at very-high risk to earthquakes
(see Appendix C for detail methodology). Historical earthquake and tsunamis events and their as-
sociated mortality from 1996 to 2016 were retrieved from the EM-DAT database (CRED et al.,
2016). A total of 73 countries were retained for investigation and their cumulative number of earth-
quake events and mortality were calculated (see Appendix D for all country-level results).
The average earthquake mortality over the period of study was calculated to facilitate the analysis;
however due to availability of information, average mortality was not adjusted to population’s size,
earthquake’s magnitude, and epicenter area to allow comparability. Therefore, comparing average
earthquake mortality across countries may not be appropriate and as such, indicator rankings were
developed to facilitate the analysis and interpretation of results. Using the rank for physical expo-
sure to earthquake, the top 15 countries at greater risk of earthquakes worldwide were identified
and are displayed in Table 1.
13
Iran, Nepal, and Uzbekistan are among the countries with the highest physical exposure to earth-
quakes, however only two earthquake events in Nepal and one in Uzbekistan over the period of
study were reported which is considerable low compared to the other countries at similar earth-
quakes’ risk. Therefore a very high risk of earthquakes does not necessarily mean frequent earth-
quake occurrence, nevertheless this finding could be explained in part by the separate component
for physical exposure to tsunamis in InfoRM while, the historical earthquake’s occurrence and
associated mortality includes tsunamis as it is difficult to differentiate the real cause of death. Ad-
ditionally, differences in documentation and data quality may exists across countries, unfortunately
the accuracy and reliability of information from both databases is unclear. Nevertheless, with the
exception of Chile and Japan, most of the countries at the highest risk of physical exposure to
earthquakes are low to middle income countries demonstrating the need for DRR strategies targeted
for countries of the Global South.
To better determine potential solution seekers, the countries with the largest average earthquake
mortality were identified (see Table 2). These 15 countries alone experienced 141 earthquakes and
contributed to 99% (742,242) of all combined deaths in the study. Haiti and Sri Lanka are at the
top of the list however they had the lowest earthquake occurrence with only one event each pro-
ducing considerable mortality (see green indicator on Table 2). Therefore, countries not previously
Country RegionIncome
Groupa
Physical
Exposure to
Earthquake
Rankc
Total
Number of
Earthquakes
(1996-2016)
Ranke
Average
Earthquake
Mortality
(1996-2016)
Ranke
Iran Middle East & North Africa UMI 1 3 9
Nepal South Asia LI 2 35 5
Uzbekistan Europe & Central Asia LMI 3 44 34
Chile Latin America & Caribbean HI 4 13 23
Tajikistan Europe & Central Asia LI 5 8 57
Guatemala Latin America & Caribbean LMI 6 17 38
Kyrgyzstan Europe & Central Asia LI 7 20 33
Costa Rica Latin America & Caribbean UMI 8 23 36
Japan East Asia & Pacific HI 9 5 10
Philippines East Asia & Pacific LMI 10 18 26
Ecuador Latin America & Caribbean UMI 11 24 18
Turkey Europe & Central Asia UMI 12 6 11
Myanmar East Asia & Pacific LI 13 25 28
Afghanistan South Asia LI 14 4 13
Peru Latin America & Caribbean UMI 15 9 25
Table 1. Countries at Highest Physical Exposure to Earthquakes.
Note:aIncome Groups according to the World Bank definition: High Income (HI), Low Income (LI),
Lower Middle Income (LMI), Upper Middle Income (UMI).
Sources:bRanking for physical exposure to earthquake was developed by author from InfoRM 2017
Results (IASC and the European Comission, 2017).cRankings for total number of earthquakes from 1996
to 2016 and for the calculated average earthquake mortality were developed by author from EM-DAT
database (CRED et al., 2016).
14
or frequently exposed to earthquakes are at extremely high vulnerability and should be highlighted
as possible solution seekers.
Among the countries with highest mortality, China and Indonesia experienced earthquakes the
most. China registered 27 earthquakes over the 20-year period (i.e. more than one event per year).
Although it is difficult to draw comparisons on mortality, Pakistan, India, Japan and Turkey expe-
rienced similar numbers of events (close to 10) with substantial differences in average mortality;
compared to Japan and Turkey, India’s mortality doubles while Pakistan’s reaches four folds. Sim-
ilarly, mortality in Indonesia is two and a half higher than for China, despite the fact that China
recorded more earthquakes during the same timeframe. Thus, China may be seen as an outlier,
despite the high number of lives lost during the study period and the constant earthquake’s occur-
rence, when compared to countries with similar number of occurrences, results suggest that efforts
to reduce mortality might be in place.
China has committed to implement DRR as part of the HFA reflecting the high scores for DRR in
InfoRM (see Appendix D), however reliability of DRR and other self-reported indicators may be
low and should be interpreted with caution (Groeve et al., 2015). Nevertheless, a review of DRR
initiatives in China revealed progress including the new DRR regulations comprising the organi-
sational structure based on the specific disaster type (Ke, Sim, & Dominelli, 2015). Furthermore,
the technological advancements for radio-wave transmission of early warnings show promising
results (UNISDR, 2014). Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) programs have
Country RegionIncome
Groupa
Total Number of
Eathquakes
(1996-2016)b
Total Number of
Earthquakes
(1996-2016)
Rankc
Total Number of
Deaths (1996-
2016)b
Average
Earthquake
Mortality (1996-
2016)b
Average
Earthquake
Mortality (1996-
2016) Rankc
Haiti Latin America & Caribbean LI 1 54 222 570 222 570 1
Sri Lanka South Asia LMI 1 69 35 399 35 399 2
Indonesia East Asia & Pacific LMI 20 2 175 876 8 794 3
Pakistan South Asia LMI 11 7 74 383 6 762 4
Nepal South Asia LI 2 35 8 976 4 488 5
India South Asia LMI 10 10 38 069 3 807 6
China East Asia & Pacific UMI 27 1 94 943 3 516 7
Thailand East Asia & Pacific UMI 3 32 8 347 2 782 8
Iran Middle East & North Africa UMI 16 3 30 937 1 934 9
Japan East Asia & Pacific HI 12 5 19 987 1 666 10
Turkey Europe & Central Asia UMI 12 6 19 079 1 590 11
Morocco Middle East & North Africa LMI 1 63 628 628 12
Afghanistan South Asia LI 15 4 8 551 570 13
Algeria Middle East & North Africa UMI 5 22 2 307 461 14
Papua New Guinea East Asia & Pacific LMI 5 21 2 190 438 15
Table 2. Countries with the Highest Average Earthquake Mortality (1996-2016).
Note: aIncome Groups according to the World Bank definition: High Income (HI), Low Income (LI), Lower Middle Income (LMI), Upper Middle Income (UMI).
Sources:bTotal number of earthquakes from 1996 to 2016, their total number of deaths, and the average earthquake mortality were calculated by author from EM-
DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).cRankings for total number of earthquakes from 1996 to 2016 and the calculated average earthquake mortality were developed by
author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
15
been largely promoted and implemented by the Chinese Red Crescent Foundation as a consequence
of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake—the most destructive earthquake in the country (Qi, 20179).
Additionally, national standards on comprehensive Disaster Reduction Demonstration Communi-
ties (DRDC) were developed by the Ministry of Civil Affairs, along with standards for earthquake-
resistant building for public constructions, the promotion of coordination mechanisms, and capac-
ity building. These initiatives enabled a lower mortality during the 2014 Ludian earthquake (Ke et
al., 2015). Thus, China may become a potential leader for the provision of solutions in the region.
In fact, the international atmosphere is changing after the U.S. left the Paris agreement and China
will play prominent and leading roles. The enhancement of SSC on climate change and DRR in
China are great complementary options to the traditional North-South approach (Li, 2017)10.
Furthermore, the review of countries with the highest average earthquake mortality revealed that
10 out of the 15 countries are from South Asia and East Asia & Pacific; and these regions accounted
for more than 60% of earthquake deaths over the period of study (see Appendix E). Therefore, the
following section focuses on the vulnerabilities, local capacities, and DRR initiatives of countries
at highest risk of earthquakes in Asia to better define the potential solution seekers and providers.
3.2. A Focus on Asia
Asia is the region most frequently hit by earthquakes in the world and Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
China, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, and the Philippines are the countries with the highest
exposure to earthquakes in the region (InfoRM scores ≥ 811); see blue scores above the reference
line in Figure 2. At the top of the risk to earthquakes are Nepal and the Philippines (risk scores of
9.9 and 9.4 respectively). Although, Nepal is one of the countries with the least proportion of the
population living in urban areas around the world (UN DESA, 2014), it has the highest risk to
earthquake due to its active faults in the Kathmandu Valley (Subedi, 2009). In the Philippines, the
numerous faults fall near and all throughout its megacity Manila putting urban population at risk
(Shaw, 2009); in fact, it has been predicted that an earthquake in Manila could cause over 30,000
deaths (JICA et al., 2004; Shaw, 2009).
9 Personal communication with Tingting Qi, National Programme Officer International Cooperation Division (ICD),
Swiss Embassy in China, January 2017. 10 Personal communication with Huo Li, National Programme Officer ICD, Swiss Embassy in China, July 2017. 11 From this point forward referred as countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes.
16
3.2.1. Identified vulnerabilities.
A range of vulnerabilities exist across the countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes but they
vary from one another. Vulnerabilities were organized based on author-defined categories (aware-
ness, cultural, governance, structural and urbanization) to facilitate the interpretation (see Appendix
F). Lack of disaster awareness was reported among residents of the Kathmandu Valley while in the
Philippines poor compliance to emergency regulations was observed due to lack of acknowledge-
ment of real threats in the community; additionally, the influx of communities without previous
exposure to earthquakes further enhances lack of awareness, and a culture of fatalism was part of
cultural barriers for disaster preparedness (Barber, 2015; Shaw & Goda, 2004; JICA & MoHA
GoN, 2002; Subedi, 2009). Similarly, in Indonesia some communities believed that there is nothing
they can do when a natural disaster hits (Lassa, 2011).
Interestingly, decentralization of power has been cited as a vulnerability for the Philippines and
Indonesia but from different perspectives. In the Philippines, disaster preparedness is developed by
each city and municipality; however only few cities (7 out of the 27) target earthquakes (Shaw,
2009). Furthermore, the economic, political and administrative concentration of services in meg-
acities like Manila can easily collapse in an earthquake putting its residents at further peril (Mat-
Figure 2. Average 20-year earthquake mortality and physical exposure to earthquake risk in East Asia & Pacific and
South Asia.
Sources: Average earthquake mortality was calculated by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016). Physical exposure to
earthquake was adapted from InfoRM 2017 Results (IASC and the European Comission, 2017).
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
9 000
10 000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average E
arthquak
e M
ortality
(1996
-2016)
Phy
sica
l E
xposu
re to
Ear
thqua
ke
Average Earthquake Mortality (1996-2016) Physical Exposure to Earthquake Risk Score
17
suoka, Sharma, & Shaw, 2009). The decentralization of governance in Indonesia creates other is-
sues, in 1999 more than 200 new cities were created requiring the establishment of new local gov-
ernance entities and services including DRM, additionally, a discontinuity of efforts and invest-
ments on DRR has been reported due to ongoing changes in political regimes (Lassa, 2011).
Structural vulnerability was the most frequent factor across the countries but caused by multiple
issues such as the proliferation of informal settlements, lack of knowledge on home structural
safety, poor building codes compliance, and lack of safe-land for construction in mountainous areas
(Rahman, 2015; Lassa, 2011; Matsuoka et al., 2009; Subedi, 2009). Linked to structural vulnera-
bilities is the surge of rural-to-urban migration with the proliferation of informal settlements af-
fecting many Asian cities; China and Indonesia are at extremely high risk with more than half of
their population living in cities (UN DESA, 2014; Matsuoka et al., 2009). Nevertheless, DRR ac-
tivities can tackle almost all of the vulnerabilities here identified.
3.2.2. Identified efforts to improve local capacity building.
As part of the HFA priorities, strategies to improve community preparedness and to mitigate the
effect of earthquakes have been implemented in Asia (Matsuoka et al., 2009; Sibedi, 2009); the
following initiatives are of significant importance to address the vulnerabilities previously identi-
fied and include: a) Awareness: as part of the national framework for DRM, the baranguay (the
smallest administrative unit in the Philippines), identifies disaster response capacities in the com-
munity and provides educational awareness (Shaw, 2009); b) education, and simulations exer-
cises (SIMEX) targeted at the community level and education activities in Nepal, China, Bangla-
desh, India and the Philippines improved preparedness capacities of communities. The Nepalese
School Earthquake Safety Program (NSESP), the urban earthquake vulnerability reduction pro-
gramme of UNDP and the Government of India, and China’s inclusion of disaster reduction into
the national education system are examples of initiatives worth highlighting (Chu, 2015; Matsuoka
et al., 2009; SCIO, 2009; Sibedi, 2009); c) enhancement of coordination mechanisms through
the concept of DRDC that was developed for urban and rural communities in China to enhance
coordination mechanisms for disaster relief, and to foster civic engagement. In 2013, more than
5,000 DRDCs had at least one disaster information officer which is an huge undertaken that unfor-
tunately brings coordination challenges between the government and the DRDCs (as well as across
DRDCs) given that DRDCs are not often included in emergency planning by the government (Chu,
2015); d) participatory planning: a pilot participatory planning exercise for CBDRM in Manila
18
included SIMEX and emergency earthquake planning developed by the community itself, show-
cased improvements in self-reliance and a reduction of the culture of fatalism (Shaw, 2009); e)
DRR policies: according to Barber (2015) Philippines has one of the most solid legal and regula-
tory frameworks for DRR in the world; nevertheless, compliance remains a challenge; and f) pro-
motion of earthquake-resistant construction: in addition to providing training in earthquake pre-
paredness to parents, teachers and students; the NSESP trains local masons on earthquake-re-
sistance construction and employ them to reconstruct public school buildings (Matsuoka et al.,
2009).
3.2.3. Identified examples of SSC initiatives targeted to DRR.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)12 has established an Agreement for Disaster
Management and Emergency Relief (AADMER) to support cooperation mechanisms and facilitate
disaster’s response (ASEAN, 2005; Mercado, 2011). As part of the agreement, partnerships with
International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) helped improve local capacities of civil
society organizations and identified needs for knowledge exchange in an effort to reduce the influx
and leading roles of INGOs during disaster response (Mercado, 2011).
The Regional Consultative Group on Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination for Asia enhances
cooperation between civilian and the military responders and is improving information sharing for
countries in the region to address concerns expressed on the lack of interoperability and accessi-
bility of current information sharing tools (RCG, 2015). The Asian Disaster Reduction and Re-
sponse Network (ADRRN) consisting of 52 NGOs from 20 countries promotes grass roots inno-
vation “by combining scientific research with local wisdom” to reduce gaps between knowledge
and practice, and promote best practices; it focuses on local knowledge because it is orally trans-
mitted and undocumented, but bound to the local culture and context (Hazarika, 2014). Neverthe-
less, there is apprehension to pursue research on this approach and lack of policy engagement.
An excellent example of SSC was undertaken by ADRRN with the Tsunami Learning Project, an
initiative to facilitate co-learning from lessons learnt during the recovery and rehabilitation expe-
riences of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami across affected countries (ADRRN, 2008). Although the
project did not include lessons from first responders it showcases the will of developing commu-
nities to improve their capacities and mitigate the negative consequences of natural disasters.
12 ASEAN is composed of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand and Vietnam (ASEAN, 2005).
19
3.2.4. Identified Opportunities For Knowledge Exchange and SSC.
The mix methods approach conducted in this chapter facilitated the identification of greatest areas
of concern and more importantly, it showcased that local capacities among developing countries
do exist. Excellent examples of community preparedness initiatives were evidenced for possible
information sharing and as such, the following opportunities for SSC knowledge exchange were
identified13 (more information can be found in Appendix G):
China seeking solutions from Manila’s community participatory activities: to promote the
inclusion of the community in national emergency planning.
Indonesia and Nepal seeking solutions from Manila’s community participatory activities:
to improve self-reliance and reduce the culture of fatalism.
Indonesia and the Philippines seeking solutions from China’s DRDC’s: to develop DRR
policies in decentralized governments while fostering civic engagement.
Countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes seeking solutions from China’s integration
of disaster reduction into the national education system: to improve preparedness and
awareness.
Nepal seeking solutions from Philippines’s International Humanitarian Assistance Cluster:
to improve coordination and ease the entry of international assistance.
Countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes seeking solutions from China’s promotion
of coordination mechanisms: to enhance a national network for earthquake response.
Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka seeking solutions from Nepal’s NSESP and
China’s standards for earthquake-resistant building design for public constructions: to en-
hance building codes compliance and earthquake-resistance constructions.
Countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes seeking solutions from the Philippines’s
DRR policy framework: to develop regulatory frameworks for DRR.
Countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes seeking solutions from China’s DRR reg-
ulation mechanisms and DRR organisational structure: to develop coordination mecha-
nisms based on disaster type.
Countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes seeking solutions from China’s radio-wave
transmission of early warnings.
13 Opportunities for SSC are organized from the solution seeker to solution provider to follow the principles of SSC
where the final responsibility to seek solutions lays with the developing country itself (UNOSSC, 2017b; UN, 2010).
20
Additional SSC opportunities were evidenced and are worth highlighting. The analysis of results
for countries at highest risk of earthquakes showcased Tajikistan’s results, although placed among
the top earthquake’s risk and occurrence in the world, its average earthquake mortality over 20-
years places Tajikistan low, at 57 out of the 73 countries in the study (see green indicator on Table
1). In fact, the literature review revealed that 63% of the Tajikistan population lives in highly seis-
mic areas, however mitigation activities have been done including best practices for seismic risk,
the review of earthquake’s impact through quantitative risk profiles, the development of major
earthquake preparedness and response plans, the designation of units for rescue, the implementa-
tion of early warning systems, and the provision of preparedness trainings and drills (GFDRR,
2017; UNDP, 2017; WB, 2015). Furthermore, a special project to strengthen the local capacities
for earthquake response was undertaken by the Red Crescent Society of Tajikistan in 2012, where
local communities and school-aged children learnt first aid techniques thus targeting future CFRs
(RCST, 2012). Sharing the lessons learnt from the activities across neighbouring countries at sim-
ilar high risks to earthquakes such as Afghanistan and Pakistan may not only enhance preparedness
but also improve cross-bordering cooperation for timely coordination of response in the event of a
future earthquake in the region and consequently, achieve one of the expected outcomes in Tajiki-
stan by the UNDP (UNDP, 2017).
Additional analyses on mortality trends were conducted for countries with high mortality (≥1,000
deaths in a single event) and those with enough earthquake occurrences to develop trends (≥5 earth-
quakes) (see Appendix H). After a major earthquake with extremely high mortality, most countries
experienced subsequent earthquakes with lower mortality levels, which might indicate better
awareness and DRR efforts, however the magnitude of the earthquake and population affected are
needed to corroborate this assumption. Nevertheless, this may also mean that high mortality should
be expected among countries at high risk of earthquakes but without a major earthquake event. Yet
immediately after a disaster, a movement of voluntary activities starts but subsequently slows down
until the next disaster occurs (Sibedi, 2009).
For example, after the devastating 1999 earthquake in Turkey, social awareness and disaster pre-
paredness emerged with volunteer organizations supplying resources provided by the Swiss Gov-
ernment and training community members on aid and rescue; this model was later used as
knowledge exchange activity in Jordan (NDVF, 2000). Although mortality decreased after the 1999
earthquake, mortality trends suggest a small increment 12 years later. With 71% of the Turkish
21
population living in high earthquake risk zones, continuous community awareness is of most im-
portance particularly when estimates suggest that 90,000 of people could die if a major earthquake
hits Istanbul (Matsuoka et al., 2009; Sibedi, 2009). It is unlikely that an earthquake will change
risk-reduction behaviour, only through community participation sustainable DRR can be achieved
(Shaw & Goda, 2004). Thus, Turkey could be highlighted as an additional solution seeker for sus-
tainability of community preparedness activities.
“The Gujarat earthquake was pivotal in the paradigm shift from emergency response to risk reduction and prepared-
ness. Many who believed that earthquakes cannot be prevented are now actively helping reduce disaster risks.”
Reflections as a Gujarat earthquake survivor and humanitarian worker14.
4. An Analysis of Earthquake Responses—the Cases of Ecuador, Haiti and Nepal
This chapter provides an analysis of three case studies of earthquake response and management.
The cases of Ecuador (2016), Nepal (2015), and Haiti (2010) are explored with a focus on the first
phase of the response. These cases were selected because they are from developing countries highly
exposed to earthquakes (or within the Ring of Fire) and because of availability of information. The
analysis aims at identifying the challenges faced during the first phase of the responses in the spirit
of highlighting areas for improvement worth sharing as part of knowledge exchange opportunities
for first responders and for identifying potential constrains for the implementation of SSC.
4.1. The First 72 Hours: A Review of First Responders and National Coordination
Little information was available about the experiences faced by local first responders and CFRs
during early response, this may be attributed to lack of requirements to document but also because
first responders may be in shock, physiologically affected or most likely only caring for their own
(Chang, 2017). Given that experts suggests that affected communities should be able to perform
light S&R, first aid, evacuation procedures, and refer injured people to remaining health services
(Grünewald & Carpenter, 2014), these skills were used to determine the vulnerabilities and capac-
ities of CFRs from the literature available.
In Haiti one of the vulnerabilities identified among the population was the absence of first aid
knowledge (Georges & Grünewald, 2010). Gaps in preparedness and urban S&R capacities were
observed in Nepal (ACAPS, 2015); in fact, lack of urban preparedness was a common denominator
during both Nepal and Haiti events (Lund, 2017; Grünewald & Carpenter, 2014). Furthermore,
14 In Memorandum to a Concerned Citizen (WB & UN, 2010).
22
some residents of crowded urban places in Nepal were unclear about where to seek help (Grüne-
wald & Carpenter, 2014). Nevertheless, opportunities to benefit from the local capacities in Haiti
were missed by not utilizing the strong relationships, organizational skills, and the ability to take
decisions by the civil society (Patrick, 2011). Furthermore, Haitians conducted their own assess-
ments but were ignored, and although rapid need assessments were quickly completed by human-
itarian actors they were not completely analyzed or made available because of the pressure to
quickly respond (Patrick, 2011); thus, the link between assessments and subsequence action con-
tinues to be missed (Clermont, et al., 2011).
At the national first response level, the governments of Nepal and Ecuador reacted very quickly to
mobilize national teams towards affected areas and by activating national emergency operations
(Interview conducted by author on February 10, 2017 with Myr. (B) Jorge Martínez, SRG & Ame-
ricas Regional Chair INSARAG15; Grünewald & Burlat, 2016). Additionally, the mobilization of
resources and volunteers from the Nepalese Red Cross Society (NRCS) was crucial in the response
with light USAR teams and Health Emergency Response Units working immediately after the
event (Grünewald & Burlat, 2016). Despite of being directly affected during the disaster the Haitian
National Red Cross Society (HNRCS) was active from the onset, nevertheless the HNRCS did not
have the capacity to manage the magnitude of the disaster and was perceived as a bottleneck for
collaboration within the IFRC. Furthermore, the Dominican Red Cross Society (DRCS) crossed
the border to respond immediately while the Colombian Red Cross made an agreement with the
HNRCS to deploy staff, similarly other National Societies (NS) within and outside of the region
deployed staff and volunteers however, lack of integration and coordination of all actors within the
Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement was reported (Fisher et al., 2010).
Although devastated communities and governments retain some capacities, meaningful engage-
ment with community and civic leaders during assessment and early response will significantly
improve the quality and timeliness of the response.
4.2. The First 72 Hours: A Review of Requests for International Assistance
In the 2016 earthquake of Ecuador the initial rescue efforts were carried out by national teams and
within the first 12 hours a formal international assistance from the Government of Ecuador (GoE)
15 From this point forward referred as Martínez, 2017.
23
was requested (INSARAG, 2016). Similarly, the GoN initiated S&R efforts through local first re-
sponders and within a few hours of the earthquake, a state of emergency was declared and interna-
tional assistance was requested for S&R, medical assistance, and logistical support (OCHA, 2015d;
USAID, 2015). By contrast in Haiti, although there was no formal request of assistance by the
government, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) ordered the deployment of
an S&R team to Haiti within less than two hours of the onset of the event (FEMA & OFDA, 2013).
Similarly at OCHA’s FCSS and INSARAG secretariat, within a few hours of the onset, an acknowl-
edgement of a possible major disaster was made through the Virtual- On-Site Operations Coordi-
nation Centre (OSOCC) system and international S&R teams began preparation for deployment
(Lund, 2017; INSARAG, 2010).
Search and rescue teams can be deployed within a few hours of a disaster (Chang, 2017; Coppola,
2007) but how quickly the deployment occurs depends on the timely requests of assistance from
affected governments; nevertheless, some governments prefer to wait which further increases the
challenges for the successful rescue of victims (Lund, 2017). Experiences during other disasters
revealed that the exact moment when a formal request is made or when the international assistance
is accepted has created some confusion which can further delay the coordination of emergency
responses at the international level. In some cases, cultures that prefer to accept offers of assistance
rather than formally requesting it have created delays and ambiguity to initiate the response (Bar-
ber, 2015). Thus, prompt assistance can be improved not only by the actions of affected govern-
ments but also by the international humanitarian community. From the part of governments, timely
request and acceptance of assistance is required, and from the humanitarian community, clear un-
derstanding on the moment when requests are made and accepted by international teams could
improve the initiation of assistance but more importantly, this information should be timely shared
not only within organizations but across all actors including neighbouring countries.
The development of pre-established benchmarks based on the magnitude of earthquakes and its
proximity to densely populated areas may be useful for local governments to take prompt decisions
to request international assistance; this potential indicator may be even more effective if it includes
local assessments and inventory of disaster risk response capacities. In the international commu-
nity, existing protocols for formal request and acceptance of assistance could be tailored based on
cultural differences for countries with less seeking-assistance behaviour as well as special consid-
erations for triggering international assistance in countries with poor governance or those countries
24
with a complete breakdown of services that hinders the decision-making process. More im-
portantly, countries at risk should not only enhance their governance preparedness protocols and
establish clear crisis communication and cooperation mechanisms but also, making publicly avail-
able information on emergency command system (e.g. contact information of next appointed DRM
decision-maker) could help improve response capacities particularly when the whereabouts of staff
are uncertain.
4.3. The First 72 Hours: A Review of International Deployment
During earthquakes and other rapid-onset disasters, affected countries may receive assistance (in
kind or technical), and neighbouring countries may be amongst the first responders providing tech-
nical expertise via S&R teams (Coppola, 2007). Particular to the three cases studies was the cross-
border collaboration from neighbouring countries by means of the provision of technical experts
such as S&R teams, relief goods and other services; (Chang, 2017; D’Urzo, 2017; Martínez, 2017;
Willison, 2017). For example, teams from Colombia, Chile, Mexico, and even as far as China pro-
vided assistance during earthquake of Ecuador (Martínez, 2017). In Haiti, the first international
S&R teams were from Iceland and the U.S. arriving within less than 24 hours (Lund, 2017; FEMA
& OFDA, 2013); additionally, 21 Emergency Response Unit teams were sent by the IFRC and a
Field Assessment and Coordination Team was on the ground within 48 hours making it the largest
single-country operation by the IFRC (BRC, 2016; Fisher et al., 2010). More than 50 USAR teams
were organized to perform S&R operations in Haiti (Lund, 2017). Although it is said that lessons
learned from Haiti refrained teams to rush to assist during the event in Nepal, more than 100 inter-
national S&R and medical teams arrived in Nepal within the 24 hours; in fact, a total of 34 countries
responded—14 of which were from the Global South (Dangal, 2015; OCHA, 2015c).
The complexity of coordination posed by the massive influx of international responders resulted in
extremely slow processes for importing heavy equipment in Haiti which in some instances lasted
months (Clermont, 2011); additionally, airport delays caused by structural instability and a break-
down of air traffic control prevented the accessibility of international teams (Lund, 2017; IN-
SARAG & OCHA, 2010). In the cases of Ecuador and Nepal, while international teams were eager
to help and reception mechanisms were in place, some teams arrived without enough knowledge
of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) such as building tagging, others without equipment, or
without local language capacities thus coordinating activities for these types of teams was chal-
lenging and of concern; furthermore there was one instance where a S&R team arrived one week
25
later and by that time, the S&R efforts will most likely not result in the successful rescue of survi-
vors (Martínez, 2017; Dangal, 2015). Nevertheless, INSARAG guidelines recommend a 10-hour
window period between the moment the request of assistance is made and departure to ensure the
effectiveness of operations (OCHA, 2015b).
Airport delays were observed in Nepal as well but were related to insufficient airport capacity,
inability to land at Kathmandu airport, added to the huge influx of international teams (Schmidt,
2015). It has been estimated that the Customs Facilitation in Humanitarian Assistance agreement
and the “Get Airports Ready for Disaster” training program on logistics and coordination of disaster
supplies facilitated the arrival of teams in Nepal, however delays would have been shorter if a
respect for the national procedures and proper paperwork by international teams would have been
followed (Schmidt, 2015). Furthermore, a formal request to stand down on additional teams by the
GoN was ignored and 15 S&R teams arrived after the request was made (Lund, 2017; Schimdt,
2015). This was mainly driven by the pressure of the media and political interest as opposed to real
needs (Lund, 2017); and as such, lessons have not been learnt to reduce the ever growing concerns
about ineffectiveness of traditional aid and thus, relief operations’ decisions continue to be driven
by the objectives of donors as opposed to the recipients of aid (UNOSSC, 2017b).
Early arrival (within 48 hours) of S&R teams in Nepal translated into 11 out of 16 victims rescued
alive (Schimdt, 2015). By contrast, a total of 112 people were rescued alive in Ecuador by national
teams but in fact, only one victim was rescued by an international team (Martínez, 2017; IN-
SARAG, 2016). This last figure is striking and raises important considerations. First, although in-
ternational assistance plays an essential role in major earthquakes it is obvious that improving the
local capacities of first responders will translate into an actual reduction of mortality. Secondly, if
the expenses related to the deployment of unrequired teams would be directed into monetary assis-
tance for affected governments the figures might tell a different story; nevertheless, this can only
be possible in an ideal world where good governance, transparency and accountability occurs com-
bined with better trust from donors. Nonetheless, there is an obvious need to improve the timely
accessibility of first responders and in fact, the joint effort between the IFRC and OCHA to raise
awareness and train customs officials to prepare for future disasters proves to be of critical value
(IFRC, 2016; Turner, 2015).
Additionally, there is a need for the respect of decisions from local authorities and of international
guidelines and SOPs. After the Ecuador event a lessons learnt revealed that Colombian teams close
26
to the epicentre and the boarder could have been able to access it faster than teams in Ecuador if
more efficient cross bordering procedures were in place; therefore the GoE has now signed bilateral
agreements with neighbouring countries to promote the international cooperation, knowledge ex-
change, capacity building, and improve customs procedures (Martínez, 2017; SGR, 2017).
4.4. The Way Forward
After the events, numerous efforts to improve the capacity building for DRR have been made and
include the strengthening of community resilience in Haiti through trainings and SIMEX by the
Direction de la protection civile (DPC) and awareness campaigns by community mobilization
teams supported by the British Red Cross (BRC, 2016; Clermont, et al., 2011). Investments to
provide capacity building and preparedness in Haiti reached more than 15,000 community mem-
bers trained in CBDRM as of 2014 (IFRC, 2014). Furthermore, progress have been made in cross-
border cooperation such as the case of the SIMEX on earthquake and tsunami for Colombia and
Ecuador (D’Urzo, 2017). Similarly, the cross-border bilateral agreements in Ecuador aim at im-
proving the coordination of response across all neighbouring countries (Martínez, 2017).
One of the priorities in the IFRC is the provision of capacity building for Regional Intervention
Teams (RITs) or Regional Disaster Response Teams (RDRT) on specific skills such as health, lo-
gistics, shelter, and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene promotion (WASH). The objective is that RDRT
teams will be ready for deployment to neighbouring countries to collaborate with local authorities
on emergency planning in order to improve the efficiency of future responses (IFRC, 2017;
D’Urzo, 2017). At the community level, organizations such as Christian Aid have established local
committees within communities in Haiti that will link the government to provide early warning
(Clermont, et al., 2011). These efforts to improve the collaboration with local authorities are key
to improve the efficiency of future disaster responses given that lack of collaboration between hu-
manitarian actors and local authorities have been reported as one of the biggest challenges in the
three cases; furthermore, lack of cooperation between development aid agencies already in Haiti
and relief organizations was seen as another missed opportunity (Clermont, 2011).
According to Lund (2017), apprehension to collaborate with local governments could be explained
by the fact that the vast majority of humanitarian actors currently work in context of armed conflict;
furthermore, one of the biggest challenges of the transformative agenda is the imposition of armed-
conflict standards into natural disasters response. Humanitarian actors working in armed-conflict
are not used to work with governments, nevertheless during natural disasters there is a need to
27
provide support to local governments to create efficiencies (Lund, 2017). To achieve a coordinated
response collaboration across all levels is the most essential factor, the establishment of relation-
ships prior to a disaster may enhance information sharing and capacity building while creating
effective work environments (Zhang, 2015). Thus, ongoing SSC approaches may favour better re-
lationships across teams, governments and communities prior to a disaster and in turn, improving
the understanding of responsibilities across all agencies and organisms involved.
4.5. Opportunities for Knowledge Exchange
The review of the three case studies included in this chapter helped identified some areas of im-
provement but more importantly, vital topics for lessons learnt were raised for possible knowledge
exchange opportunities across affected countries, communities, and first responders.
Unless better integration of the community during assessment and response is made, underestima-
tion of local capacities like the one observed in Haiti will continue to occur. Community base
programs led by community members themselves, could provide an opportunity to breakdown the
lack of coordination and collaboration across actors while at the same time bringing INGOs, com-
munity organizations, authorities, and the international humanitarian community to the same table.
Providing communities with opportunities to voice their experiences and the challenges faced via
SSC approaches may help capitalize local capacities and establish better long-lasting relationships
for future collaboration.
There is a need to reduce the apprehension to work with governments in the humanitarian sector,
and to contextualize humanitarian relief standards to natural disaster responses inclusive of the
respect of decisions made by local authorities. Sharing the experience of the GoN across other
countries or regions at risk of major earthquakes proves useful to avoid future complications in
developing countries with similar characteristics. Systematic lessons learnt opportunities across
countries that assisted during earthquake response such as the case of the workshops provided by
the GoE may prove useful. Despite the fact that no communities and disasters are alike (Chang,
2017), the lessons from one community could be studied and applied to others (Delica-Willison,
2006) and more importantly, challenges in the provision of technical assistance could be dissemi-
nated as a way to establish best practices, to improve the local capacities and to reduce the aid
dependency.
Lastly, channels for communication across governments and the humanitarian community need to
be improved to allow timely access of international teams and their equipment. Nevertheless, this
28
analysis proves that the most effective way to reduce earthquake’s mortality is by improving the
capacities of national teams as observed in Ecuador.
4.6. What are the Expected Challenges of SSC?
Some of the challenges faced during the management of the early response in the three case studies
may be extrapolated to SSC. Beyond the lack of funding and political will to conduct this type of
approach, one of the most evident obstacles were the language barriers that occurred in Ecuador
creating difficulties in communication and coordination of activities for international teams. Nev-
ertheless, this challenge as obvious as it may be needs to be planned for SSC knowledge exchange
activities targeting CFRs not as an afterthought, particularly for community-to-community ex-
change approaches.
The lack of compliance of international standards can be expected as well in SSC activities; in fact,
as part of the challenges of the proliferation of SSC exchanges is the lack of compliance to follow
the well structural process of SSC, particularly for ad hoc activities such as those perceived as just
learning from a trip visit (Willison, 2017). A systematic approach in which: i) a shared objective
needs to be designed by all parties (i.e. solution seekers and providers) with a defined specific
learning activity for example relief and rescue operations, disaster preparedness, or recovery and
rehabilitation; ii) the solution seeker is an active contributor to solutions to identify areas of im-
provement, challenges (e.g. policies, institutional arrangement, security), and areas that could be
replicated in its country; ii) immediately after the learning takes place a platform to share the doc-
umentation needs to be made available to ensure the appropriate monitoring of results; and iii) an
evaluation to determine whether SSC exchanges need to be replicated, or to identify other oppor-
tunities for joint projects (Willison, 2017).
Lastly, is important to highlight challenges in coordination observed during the Haiti response by
the IFRC. This was the first major operation after the creation of decentralized structures in the
organization which may have led to some neighbouring NSs feeling alienated from the coordina-
tion. For example, one NS offered support the same day of the earthquake through appropriate
channels but was told not to deploy S&R teams, while others deployed without referring to the
IFRC, many NSs operated independently and some were only integrated into the IFRC operations
after months of presence in Haiti. Additionally, the DRCS provided relief, as well as logistics for
the Movement and for many international actors as a main corridor of humanitarian access; never-
29
theless, lack of acknowledgement of the capacity levels created unrealistic expectations and bot-
tlenecks as the DRCS did not allow the IFCR to contract logistics support during the later stages
of the response (Fisher et al., 2010). Similar feelings of competition and lack of acknowledgement
of local capacities could hamper relationships and collaborations during SSC activities; and thus
the importance of ensuring the appropriate implementation of a systematic approach and infor-
mation sharing.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
This research evaluated whether a framework for SSC knowledge exchange among first responders
from countries prone to earthquakes could be designed, and presented a critical analysis of three
case studies to determine expected opportunities and challenges of this type of cooperation. It evi-
denced that earthquakes pose major threats to communities from the Global South particularly in
Asia. Furthermore, rapid urbanization growth, lack of political will for community preparedness,
and funding gaps for DRR activities and SSC knowledge exchanges were identified as major fac-
tors aggravating vulnerabilities.
Although the capacities and resources of communities and local authorities might be limited par-
ticularly during a major earthquake, the analyses of local capacities among selected countries at
extremely high risk of earthquakes combined with the experiences from the three case studies
proved that communities from developing countries in earthquake-prone areas do have local ca-
pacities but unfortunately are often missed by the humanitarian community. Therefore, local com-
munities themselves need to become advocates for community preparedness programs that provide
them with the right tools to identify their own vulnerabilities, capacities, knowledge gaps, and
solutions; thus, SSC knowledge exchange approaches deem to be appropriate.
A framework for identifying potential SSC knowledge exchange targeted at community first re-
sponders from selected countries at greater risk of major earthquakes and high mortality proved to
be feasible within the available time allocated for the dissertation. Nevertheless, this framework
methodology was limited by comparability and availability of data. Future research is necessary to
develop a standardized framework and to test SSC approaches in order to correctly identify chal-
lenges and areas of improvement. The later will be of most value to determine how geopolitical
factors may hinder or facilitate true international cooperation.
Furthermore, the three case studies from the earthquake response in Nepal, Ecuador, and Haiti
30
provided insights into the multiple challenges faced during the early phase of the emergency re-
sponse and may serve as potential co-learning opportunities. Even though no disasters are alike,
lessons learnt from these experiences reveled some commonalities, such as the need for improve-
ment of airport and custom processes as well as the need to respect the decisions from local gov-
ernments and standardized guidelines.
In line with commitments made during the WHS in Istanbul to invest in the localization of aid and
to invest in preparedness to build community resilience before disaster strikes, the following stra-
tegic recommendations are proposed based on results from this research:
Consider advocacy and awareness activities driven by the active engagement of communities and
humanitarian actors to address the funding gaps for DRM activities and SSC knowledge exchanges.
Built standardized guidelines to train CFRs and consequently, built resilience and empowerment.
Improve transparency and accountability by adequately documenting and monitoring SSC
knowledge exchange activities and help built better trust among donors.
Develop community participation activities aimed at providing effective risk-reduction measures
to ensure sustainability of DRR efforts.
Use SSC as a venue to establish collaborative relationships with neighbouring communities prior
to a disaster, and enhance information sharing and capacity building while creating effective work
environments.
Consider and document cultural differences that may hinder SSC knowledge exchange activities.
Ensure SSC activities follow a well structural process with clear objectives, mandates and out-
comes and information sharing.
Consider joint lessons learnt activities across INGOs, local government and the community with
a focus on early response to identify areas of improvement and consider the inclusion of countries
not previously exposed to earthquakes but who are at high risk to earthquakes, in an effort to raise
awareness.
Develop community participation activities that enhance cooperation among peers such as the
Paired Assistance to Disaster Affected Areas program developed in China in which a region-to-
region approach mobilized civil society to participate in disaster rescue, relief and post-disaster
rehabilitation and reconstruction (Zhong, & Lu, 2015).
Future research may prove beneficial particularly to better understand the successes and challenges
of SSC approaches, and as noted by Willison (2017) during her interview: “SSC exchange needs
31
supporters and advocates; because of the lack of resources some people in the community will die
without validating their solutions and they might be valuable”.
Thus, in order to truly create sustainable solutions to reduce earthquake’s mortality, the desire and
will to implement positive innovative and collaborative solutions may be what is needed the most.
32
Bibliography
1. Alexander, D., & Klein, S. (2009). First Responders after Disasters: A Review of Stress Reac-
tions, At-Risk, Vulnerability, and Resilience Factors. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine,
24(2), pp.87-94.
2. Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network (ADRRN). (2013). Promotion of Grass Root
Innovation in Indonesia: Embracing the Disaster a Case Study at Kasiyan Village. [pdf] New-
Delhi: ADRRN. Available at: http://www.adrrn.net/meet-ourmember/reports/SHEEP-Report-
on-Grassroot-Inovation-Research.pdf [Accessed 4 Jul. 2017].
3. Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network (ADRRN). (2008). Lessons that Matter | Ex-
periences from Humanitarian Initiatives. New-Delhi: ADRRN.
4. Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS). (2015). Lessons Learned for Nepal Earthquake Re-
sponse. [online] Available at: https://www.acaps.org/country/nepal/special-reports [Accessed
25 Jun. 2017].
5. Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). (2005). ASEAN Agreement on Disaster
Management and Emergency Response. [pdf] Vientiane: ASEAN. Available at: http://agree-
ment.asean.org/media/download/20140119170000.pdf [Accessed 16 Apr. 2017].
6. Barber, R. (2015). Localising the Humanitarian Toolkit: Lessons from Recent Philippines Dis-
asters. In: C. Brassard, ed., Natural Disaster Management in the Asia-Pacific. 1st ed. Japan:
Springler, pp. 17-31.
7. Birkmann, J. (2013). Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient
societies (2nd Ed.). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
8. British Red Cross (BRC). (2016). British Red Cross' Haiti Urban Regeneration and Recon-
struction Programme (URRP): Final Evaluation. [pdf] London: BRC. Available at:
http://www.alnap.org/resource/23686 [Accessed 15 Jun. 2017].
9. Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative (CADRI). (2016). Capacity Development. [online]
Available at: http://cadri.net/en/areas-we-work/capacity-development [Accessed 7 Apr. 2017].
10. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). (2016a). CRED crunch 45:
2016 preliminary data: Human impact of natural disasters. Brussels: Université Catholique de
Louvain (UCL) - CRED.
11. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). (2016b). Poverty & Death:
Disaster Mortality 1996-2015. Brussels: Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL) - CRED.
33
12. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Guha-Sapir, D., Below, R., &
Hoyois, Ph. (2016). EM-DAT: The Emergency Events Database [Data file]. Retrieved from
www.emdat.be – Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL) - CRED. Brussels: Belgium.
13. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). (2015). The Human Cost of
Natural Disasters 2015 – A global perspective. [online] Available at: http://cred.be/HCWRD
[Accessed 21 Nov. 2016].
14. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). (2014). Guidelines | EM-DAT.
[online] Available at: http://www.emdat.be/guidelines [Accessed 1 Feb. 2017].
15. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). (2009). Classification | EM-
DAT. [online] Available at: http://www.emdat.be/classification [Accessed 1 Feb. 2017].
16. Chu, S. (2015). Building the Urban Community Disaster Relief System in China. In: C. Bras-
sard, ed., Natural Disaster Management in the Asia-Pacific. 1st ed. Japan: Springler, pp. 189-
203.
17. Clermont, C., Sanderson, D., Sharma, A., & Spraos, H. (2011). Urban Disasters - Lessons
from Haiti | Study of member agencies’ responses to the earthquake in Port au Prince, Haiti,
January 2010. [online] Available at: http://www.alnap.org/resource/9263.aspx [Accessed 3
Jul. 2017].
18. Coppola, D.P. (2007). Introduction to international disaster management. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Elsevier.
19. Dangal, R. (2015). Nepal Earthquake Response. In: INSARAG Global Meeting 2015. Abu
Dhabi: INSARAG.
20. Delica-Willison, Z. (2006). Community-Based Disaster Risk Management—Gaining Ground
in Hazard-Prone Communities in Asia. [pdf] New York: United Nations Development Pro-
gram. Available at: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/rbap/docs/Research%20&%20Publica-
tions/CPR/RBAP-CPR-SS-2006-Gaining-Ground-in-Hazard-Prone-Communities.pdf [Ac-
cessed 3 Jul. 2017].
21. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) & Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assis-
tance (OFDA). (2013). Urban Search and Rescue Response to the 2010 Haiti Earthquake.
[pdf] Virginia: FEMA & OFDA. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-
data/20130726-1915-25045-4003/earthquakehaiti_1_.pdf [Accessed 24 Jul. 2017].
22. Field, C., Barros, V., Stocker, T., Qin, D., Dokken, D., Ebi, K., Mastrandrea, M., Mach, K.,
34
Plattner, G., Allen, S., Tignor, M., & Midgley, P. (2012). Summary for Policymakers. In: Man-
aging the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation F. A
Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-21.
23. Fisher, M., Bhattacharjee, A., Saenz, J., & Schimmelpfennig, S. (2010). The Haiti Earthquake
Operation Real Time Evaluation for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Cres-
cent Societies. [pdf] Geneva: IFRC. Available at: http://www.ifrc.org/en/publications-and-re-
ports/evaluations/ [Accessed 9 Mar. 2017].
24. Geis, R. (2000). By Design: The Disaster Resistant and Quality-of-Life Community. Natural
Hazards Review, 1(3): 1-20.
25. Georges Y., & Grünewald F. (2010). Haiti’s vulnerability to earthquakes: the case for a histor-
ical perspective and a better analysis of risks. [online] Available at: http://www.groupe-
urd.org/spip.php?page=imprimir_articulo&id_article=542 [Accessed: 12 Mar. 2017].
26. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). (2017). Country Profile: Ta-
jikistan. [online] Available at: https://www.gfdrr.org/Tajikistan [Accessed: 3 Aug. 2017].
27. Government of Haiti (GoH), Directorate of Civil Protection (DPC), United Nations Office for
Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations Development Programme in Haiti, L’Alliance pour la
Gestion des Risques et la Continuité des Activités (AGERCA), Cooperazione Internazionale
(COOPI), & World Bank. (2016). Regional Roadmap: Urban Seismic Risk Management in the
Caribbean. [pdf] Port-au-Prince: GoH. Available at: http://dipecholac.net/docs/regional-road-
map-for-urban-seismic-risk-management-in-the-caribbean.pdf [Accessed 9 Mar. 2017].
28. Groeve, T., Poljansek, K., & Vernaccini, L. (2015). Index for Risk Management - InfoRM:
Concept and methodology - Version 2016. [online] Available at: www.inform-index.org/Por-
tals/0/InfoRM/2016/INFORM Concept and Methodology Version 2016 updated
cover.pdf?ver=2015-11-26-123614-937 [Accessed 4 Feb. 2017].
29. Grünewald, F. (2016). Océan Indien occidental, comment sécuriser un territoire à haut risque.
Préventique - Territoires & evironnement: 149.
30. Grünewald, F. & Burlat, A. (2016). Nepal Earthquake: A Rapid Review Of The Response And
A Few Lessons Learnt. [pdf] Plaisians: Group URD. Available at:
http://www.urd.org/IMG/pdf/Lessons_learnt_and_areas_to_be_improved_in_Nepal_re-
sponse.pdf. [Accessed 9 Mar. 2017].
35
31. Grünewald, F. & Carpenter, S. (2014). Urban Preparedness - Lessons from Kathmandu Valley.
London: British Red Cross.
32. Guha-Sapir, D., & Hoyois, Ph. (2015). Estimating populations affected by disasters: A review
of methodological issues and research gaps. Brussels: CRED, Institute of Health and Society
(IRSS) Université Catholique de Louvain.
33. Hazarika, R. (2014). Promotion of Grass root innovations for Disaster Risk Reduction and
Climate Change Adaption. In: 2nd International Conference of Integrated Research on Disas-
ter Risk. [online] Beijing: Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network (ADRRN). Availa-
ble at: http://www.adrrn.net/presentations/GRI-IRDR_Reneema.pdf [Accessed 23 Jun. 2017].
34. Humanitarian Leadership Academy (HLA). (2016). Collaborative Learning for All Humani-
tarians – Core Strategy for Facilitating Access to Learning Platforms, Resources and Tools for
All Individuals and Organisations. London: HLA.
35. Integrated Research on Disaster Risk. (2014). Peril Classification and Hazard Glossary
(IRDR DATA Publication No. 1). Beijing: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk.
36. Inter-Agency Standing Committee Task Team for Preparedness and Resilience (IASC) & the
European Commission. (2017). Index for Risk Management (InfoRM): Results 2017 [Data
file]. Retrieved from http://www.inform-index.org/ - Inter-Agency Standing Committee
(IASC) and the European Commission.
37. International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). (2017). Re-
gional Disaster Response Teams (RDRT) or Regional Intervention Teams (RIT). [online]
Available at: http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/responding/disaster-re-
sponse-system/dr-tools-and-systems/regional-disaster-response-teams/ [Accessed 9 Jul. 2017].
38. International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). (2016). African
customs officials prepare for future disasters. [online] Available at: http://www.ifrc.org/fr/in-
troduction/droit-relatif-aux-catastrophes/nouvelles/africa/african-customs-consider-their-role-
in-humanitarian-response-72075/ [Accessed 10 Aug. 2017].
39. International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). (2014). Haiti
earthquake 2010 Five-year progress report. [pdf] Geneva: IFRC. Available at:
www.ifrc.org/.../1287600-IFRC-Haiti%205-year%20progress%20report-EN- LR.pdf [Ac-
cessed 10 Aug. 2017].
40. International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). (2010). World
36
Disasters Report 2010 - Focus on Urban Risk. Chapter 2 - Urban Disaster Trends. [pdf] Ge-
neva: IFRC. Available at: http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disas-
ters/WDR/wdr2010/WDR2010-English-2.pdf [Accessed 8 Jul. 2017].
41. International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) & European
Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO). (2012). What is Resilience.
[online] Available at: http://disaster-resilience.com/#/en/en/day/8?block=3 [Accessed 8 Jul.
2017].
42. International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG). (2015). INSARAG First Re-
sponder Training. [online] Available at: http://www.insarag.org/48-en/capacity-building/106-
insarag-first-responder-training [Accessed 8 Jul. 2017].
43. International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) & United Nations Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2016). Report of the Results of the Les-
sons Learned Workshop on the Urban Search and Rescue Operations: Earthquake of April 16,
2016. [pdf] Geneva: OCHA. Available at: https://www.insarag.org/images/stories/Ameri-
cas_good_practices/INSARAG_Ecuador_terremoto-2016_informe-lecciones-apren-
didas_ENG.pdf [Accessed 22 Feb. 2017].
44. International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) & United Nations Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2010). 2010 Haiti Earthquake Response:
An After Action Review of the Response. Geneva: OCHA.
45. Jansen-Wilhelm, S. (2015). Accepting assistance in the aftermath of disasters: Standards for
states under international law (School of Human Rights Research series 69). Cambridge: In-
tersentia.
46. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
(MMDA) & Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS). (2004). Earth-
quake Impact Reduction Study for Metropolitan Manila, Republic of the Philippines. [pdf] To-
kyo: JICA. Available at: http://ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/1472/Earthquake_Im-
pact_Reduction_Study_Volume_1.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2017].
47. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) & Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) His
Majesty Government of Nepal (GoN). (2002). The Study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in
the Kathmandu Valley, Kingdom of Nepal. [pdf] Tokyo: JICA. Available at: http://flag-
37
ship2.nrrc.org.np/sites/default/files/knowledge/JICA%20-%20The%20study%20on%20Earth-
quake%20Disaster%20Mitigation_Vol1.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2017].
48. Ke, C., Sim, T., & Dominelli, L. (2015). Earthquake Disaster Risk Reduction Policies and
Programmes in China. In: Pathways to Earthquake Resilience in China. [pdf] London: Over-
seas Development Institute (ODI). Available at: https://www.odi.org/publications/9440-path-
ways-earthquake-resilience-china [Accessed 4 Aug. 2017].
49. Kohn, S., Eaton, J., Feroz, S., Bainbridge, A., Hoolachan, J., & Barnett, D. (2012). Personal
Disaster Preparedness: An Integrative Review of the Literature. Disaster Medicine and Public
Health Preparedness. Cambridge University Press, 6(3), pp. 217–231.
50. Lassa, J. (2011). Institutional Vulnerability and Governance of Disaster Risk Reduction:
Macro, Meso and Micro Scale Assessment. PhD. Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität
Bonn.
51. Lynn, K. (2005). Disasters and the Cycle of Poverty: Understanding Urban, Rural, and Gen-
der Aspects of Social Vulnerability. [online] Available at: https://scholarsbank.uore-
gon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/2304/disasters_poverty.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[Accessed 2 Feb. 2017].
52. Matsuoka, Y., Sharma, A., & Shaw, R. (2009). Hyogo Framework for Action and Urban Risk
Reduction in Asia. In: Shaw, R., Srinivas, H. and Sharma, A., ed., Urban Risk Reduction: An
Asian Perspective. Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management, Volume 1. 1st
ed. UK: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 77-104.
53. Maynard, M., Phillips, E., & Chirico, P. (2008). Mapping vulnerability to disasters in Latin
America and the Caribbean, 1900–2007. [pdf] Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1294/ofr2008-1294.pdf [Accessed 8 Jul. 2017].
54. Mercado, L. (2011). Working with ASEAN on Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Manage-
ment. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, 2011:50.
55. Morinière, L. & Sanchez, L. (2015). ACP Compendium of Risk Knowledge: Mapping Risk in
the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP). Brussels: ACP Secretariat.
56. Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft (Munich Re). (2015). NatCatSERVICE Loss
events worldwide 1980 – 2014. [pdf] Munich: Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft.
Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/44281_19802014paketworldusde4zu3.pdf
[Accessed 22 Dec. 2016].
38
57. Muttarak, R. & Pothisiri, W. (2013). The Role of Education on Disaster Preparedness: Case
Study of 2012 Indian Ocean Earthquakes on Thailand’s Andaman Coast. Ecology and Society,
18(4): 51-67.
58. Neighborhood Disaster Volunteers Foundation (NDVF). (2000). MAG Foundation. [online]
Available at: http://www.magvakfi.org.tr/eng/default.asp [Accessed: 6 Jul. 2017].
59. Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO). (2016). Management of Dead Bodies after Dis-
asters: A Field Manual for First Responders. Second (revised) Edition. [pdf] Washington:
PAHO. Available at: http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/communica-
tions/0880_002_Management-of-dead-bodies_8.pdf [Accessed 7 Jul. 2017].
60. Patrick, J. (2011). Evaluation Insights: Haiti Earthquake Response| Emerging Evaluation Les-
sons. [pdf] Paris: OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/countries/haiti/50313700.pdf [Accessed 25 Jun. 2017].
61. Rahman, A., & Shaw R. (2015). Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk: The Pakistan Context. In:
Rahman AU., Khan A., Shaw R. (eds) Disaster Risk Reduction Approaches in Pakistan. Disas-
ter Risk Reduction (Methods, Approaches and Practices). Springer, Tokyo, pp. 31-52.
62. Ramet, V. (2012). Linking relief, rehabilitation and development: Towards more effective aid.
Belgium: European Union. [pdf] Brussels: European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Ex-
ternal Policies. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/brief-
ing_note/join/2012/491435/EXPO-DEVE_SP(2012)491435_EN.pdf [Accessed 9 Jul. 2017].
63. Red Crescent Society of Tajikistan (RCST). (2012). Tajikistan Red Crescent: Disaster Risk
Reduction Project in Dushanbe City. [online] Available at: http://www.prevention-
web.net/news/view/25496 [Accessed 3 Aug. 2017].
64. Reilly, B. (2009). Disaster and human history: Case studies in nature, society and catastro-
phe. Jefferson: McFarland &.
65. Regional Consultative Group (RCG). (2015). Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination for
Asia and the Pacific: First Session Summary Report. [pdf] Thailand: OCHA - RCG. Available
at: https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/ROAP/Civil%20Military%20Coordina-
tion/docs/RCG_First%20Session_Summary_Report_Final.pdf [Accessed 23 Jun. 2017].
66. Sanderson, D., & Ramalingam, B. (2015). Nepal Earthquake Response: Lessons for Opera-
tional Agencies. ALNAP Lessons Paper. London: ALNAP/ODI.
67. Schimdt, S. (2015). Background Paper Nepal Earthquake – Lessons Learned and the Way
39
Forward. [pdf] Geneva: OCHA. http://www.insarag.org/images/stories/Report_Nepal_Earth-
quake_Lessons_Learned_and_Way_Forward.pdf. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2017].
68. Secretaria de Gestión de Riesgos (SGR). (2017). Colombia y Ecuador suscriben Protocolo Bi-
nacional de Activación de Voluntariado. [online] Available at: http://www.gestionder-
iesgos.gob.ec/colombia-y-ecuador-suscriben-protocolo-binacional-de-activacion-de-voluntari-
ado/ [Accessed 22 Feb. 2017].
69. Secretaria General Iberoamericana (SEGIB). (2016). Informe de la Cooperación Sur-Sur en
Iberoamérica 2016. [online] Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-
buqyoV0jpSaXNnRnU3a1d5dms/view [Accessed 28 Dec. 2016].
70. Shaw, R., & Goda, K. (2004). From Disaster to Sustainable Civil Society: The Kobe Experi-
ence. Disasters, 28(1): 16-40.
71. Shaw, T. (2009). Earthquake Risk Management, Local Governance, and Community Participa-
tion in Manila. In: Shaw, R., Srinivas, H. & Sharma, A., ed., Urban Risk Reduction: An Asian
Perspective. Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management, Volume 1. 1st ed. UK:
Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 119-149.
72. Special Unit for Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (TCDC). (1994). The
Buenos Aires Plan of Action. [pdf] Buenos Aires: UN. Available at: ssc.undp.org/con-
tent/dam/ssc/documents/.../BAPA.pdf [Accessed 22 Jul. 2017].
73. State Council Information (SCIO). (2009). China's Actions for Disaster Prevention and Re-
duction. Beijing: SCIO.
74. Subedi, J. (2009). Urban Disaster Risk Management in Kathmandu. In: Shaw, R., Srinivas, H.
& Sharma, A., ed., Urban Risk Reduction: An Asian Perspective. Community, Environment
and Disaster Risk Management, Volume 1. 1st ed. UK: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 151-
166.
75. Sundermann, L., Schelske, O., & Hausmann, P. (2014). Mind the risk – A global ranking of
cities under threat from natural disasters. [pdf] Zurich: Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd.
Available at: http://media.swissre.com/documents/Swiss_Re_Mind_the_risk.pdf [Accessed 21
Jan. 2017].
76. Telford, J., & Cosgrave, J. (2007). The international humanitarian system and the 2004 Indian
Ocean earthquake and tsunamis. Disasters, 31(1), pp. 1-20.
77. Thomas, A., Viciani, L., & Tench, J. (2011). Real Aid: Ending Aid Dependency. [pdf] London:
40
Action Aid. Available at: http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/real_aid_3.pdf [Ac-
cessed 23 Mar. 2017].
78. Ting, L., Lu, X., Simpson, M., Mukerji, R., Nadin, R., & Lashford, S. (2014). Scoping Assess-
ment - Strategic Outline: Adaptation to Climate Change in China project (ACCC) Phase II.
Beijing: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.
79. Turner, R. (2015). Barriers to customs entry at the time of disaster in developing countries:
mitigating the delay of life-saving materials. World Customs Journal, 9(1), pp. 3-13.
80. United Nations (UN). (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. 1st
ed. [pdf] Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Available at:
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf [Accessed 28 Dec.
2016].
81. United Nations (UN). (2010). Nairobi Outcome Document of the High-level United Nations
Conference on South-South Cooperation—General Assembly Resolution 64/222. New York:
United Nations General Assembly (UN).
82. United Nations (UN). (2003). Technical Cooperation Among Developing Countries—Revised
Guidelines for the Review of Policies and Procedures Concerning Technical Cooperation
Among Developing Countries. New York: United Nations.
83. United Nations (UN). (1994). Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World:
Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation. [online] Available
at: https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/8241 [Accessed 8 Jul. 2017].
84. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2015). Learning and Knowledge Exchange:
What is Knowledge Exchange. [online] Available at: https://www.unicef.org/knowledge-ex-
change/ [Accessed 27 Mar. 2017].
85. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), Population Divi-
sion. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. [Data file]. Retrieved from
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/ - UN DESA. New York: USA.
86. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2017). UNDP’s Disaster Risk Management
Programme: Disasters and Development in Tajikistan. [online] Available at:
http://www.tj.undp.org/content/tajikistan/en/home/operations/projects/crisis_preven-
tion_and_recovery/drmp.html [Accessed 3 Aug. 2017].
87. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (1998). Linking Relief to Development. [pdf]
41
Geneva: UNDP. Available at: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/re-
sources/6D5E5DB4418421E4C1256C32002AD48C-undp-link-jun98.pdf [Accessed 12 Mar.
2017].
88. United Nations High-Level Committee on South-South Cooperation (HLCSSC). (2012).
Framework of operational guidelines on United Nations support to South-South and triangu-
lar cooperation. [pdf] New York: HLCSSC. Available at: http://ssc.undp.org/con-
tent/dam/ssc/documents/Key%20Policy%20Documents/SSC%2017_3E.pdf [Accessed 6 Nov.
2016].
89. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). (2014). Early warn-
ing saves lives in China earthquake. [online] Available at: https://www.unisdr.org/ar-
chive/38869 [Accessed 4 Aug. 2017].
90. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). (2012). Community-
based Disaster Risk Management. Geneva: UNISDR.
91. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). (2009). 2009
UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: UNISDR.
92. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). (2005). Reducing
Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. [online] Available at:
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/mdgs-drr/link-mdg-drr.htm [Accessed 2 Feb. 2007].
93. United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (2017a). United Nations Office for South-
South Cooperation - Background. [online] Available at: http://ssc.undp.org/con-
tent/ssc/about/Background.html [Accessed 8 Jan. 2017].
94. United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (2017b). South-South in Action - Sustain-
ability in Thailand Experience for Developing Countries. [online] Available at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-buqyoV0jpSTEpjNDZkbHNSSkE/view [Accessed 10 Jul.
2017].
95. United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation. (2016a). What Is South-South Coopera-
tion? [online] Available at: http://ssc.undp.org/content/ssc/about/what_is_ssc.html [Accessed
15 Nov. 2016].
96. United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation. (2016b). Good Practices in South-South
and Triangular Cooperation for Sustainable Development. Geneva: UNOSSC
97. United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation & Japan International Cooperation
42
Agency (JICA). (2013). Enhancing Management Practices in South-South and Triangular Co-
operation - Study on Country-Led Practices. New York: UNOSSC.
98. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2015a). Inter-
national Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) Guidelines—Volume I: Policy. Ge-
neva: OCHA.
99. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2015b). Inter-
national Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) Guidelines—Volume II: Prepared-
ness and Response. Geneva: OCHA.
100. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2015c). Ne-
pal Earthquake Humanitarian Response: April to September 2015. [pdf] Geneva: OCHA.
Available at: http://reliefweb.int/report/nepal/nepal-earthquake-humanitarian-response-april-
september-2015. [Accessed 10 Aug. 2017].
101. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2015d). Ne-
pal Earthquake Response – USAR Technical Evaluation. Geneva: OCHA.
102. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2015). Nepal Earthquake
Fact Sheet #1. [pdf] Washington: USAID. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/nepal-earth-
quake/fy15/fs01 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2017].
103. United States Geological Survey. (2016). Earthquake Hazards Program: Earthquake Sta-
tistics [online] Available at: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/stats.php [Ac-
cessed 7 Feb. 2017].
104. World Bank (WB). (2015). Central Asia - Earthquake Risk Reduction Forum: Forum Pro-
ceedings. [pdf] Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Available at: http://docu-
ments.worldbank.org/curated/en/362481494918657893/Central-Asia-Earthquake-risk-reduc-
tion-forum-forum-proceedings [Accessed 3 Aug. 2017].
105. World Bank (WB) & United Nations (UN). (2010). Natural hazards, unnatural disasters:
the economics of effective prevention. [pdf] Washington: The World Bank. Available at:
https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr/files/publication/NHUD-Report_Full.pdf [Accessed 8 Jul.
2017].
106. World Humanitarian Summit (WHS). (2016). Commitments to Action. [pdf] Istanbul: WHS.
Available at: http://www.agendaforhumanity.org/resources/world-humanitarian-summit [Ac-
cessed 10 Nov. 2016].
43
107. World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) Secretariat. (2015). Restoring Humanity: Synthesis of
the Consultation Process for the World Humanitarian Summit. New York: UN.
108. Zahran, M., Roman-Morey, E., & Inomata, T. (2011). South-South and triangular coopera-
tion in the United Nations system. Geneva: United Nations Joint Inspection Unit.
109. Zhang, H. (2015). Collaboration in Emergency Response in China: Evolution from the
Wenchuan Earthquake, May 12, 2008 to the Lushan Earthquake, April 10, 2013. In: C. Bras-
sard, ed., Natural Disaster Management in the Asia-Pacific. 1st ed. Japan: Springler, pp. 69-
84.
110. Zhong, K. & Lu, X. (2015). “One in Trouble, All to Help”: The Paired Assistance Program
to Disaster-Affected Areas in China. In: C. Brassard, ed., Natural Disaster Management in the
Asia-Pacific. 1st ed. Japan: Springler, pp. 87-100.
44
Appendix A – Largest Earthquakes in the World
Magnitude Location Year
9.5 Valdivia Earthquake, Chile 1960
9.2 Great Alaska Earthquake 1964
9.1 Sumatra-Andaman Islands Earthquake 2004
9.1 Tohoku Earthquake, Japan 2011
9.0 Kamchatka, Russia 1952
8.8 Maule Earthquake, Chile 2010
8.8 Ecuador–Colombia Earthquake 1906
8.7 Rat Islands Earthquake, Alaska 1965
8.6 Assam, Tibet 1950
8.6 Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra 2012
Source: Adapted from USGS - Earthquake Hazards Program, 2016.
45
Appendix B – The Response Framework
Source: Author adapted from the INSARAG Response Framework (OCHA, 2015a).
46
Appendix C – Methodology for Analyzing the InfoRM and EM-DAT Databases
About InfoRM: a risk of physical exposure to earthquake indicator is calculated in InfoRM based
on seismic hazard maps and the exposed population (Groeve, Poljansek & Vernaccini, 2015).
Scores are developed from 0.0 to 10.0 and a five-risk scale category (low, very low, medium, high,
and very high) for all-natural hazards risk helps identify countries with similar results in a stand-
ardized way as displayed in the table below:
Note: Categories are color coded as per InfoRM definitions.
Sources: Adapted from Groeve et al., 2015.
Methods: Given that a category for the physical exposure to earthquake indicator alone is not
available, the very-high threshold for all-natural hazards risk (scores >6.9) was applied to the phys-
ical exposure to earthquake indicator in order to select countries at highest risk to earthquakes.
Using this criterion, 39 out of the 191 countries with available information were identified. To
triangulate the information, historical earthquake and tsunamis events along with their associated
mortality over the last 20 years (from 1996 to 2016) were retrieved from the EM-DAT database
(CRED et al., 2016). Results from both databases were merged across all 191 countries but only
countries with available information in both databases were retained for further analyses. Countries
at very-high earthquake risk and without historical information were excluded and include Iraq and
Category Class Min Max
Very High 6.9 10
High 4.7 6.8
Medium 2.8 4.6
Low 1.3 2.7
Very Low 0 1.2
Very High 7.1 10
High 5.4 7
Medium 3.5 5.3
Low 1.8 3.4
Very Low 0 1.7
Very High 6.4 10
High 4.8 6.3
Medium 3.3 4.7
Low 2 3.2
Very Low 0 1.9
Very High 7.3 10
High 6 7.2
Medium 4.9 5.9
Low 3.3 4.8
Very Low 0 3.2
Very High 7.4 10
High 6 7.3
Medium 4.7 5.9
Low 3.2 4.6
Very Low 0 3.1
NATURAL DISASTERS (PHYSICAL
EXPOSURE TO EARTHQUAKE)
SOCIO-ECONOMIC (AID DEPENDENCY
INDEX)
VULNERABILITY
DRR (IMPLEMENTATION HYOGO
FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION)
LACK OF COPING CAPACITY
47
Romania. And countries at lower risk of earthquake but with earthquake occurrence and mortality
information available were retained for further analyses as they could become potential solution
seekers or providers. Thus a total of 73 countries were retained used in this research and the total
number of earthquake events over the 20-year study period and their associated cumulative mor-
tality were calculated to help analyze countries with high occurrence of earthquakes and those with
high mortality. Results for all countries and indicators can be found in the following Appendix D.
48
Appendix D – List of Countries at Very High Risk Exposure to Earthquakes, and Their Associated Earthquake Events and Mortality from
1996 to 2016
Country RegionIncome
Groupa
Physical
Exposure to
Earthquake
Risk Scoreb
Physical
Exposure to
Earthquake
Rankc
Total
Number of
Eathquakes
(1996-
2016)d
Total
Number of
Earthquakes
(1996-2016)
Ranke
Total
Number of
Deaths
(1996-
2016)d
Average
Earthquake
Mortality
(1996-
2016)d
Average
Earthquake
Mortality
(1996-2016)
Ranke
DRR
implementationb, f
Lack of
coping
capacityb
Aid
dependency
indexb
Vulnerabilityb
Afghanistan South Asia LI 9.2 14 15 4 8 551 570 13 6.3 7.7 8.2 7.1
Albania Europe & Central Asia UMI 6.2 42 2 40 - 0 65 x 4.4 2.2 1.4
Algeria Middle East & North Africa UMI 5.5 47 5 22 2 307 461 14 3.5 4.8 0.2 3.3
Argentina Latin America & Caribbean UMI 5.1 48 1 56 - 0 69 3.8 3.7 0 1.4
Armenia Europe & Central Asia LMI 8 28 1 47 - 0 66 7.5 4.9 2 2.9
Azerbaijan Europe & Central Asia UMI 8.2 26 4 27 33 8 40 x 4.8 0.2 4.4
Bangladesh South Asia LI 8.7 18 7 14 42 6 42 3 5.5 0.7 4.7
Bhutan South Asia LMI 7.4 33 2 37 12 6 44 4.5 4.7 4.7 2.8
Bolivia Latin America & Caribbean LMI 6.3 41 1 51 95 95 21 5.6 5.4 1.7 2.6
Brazil Latin America & Caribbean UMI 2.4 64 1 66 1 1 63 4.3 4.1 0.1 2.1
Bulgaria Europe & Central Asia UMI 6.6 38 2 39 - 0 64 3.2 3.1 0 2.3
Burundi Sub-Saharan Africa LI 4 57 1 61 3 3 55 4.6 6.4 5.8 6.4
Chile Latin America & Caribbean HI 9.8 4 7 13 619 88 23 3.2 2.9 0.2 1.9
China East Asia & Pacific UMI 8 27 27 1 94 943 3 516 7 2.5 3.7 0 2.7
Colombia Latin America & Caribbean UMI 8.6 21 7 15 1'200 171 19 3 4.1 0.6 5.8
Comoros Sub-Saharan Africa LI 0.1 73 1 73 - 0 73 7.8 7 5.4 4.4
Congo DR Sub-Saharan Africa LI 4 54 3 31 20 7 41 7.5 8 3.2 7
Costa Rica Latin America & Caribbean UMI 9.6 8 4 23 43 11 36 1.5 2.8 0.2 2.3
Dominica Latin America & Caribbean UMI 1.3 66 1 68 - 0 72 x 3.8 5.4 3.7
Dominican Republic Latin America & Caribbean UMI 7.2 34 1 49 3 3 54 4.6 4.6 0.3 2
Notes: aIncome Groups according to the World Bank definition: High Income (HI), Low Income (LI), Lower Middle Income (LMI), Upper Middle Income (UMI).
f Score based on self-reported DRR Implementation of Hyogo
Framework for Action.
Sources: bScores adapted from InfoRM 2017 Results (IASC and the European Comission, 2017).
cRanking for physical exposure to earthquakes was developed by author from InfoRM 2017 Results (IASC and the European
Comission, 2017). dTotal number of earthquakes from 1996 to 2016, their total number of deaths, and the average earthquake mortality were calculated by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
eRankings for
total number of earthquakes from 1996 to 2016 and the calculated average earthquake mortality were developed by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
49
Country RegionIncome
Groupa
Physical
Exposure to
Earthquake
Risk Scoreb
Physical
Exposure to
Earthquake
Rankc
Total
Number of
Eathquakes
(1996-
2016)d
Total
Number of
Earthquakes
(1996-2016)
Ranke
Total
Number of
Deaths
(1996-
2016)d
Average
Earthquake
Mortality
(1996-
2016)d
Average
Earthquake
Mortality
(1996-2016)
Ranke
DRR
implementationb, f
Lack of
coping
capacityb
Aid
dependency
indexb
Vulnerabilityb
Ecuador Latin America & Caribbean UMI 9.4 11 4 24 710 178 18 3 4.3 0.3 3.5
Egypt Middle East & North Africa LMI 6 44 1 53 - 0 67 4.2 4.5 1.1 3.3
El Salvador Latin America & Caribbean LMI 8.7 19 3 30 1'160 387 16 5.2 4.5 0.6 5.1
Georgia Europe & Central Asia LMI 7.8 31 2 36 6 3 52 4.7 3.4 3.7 4.6
Guatemala Latin America & Caribbean LMI 9.7 6 6 17 57 10 38 5.5 5.7 0.7 4.9
Haiti Latin America & Caribbean LI 5.7 45 1 54 222 570 222 570 1 6.7 7.5 6 6.7
Honduras Latin America & Caribbean LMI 6.6 37 2 38 7 4 46 5.2 5.2 2.2 4.6
Hungary Europe & Central Asia UMI 3.8 58 1 62 - 0 70 1.4 2 0 1.6
India South Asia LMI 7.9 29 10 10 38 069 3 807 6 1.8 4.8 0.1 5.4
Indonesia East Asia & Pacific LMI 8.4 24 20 2 175 876 8 794 3 3.3 4.8 0 2.3
Iran Middle East & North Africa UMI 10 1 16 3 30 937 1 934 9 4.4 4.7 0.1 4.2
Japan East Asia & Pacific HI 9.4 9 12 5 19 987 1 666 10 1.9 1.5 0 0.9
Kazakhstan Europe & Central Asia UMI 7.5 32 1 48 3 3 53 3.8 3.8 0.1 0.8
Kenya Sub-Saharan Africa LI 4.2 52 1 59 1 1 62 3.9 6.4 2.6 5.9
Kyrgyzstan Europe & Central Asia LI 9.7 7 5 20 74 15 33 3.7 4.5 4.1 2.1
Malawi Sub-Saharan Africa LI 4 56 1 60 4 4 48 4 6.4 6.1 6.3
Malaysia East Asia & Pacific UMI 4.1 53 2 41 104 52 27 2.6 3.1 0 3
Maldives South Asia UMI 0.1 70 1 70 102 102 20 5.8 4 1.3 1.4
Mexico Latin America & Caribbean UMI 8.5 22 8 11 85 11 35 5.1 4.4 0.1 3.1
Montenegro Europe & Central Asia UMI 4.2 51 1 58 1 1 61 4 3.4 3.1 1.8
Notes: aIncome Groups according to the World Bank definition: High Income (HI), Low Income (LI), Lower Middle Income (LMI), Upper Middle Income (UMI).
f Score based on self-reported DRR Implementation of Hyogo
Framework for Action.
Sources: bScores adapted from InfoRM 2017 Results (IASC and the European Comission, 2017).
cRanking for physical exposure to earthquakes was developed by author from InfoRM 2017 Results (IASC and the European
Comission, 2017). dTotal number of earthquakes from 1996 to 2016, their total number of deaths, and the average earthquake mortality were calculated by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
eRankings for
total number of earthquakes from 1996 to 2016 and the calculated average earthquake mortality were developed by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
50
Country RegionIncome
Groupa
Physical
Exposure to
Earthquake
Risk Scoreb
Physical
Exposure to
Earthquake
Rankc
Total
Number of
Eathquakes
(1996-
2016)d
Total
Number of
Earthquakes
(1996-2016)
Ranke
Total
Number of
Deaths
(1996-
2016)d
Average
Earthquake
Mortality
(1996-
2016)d
Average
Earthquake
Mortality
(1996-2016)
Ranke
DRR
implementationb, f
Lack of
coping
capacityb
Aid
dependency
indexb
Vulnerabilityb
Morocco Middle East & North Africa LMI 3.3 61 1 63 628 628 12 5.6 5 1.6 2.6
Mozambique Sub-Saharan Africa LI 2.8 63 1 65 4 4 49 2.1 6.7 5.6 6
Myanmar East Asia & Pacific LI 9.3 13 4 25 187 47 28 7.1 6.6 1.8 6
Nepal South Asia LI 9.9 2 2 35 8 976 4 488 5 5.4 5.9 2.2 5.1
New Zealand East Asia & Pacific HI 8.2 25 4 26 184 46 29 2.6 2 0 0.9
Nicaragua Latin America & Caribbean LMI 8.9 17 3 29 9 3 51 4.7 5.4 2.4 2.6
Pakistan South Asia LMI 8.9 16 11 7 74 383 6 762 4 4 5.7 0.7 5.5
Panama Latin America & Caribbean UMI 6.2 43 1 52 2 2 59 4.3 4.1 0.1 2.9
Papua New Guinea East Asia & Pacific LMI 7 36 5 21 2 190 438 15 6.7 7.7 2.7 5.7
Peru Latin America & Caribbean UMI 9.2 15 10 9 785 79 25 3.6 4.6 0.3 2.8
Philippines East Asia & Pacific LMI 9.4 10 6 18 365 61 26 3.5 4.1 0.3 3.4
Russian Federation Europe & Central Asia HI 7.1 35 7 16 19 3 50 x 4.5 0 3.2
Rwanda Sub-Saharan Africa LI 4 55 2 42 81 41 30 3 5.2 5.9 6
Saint Lucia Latin America & Caribbean UMI 3.2 62 1 64 - 0 71 5.2 3.7 2 1.2
Samoa East Asia & Pacific LMI 0.1 68 2 43 182 91 22 4.6 4.1 9 3.4
Serbia Europe & Central Asia UMI 6.6 39 1 50 2 2 58 4.9 3.9 1.7 4.1
Seychelles Sub-Saharan Africa UMI 0.1 72 1 72 3 3 56 4.3 3.6 3.4 2.2
Solomon Islands East Asia & Pacific LMI 6.3 40 4 28 62 16 32 6.6 6.9 10 5.1
Somalia Sub-Saharan Africa LI 1.5 65 1 67 298 298 17 x 9.2 8.2 9.4
South Africa Sub-Saharan Africa UMI 0.5 67 3 34 18 6 43 3.9 4.4 0.5 4
Notes: aIncome Groups according to the World Bank definition: High Income (HI), Low Income (LI), Lower Middle Income (LMI), Upper Middle Income (UMI).
f Score based on self-reported DRR Implementation of Hyogo
Framework for Action.
Sources: bScores adapted from InfoRM 2017 Results (IASC and the European Comission, 2017).
cRanking for physical exposure to earthquakes was developed by author from InfoRM 2017 Results (IASC and the European
Comission, 2017). dTotal number of earthquakes from 1996 to 2016, their total number of deaths, and the average earthquake mortality were calculated by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
eRankings for
total number of earthquakes from 1996 to 2016 and the calculated average earthquake mortality were developed by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
51
Country RegionIncome
Groupa
Physical
Exposure to
Earthquake
Risk Scoreb
Physical
Exposure to
Earthquake
Rankc
Total
Number of
Eathquakes
(1996-
2016)d
Total
Number of
Earthquakes
(1996-2016)
Ranke
Total
Number of
Deaths
(1996-
2016)d
Average
Earthquake
Mortality
(1996-
2016)d
Average
Earthquake
Mortality
(1996-2016)
Ranke
DRR
implementationb, f
Lack of
coping
capacityb
Aid
dependency
indexb
Vulnerabilityb
Sri Lanka South Asia LMI 0.1 69 1 69 35 399 35 399 2 3.6 4.1 0.6 3.6
Tajikistan Europe & Central Asia LI 9.7 5 10 8 21 2 57 4.6 5 1.8 2.8
Tanzania Sub-Saharan Africa LI 4.7 49 6 19 32 5 45 3.5 6.5 2.8 5.6
Thailand East Asia & Pacific UMI 3.4 59 3 32 8 347 2 782 8 4.7 4 0.1 3
Timor-Leste East Asia & Pacific LMI 5.7 46 1 55 - 0 68 6.3 7 6.2 5
Tonga East Asia & Pacific UMI 0.1 71 1 71 9 9 39 5.8 4.6 10 3.7
Turkey Europe & Central Asia UMI 9.3 12 12 6 19 079 1 590 11 2.1 3.2 0.9 5
Turkmenistan Europe & Central Asia UMI 8.5 23 1 46 11 11 37 x 6.3 0.2 1.8
Uganda Sub-Saharan Africa LI 4.5 50 1 57 4 4 47 x 6.9 2.9 6
United States North America HI 7.9 30 8 12 4 1 60 3 2.2 0 2.3
Uzbekistan Europe & Central Asia LMI 9.9 3 1 44 13 13 34 2.6 4.1 0.3 1.3
Vanuatu East Asia & Pacific LMI 3.4 60 3 33 112 37 31 5.4 6.1 9 4.2
Venezuela Latin America & Caribbean UMI 8.7 20 1 45 80 80 24 2.5 4.4 0 3.5
Notes: aIncome Groups according to the World Bank definition: High Income (HI), Low Income (LI), Lower Middle Income (LMI), Upper Middle Income (UMI).
f Score based on self-reported DRR Implementation of Hyogo
Framework for Action.
Sources: bScores adapted from InfoRM 2017 Results (IASC and the European Comission, 2017).
cRanking for physical exposure to earthquakes was developed by author from InfoRM 2017 Results (IASC and the European
Comission, 2017). dTotal number of earthquakes from 1996 to 2016, their total number of deaths, and the average earthquake mortality were calculated by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
eRankings for
total number of earthquakes from 1996 to 2016 and the calculated average earthquake mortality were developed by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
52
Appendix E – Regional Distribution of Earthquake Related Mortality (1996-2016)
Source: Total number of earthquake-related deaths and percent regional distribution
were calculated by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
40%
3%30%
5%0%
22%
0%
East Asia & Pacific
Europe & Central
Asia
Latin America &
Caribbean
Middle East & North
Africa
North America
South Asia
53
Appendix F – Vulnerabilities among Countries at Greatest Physical Exposure to
Earthquakes in Asia.
Type Description Country
Awareness
Lack of awareness and education on earthquake
risks, misconception of home structural safety and
threats
Nepal, Philippines
Cultural Culture of fatalism (i.e. nothing can be done) Indonesia, Nepal
Governance
Decentralization of power causes lack of DRR im-
plementation Indonesia, Philippines
Multiple and unlinked hierarchy levels for the provi-
sion of services Indonesia
Concentration of functions and services in megaci-
ties Philippines
Discontinuity of efforts for DRR due to political pri-
orities Indonesia
Structural
Poor compliance to building codes Indonesia, Nepal, Pa-
kistan
Unsuitable housing: slums, unavailability of safe-
land for construction in mountainous areas, non-en-
gineer housing materials
Indonesia, Philippines,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka
Urbaniza-
tion
Influx of population without previous exposure to
earthquakes, unsuitable housing and provision of
services
China, Indonesia, Ne-
pal
54
Appendix G – Identified Opportunities for SSC Knowledge Exchange
China seeking solutions from Manila’s community participatory activities: to promote the
need to include the community in national emergency planning and to enhance collabora-
tion between the government and the DRDCs (Chu, 2015; Shaw, 2009).
Indonesia and Nepal seeking solutions from Manila’s community participatory activities:
when the community itself identifies their own vulnerabilities, capacities and emergency
planning solutions, a sense of self-reliance and a reduction of the culture of fatalism can be
achieved (Shaw, 2009). Furthermore, Nepal and Bangladesh have expressed the need for
identifying gaps and capacities through joint needs assessments (RCG, 2015); the involve-
ment of the community in the assessments may prove beneficial and thus places Bangladesh
as an additional solution seeker on this area.
Indonesia and the Philippines seeking solutions from China’s DRDC’s: to enhance coordi-
nation mechanisms for relief and development of DRR policies in decentralized govern-
ments while fostering civic engagement.
Countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes seeking solutions from China’s integration
of disaster reduction into the national education system: this activity may be of great im-
portance to all countries at risk and could be used not only to improve preparedness but also
to promote awareness.
Nepal seeking solutions from Philippines’s International Humanitarian Assistance Cluster:
the project enhances policies and mechanisms for emergency response to improve the co-
ordination and ease the entry of international assistance. In 2015, the Government of Nepal
(GoN) expressed the need for bilateral agreements with international response teams on
areas such as over-flight permission, and better coordination of customs (RCG, 2015).
Given that both countries experienced recent disasters that required a surge of international
teams, a partnership to strengthen their policy development and lessons learnt may improve
coordination of international humanitarian assistance and place them as experts on this area.
Countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes seeking solutions from China’s promotion
of coordination mechanisms: to enhance a national network for earthquake response.
Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka seeking solutions from Nepal’s NSESP and
55
China’s standards for earthquake-resistant building design for public constructions: to in-
volve local masons in the improvement of building codes compliance and earthquake-re-
sistance constructions.
Countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes seeking solutions from the Philippines’s
DRR policy framework: lessons learnt from the development of regulatory frameworks for
DRR including the challenges in compliance.
Countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes seeking solutions from China’s DRR reg-
ulation mechanisms and DRR organisational structure: China’s unique DRR system struc-
tured by disaster type could be of interest not only to governments but also to all humani-
tarian actors. There is a need to develop coordination mechanisms based on disaster type
given the specific and critical needs required during earthquake response16.
Countries at extremely high risk of earthquakes seeking solutions from China’s radio-wave
transmission of early warnings.
16 Discussions held at the Leading Edge Programme Conference, February 2017.
56
Appendix H – Country Specific Mortality Trends over the Period of 1996 to 2016
Source: Adapted by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
Appendix H - Fig 2. China
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
Tota
l D
eath
s by E
art
hquake E
vent
(1996
to 2
016)
Appendix H - Fig 1. Afghanistan
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1000019
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
09
20
10
20
12
20
13
20
15
Tota
l D
eath
s by E
art
hquake E
vent
(1996
to 2
016)
Appendix H - Fig 3. Colombia
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
19
99
20
00
20
04
20
07
20
08
20
13
20
15
Tota
l D
eath
s by E
art
hquake E
vent
(1996
to 2
016)
Appendix H - Fig 4. India
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
02
20
04
20
05
20
11
20
13
20
15
20
16
Tota
l D
eath
s by E
art
hquake E
vent
(1996
to 2
016)
Appendix H - Fig 5. Indonesia
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
15
20
16
Tota
l D
eath
s by E
art
hquake E
vent
(1996
to 2
016)
Appendix H - Fig 6. Iran
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
12
20
13
20
14
Tota
l D
eath
s by E
art
hquake E
vent
(1996
to 2
016)
57
Source: Adapted by author from EM-DAT database (CRED et al., 2016).
Appendix H - Fig 7. Japan
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
20
00
20
01
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
11
20
13
20
14
20
16
Tota
l D
eath
s by E
art
hquake E
vent
(1996
to 2
016)
Appendix H - Fig 8. Pakistan
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
19
97
19
98
20
01
20
02
20
04
20
05
20
08
20
11
20
13
20
15
20
16
Tota
l D
eath
s by E
art
hquake E
vent
(1996
to 2
016)
Appendix H - Fig 9. Turkey
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
19
96
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
10
20
11
20
14
Tota
l D
eath
s by E
art
hquake E
vent
(1996
to 2
016)
