Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Government supported and community driven recovery projects after 2005 Kashmir earthquake
Ingenious communication strategy for scientists and local stakeholders
Dr. Sarosh H LodiInstitution of Engineers, Pakistan
Seismo – tectonic settings and Active Faults of Pakistan
H
Kashmir Earthquake 2005:Consequences & Causes
M. Asif KhanNational Centre of Excellence in Geology
University of Peshawar
Makran Seismic Zone
Chaman-Hindukush Seismic Zone
Kuchch-Gujerat Seismic Zone
Sulaiman-KirtharSeismic Zone
Himalayan Seismic Zone
Bhuj 2001 M7.6; Allah Band 1819 M 7.8
Armora 1945, M8.3
Quetta 1935, M7.5
Kashmir 2005, M7.6
Muchh 1931, M7.4
Kangra 1905, M ~8
Himalayan Seismic Zone
Dalbandin 2011, M7.2
Iran 2013, M7.8
Awaran 2013, M7.7
Date Epicentre, region Magnitude Max intensity1668 Samawani, Sindh 7.6 VIII to IX1819 Allahbund, Sindh 7.2 IX to X1852 Kahan, Balochistan 8 IX1868 Peshawar, KPK 6 VII to VIII1889 Jhalawan, Balochistan 8 VIII1892 Qilla Abdullah, Balochistan 6.8 VIII to IX1905 Kangra, North ~8 VII1909 Sibi, Balochistan 7 VIII to IX1929 Sibi, Balochistan 7 VIII to IX1931 Sharigh Valley, Balochistan 7 VIII to IX1931 Muchh, Balochistan 7.4 VII1935 Quetta, Balochistan 7.5 VIII1945 Pasni, Makran 8.3 VII to VIII2001 Bhuj, Gujarat 7.6 VII2005 Kashmir and Hazara 7.6 X2008 Ziarat, Balochistan 6.4, 6.4 VII2011 Dalbandin, Balochistan 7.2 IV to V2013 Mashkel, Balochistan 7.8 IX to X2013 Awaran, Balochistan 7.7 IX
Major Earthquakes
Arabian Plate
Interplate boundary
Population Growth in the Hazard Areas
Spatial Distribution of Population Density within Administrative Units
Building TypologiesBuilding TypologyNomenclature Type Picture
RC1 Reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings
M1 Stone masonry
M2 Adobe masonry
M5 Brick masonry
M7 Wood/ Bamboo reinforced masonry
M8 Concrete block masonry
OO Others
Percentage of Building Types In Pakistan
62.38%14.60%
7.64%
5.27%5.19%
3.30%1.62%
Brick Masonry
Adobe Masonry
RC Buildings
Wood/Bamboo Reincorced
Stone Masonry
Block Masonry
Others
(M5)
(M2)
(RC1)
(M7)
(M1)
(M8)(OO)
Reinforced Concrete (RC1) Stone Masonry (M1) Adobe Masonry (M2)
Brick Masonry Buildings (M5)
Scale:1 Dot = 100 buildings
Wood/ Bamboo Reinforced Buildings (M7)
Scale:1 Dot = 100 buildings
Concrete Block Masonry (M8)
SEMINAR ACI CODE
HYDERABAD BUILDING AND
TOWN PLANNING REGULATIONS‐2007
???
KBCADHAFCCCKPTBu
ilding Co
des a
nd Im
plem
entatio
n
7.6 Mw Kashmir 2005 Earthquake
• Devastated 30,000 km2 area. • Killed more than 73,000 people including 18000 school children. • About 600,000 families homeless• Affecting livelihood and infrastructure in nine districts
Reconstruction Target – 600,000 houses– 6298 educational facilities – 796 health units– 6440 km of road network – 50‐70 % of the infrastructure (telecom, power, water etc)
• Challenge– Who & How …………– No Institutional Arrangement
• Response– Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority” (ERRA) was constituted on 24th Oct 2005
13
Instructional Mechanism
Sectoral Challenges• ERRA intervened in twelve different sectors grouped under four
clusters:– Direct Outreach to Households and Individuals, Rural Housing, Livelihood and Social Protection
– Social Services, Education Health, Water and Sanitation
– Public Infrastructure, Governance, Transport, Power and Telecommunication
– Cross Cutting Programmes Disaster Risk Reduction, Environmental Safeguards and Gender
Equality
14
Housing‐ Challenges– Unreliable Data Base (No Updated Documentation Record Individuals & Land)
• Legal Aid Centers
– Bank Account for Cash Grant• Special Arrangement for Banking System
– Male Dominant Society• Established Women Committees
15
Housing‐ Challenges
16
– Relocation • Individual‐ Comparatively Easier • Town‐ Alternate Site, Community resistance
– Many fold increase in Construction Activity ‐ Aggregated Demand of Building Material and Trained Workers
• Construction Hub in affected Districts• Training of Costruction Workers
– Deforestation ‐Tremendous pressure on Natural Resources
Housing‐ Challenges
17
– Building Design/standards • Non‐engineered Structures‐Developing Guidelines
• Dissemination among self buiders and contractors
• Seismic Buiding Code
– Monitoring & Evaluation • Field AI Teams (Assistance and Inspection Teams)
• Grievances redress system for house ownerships, land availability and relocation issues.
Housing (updates & Impacts)• Updates
– 100 % reconstruction completed in 2012– Over 250,000 trained human resources for seismically safe non‐engineered construction.
• Social Impact: – Promotion of safer reconstruction methods and new technologies
– Established Culture of Compliance – Enhanced level of confidence in reconstructed houses. During a survey in 2008; 88 %consider their new house safer.
18
Housing with Owner Driven Approach
19
Health
• 306 health facilities (267 were pledged by donors but later 92 facilities were dropped)
• Challenges: • Integration of Smaller Units into Primary Health Care
• Sustainability
20
First dialysis center at AJ& K, Abbass Institute of Medical Sciences, Muzzaffarabad
Health
21
• Updates: • 100 % reconstruction completed in 2011.
Instead of pre EQ smaller health unit an improved Rural Health Center with modern facilities of minor OT other diagnostic facilities was constructed at Chokothi‐AJK
HealthSocial Impact• A great proportion of patients felt donor/ NGO provided health facilities are better than the facilities managed by the government.
22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Better same Deterioated
2008 ERRA Social Impact Report 2008
05
101520253035404550
New Equipment& improved
medicine supply
ImprovedConstruction
Trained Staff
50
3515
Reason for Improved Health Facilities
Post EQ Facilities
65.5 %
30 %
EducationChallenges:• Land availability was a big issue, many institution were to be relocated for improved facility.
• Government department have serious capacity limitations
23
Instead of three to ten rooms Pre‐EQ facility more than 20 rooms school are built with all allied facilities
EducationUpdates• 100 % completed by 2010.• Operation and maintenance of completed facilities is the basic challenge for concerned provincial and state government
Social Impact• The new enrolment in primary schools has increased by 90 % as compared to pre‐EQ enrolment.
24
Water Supply & Sanitation
Challenges• The scattered water sources in the rugged terrain and inadequate supply system
• 4001 Water Supply Schemes (WSS) and 623 sanitation projects.
25
Water Supply & Sanitation
26
Updates• 100 % completed
Social Impact• Installation of water supply schemes (WSS) within the proximity 75m radius compared to pre‐earthquake situation, on average, a household resulted in saving one hour daily.
• Improved behavioural changes on hygiene and sanitation in the community.
Establishment of National Disaster Management System
Awaran, Pakistan, Mw=7.7 24 Sept 2013
Beyond Repair Damage Buildings
Casualties
4396 1085
Owner Driven Approach
Reconstruction by Balochistan Provincial Disaster Management Authority
Challenges– Unreliable Data Base (No Updated Documentation Record Individuals & Land)
• Legal Aid Centers
– Bank Account for Cash Grant• Special Arrangement for Banking System
– Insurgency/ Militancy • Reliable Local administration and NED University
Housing with Owner Driven Approach
Housing with Owner Driven Approach
Housing with Owner Driven Approach
Gaps in National Disaster Management System
Policy
Research Practice
No formal system existed until recently to link the three important stake holders. There may a few stand alone examples of liaison
Challenges• Political Will• Bureaucracy • Importance Realization
Not needed in the past
Three important pillar did not how to liaise
NDMA – PEC – University Nexusat National Level only
NDMA
Universities PEC
Building Code of Pakistan• Seismic Provisions• Building Energy Provisions• Building Electrical Safety Provisions• Fire Safety Provisions
Catalysts• The World Bank• UN Agencies• USAID, JICA, DFID etc.
No conscious efforts yet
Policy implement remains far from desirable in most of the cases
Dear Roger,I had an opportunity to read your paper in the Nature on corruption and comparison between developed and developing countries. It is a wonderful article, very detailed, comprehensive analysis and very articulate. The paper is supported by the necessary statistics and hence found its place the Nature.
However, I am afraid that one cannot only blame 'poor corruption' as the root cause of poor and ill‐planned built environment ‐ the weapons of mass destruction.
I know nothing about political science like many other things, but the more I thing about it, more I realize the differences between the developing and developed countries. The basic question is what makes the two worlds so different and it may not be scientific to put blame on only one cause but I think it is the difference in the way these countries are governed.
Unlike developing countries, developed countries are more economically strong and thus have more and better managed resources and hence they are what they are. I feel the difference is in the way developed countries have managed themselves. Developed countries are the result of prolonged and sustained good governance as compared to the developing countries. Developed countries are normally considered to be expensive but money collected from taxes and other service charges is well spent generally in developing infrastructure and provision of basic facilities. You may argue that this not the case but in relative terms it is. Corruption is the result of bad governance. I am experiencing it in Pakistan right from my childhood. As the governance is getting from bad to worse, so is corruption. More important position one holds in government more corrupt you ought to be. That's the system we have and I can vouch for that. I am sure it's not very different in other developing countries too. To me corruption is a symptom of bad governance like other symptoms i.e. lawlessness, inefficiencies, lack of capacity etc.
Now a million dollar or may be a billion dollar question is how to change from bad to good governance. Look at how much money is being spent by the developing countries on disaster risk reduction by the developed world with very little success, if any. These days capacity building is the buzz word and there is huge thrust on community based approach i.e. leaving behind the governments. Is it intentional, consequence of past experiences? Will these types of efforts are going to be sustainable? Why there is bad governances?
Fruit for thought
• Forums like TC 21, ACECC may be the answer
Thank you