TOPICAL REPORT NO. 1 · 2.2 Worst Case Earthquake Scenario for Kathmandu Valley.....15 3. Preliminary Assessment of the State of ... to structure and implement a city-wide disaster

megacities

megacdisaster risk reduction

disaster risk reduction

Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Megacities: A Pilot Application in Metro Manila and Kathmandu

PHASE 1

Earthquakes andMegacities Initiative

TOPICAL REPORT NO. 1Kathmandu Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning

MARCH 2008

KATHMANDU RISK-SENSITIVE LAND USE PLANNING

A Project Funded by the German Federal Foreign Office

earthquakes and megacities initiative

© 2008 EMI

Permission to use this document is granted provided that both the copyright and permission notice appear, and use of document or parts thereof is for educational, informational, and non-commercial or personal use only.

EMI must be acknowledged in all cases as the source when reproducing any part of this publication.

Recommended citation: EMI © 2008, with permission.

Opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the participating agencies and organizations.

This project is funded by the German Federal Foreign Office.

EMI 2F Puno Bldg. Annex, 47 Kalayaan Ave., DilimanQuezon City 1101, PhilippinesT/F: +632 9279643; T: +632 4334074Email: [email protected]: http://www.emi-megacities.org

THE COMPETENCY PROJECTMainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Megacities:

A Pilot Application in Metro Manila and Kathmandu

PHASE 1 (November 2007 to February 2008)

DATA COLLECTIONSITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

DIAGNOSISCONSENSUS TERMS OF REFERENCE

A Project funded by:The German Federal Foreign Office

Submitted to:

TOPICAL REPORT NO. 1Project Element 1.1 Kathmandu

Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning

Dr. Eng. Fouad BendimeradProject Director

[email protected]

Dr. Marqueza ReyesTask Leader

earthquakes and megacities initiative

Mainstreaming DRR in Megacities: A Pilot Application in Metro Manila and Kathmandu �

Phase 1 Topical Report No. 1 Kathmandu Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning �

Contents

Acronyms.........................................................................................................................7

1. Background.................................................................................................................91.1 Rationale of the Project......................................................................................................11

1.2 Goals and Objectives of the Project............................................................................12

1.3 Phase 1 Work Plan..................................................................................................................12

2. Risk Profile of Kathmandu Valley.......................................................................132.1 Urban Growth and Development................................................................................13

2.2 Worst Case Earthquake Scenario for Kathmandu Valley................................15

3. Preliminary Assessment of the State of Land Use Planning System in Kathmandu....................................................21

3.1 Institutional Framework for Planning.........................................................................21

3.2 Policy Environment for Land Use Planning............................................................22

3.3 Planning Structures, Practices and Types of Land Use Plans......................22

3.4 Ongoing Planning Initiatives..........................................................................................23

3.5 Other Characteristics of the System...........................................................................24

3.6 Land Use Planning Issues and Challenges.............................................................24

�. Proposed Terms of Reference.............................................................................274.1 Tasks and Activities................................................................................................................27

4.2 Project Organization............................................................................................................28

Annex 1: Comments from Kenneth Topping, Peer Reviewer......................29

Mainstreaming DRR in Megacities: A Pilot Application in Metro Manila and Kathmandu �

Phase 1 Topical Report No. 1 Kathmandu Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning 7

Acronyms3cd Cross-Cutting Capacity DevelopmentDRM Disaster Risk ManagementDRR Disaster Risk ReductionDRRMP Disaster Risk Management Master PlanEMI Earthquake and Megacities InitiativeFAR Floor Area RatioGIS Geographic Information SystemIWO Implementation Work OutputsJICA Japan International Cooperating AgencyKMC Kathmandu Metropolitan CityKVTDC Kathmandu Valley Town Development CommitteeLPP Land Pooling ProjectLSGA Local Self-Governance ActLUP Land Use PlanningMOC Memorandum of CooperationNSET National Society of Earthquake Technology – Nepal

PE Project ElementPIT Program Implementation TeamVDC Village Development Committees

Mainstreaming DRR in Megacities: A Pilot Application in Metro Manila and Kathmandu 8


background background background background background background backg round background background background background background background background background background background background background backg

Background

1The formal partnership of Earthquakes and

Megacities Initiative (EMI) and Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) began in January 2005 when a Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) was signed to endorse the participation of KMC in EMI’s Cross Cutting Capacity Development (3cd) Program. Under this agreement, EMI and its partners will provide KMC with the technical, managerial, and technological support to structure and implement a city-wide disaster risk management master plan (DRMMP). The DRMMP model was first developed in the context of EMI’s collaborative work with the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality in the aftermath of the 1999 Marmara earthquakes. One specific outcome following this model is Istanbul’s adoption of urban renovation as a strategy for reducing disaster risk for

one of its highly vulnerable districts, Zeytinburnu. EMI has since then implemented the DRMMP model in other large complex cities like Metro Manila and Amman.

In conjunction with the DRMMP model, a disaster risk reduction (DRR) mainstreaming concept (Figure 1) was developed by EMI to promote the integration of risk reduction measures in local governance, in as much as significant risk reduction occurs at the local level.

As shown in the mainstreaming framework (Figure 1), DRR can be highly effective when local authorities - engaged in the normal conduct of their functions, responsibilities, and practices - integrate DRR measures and objectives in various

Figure 1. Framework for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction

Central Coordination + Local Implementation + Participation

LOCAL AUTHORITIESDevelopment Planning Public WorksBuilding & Construction Emergency ManagementSocial Services Public SafetyPhysical Planning Education and Recreation

CIVIL SOCIETY

NGOs CBOs

Academia Media Business

Legal and Institutional

Polic

y an

d Re

gula

tion

Resources and Oversight

CENTRAL AUTHORITIES

Mainstreaming DRR in Megacities: A Pilot Application in Metro Manila and Kathmandu10

aspects of local governance such as urban planning. This framework also suggests that DRR can be mainstreamed in local governance by harnessing existing mechanisms, processes, and systems that are already in place and making use of such resources.

The DRMMP model and the mainstreaming framework have also been applied in the 3cd Program in Kathmandu since the 3cd Program Implementation Team (PIT) started to conduct their collaborative work in September 2005

EMI website (www.emi-megacities.org). A city profile and a collection of sound practices from Kathmandu have also been compiled in EMI’s Megacities Knowledge Base (www.emi-megacities.org/megaknow).

The investigative work, stakeholders’ workshops, and discussions with the various departments of KMC and local and national partner institutions resulted in a proposed DRMMP framework composed of four Implementation Work Outputs (IWOs) for KMC and Kathmandu Valley:

IWO No. 1: Strengthening the organizational and operational disaster response, rescue and recovery capabilities of KMC and Kathmandu Valley

IWO No. 2: The incorporation of hazards and disaster management parameters in land use and urban development planning

IWO No. 3: Technical and managerial support to KMC in developing a process for building code implementation

IWO No. 4: Development of KMC-specific DRM risk communication and information technology tools

It is against this technical project backdrop that Phase 1 of the EMI-DKKV project has been initiated. Thus, this project builds on the past accomplishments of the 3cd Program in Kathmandu and continues the implementation phase of the DRMMP.

Given a more favorable turn of socio-political events in Nepal and EMI’s new partnership with DKKV, EMI was eventually able to mobilize and send a team of emergency management and land use planning experts to Kathmandu from 05 to 12 February 2008 to conduct its field investigation. The work focused on IWO 1 and IWO 2. This Topical Report specifically deals with IWO 2, which focuses on mainstreaming disaster risk reduction objectives and parameters in the land use planning processes and practices of KMC. It is also the result of the latest field investigation and preparatory work started in November 2007, forming Phase 1 of the renewed EMI engagement with KMC, NSET, and other partner institutions through the DKKV Project.

with KMC, the National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET), and the Pacific Disaster Center, EMI’s partner institution. NSET serves as the Local Investigator of 3cd in Kathmandu. While EMI helps structure, facilitate and support disaster risk management initiatives, it observes the principle that implementation work must be undertaken by national and local institutions.

The 3cd Program promotes participatory and collaborative work in order to develop consensus, optimize the use of resources, and create local ownership and sustainability mechanisms. Further, it seeks to build and leverage existing and past initiatives and not duplicate them.

For the first phase of the project, three field investigations in Kathmandu were accomplished: September 2005, June 2006, and November 2006. Reports from these field works are on the

The 3cd Program is a a multi-disciplinary, multi-partner program that builds on the knowledge and experience accumulated by EMI as a result of working with a network of nearly 20 cities around the world.

3cd’s main goal is to enhance the city’s efforts to shift the current disaster management processes from post event response to pre-event risk reduction orientation, through an integration of disaster risk reduction within the city’s governance and functional structure and policies.


1.1 Rationale of the Project

The Kathmandu Valley and its major municipality, Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) have been the recipients of assistance from several international organizations interested in promoting DRR, focusing principally on earthquake hazard. These activities have significantly advanced the understanding of seismic hazards and their potential material and socio-economic damage and losses. In particular, a comprehensive earthquake risk assessment study funded by JICA was completed in 2002, providing spatial information of earthquake risks in the Kathmandu Valley and recommending a list of projects that national and local government authorities could undertake to reduce these risks.

Similarly, NSET has implemented many community-based and institutional-based preparedness and mitigation programs such as ward-level preparedness, school awareness, retrofit programs, mason training programs, and the multi-national PEER program, among others.

Further, in 2003, the Council of Ministers of Nepal decreed that the National Building Code should be followed for all government-building constructions. It also urges the metropolitan authorities to strengthen the current building permit process so that code compliance will be mandatory for all new constructions in urban areas. Despite these initiatives, the risk to KMC remains very high because both the hazard and vulnerability are high.

Nevertheless, more recent favorable conditions have surfaced to pave the way for KMC, in collaboration with EMI, to step up the pace of disaster risk reduction in the metropolis. First, there is a favorable national political climate with stability and reconciliation finally taking place in the country. The King and his councilors have attempted to manage the political transition from monarchy to a more parliamentary form of government, which is gradually adopting more democratic—or at least participatory mechanisms for the common citizen. The Maoist insurgents and the monarchical bureaucracy have reached a peace accord for the transition to a more popular form of government. Presently, there are seven political parties that must make joint approval of proposed laws and other major governmental decisions. A prime minister is also in place to

exercise executive fiat over the government of Nepal.

Given the stabilizing situation, there are opportunities for development assistance despite an element of unpredictability brought about by the inevitable establishment of a Constitutional Assembly in April 2008, whose future members will determine, among other things, the fate of the monarchy as an institution in the Nepalese state. The policy makers of KMC are also very motivated to change the status quo and to engage in DRR. Second, the Kathmandu Valley Town Development Committee (KVTDC) had just finished the preparation of the Existing Land Use Map of Kathmandu Valley (i.e., Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City, Bhaktapur Municipality, Thimi Municipality, and Kirtipur Municipality) with the technical assistance of GeoSpatial, a local Geographic Information System (GIS) consulting group.

KVTDC is responsible for overall planning and regulation of urban development at the valley level. It is now poised to continue the GIS mapping of the Village Development Committees this year. Further, the KVTDC recently updated the 1976 version of and is implementing the Kathmandu Valley Town Development Plan (the conceptual land use plan for the region) as well as its regional development agenda called Vision 2020. In this connection, the municipalities in Kathmandu Valley including KMC are thus encouraged and motivated to develop their own detailed land use plan based on the Kathmandu Valley Town Development Plan. The KVTDC is also implementing at least 10 land pooling and guided land development projects in KMC and the rest of Kathmandu Valley. Land pooling is the dominant planning tool that KVTDC employs for the purpose of land use planning. These land pooling projects represent a major opportunity to inject DRR in the urban redevelopment process of KMC.

Thus, it is a good time to take advantage of such opportunities, especially the gradual appearance of local initiative and the willingness to introduce innovation and reform, especially among local authorities and stakeholders. And because the appreciation for and establishment of disaster risk reduction mechanisms within the land use planning process of a local government is a long-


term investment and complex process, it would be practical to begin laying the groundwork and restructuring old systems with the concerned local authorities and national ministries now. This anticipatory action will ensure that when political stability is achieved and the economy expands, the proper system, regulatory framework, and practices for risk-sensitive land use planning shall already be in place.

KMC and NSET are institutional partners of EMI and have been engaged in the implementation of the 3cd Program for the last three years. This project will further strengthen their capacities and institutions to sustain these activities in the long term and reinforce the outcomes of DRR activities that have been accomplished in Kathmandu.

Lastly, this pilot application of integrating risk parameters in the land use planning process of KMC can serve as a demonstration project to other municipalities, and lead to the replication of sound LUP and DRR practices throughout the whole valley.

1.2 Goals and Objectives of the Project

The overall goal of the project is to ensure that

the detailed land use plan of KMC fully integrates DRR provisions within its spatial and physical development strategies, its regulatory and non-regulatory planning tools, and its related bylaws, regulations and procedures.

Specifically, the project aims to provide technical assistance to the Urban Development Department of KMC in terms of incorporating risk information and parameters in KMC’s planning process and procedures.

In carrying out this task, the DKKV Project will open avenues for other local and national partner-institutions such as the KVTDC and the municipalities in the valley to participate and be part of the process so that they will also be benefited. These will also facilitate technology transfer to these key institutions, and offer KMC the necessary supporting institutions and conducive environment to sustain the project through the entire process of implementation in Phase 2.

1.3 Phase 1Work Plan

For Phase 1 of the project, the following activities and timetable were implemented (Table 1):

Preparatory Phase: Tasks and Activities Nov 07 Dec 07 Jan 08 Feb 08

Preparatory work: Data collection, research, and analysis of available documentation

Organization of the Project Team:Engagement, preparation of scope of work/responsibilities and deliverables of each member

Preparation for the fourth field investigation:Coordination with KMC and NSET, preparation of the agenda and materials for meetings and workshops, team meetings and branstorming

Field investigation and report writing:Briefing with NSET; Windshield survey of KMC; small group meetings with KMC, KVTDC and NSET; conduct of focus group workshops, and discussions with stakeholders; debriefing; and report preparation

Table 1. Phase 1 Work Plan


risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk profile risk 2

Risk Profile of Kathmandu Valley

2.1 Urban Growth and Development

Kathmandu Valley is a natural region nestled in the middle of the Himalayas Mountains of Nepal. Several rivers flow to the center of the Valley and meet the holy Bagmati River, which flows south past the Chobar Gorge, eventually joining the Ganges.

As a functional region of more than 1.5 million people, (220,000 households) it is the urban heartland of Nepal and includes five major cities and municipalites: Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Kirtipur, and Madhyapur-Thimi.

In terms of land use, a 2001 study conducted by the KVTDC showed that 32 percent of the region was forest and 40 percent was devoted to agriculture. Rice, wheat, corn, vegetables, and a variety of fruit including bananas and oranges are grown in the fertile Valley, which supports a

relatively high percentage of the hill population. Rural settlements accounted for 17 percent of the land area, while 11 percent were devoted to urbanized municipalities and cities.

KMC is the largest city in Nepal and the cosmopolitan center of the Himalayan region. Sprawled across 5,076 hectacres in the Kathmandu Valley, KMC is at an elevation of 1,350 meters. It has a built-up area of 3,844.56 hectares and an average population density of 176 per hectare. KMC was given a Metropolitan status in 1995. KMC is divided into 35 wards (Figure 2).

With a history and culture dating back 2,000 years, the city, along with the other towns in the Valley, ranks among the oldest human settlements in central Himalayas. The Kathmandu Valley, particularly KMC - the nation’s capital city, has been one of the fastest growing urban areas in the world, but most of the growth has been

Figure 2. Map of Kathmandu Valley

Mainstreaming DRR in Megacities: A Pilot Application in Metro Manila and Kathmandu1�

organic and unplanned, coupled with very poor standards for construction. Further, the old part of the city is very congested with many old, substandard buildings that have little capacity to resist earthquake shaking. Access to the older neighborhoods is also very difficult due to narrow, winding and sometimes unpaved roads, making any rescue and relief effort extremely difficult. The risk for fire following an earthquake is also high in these neighborhoods.

Old Kathmandu corresponds to the present-day city core, encompassing a compact zone of temples, squares, and narrow streets. The old royal palace complex Durbar Square (Figure 3), is in the center of Old Kathmandu and has been designated as a World Heritage site by UNESCO.

Urban growth of KMC outside the historic city core occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, towards the east and northeast due to road construction. This generally took the form of low-density ribbon development along the thoroughfares (Figure 4) as well as in the city fringes (Figure 5 & 6). Meanwhile, large swaths of land remained undeveloped within the city limits.

Urbanization gained momentum in the 1970s and 1980s as a result of government-led urban development and economic expansion in the trade, tourism and carpet industry sectors. Kathmandu has the only international airport in the country and more than 95 percent of incoming tourists arrive by air.

More fringe areas were opened up for urban development due to the construction of access and arterial roads in and around KMC. By the 1990s, urban sprawl and ribbon development began to eat further into the outlying rural areas, now generally in the north-south direction. By the year 2000, the rural areas of the valley have been transformed by rapid urbanization, residential subdivision development and building construction.

Kathmandu Valley has also experienced intensive in-migration since the eradication of malaria in 1951. In addition, an influx of internally displaced people has created a huge demand for housing and basic services. Today, one-third of its residents live in slum dwellings and about 18,000 people are squatting (without land rights) in 64 informal settlements, many located in the periphery and

Figure 3. Durbar Square, Old Kathmandu

Figure �. Ribbon development in thoroughfares (top photo) and substrandard structures (bottom photo)

Phase 1 Topical Report No. 1 Kathmandu Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning 1�

villages around the urbanized area of the valley.

Densely inhabited for millennia, Kathmandu’s present population is very cosmopolitan although the Newars, the indigenous people of Kathmandu, still comprise a large segment of the population. Around 20% of the country’s urban population or 701,962 inhabitants (2001 Census) call KMC home.

2.2 Worst Case Earthquake Scenario for Kathmandu Valley

The main source of seismic activity in Nepal is the subduction of the Indian plate under the Tibetan plate or Himalayas. Another earthquake generator in the Valley is the identified seismic gap zone in the middle of Nepal. Seismic records for Nepal date back to 1255. Since that time, destructive earthquakes have occurred in 1408, 1681, 1810, 1833, and 1866 with the 1833 earthquake being the most destructive.

In 1934, an 8.4 magnitude earthquake struck Kathmandu Valley killing 4,300 people, destroying 20 percent of all structures, and damaging another 40 percent of the Valley’s buildings. In Kathmandu itself, one quarter of all homes were destroyed along with a number of temples in Bhaktapur (Figure 7). In recent decades, Nepal experienced two major earthquakes: a 6.5 magnitude quake in the Bajhang district that killed 178 people and destroyed about 40,000 houses and a 6.6 magnitude quake in 1988 in the Udayapur district that killed 721 people and destroyed 64,467 houses.

Scenario projections indicate that a repeat of the 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake would produce a death toll between 22,000 and 40,000 and about 60 percent of all buildings in the Kathmandu Valley will be heavily damaged; many beyond repair. Ninety percent of the water pipes would be seriously damaged and about half of the bridges would be closed due to damage.

The study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in the Kathmandu Valley-Kingdom of Nepal, carried out from January 2001 to March 2002 by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in collaboration with the Ministry of Home Affairs is one of the most comprehensive disaster risk assessment study available for Kathmandu Valley. The deterministic study made a risk assessment

Figure �. Slum settlement

Figure �. Urban sprawl in the fringes


Figure 7. Building damage in 193� earthquake

based on three earthquake scenarios in the valley. The study included a plan for earthquake disaster mitigation based on a damage assessment of these three plausible earthquake events.

According to the study, geological, topographical, and climatic conditions expose the valley to multiple hazards, most prominently floods, debris flows, landslides and fires, which hit this region on a yearly basis. According to recent earthquake scenarios and loss estimates carried out for the valley, while earthquakes are not so frequent, they can cause a considerable death toll and heavy economic losses should a severe earthquake hit the city. Major sources of vulnerability are related to social fragility, lack of resilience, and structural vulnerability.

On the socio-economic side, political instability, high mortality rate, illiteracy and extended poverty (80 percent are living on less than US$2 a day) are the main components of vulnerability. Weak emergency preparedness and response capacity, limited hospital and health resources, and inadequate land use controls have been identified as the most significant components that

contribute to low-coping capacity and disaster resilience. High structural vulnerability of existing buildings were due to inappropriate construction practices, unregulated urban development that allows settlements in landslide prone areas found in the hilly fringes, and increasing number of informal settlements that significantly contribute to increasing accumulation of risk.

For Kathmandu Valley as well as for KMC, the worst-case scenario earthquake based on the 2002 JICA study has been identified as the Mid-Nepal Earthquake with Ms=8.0. Comparing it to the 16 July 2001 Gorkha earthquake of Mb=5.1, the energy of a probable Mid-Nepal earthquake would be about 30,000 times as the Gorkha earthquake. The following maps from the 2002 JICA study provide a spatial description of the potential damage and losses that Kathmandu Valley would probably sustain in the event of this scenario earthquake (Figures 8-12). Moreover, the social and human vulnerability of municipalities in the valley, including KMC, through loss of life and injuries in the event of the worst-case scenario earthquake are listed by areas in Table 2.


Figure 9. Liquefaction Susceptibility, Mid-Nepal Earthquake Event

Figure 8. Seismic Intensity Distribution of the Mid-Nepal Earthquake Event


Figure 10. Duilding Damage Ratio, Mid-Nepal Earthquake Event

Figure 11. Death Toll Mid-Density, Nepal


Figure 12. Casualties Density, Mid-Nepal Earthquake Event

Mid-Nepal Earthquake, Kathmandu Valley

Name Population Death (%) Injured Total (%)

Severe (%) Moderate (%)

Kathmandu District 908,672 14,482 1.59 44,318 4.88 75,675 8.33 134,475 14.80

Lalitpur District 292,095 2,366 0.81 6,672 2.28 13,075 4.48 22,113 7.57

Bhaktapur District 187,059 847 0.45 2,251 1.20 4,883 2.61 7,981 4.27

Total 1,387,826 17,695 1.28 53,241 3.84 93,633 6.75 164,569 11.86

Kathmandu Municipality

578,738 9,110 1.57 28,220 4.88 47,190 8.15 84,520 14.60

Kirtipur Municipality 43,802 224 0.51 582 1.33 1,313 3.00 2,119 4.84

Kathmandu VDCs 286,132 5,148 1.80 15,516 5.42 27,173 9.50 47,837 16.72

Lalitpur Municipality 145,696 710 0.49 1,946 1.34 4,001 2.75 6,657 4.57

Lalipur VDCs 146,399 1,656 1.13 4,727 3.23 9,074 6.20 15,457 10.56

Bhaktapur Municipality

64,927 210 0.32 544 0.84 1,234 1.90 1,988 3.06

Mhadyapur Thimi 37,526 78 0.21 192 0.51 471 1.26 741 1.97

Bhaktapur VDCs 84,606 559 0.66 1,516 1.79 3,177 3.76 5,252 6.21

Table 2. Social and Human Vulnerability of the Municipalities of Kathmandu Valley



state of land use planning system state of land use planning system state of land use planning system state of land use planning system state of land use planning system state of land use planning system state of land use planning system state of land use3

Preliminary Assessment of the State of Land Use Planning System in Kathmandu

3.1 Institutional Framework for Planning

Nepal has a unique network of ministries and other government subdivisions that are concerned directly or closely with land use planning, settlements, and regulation of actual development on the ground (Figure 13). During the interviews with key informants, it was shown that despite the persistence of vertical linkages from the national level ministries to departments, down to municipalities, VDCs, and wards, the centralization tendency is still evident, whereby decisions and actions require consent from higher entities.

There are however, de facto exceptions to the general hierarchy of ministries, and these include politically significant entities such as the KMC, which has already exercised significant autonomy in its development decisions. These decisions are

not necessarily aligned beforehand with KVTDC plans. It was evident that closer cooperation between local officials like KMC and the encompassing regional interests of KVTDC should be strengthened. It was also noted by workshop participants that there are two different ministries that are concerned with plan implementation: MoPPW and MoLD, which still need to reconcile overlapping mandates.

Another significant point that will factor into future planning interventions is the apparent lack of horizontal linkages between the various ministries (in the form of substantial information exchange, joint development projects, or regular updating of shared databases). This was validated during the LUP workshop, where the need for cooperation beyond simple “informing” was identified by the participants as an important item for action.

Figure 13. Entities Concerned with Land Use/Urban Planning

Parliament Prime Minister

MoLD MoPPW MoHAMoLRWMoL

DD GSKVTD DOSDUDBC DWSS

KMC

NWC DOR

DLRMIMPLEMENTATION

COMMITTEESMUNICIPALITIES

VDLALITP.DIV

BHAKT.DIV

KATH.DIV


Horizontal integration of land use plans is very critical since the five municipalities have adjoining boundaries. Moreover, land use issues and urban development do not recognize political boundaries between municipalities, albeit being cross-territorial in nature. Hence, effective horizontal and vertical coordination is a must if land use planning in KMC is to become a model for DRR in the whole valley.

In summary, it appeared that many of the planning-related agencies are still highly centralized, traceable to the Nepalese history of hierarchical rule by a single authority. There were other variables uncovered later on that also explained the habitual adherence to the chain of command.

3.2 Policy Environment for Land Use Planning

Although the time to review pertinent laws was extremely limited for Phase 1, there were certain general features of the regulatory environment that were identified, namely:

Laws and Acts of the State are approved by the parliament, though these may be proposed from the ministry level, where a Ministry of Laws reviews and consolidates such initiatives. After receiving confirmation from the prime minister, the legislation becomes effective, and is implemented by the concerned ministry.

National legislation gets cascaded and translated downward through the bureaucracy in the form of by-laws promulgated by the concerned ministry. Once again, the process involves consultation with experts from departments and ministries that will be affected.

There are several key laws that could be relevant to understanding the land use planning and local development of Nepal. These include:

10th National Plan (2002-2005)2007 By-Laws for Construction in Kathmandu Valley2003 Apartment Ownership Act1998 Revised by Laws for Construction1996 His Majesty’s Government Rules for

•

•

--

---

Allocation of Functions, 2nd Amendment1994 Draft Building Council Act1991 District Development Committee Act1991 Village Development Act1991 Municipality Act1990 Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal1990 Local Self Governance Act1988 Kathmandu Valley Development Authority Act1988 Building Act1988 Town Development Act1982 Natural Calamity Relief Act1971 Local Administration Act

Enforcement of legislation is left to the ministries and their subdivisions. One consistently cited law during planning and local development discussions is the Local Self-Governance Act (LSGA), which is a landmark policy enabling municipalities and other subdivisions of government to take initiative for local reform and policy action. The LSGA has the following salient features:

Establishes the authority, powers, and duties of the Village Development Communities (VDC) as an autonomous and corporate body, including qualifications and tenure rules for membersEstablishes the functions and duties of the municipality and the rules governing its officials (such as the mayor)Establishes the functions and duties of the DDCFurther elaborates on punitive mechanisms, labor regulations, and taxes that can be imposed on the population under the jurisdiction of the concerned local government unit

3.3 Planning Structures, Practices, and Types of Land Use Plans

Site maps, have been produced from the national to local levels by concerned ministries over the past decades. However, many of these documents were simple architectural drawings or listings of guidelines that had never been implemented. Even GIS mapping information has not yet been institutionalized, and is instead outsourced from a

--

---

--

----

•

-

-

-

-


private outfit by government entities like KVTDC and KMC (Table 3).

3.4 Ongoing Planning Initiatives

The actual practice of land use planning is best illustrated by the Land Pooling Projects (LPP)—also known as land readjustment, and Guided Land Development (road layouts) undertaken by the KVTDC in different parts of the valley. These projects which come closest to successful organization of land use that essentially assemble private parcels of land owned by individuals and re-adjust their parcels into more regular plots to create roads, drainage networks, and open spaces. The process may be roughly outlined as follows:

KVTDC or a similarly-ranked government agency approaches a community whose lands still include significant open spaces. In some cases, the community itself approaches KVTDC for help in re-plotting and in the introduction of basic infrastructure. In both cases, the community must be organized in order to interact with KVTDC as a unit.

Site plans are then drawn up by KVTDC, and a consensus is reached with the individual lot owners or homeowners regarding the extent of redevelopment and the services (water, sewerage, electricity) that will be introduced in

a.

b.

exchange for some adjustment or reduction of individual parcels.

The government invests in the site: laying sewerage and roads and delineating the area. In some cases, houses are built to be sold to identified buyers. Investment is recovered through sale of the parcels to beneficiaries who will be brought from other congested areas to resettle in the LPP sites. Private landowners are compensated for the reduction in property size through a higher market value of their land.

The management of the site is then turned-over to the community, whose representatives have already been organized in advance.

It should be noted that in cases where there are difficult or recalcitrant tenants who do not wish to allow their parcels to undergo land pooling, then the preferred option is to focus building investment to the more open (and less complex) areas of the site.

For instance, during the February 6th visit to the LPP site in Bagmatinagar on the eastern outskirts of Kathmandu, the engineer in charge of site development narrated that existing homeowners usually refuse to adjust the layouts of their structures, thus prompting the site planners and engineers to redirect the proposed road system for

c.

d.

Level of Government Examples of Types of Plans

National Government 10th National Plan (5-year plan)

Kathmandu Valley Town Development Committee

Vision 2020+ other specialized plans and frameworks1988 Urban Development and Conservation Scheme for Greater Kathmandu1987 Structural Plan for Kathmandu Valley (UNDP and WorldBank funded)1984 Physical Development Concept

••

•

•

Districts (Kathmandu & Kirtipur, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, and Madhyapur-Thimi)

District Plans

Municipalities (KMC, Bhaktapur, Lalitpur, etc.)

Land Use Zoning (from “As-Is” Land Use Maps)

Village Development Committees Village Plans

Table 3. Policies and Plans on Land Use


the community. He added that LPP projects may take from 1-2 years to complete, with multiple phases that are finished earlier (if there are fewer resistant residents). Hence, more conciliatory and constructive approaches are usually preferred when doing LPP.

Aside from these types of limited, site-specific developments, there seems to be no other major planning activities at the local level that the EMI team encountered. It was also noted by the team from the onset that there are no plans that dealt with prospective land uses at the municipal or city level. Land pooling projects produce only site-specific plans. This led to the realization that this was a gap that could be filled through technical assistance for city-wide Land Use Planning (LUP).

Another feature, which cannot be overemphasized is the persistence of top-down approaches to planning and decision-making for local development. The habitual deference to ministerial authority is both an advantage and a disadvantage. On one hand, this ensures a degree of coherence in actions orchestrated by central authority; on the other hand, it promotes lack of initiative on the part of subordinate decision-makers.

3.5 Land Use Planning Issues and Challenges

As revealed during the course of key informant interviews and during the workshop of 8 February 2008, there were several issues that would have to be addressed in order to successfully institutionalize LUP with DRR. These problems included the following:

Lack of a detailed proposed land use plan at the municipality level.

Inadequate system to implement the by-laws. Implementation of plans and by-laws was still weak, which necessitated more affirmative political action on the ground by ministries and local governments.

Lack of a monitoring system for land use. Monitoring actual land utilization is a big concern, as there is currently no system for doing this efficiently and effectively. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are no restrictions to convert agricultural lands

a.

b.

c.

to residential, commercial, or other purposes, despite the presence of possibly incompatible adjacent land uses.

There seemed to be a lack of in-depth coordination between concerned agencies that pointed to a need for clearer delineation of rules. In particular, the overlapping work of KVTDC and KMC would have to be rationalized.

There seemed to be a lack of awareness of the relation between risks and land use planning, especially in the context of a city which still used old methods (no reinforced steel frames in houses) and whose landscape has been the result of inheritance practices that result in increasing smaller subdivision of residential lots.

There is no law to address the specific conditions for risk-sensitive LUP. This was however identified as an important subject for future institutionalization, as the ministries would eventually need to mainstream DRR.

Less important, but no less a concern was overcrowding and congestion of the present and soon-to-be-completed urban areas. Because land cannot expand to address the demands of a growing population, the government will have to find alternative solutions to this.

Lastly, the issue of how to deal specifically with existing and accumulated risks in developed areas was also mentioned, though this was considered to be of lower importance compared to the rest.

Hence, the workshop was able to clarify the most pressing issues for the various officials involved in land use planning and the urban development of Kathmandu city. These issues could thereafter form the basis for activities in the Phase 2 implementation of the project. Moreover, the workshop served as a venue for several officials from different agencies to meet, get to know one another, and discuss pressing common issues in land use and local development.

Aside from the issues and challenges that surfaced during the focus group workshop with

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.


stakeholders, equally important issues and concerns from individual discussions with key informants and observations were also made:

Working departments and municipalities are understaffed and are inadequately trained for planning and emergency response. By repeated admission of ministry officials themselves, there is a clear lack of capacity that needs to be addressed through task-oriented training of core personnel at least, and some on-the-job mentoring by technical experts. If explored deeper, this may point to the acute shortages or delays in budgeted funds that are necessary to sustain a stream of trained personnel with adequate work equipment.

Most of the plans produced were never implemented.

There is still little incentive for public involvement, and this may be tied in as well to the lack of public awareness regarding the use of LUP in order to mitigate the impact of disasters.

In terms of capability building, it was suggested that new positions for LUP and DRM have to be created and provided adequate training. This might also include regularizing funding and other structural (non-personnel) support from within the bureaucracy.

There are several urban pressures that are already being exerted on KMC and Kathmandu Valley. These include population growth, lack of sanitation, and environmental pollution. Although not yet serious, these may soon become urgent, and should be anticipated in the development of LUP. Urban sprawl in the fringes and unplanned land uses in the city core have created potentially threatening situations for the heritage structures. It was observed that the core heritage district is used intensively by both the locals and tourists as a social gathering space and commercial space. In fact, some of the buildings show signs of wear and tear: stains and chipped woodwork brought about by the constant, unregulated flow of transient users.

The role of people’s perceptions and socio-cultural practices, though difficult to quantify,

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

probably will play a significant role in the speed and efficiency at which new, useful data can be used to make effective plans. That is, a culturally-attuned approach to land use planning interventions will help avoid both active and passive resistance to spatial change from the populace.

Although previous plans have not been properly implemented, these still contain useful units of information that will factor into land use planning. One salient example is the poorly-disseminated JICA study in 2007, which calculated the effects (particularly the damage) of an earthquake in Kathmandu.

On the whole, the level of understanding of planning, disaster risk reduction, and importance of government linkage is still rather low. This would mean that any technical assistance from EMI would have to initially level-off knowledge at a very basic level.

g.

h.



terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of reference terms of 4

Proposed Terms of Reference

These terms of reference (TORs) spell out the intended technical assistance that will be extended by EMI to KMC through the intermediation of NSET for Phase 2 of the DKKV Project. Development of the TORs were based on the result of the Phase 1 assessment of LUP concluded in February 2008. Building as well on the past training workshops of EMI to produce a DRRMP, these TORs propose to re-engage partner institutions in order to produce the desired LUP (detailed below) that integrate DRR. Simultaneously, some institutional strengthening is also proposed, to ensure long-term adoption and practice of skills transferred through technical assistance.

4.1 Tasks and Activities

Based on the foregoing sections of this Topical Report, the following tasks are proposed for Phase 2 of the project:

Assist in the formulation of the KMC land use plan that is risk-sensitive, and is based on the latest GIS maps of existing land use, risk and vulnerability maps from the 2002 JICA study and other documents provided by counterparts in Kathmandu. This entails various activities related to planning analysis such as data collection and analysis, GIS mapping of different thematic maps pertinent to land use and risk assessment using JICA study, and possible action planning to identify supportive social and economic projects related to land use.

A follow-through activity to be done through NSET will be the structuring of an advocacy campaign or some other appropriate medium that will help to change people’s behavior, perceptions or attitudes about land use.

a.

Draft a zoning ordinance based on the finished risk-sensitive land use plan for KMC.

Encourage and support the establishment of inter-institutional coordination between national and local levels of government. Balance should be placed on both horizontal and vertical linkages that can be strengthened through regular meetings of focus groups to be convened by EMI.

Strengthen local institutions through the creation of ad hoc structures and protocol between KMC and KVTDC as well as through legal instruments necessary to support such interventions.

These possible interventions by EMI in the succeeding phase will probably contain several features such as (1) the scaling-down and clear definition of land use planning intervention that will be limited in scope but hopefully more effective and sustainable in its applications, (2) establishing contact and acceptance with the entire vertical chain of governance, so that key decision-makers would gain ownership for future projects, and (3) drawing up a realistic timeline whose interim periods (between visits) could be utilized for data gathering and information exchange between the stakeholders. This timeline is proposed to be developed in collaboration with KMC, NSET, and other partner insitutions as the first activity for Phase 2.

Lastly, these next steps would have to involve a closer working relationship with NSET, KMC, and KVTDC. This would entail faster retrieval, transmission, and reception of planning data and analysis, as well as feedback.

b.

c.

d.


4.2 Project Organization

As a not-for-profit, scientific organization, EMI plays a major role in the transfer of knowledge and in providing technical assistance to reduce disaster risk in metropolises and megacities around the world. This is the general basis for its proposed partnership with KMC, and by extension, other stakeholders like KVTDC.

For Phase 2, EMI shall provide the required technical assistance, which consists of, but shall not be limited to mentoring and other forms of training, coordination, and fielding of experts to key areas. The following technical personnel will be fielded by EMI for the project:

1. Dr. Marqueza L. Reyes – Task Leader and Urban Planner

2. Prof. Jose Edgardo Gomez, Jr. – Land Use and Planning Legislation Expert

3. Prof. Marino Deocariza – Socio-economic Planning Expert

4. Dr. Fouad Bendimerad – Structural Engineer and DRR Expert

5. Dr. Bijan Khazai – Risk Assessment and Spatial Analysis Expert

6. Mr. Jerome Zayas – Project Coordinator7. Mr. Kyan Punongbayan – GIS Specialist8. Mr. Irwin Lopez – Project Asssistant

NSET shall continue to be the local technical partner of EMI and will provide the logistical and technical support needs for the project. The following NSET technical personnel will be the focal points for the project:

1. Mr. Amod Dixit – Executive Director2. Mr. Ram Chandra Kandel, M.Sc. – Senior

Engineer3. Mr. Ganesh Jimee – Geographer/Urban

Planner

KMC shall identify the site for the pilot project, inclusive of trained personnel from its various departments, and other logistical necessities. The proposed KMC focal points are:

1. Mr. Bimal Rijal, M.Sc. – Head, Urban Development Department

2. Ms. Archana Shrestha – Architect

3. Ms. Kumari Rai – GIS Specialist4. Mr. Indra Suwal – Division Chief, UDD

Focal points in other partner institutions such as KVTDC will be identified during Phase 2.


Annex 1COMMENTS FROM A LAND USE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE“Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Megacities: Pilot Application in Kathmandu”

Kenneth Topping, FAICPTopping Associates International28 February 2008

Introduction and Approach

The following report reviews the Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative (EMI) Draft Phase 1 Report on Application of Redevelopment as an Urban Planning Tool for Disaster Risk Reduction in Kathmandu, Nepal. This land use review report accomplishes the following, according to the contract for this work:

a) Review the draft report representing the findings, results and recommendations related to the scope of Project Element 1.3

b) Review the approach and methodology used by the team

c) Provide expert input [and be available] for consultation to give professional guidance on how the study’s recommendations and methodology can be enhanced

d) Provide relevant references and case studies that can improve and support future developments of the project

e) Provide input on the development of the terms of reference on the update of the LU Plan

The comments below include a general overview statement, followed by more specific observations related to various sections of the Draft Phase 1 Report for Kathmandu. Comments are based on a perspective informed by best practices in integrating disaster risk management within a variety of land use planning systems and frameworks found in other Southeast Asia countries. In particular, it is important to note that land use planning and

disaster risk reduction challenges found in the Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) setting differ markedly from those in other countries, for example, Makati City, Philippines, the subject of another report.

Overview

The Phase 1 Report is generally an excellent statement of the governmental and land use planning setting in the Kathmandu Valley, as well as the purpose, approach, and needed work to accomplish DRR through LUP. In this instance, intervention by the EMI professional team will require customization of work which recognizes specific historically determined LUP and development factors, and availability of necessary data, as well as unique risk, hazard, and vulnerability characteristics of the Kathmandu Valley and KMC. Comments which follow are geared to specific content of various sections of the Phase 1 Report, and are shown in underlined italics.

Section 1. Background

Section 1.1, “Rationale of the Project,” identifies conditions underlying the overarching vision and strategy for this project. This discussion notes that KMC policy makers are motivated to engage in DRR and to change the status quo represented by a largely top-down, disjointed collection of national, regional, and local LUP systems which are not well-linked to implementation or to DRR.


Noting the imminence of anticipated socio-political change with formation of new parliamentary system in March, this section suggests it would be useful to begin laying the groundwork for restructuring older LUP systems with concerned local authorities and national ministries now, because establishment of disaster risk reduction mechanisms within local government land use planning is a complex, long-term process.

Section 1.2, Goals and Objectives of the Project, sets out the overall goal for the project:

…to ensure that the detailed land use plan of KMC fully integrates disaster risk reduction provisions within its spatial and physical development strategies, its regulatory and non-regulatory planning tools, and its related bylaws, regulations and procedures.

It is recommended that language be added to the Phase 1 Report noting that this is a long-term goal which may take years and continuing stakeholder commitment to realize, given the challenges to DRR through LUP described in subsequent sections.

Section 2. Risk Profile of Kathmandu Valley

This section succinctly summarizes findings from the study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation carried in 2001-2002 by the JICA, noting that:

Geographical conditions expose the valley to multiple hazards, most prominently floods, debris flows, landslides and fires, which lead to annual disasters.Earthquakes are not as frequent but can cause a considerable death toll and heavy economic losses. Major sources of vulnerability are related to social fragility, lack of resilience and structural vulnerability, as well as political instability, high mortality rate, illiteracy, and extended poverty. There is a weak emergency preparedness and response capacity, limited hospital and health resources, and inadequate land use controls contribute to low coping

•

•

•

capacity and disaster resilience. High structural vulnerability of buildings and unregulated urban development allows settlements in landslide prone areas; an increasing number of informal settlements significantly contribute to increasing accumulation of risk

These findings explain the observation in the Kathmandu Valley Disaster Risk Management Profile (2005) that more people are killed by disasters in Nepal in proportion to total population than in any other country in South Asia (Koirala, Sharma & Regmi, 2002).

However, that study did not reveal any existence of government-sponsored hazard mapping for commonly experienced risks from floods, landslides, wildfires, or geological features such as faults, ground shaking intensity, or liquefaction. The question is immediately raised as to what, if any, hazard mapping exists, and at what scales sufficient to undertake this project?

Experience in the U.S., Japan, and other countries has shown that government-supported hazard mapping which identifies areas susceptible to hazards such as floods, landslides, and wildfires can be integrated into land use planning and regulation. Examples include the National Flood Insurance Program’s 100-year and 500-year floodplain mapping, the California Geological Survey’s landslide hazard mapping, and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s mapping of high fire hazard severity zones. Such mapping, usually at the scale of 1:24,000, is essential to forwarding a sound program of best DRR practices LUP. Usually, it is supplemented by more detailed information at a site-specific scale in order to determine appropriate building density, setbacks, street access, foundation requirements, and related mitigation requirements.

On the other hand, professional experience has demonstrated that integration of earthquake hazard risk reduction measures into land use planning is not as straightforward and is more problematic in comparison with other hazards due to difficulties in interpretation. Of course, clear relationships have been established between seismic factors such

•


as shaking intensities and structural requirements. However, microzonation studies have not yet led to ease of integration of geologic mapping with land use risk reduction measures, especially when such mapping is highly generalized. Experience gained over three decades of implementation of the California Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (previously known as the Alquist-Priolo Seismic Safety Study Zones Act) reveals that detailed, site-specific geologic investigations are usually needed to translate mapping of fault traces and to buffer zones into meaningful land use regulations.

For the preceding reasons, it is recommended that the Phase 1 Report clearly points out that the following needs must be accommodated for effective DRR through LUP:

1. A government commitment to sponsoring a wide variety of hazards mapping is a prerequisite for effective long-term risk reduction through land use planning.

2. Where possible, site-specific information on various hazards, risk, and vulnerabilities are needed to truly integrate DRR measures into land use regulation.

3. Earthquake hazard risk reduction through LUP remains an area of evolving knowledge requiring careful interpretation of geologic mapping at the closest available scale to be effective, and such knowledge requires field monitoring over time so it can be updated.

Section 3. Preliminary Assessment of the LUP System

Section 3 describes various aspects of a complex collection of national, regional, and local LUP and regulatory systems. As pointed out previously, they are not well-linked to implementation or to DRR; nor are they linked well to each other.

What emerges from this description is a picture of a disjointed, top-down vertical governance organization, with various ministries directly supervising specific local government functions spread laterally across differing local organizations

(e.g., municipalities vs. districts). This is not unusual in developing countries where national identity and governance issues remain to be resolved while the desire for democracy and local autonomy grows simultaneously. Many countries, including the U.S., experience problems of horizontal as well as vertical coordination on a national scale, as well as competition between top-down and bottom-up pressures for control.

However, the Phase 1 Report identifies some fundamental problems of basic governance which in turn affect opportunities for KMC to progress with DRR through LUP. For example, Figures 13 and 14 represent conflicting lines of development control between the following parties:

• Government (through Parliament)• Various Ministries• Kathmandu Valley Town Development

Council (KVTDC)• Districts• Municipalities • Village Development Committees (VDCs)

The KVTDC is a regional agency established by the central government to undertake overall planning and regulation of urban development at the valley level. KVTDC does not control the municipalities, but has 10 ongoing land pooling (land readjustment) projects, both in KMC and in the rest of Kathmandu Valley. However, the municipalities do not have control over building permits, apparently under the direction of one government ministry, while the disaster management is a function of another separate ministry.

Planning issues and challenges identified during a recent EMI team visit are cited in Section 3.6, Planning Issues and Challenges. The most important ones include:

1. Lack of a detailed proposed land use plan at the municipality level

2. Inadequate systems to implement the by-laws

3. Lack of a monitoring system for land use


Among other problems bearing on the project goal are apparent lack of subdivision controls and building permit controls at the municipal level. These are common methods of land use control used for risk reduction in other countries. Also, there was an apparent lack of awareness of risk in relation to land use as well as lack of interest among community stakeholders in public participation.

In short, this situation represents a municipal capacity building challenge of substantial proportions, together with an opportunity to provide substantive and extensive training in essential LUP and DRR knowledge and methods.

Section 4. Proposed Terms of Reference

The final section of the Phase 1 Report describes the proposed TORs for Phase 2, and proposes to re-engage partner institutions to produce desired LUP interventions that integrate DRR, as well as institutional strengthening to ensure long-term adoption and practice of skills transferred through technical assistance.

The following sequence of tasks, under Section 4.1, “Tasks and Activities,” represents a logical compilation of actions. The following are comments on these tasks and activities.

Assist in the formulation of the KMC land use plan that is risk-sensitive based on the latest GIS maps of existing land use, risk and vulnerability maps from the 2002 JICA study, and other documents provided by counterparts in Kathmandu.

This entails various activities related to planning analysis such as data collection and analysis, GIS mapping of different thematic maps pertinent to land use and risk assessment using JICA study, and possible action planning to identify supportive social and economic projects related to land use.

Questions: What, if any, citywide LUP exists and at what scales? Did JICA produce anything like this which might be usable for this purpose?

a.

1.

What, if any, citywide hazard mapping exists at a scale of 1:24,000 (or closer) for floods, fires, landslides and other geologic hazards? Did JICA produce anything like this which might be useable for this purpose?Might it be worth considering a scaled back function for Phase 2 focusing on a Pilot Project Area land use plan integrating DRR, rather than the entire KMC area?

A follow-through activity to be done through NSET will be the structuring of an advocacy campaign or some other appropriate medium that will help change hindering behavior, perceptions or attitudes about land use.

Draft a zoning ordinance based on the finished risk-sensitive land use plan for KMC.

Comment: If there is any uncertainty regarding basic data needed to compile the land use plan or integrate DRR measures, substantial caution should be exercised in undertaking a zoning ordinance writing. Again, a pilot project might be much more manageable.

Conduct a training for KMC’s LUP, with varying degrees of intervention for each step of the process (e.g., in data collection), depending on what the participants already know, and what they need to be tutored on. KVTDC, other municipalities and concerned stakeholders may also participate, if necessary.

Comment: this sounds like a useful idea which could be done in a series of training events tailored to the varying needs of each organization. It could be done together, as a single event, if there is fundamental similarity of functions between such organizations (doesn’t appear to exist).

Encourage and support the establishment of inter-institutional coordination between national and local levels of government. Balance should be placed on both horizontal and vertical linkages that can be strengthened through regular meetings of focus groups to be convened by EMI.

2.

3.

b.

c.

d.


Comment: This is a potentially useful undertaking which should be thought through very carefully. For example, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Management (OES) successfully staged a series of six large-scale planning sessions last year during preparation of the 2007 State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, but it was very time-and labor-consumptive.

Strengthen local institutions through the creation of ad hoc structures and protocol between KMC and KVTDC, as well as through legal instruments necessary to support such interventions.

General comment on the preceding task structure and activities: This is a very exciting venture which has the possibility of being very useful over time. But it seems like it will be necessary to use your core relationships to the fullest (e.g., KMC) to demonstrate value which compels the agencies to continue your interventions over time.

It would be useful, therefore, to ask: What institution-building functions would have the greatest possibilities of success in combination with a demonstration project which would help further the that capacity building within the overall stated long-term goal of using LUP for DRR?

References

1. Burby, R., ed. Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy/Joseph Henry Press, 1998.

2. Godschalk, David R., et al. Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning. 1999.

3. Hayashi, Haruo, Kenneth Topping, et al. The Marikina Safety Program: A Comprehensive Earthquake Disaster Reduction Program and Action Plan. Earthquake Disaster Mitigation

e.

Center (EDM), Kobe. March 2004.

4. Johnson, Laurie, Laura Dwelley Samant, and Suzanne Frew, Planning for the Unexpected: Land-Use Development and Risk. American Planning Association. Chicago, Illinois: Planners Advisory Service Report Number 531. 2005.

5. Mileti, Dennis S. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the U.S. Joseph Henry Press: Washington, D.C. 1999.

6. Olshansky, Rob, Laurie Johnson, and Kenneth Topping. Post-Disaster Redevelopment: Lessons from Kobe and Northridge. Final Report, NSF Award No. CMS-9730137. July 11, 2003.

7. Schwab, Jim, Kenneth Topping, Charles Eadie, Robert Deyle, and Richard Smith. Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction, FEMA - American Planning Association. Chicago, Illinois: Planners Advisory Service Report Number 483/484. 1999.

8. Topping, Kenneth C. “A New Approach to Earthquake Disaster Risk Reduction Planning in the U.S.: Lessons from the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000,” Proceedings, Second Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Manila, 10-11, 2006.

9. Topping, Kenneth C. “Land Use and Tenure Factors in Earthquake Disaster Mitigation and Recovery.” Paper presented at the 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, The Seismological Society of America, and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, April 18-22, 2006, San Francisco, California.

10. Topping, Kenneth C. “The Role of City Planning in Reducing Disasters.” Proceedings, Integrated Disaster Risk Management Workshop #3. Kyoto, Japan, July 2003. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxemburg, Austria, and

Mainstreaming DRR in Megacities: A Pilot Application in Metro Manila and Kathmandu 3�

Planning in Reducing Disasters.” Proceedings, Integrated Disaster Risk Management Workshop #3. Kyoto, Japan, July 2003. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxemburg, Austria, and Kyoto University Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI). url: http://idrm03.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/

Paperpdf/78topping.pdf

11. Topping, Kenneth C. “Strengthening Economic Development Through Disaster Reduction Strategic Planning in the Asia-Pacific Region.” Paper, Proceedings, Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering, March 5-6, 2004, Manila, Philippines.

12. Topping, Kenneth C. “Urban Planning During Rebuilding: The Machizukuri Experience.” The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake: Assessment Reports of the Global Assessment of Earthquake Countermeasures, Volume 5. Hyogo Prefectural Government, Committee for Global Assessment of Earthquake Countermeasures.


Earthquakes and Megacities InitiativeProject Director: Dr. Eng. Fouad BendimeradProject Manager: Dr. Khalid BouzinaProject Coordination: Dr. Reynaldo Guioguio and Jerome ZayasQuality Assurance and Review: Prof. Dr. Friedemann WenzelLegal Counsel: Atty. Violeta SevaTask Leaders: Shirley Mattingly, Dr. Marqueza Reyes, and Tara LedesmaTeam Members: Marino Deocariza, Nadia Pulmano, Irwin Gabriel Lopez, Zurayda Mae Cabilo, and Ramon Enrico PunongbayanKnowledge Management: Kristoffer Berse and Jerome CruzFinance and Administration: Zenaida Tejerero, Leticia Perez, Aubrey Lo, and Corazon Sebastian

Consultants: Jeannette Fernandez, Jose Edgardo Gomez, Jr., Dr. Bijan Khazai, Deborah Steffen, and Michael TomeldanExternal Reviewers: Nathaniel Von Einsiedel and Prof. Kenneth Topping

Deutsches Komitee KatastrophenvorsorgeKarl-Otto ZentelBirgit zum Kley-Fiquet

Local Partners

Kathmandu, NepalKathmandu Metropolitan City: Mr. Dinesh Thapalia, Chief Officer and Acting Mayor; and Bimal Rijal, Urban Development Department DirectorNational Society for Earthquake Technology - Nepal: Amod Dixit, Executive Director; Ramesh Kendal, Project Manager

Metro Manila, PhilippinesMetro Manila Development Authority: Bayani Fernando, Chairman and Ramon Santiago, Project RepresentativeMakati City Government: Jejomar Binay, Mayor and Xenon Walde, Makati Project RepresentativePhilippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology: Dr. Renato Solidum, Director

Participating Organizations and Contributors

Mainstreaming DRR in Megacities: A Pilot Application in Metro Manila and Kathmandu 3�

Phase 1 Topical Report No. 1 Kathmandu Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning 37www.emi-megacities.org

www.emi-megacities.org

citiesdisaster risk reduction

megacitiesdisaster risk reduction

www.emi-megacities.orgA member of the U.N. Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction

Documents

TOPICAL REPORT NO. 1 · 2.2 Worst Case Earthquake Scenario for Kathmandu Valley.....15 3. Preliminary Assessment of the State of ... to structure and implement a city-wide disaster