| Sustainable disaster risk
reduction in some of the most multi-hazard prone districts in selected states |
| |
|
 |
| |
|
| Phase I:2002-2004 [28] |
|
 |
– Orissa[12]
– Gujarat[11]
– Bihar[5] |
| |
| Phase II: 2003-2007 [97] |
– Uttaranchal[8]
– Bihar[9]
– West Bengal[10]
– Assam[12]
– Meghalaya[7]
– Sikkim[4]
– Uttar Pradesh[13]
– New Delhi[9]
– Maharashtra[14]
– Tamilnadu[6]
– Orissa[2]
– Gujarat[3] |
| |
|
| |
| Urban Earthquake Vulnerability reduction.. |
 |
| Sub-Programme- Disaster Risk Management Programme
|
| |
| •1897 Assam Earthquake: M8.7 |
|
•Koyna (1967): M6.5 |
| •1905 Kangra Earthquake: M8.6
|
|
•Bihar-Nepal (1988): M6.6
|
| •1934 Bihar-Nepal Earthquake: M8.4
|
|
•Imphal (1988): M7.2
|
| •1950 Assam Earthquake: M8.7
|
|
•Uttarkashi (1991): M6.6
|
| |
|
•Killari, Latur (1993): M6.4 |
| |
|
•Jabalpur (1997): M6.0
|
| |
|
•Chamoli (1999): M6.5 |
| |
|
•Bhuj (2001): M 6.9
|
| |
|
| |
| Seismic Zone Map |
• Four zones in India: II to V
– V is most severe with probability of intensity more than XI
– Total No. of Zones reduced from five (I to V) to four II to V) neglecting effects of very low risk of Zone-I
• Based on best available information at the time
• Revised from time to time especially after earthquakes in zones considered aseismic. (Lattur, Jabalpur) |
 |
| |
1. Awareness generation
• Communicating the risks/codal provisions/technologies among various stakeholders
2. Development of Earthquake preparedness plans
3. Development of a techno-legal framework
In new constructions-stop increasing the risk
• Review and amendment of codes , bye-laws
• Review of enforcement mechanisms.
In existing constructions-decrease unacceptable risk
Mandatory retrofitting
4. Training and Capacity building
5. Networking knowledge of best practices |
| |
| Awareness Generation |
• Development of city-specific Awareness generation plans
• Identifying resource institutions
• Developing Information Education Communication (IEC) materials including manuals, guidelines for safe housing options in the local language.
• Sensitization of ULBs, NGOs, Resident welfare associations, Students etc.
• Among practicing* Architects, Builders, Contractors, Designers, Engineers etc.
• Use of mass media
• Awareness required for the community at large on
– Seismic hazard in their region
– The codal provisions-in simplified vernacular language
– Cost effective disaster resistant technologies
– Earthquake resistant features
– Simple retrofitting measures
– Costs and benefits of seismic strengthening
– Possible damage scenario in their environment. |
|
| |
| Awareness generation …for policy makers |
• Capacity building of local authorities to acquire knowledge and resources
• Decentralizing authority for disaster preparedness and management
• Shifting focus from Response to Pro-active mitigation. |
 |
| |
|
| |
| Development of Earthquake preparedness plans |
• Identification of nodal agencies
• Sensitisation of Nagarik Samitis/ RW associations
• Meeting with line departments
• Nagarik Committee Meeting
• General Meeting with public of each ward/Mohalla
• Selection of two volunteers from the ward
• Orientation and training of volunteers
• Mapping by community with assistance of volunteers
– Social Mapping,Resource Mapping,Hazard Mapping,Need Assessment
• Development of preparedness plan –ward, city level
• Formation of Task forces
• Development of an Incident Command System |
| |
• Review of building byelaws, zonal codal provisions by empowered committees at the national and state level.
• Certification course for Architects, Engineers.
• Capacity building of regulatory authorities and staff.
• Institutional framework for a National/State ombudsman for overview of regulatory authorities.
• Orientation to policy makers for registration and regulation of builders, promoters and real estate developers. |
| |
|
| |
| Techno-legal regime- For existing constructions |
• Retrofit to decrease unacceptable risk
• Millions of unsafe buildings in high risk zones
• Many collapse in monsoons.
• Retrofitting for individual houses-
– By creating awareness among community
– Demonstrating retrofitting in various construction systems
– Creating capacities
• Financial institutions to fund retrofitting
• Legislation for mandatory retrofitting |
| |
| Capacity Building |
• Of Government engineers,practicing Architects,engineers,resource institutions
• On codal provisions,safe construction practices, retrofitting measures etc.
• Of Development authorities, ULBs, Resource institutions, Resident’s associations
• On awareness generation techniques,development of Earthquake Preparedness and response plans
• Of policy makers –on regional vulnerability, development of the techno-legal regime etc . |
| |
|
| |
| Networking |
•Developing a web-based portal for knowledge-sharing, inter-city cooperation on risk reduction measures
•Forum for city representatives,national experts/advisors to share experiences and learning
•Development of cities disaster resources database- and linkages to the IDRN
•Documentation and dissemination of best practices for wider circulation
•Learning from other’s experiences.. |
| |
| Stage |
Time |
Event |
Reaction |
| |
|
Positive |
Negative |
| 1 |
0-1min |
Major EQ |
|
Panic |
| 2 |
1min to 1week |
Aftershocks |
Rescue and Survival |
Fear |
| 3 |
1week to 1month |
Diminishing Aftershocks |
Short Term repairs |
Allocation of blame to builders,designers,officials,ect |
| 4 |
1month to 1year |
|
Long Term repairs,Action for higher standards |
|
| 5 |
1year to 10 years |
|
|
Diminishing interest |
| 6 |
10yrs to next EQ |
|
|
Reluctance to meet costs of seismic provisions,ect.,lncreasing non-compliance with regulations |
| 7 |
The next EQ |
Major EQ |
Repeat stage 1-7 |
|
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
| A scene from Ahmedabad (Zone III)-same as your city |
 |
| “Five moderate earthquakes of around 6.5 magnitude have occurred in India since 1988; this leaves the country with no choice but to develop strong initiatives in earthquake disaster preparedness, mitigation and management.” |
| |
 |
| |
|
