Lessons from Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project AUDMP Working Group Meeting, Bandung Shiva Bahadur Pradhanang Ramesh Guragain 19 March 2002 NSET-Nepal www.nset.org.np

KVERMP/Project Performance Performance Indicators Base line Life of Project Target Project Achievement Comment on Progress Project Objective: Establishment of Sustainable Mechanisms for Earthquake Disaster Risk Reduction in Kathmandu Valley Number of Institutions None 10 Institutions 11 Institutions Municipalities have shown Interests Changes in thinking of different institutions Number of Earthquake Disaster Risk Reduction Plans 1 Plan 3 Plan KVERMP Action Plan has been prepared DP and ER Plan for Health Sector KV Plan prepared by JICA Amount of Funding Committed to Earthquake Risk Reduction Projects following the start of this Project $0 $500,000 $281,348.67 (This figure includes only the in-kind contribution to KVERMP from non-AUDMP sources OFDA WHO/SEARO GHI UNCRD JICA Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

Methodology for Different Activities Items Base Line (Prior to Project) Project Achievement Remarks Methodology for hazard assessment Earthquake Hazard Map Existed for Nepal Simplified interpretative EQ hazard map prepared for KV based on 1934 EQ Simplified interpretative liquefaction susceptibility map for KV Use of Existing information No new research Methodology for loss estimates None used for KV 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake taken as scenario earthquake ATC-13/15 used for KV scenario earthquake (for MMI IX) and loss estimation made for critical facilities and casualty. Electricity damage map Telecommunication Water supply Road/Bridges Casualty estimated for empirical consideration Hospital hazard map created Found to very simple in the case of the lack of in-built data, building inventory Replicated under RADIUS in 9 cities Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

Methodology for Different Activities Items Base Line (Prior to Project) Project Achievement Remarks Methodology for writing earthquake scenario None Loss estimation results translated into simple language understood by common man in the form of text (Target audience: common people, teacher, student, decision maker, municipal authority, policy maker) Found to be very strong tool for awareness raising Methodology for developing action plan for earthquake risk management None used for KV Interaction process for involving manager of critical facilities in developing doable action Replicated under RADIUS in 9 cities Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

Methodology for Different Activities Items Base Line (Prior to Project) Project Achievement Remarks School Building Vulnerability Assessment None Vulnerability of 1100 buildings of 643 public schools assessed through workshops and subsequent survey by school teachers Survey questionnaire designed Analysis Vulnerability assessment of groups of school buildings Structural intervention for improving seismic performance of school buildings Based on the building typology, identified possible cost-effective retrofitting options for typical masonry and from buildings Masonry buildings: Corner stitching, Horizontal bands, Vertical splints, bracing of walls Frame buildings: Jacketing of columns, addition of shear walls etc. Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

Methodology for Different Activities Items Base Line (Prior to Project) Project Achievement Remarks Implementation of retrofitting of school buildings (Development of SESP Concept) None Develop mechanism for implementation Structural intervention to school buildings Training to masons, teachers, students, parents etc. Replicated in Chamoli,Bandung by UNCRD Advocacy for building code implementation First path Building council act passed by parliament, council constituted Building code implementation process started Second path Worked with NBSM for developing building code as Nepal Standards Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

Methodology for Different Activities Items Base Line (Prior to Project) Project Achievement Remarks Public awareness/ policy None ESD has become a sustained activity Minister MOST is the chairman of ESD national committee 28 members including NSET 4 ESDs completed successfully Wonderful target audience National meeting – policy makers / donors Symposium – professionals/decision makers Earthquake safety rally, exhibition – all Shake table demonstration – builders, technicians, house owners Street drama - children Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

Methodology for Different Activities Items Base Line (Prior to Project) Project Achievement Remarks Institutional Development NSET as a ERM center in Nepal None Credible institution with mission/vision statements and strategic objectives Trusted by all (Govt., NGO, Donors) OFDA JICA UNCRD OCHA etc. Very wide national/international outreach of NSET Could implement JICA program “The Study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in The Kathmandu Valley, kingdom of Nepal” ADPC/AUDMP was the starting assistance Fund raising In kind/cash contribution from outside AUDMP funds amounted to >60% Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

Ongoing Activities Implementation of APIP Start September 2000 – End August 2003 Non-structural Vulnerability Reduction Quantitative Qualitative Lectures and assessment work to some organizations SESP New donors like BFN, GHI and Others Awareness raising Publications Radio TV Articles in Newspapers

Lessons Learned Awareness raising became part of all project components Low-tech approach was optimal Emphasis on community level work is important SESP concept is very effective NGO status both helped and hindered project implementation Institutional development is a long-term process

Challenges Replication in Manpower Constraint Lack of Policies Kathmandu Valley, Outside Valley, Outside Nepal Manpower Constraint Lack of Policies Building Permit Process Earthquake Forum Problems Many Actors, No Work False Sense of Competition Institutional Problem Internal External

What Should We Continue Doing? Policy Work-shop (With ADPC Support) Training Impact Assessment Community Level Works Awareness Raising Video RADIUS Assessment for 58 Municipalities