From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and ...

`

From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond J. Bothara Miyamoto International NZ Ltd.

D. Dizhur Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland.

R.P. Dhakal Civil & Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

J. Ingham Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland.

ABSTRACT The 1988 Udaypur earthquake in eastern Nepal and the resulting deaths and damage to housing, schools and other infrastructure drew attention to the need for changes and improvement in the prevailing seismic safety practices in Nepal. This need triggered the initiation of many activities including developing and implementing building codes, policy intervention and addressing the safety of school and hospital buildings through various improvements. Many innovative and downto-earth initiatives were implemented for raising earthquake risk awareness amongst the general public, and capacity building of engineers and craftsperson through trainings and demonstration programs. The global impetus for disaster risk reduction (DRR) played a crucial role for the improved understanding of earthquake disasters, and investment and knowledge sharing by

From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond 2018 NZSEE Conference

1

international agencies have helped Nepal’s earthquake disaster risk reduction (EDRR) efforts. This progression of EDRR efforts was evident in response and recovery following the 2015 Nepal earthquake, which resulted in approximately 9,000 deaths and direct economic loss of more than US$7 billion, which is 1/3rd of Nepal’s 2013 GDP. Presented herein is Nepal’s journey on seismic safety practices from the 1988 Udaypur earthquake to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake and beyond. Successful EDRR initiatives that were developed and adopted in this period are reported and a critique is presented. The challenges associated with EDRR funding and implementation, plus an assessment of gaps and recommendations for further improvement are also included. 1

INTRODUCTION

Nepal a Himalayan country located in the middle of the Himalayas (see Figure 1), was hit by a Mw 6.8 East Nepal earthquake in the early morning of 21 August 1988, while people were still asleep. The earthquake affected mostly the eastern part of Nepal and resulted in 721 casualties, and damage and destruction of more than 66,000 buildings. This was the first earthquake of reasonable size that struck Nepal in the modern times. The resulting deaths and losses drew attention to the need for changes and improvement in the prevailing seismic safety practices in Nepal. This was also the time when there was a realisation at the international level that unless the effect of disasters is mitigated substantially, the development achieved in the developing countries cannot be sustained. This realisation resulted a far-reaching global undertaking to reduce human loss and the impacts of disasters (UN, 1989) by declaring the International Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) programme for 1990 to 1999 by the UN General Assembly (in Resolution A/RES/44/236). This endeavour was followed by many other international initiatives. Rapid population growth, urbanisation, and unsustainable development practices in Nepal continuously increase the exposure and vulnerabilities of local communities to earthquake disasters (UNDP, 2015). Nepal’s building stock is a major source of casualties and financial losses. The building stock mainly consists of unreinforced masonry (URM) type buildings which is highly vulnerable to earthquake shaking. Similar to the building stock, the design and construction of much of Nepal’s infrastructure and lifelines do not account for seismic effects. This mix of a highly vulnerable building stock and infrastructure in an environment of high seismic hazard coupled with a community that has low awareness of earthquake safety measures has resulted in significant high seismic risk to the population of Nepal. As a result, Nepal has been ranked as the 11th most earthquake vulnerable country in the world (UNDP, 2009). At 11:56 Nepal Standard Time (NST) on 25 April 2015 Nepal was hit by the Mw 7.8 2015 Gorkha earthquake, which was followed by 484 aftershocks including the Mw 7.3 aftershock. Although, the earthquakes have resulted in approximately 9,000 deaths and 23,000 injuries and damaged or destroyed approximately 850,000 houses, 6,000 government buildings, and 30,000 classrooms (NRA, 2016), the progression of EDRR efforts was evident in response and recovery following the earthquake. Presented herein is Nepal’s journey of change on seismic safety practices from the 1988 Udaypur earthquake to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake and beyond. Also presented are the ongoing initiatives on earthquake preparedness, improvement of building stock, and positive changes in general Nepali psyche. Critique of these initiatives as well as assessment of gaps along with recommendations for further improvement are also presented. It is expected that Nepal’s EDRR journey could formulate and provide a foundation model for other developing countries.

2

NEPAL’S SEISMICITY AND PREVIOUS EARTHQUAKES

Nepal has experienced a large number of strong historic earthquakes throughout its history, this is attributed to location being in the vicinity of the mega thrusts between the Indo-Australian Plate and the Eurasian Plate (see Figure 1). A study conducted in 1992 has identified 92 active faults in Nepal and its vicinity. Researches have reported that large earthquakes with a moment magnitude (M w) of 7.5 or more occurred in Nepal in 1100, 1505, 1555, 1724, 1803, 1833, 1897, and 1934 (Sapkota, et al., 2013); (Srivastava, Bansal, & Verma, 2013); (Rana & Lall, 2013). Several events of Mw 6.0 or greater occurred in Nepal over the past century alone which include M8.3 1934 Nepal-Bihar earthquake, M6.6 1980 West Nepal earthquake, M w6.8 East Nepal earthquake (Bilham, Gaur, & Molnar, 2001); (Thapa & Guoxin, 2013); and Mw 6.8 2011 Sikkim earthquake. The 1934 earthquake caused extensive loss of life and property in Nepal and India, with a modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) up to X (ten) recorded over an area of approximately 4,500 square kilometres. This earthquake severely damaged buildings and resulted in approximately 15,700 deaths, including 8,519 fatalities in Nepal alone (Rana & Lall, 2013). The 21 August 1988 East Nepal earthquake of magnitude M w6.8 was centred in Udaypur in eastern Nepal. This earthquake caused 721 deaths in Nepal, destroyed an estimated 60,000 houses, and caused widespread damage to infrastructure (Thapa, 1989). The recent 2015 Mw 7.8 earthquake and aftershock sequence resulted in approximately 9,000 deaths and 23,000 injuries, with more than 850,000 houses affected. Of the 75 districts (an administrative unit) in Nepal, the earthquake affected 31 districts out of which 14 were declared ‘most affected’.


2

Figure 1: Location of mega faults in the context of Nepal – main frontal thrust (MFT), main boundary thrust (MBT), and main central thrust (MCT) (adapted from (Prajapati, Dadhich, & Chopra, 2017)).

3

PRE-1988 EARTHQUAKE

Limited information is available in literature on the pre-1988 earthquake safety scenario in Nepal. First hand observations, including anecdotal evidences and experience of the authors indicate a poor scenario for reasons that are discussed in subsequent sections. 3.1

Limited appreciation of seismic risk

Anecdotal evidences and first-hand experience of the authors, indicate a severe lack of appreciation of earthquake risk in Nepal among the general public as well as among policy and decision makers even by end of 1990s. The attitude and measures adopted by an individual or community to mitigate seismic risk depends on how they interpret and perceive the risk. Being a traditional and fatalistic society, the earthquakes were considered God’s will or the earthquakes were considered punishment to sinners. Many of these stakeholders did not appear in favour on EDRR in Nepal. In addition, it has been observed that when people have no means or lack understanding of certain phenomenon, they tend to slide into surrender. Similar scenario resulted in Nepal which often provided a ready excuse for no action at all levels. 3.2

Lack of knowledge

Until 1994, Nepal had no regulations or documents that set out requirements or good practice for achieving satisfactory building design and construction to resist earthquakes (GoN, 1994). Nepal heavily relied on Indian Standards for building and infrastructure design, these standards were deemed to be far behind other international Standards and heavily focused only on gravity load design. Until mid-1980s Nepal had no facility for tertiary institution to train engineers in Nepal and it heavily relied on foreign trained engineers for buildings and infrastructure design. The first group of Nepali engineers graduated in 1989 from a Nepali institution. These engineering training had insignificant focus on earthquake resistant design and construction. There were no programmes for training or upgradation of professional skills. Similar to the engineering training, there was no provision for training craftspeople. Craftspeople acquired their knowledge by the passing down of skills through generations. These skills were generally derived from vernacular building construction techniques, which inherently lacked earthquake resilience. A combination of lack of knowledge and skills shortage have led to a highly vulnerable pre-1988 building stock in Nepal. A study by Jain (1992) published following the 1988 East Nepal earthquake, shows extremely poor implementation of earthquake resistant design codes both for private and public facilities in the earthquake affected areas of India. The reasons for non-compliance included lack of trainings on earthquake resistant design and construction, lack of adequate technical literature on seismic codes, and sometimes lack of clarity in the way the codes are written. A similar scenario could be expected in Nepal at the time. 3.3

Poor design and construction practices

Until 1990s, most residential buildings and some public buildings (even in urban areas of Nepal) did not undergo any rational engineering design. A combination of lack of knowledge, lack of accessibility and affordability of better construction materials and


3

techniques, poor construction practices led to deficient design and construction practices, which resulted in highly vulnerable buildings. Many parts of the county were made very isolated by the treacherous topography, a lack of road network and under developed communication, which resulted in wide variation in actual construction practices in different parts of the country. The inaccessibility of the areas and a weaker economy meant people have to use local materials such as mud, stones, brick despite these being highly vulnerable to earthquake shaking. Although some knowledge on earthquake resistant construction such as use of timber bands in vernacular buildings existed in various parts of Nepal, it was not implemented in majority of the buildings, most likely due to a lack of affordability. Even where, affordability and accessibility to modern construction materials were better, the buildings lacked earthquake resilient features such as ductile detailing reinforced concrete buildings or provision of seismic bands in URM buildings, to say a few. 3.4

Legal framework

Legal framework for disaster management in Nepal was put in place in 1982 with the promulgation of the Natural Calamity (Relief) Act. However, the Act’s focus was post-disaster response and recovery rather than preparedness. This act allocated the responsibility of preparing for and responding to disasters to the government and provided an administrative structure for disaster management in the country (Pokharel, 2015). Other legislative and policy-level initiatives followed, some of which are discussed below. Until 2004 Nepal had no legal provisions to control, monitor, facilitate and enforce earthquake resistant construction or any requirements to comply with a set of design guidelines or Standards. Similarly, there were no requirements for professionals to comply with to maintain professional standards. Although, legal provisions for the Territorial Authorities existed to monitor and control building construction in their territories, including consent for building activities. It should be noted that these provisions were applicable only in municipal (urban) areas, and the building consent package did not require any rational structural design. Further to this, the building consent process was more a revenue generating tool for the territorial authorities.

1988 – 2015 PERIOD

4

Nepal has made significant improvement progress in building standards through development of building code and its implementation, capacity building of engineers and masons in earthquake resistant design and construction and preparation of legal framework. The improvements also included enhanced emergency preparedness by providing earthquake awareness programs to the general public, initiating disaster response plans, and developing health-sector preparedness and awareness about safety measures in school programs between 1988 and 2015. Selective initiatives are discussed in the subsequent sections. 4.1

Global initiatives and Nepal’s response

The global initiatives undertaken since 1980s to reduce impacts of disasters on human life and to sustain development have promoted a culture of disaster preparedness in Nepal, which has encouraged a shift from post-disaster to pre-disaster initiatives. These international actions, increasing participation of Nepal in the international forums, information sharing, and international investment motivated the development of a proactive policy framework and the initiation of disaster risk management (DRM) activities in Nepal. Figure 2 presents a summary of the relationships between international DRR initiatives and the Nepal’s DRR policy framework formulation and progressive initiatives undertaken by Nepal.

UN: United Nations, IDNDR: International Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction, DM: Disaster Management, SFDRR: Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, SDG: Sustainable Development Goals, NDP: National development Plan. Figure 2: Relationships between major international DRR initiatives and Nepali DRR policy framework (Bothara, Ingham, & Dizhur, 2018)


4

The International Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) was the first concerted international effort launched by the UN General Assembly (in Resolution A/RES/44/236) aimed at disaster management on the global level. In response to the UN call, Nepal constituted a National IDNDR committee and developed an action plan with a focus on pre-disaster management. This action plan identified priority item groups, activities, and executing agencies and established a time line for these actions (MOHA, 1996). An action plan developed following the UN’s resolution, as part of the World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction in 1994 helped to strengthen national capacities and legislative frameworks through a participatory approach and recognition of local knowledge and traditional methods, and encouraged a shift from post-disaster response to disaster prevention and management in Nepal (Bothara, Ingham, & Dizhur, 2018). The UN sponsored International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) further promoted disaster reduction as an integral component of sustainable development. In response to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), the Government of Nepal adopted the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (NSDRM) in 2009, which outlined a vision of developing Nepal as a disaster-resilient country. After the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, the Government of Nepal (GoN) clearly emphasized on “Build Back Better” (BBB) approach in accordance with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015-2030 (UN, 2015) for recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction which was not the case after the 1988 Udaypur earthquake. 4.2

National legislative and policy framework

As a paradigm shift from post-earthquake response to pre-disaster risk reduction efforts the GoN replaced the 1982 Natural Calamity (Relief) Act by a comprehensive Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, 2017. As mentioned earlier, until 1994 Nepal had no formal regulations or documents setting out requirements or best practices for achieving the satisfactory seismic performance of buildings. Following the 1988 Udaypur (East Nepal) earthquake the Nepal Building Code Development project (NBCDP) was established (HMG, 1994) to prepare a building code for Nepal. Planning for a national building code was guided by the need to tailor it to the local economic climate, lack of trained manpower, low seismic risk awareness levels, and limited accessibility to technology and quality construction materials. Accordingly, it adopted “incremental safety” approach. The NBCDP also developed a management plan to implement the building code and drafted the Engineering Council Act and Building Act for its effective enforcement. As recommended by the NBCDP, the government of Nepal promulgated the Engineering Council Act and Building Act in 2004, albeit in weaker form than recommended by the NBCDP. Another relevant piece of legislation is the Local Self-Governance Act for DRR. While this act is not directly concerned with disaster-related issues, it does provide territorial authorities with the ability to formulate and implement plans and programmes in their districts (e.g., the incorporation of earthquake risk reduction activities). The Local Self-Governance Act also empowers municipalities to monitor and control building construction in their territories, including consent for building activities. It should be noted that this empowerment is only applicable in municipal (urban) areas, and the act is unclear regarding what needs to be submitted for the design documents required for building consent. A few municipalities have recently begun considering structural engineering design when granting building consent. However, most municipalities lack the capability to incorporate structural engineering design and consequently face logistical challenges 4.3

Development plans

Post-1988, a significant shift in government’s initiatives could be seen in development plans Nepal. For example, In the 1990s, in response to the UN General Assembly’s decision A/RES/44/236, Nepal drafted a national disaster mitigation programme and developed a draft National Action Plan on Disaster Management, which was later updated following the Yokohama conference to incorporate the Yokohama strategy and make it more pragmatic (MOHA, 1996). The plan identified four key areas: preparedness, response, reconstruction and rehabilitation, and mitigation. The plan demonstrates a paradigm shift from rescue and relief operations to disaster management, which was a shift that has had a crucial impact on macro-level development planning. Overtime, the policy environment in Nepal for DRR has become more comprehensive and conducive. Nepal’s National Development Plans (NDPs), which provides policy directives for general development activities, first time acknowledge DRR as a priority in its 10th NDP (2002-2007), which was further reinforced in subsequent plans. It emphasised policy formulation for DRR and strengthening institutional mechanisms, risk assessment, and information collection and dissemination. Building on increasing awareness and understanding of disasters, the subsequent NDPs become more DRR friendly. In 2009, the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (NSDRM) programme was developed after the Government of Nepal recognised the need for a meaningful and integrated document based on the HFA to guide and ensure effective disaster management (MOHA, 2009) and was framed around the five priority areas of the HFA. In 2011, the Government of Nepal and a group of international organisations working to promote seismic resilience in the country and to develop a long-term Disaster Risk Reduction Action Plan based on the NSDRM formed Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC). Based on the HFA and NSDRM, the NRRC identifies five flagship priorities for sustainable DRM and immediate action among which school and hospital safety; emergency preparedness and response; integrated community-based DRM; and policy/institutional support for DRM (GON, 2013).


5

4.4

Other Efforts in Reduction of Earthquake Disaster Risk

4.4.1

Awareness raising activities

Considering role of awareness to promote bottom up approach and need to inform the decision and policy makers of the impending earthquake risk in Nepal, and how its effects can be mitigated, significant efforts have been made (mostly in urban areas) since 1990s. In this context, Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project (KVERMP) implemented by National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET), brought together stakeholders such as national government agencies, municipal governments, professional societies, academic institutions, schools, and international agencies present in Kathmandu Valley (Dixit, Dwelley-Samant, Nakarmi, Pradhanang, & Tucker, 2000) to assess the Kathmandu Valley’s earthquake risk and develop an action plan for the risk mitigation (Figure 3a). Considering role of schools in awareness raising, it initiated the School Earthquake Safety Programme (SESP) and a community-based approach. After the conclusion of the KVERMP, the NSET extended its programmes to other parts of Nepal. The success of KVERMP can be attributed to its down-to-earth approach, understanding of local issues, community-based approach, and the presentation of scientific knowledge in simple terms. To aware people of impending seismic risk in Nepal, Government of Nepal has declared 15 January (the day of the 1934 earthquake) as Earthquake Safety Day. The day is commemorated by public awareness activities such as earthquake safety exhibitions; shocking table demonstrations; an earthquake parade; publication and distribution of brochures, pictorial books, illustrated story books, and pamphlets; radio and television programmes; street dramas; and dissemination of news and bulletin articles (Figure 3). These efforts also example of public-private partnership supported by international agencies.

(a) Earthquake scenario of Kathmandu Valley (Source: NSET)

(b) Preparedness for earthquake safety (Source: NSET)

(c) Shock Table’ demonstration to convince people of the effectiveness of earthquake-resistant construction (Source: NSET)

Figure 3: Public awareness activities and publications 4.4.2

Building code implementation programme

While the legislation has made compliance to building code mandatory, the Territorial Authorities (TA) that are responsible for implementation of Building Codes, are not capable to exercise effective control over the building permit and building inspection processes due to lack of appropriate mechanisms and capacities for building code implementation. The program which focuses on assisting the TAs in Nepal in enhancing their capacities to develop and administer the building permits and control system properly for ensuring improved seismic performance has been implemented (Dixit, Shrestha, Parajuli, & Thapa, 2012). Further to this, the enhanced capability of engineers and craftsperson’s have helped implantation of building code. 4.4.3

School earthquake safety programme

Considering the seismic risk faced by the schools and their role in disseminating awareness, the SESP was initiated under the KVERMP in 1998 which was further extended by NSET and others over the time in different parts of the country. The programme provided opportunity for the strengthening of school buildings (Figure 4a and 4b) and their non-structural components. As well as providing opportunities to interact and work together with the government, Territorial Authorities, and communities, train local craftspeople, raise awareness, develop and disseminate technology, implement the building code, and most importantly, to influence the next generation (Bothara, Pandey, & Guragain, 2004). The programme was later extended to include earthquake preparedness training for students and teachers (Figure 4c), preparation of earthquake emergency response plans, first aid training, demonstrations of light search and rescue operations, and inclusion of DRM in the school curricula (Dixit, Yatabe, Dahal, & Bhandari, 2013), (MOHA, 2016). As part of the NRRC’s flagship programme, these activities have now been extended to other parts of the country. The Government of Nepal has included the retrofit of school buildings in its annual plan, and this work has been completed in many areas of the country (MOHA, 2015). It is interesting to note that none of the approximately 300 retrofitted school buildings suffered serious damage or collapsed, even in epicentral areas, despite being constructed of low-strength materials (Dixit, Guragain, & Shrestha, 2015).


6

(a) School building strengthened by NSET (photo taken 1998 prior to retrofit)

(b) The same school building as in (a)

(c) School earthquake drill

Figure 4: Seismic retrofitting of school building (Source: NSET) 4.4.4 Hospital safety improvements Studies prior to the 2015 Nepal earthquake sequence (WHO, 2002), (MOH, 2003) showed that the structural and non-structural components and contents of most hospital buildings in Nepal faced high seismic risk and it was concluded that these hospitals were expected to be inoperable during even medium earthquake shaking due to non-structural and content damage. Accordingly, preparedness programs were implemented by the Government of Nepal in public and private hospitals in Kathmandu (MOHA, 2016). As a result of related interventions, hospitals in Kathmandu remained operable after the 2015 Nepal earthquake sequence, however, this was not the case particularly in remote and rural areas. 4.4.5 Human resource development In recent decades Nepal has made significant progress in training in the areas of engineering and DRM. In the mid-1980s the country’s universities offered courses only for a Bachelor of Engineering, whereas many universities now offer post-graduate courses in structural, earthquake, and geotechnical engineering as well as DRM. Similar to these formal courses, the government, various NGOs and INGOs also frequently conduct DRM training, including aspects of earthquake engineering for people of different levels such as disaster managers, engineers and bureaucrats (Figure 5). Recognising the socio-economic climate and craftspeople’s potential influence in the community for implementing and sustaining earthquake-resistant construction, craftspeople’s training was initiated in late 1990s.

(a) Formal classroom training

(b) Engineer training

(c) Mason training on pre-soaking bricks (1998)

(d) On-site training: learning ductile detailing skills

Figure 5: Training on earthquake-resistant design and construction Similar to construction industry training, Medical First Responder and Collapsed Structure Search and Rescue (CSSR) training were initiated in 2000s in Nepal. The programme has trained responders from the Nepal Army, Nepal Police, and Nepal Red Cross Society, who are mandated with first responder tasks including local volunteers (Figure 6), (Bothara, Ingham, & Dizhur, 2018).

(a) Search and Rescue training

(b) First responder’s training

Figure 6: Light search and rescue training, and first responder training


7

4.4.6

Preparation of literature on DRR

In the last two decades, numerous documents on earthquake resistant design and construction, building assessment and retrofitting brochures, and preparedness material for house owners have been developed in Nepal by various organisations. Relevant stakeholders have been provided trainings on use of these documents. These documents have led to seismic resilient design and construction of new buildings, assessment and retrofitting design of existing buildings. 4.5

OBSERVED CHANGES

The following are some of the important observed changes due to the continued efforts made by various institutions in earthquake risk management in Nepal: •

Improved policies: There has been a remarkable change in terms of policies, especially in the area of building code development and implementation, shift from post-earthquake response to preparedness.

•

Increased awareness: Due to the public awareness programmes, the basic understanding and perception of earthquake disaster risk in Nepal has significantly improved in the last two decades. A study by Upreti et al. (2012) has revealed a shift in positive attitude towards earthquake safety and a marked increase in the percentage of people who consider earthquakes as an issue deserving their attention. The study has also shown that in 1998 people looked at earthquake disaster fatalistically, where as in 2009 people though the impact of earthquakes can be reduced.

•

Improved construction: The demand for earthquake-resistant construction is rapidly growing in Nepal. The capacity building of craftsman and engineer through trainings, academic courses have resulted in noticeable advances in engineering and building practices over the last two decades (Figure 7).

(a) A ductile RC frame building under construction

(b) A masonry building with bands at various levels

(c) Timber bands in a residential house with a lightweight gable

Figure 7: Improved construction practices •

Improved post-earthquake response: Local communities play a crucial role as the first responder for search and rescue operation. Figure 8 shows the effectiveness of the local community as first responders for search and rescue after the 2015 Nepal earthquake sequence and is a testament to the value of previous training initiatives. While it would be an exaggeration to say that the effective national contribution to search and rescue was due to the training imparted to the local personals and volunteers, the trainings helped local and national responders to work effectively, either independently or side by side with international Urban Search and Rescue teams (Dixit, Guragain, & Shrestha, 2015), (U. S. Embassy in Nepal, 2015).

(Note: *Nepal Police, 02 July 2015, **Reports by Nepalese Army, Nepal Police and Armed Police Force, June 2015, ***Report by Nepalese Army, 16 June 2015) Figure 8: Victims removed and dead recovered by various search and rescue teams (adapted from (Dixit, Guragain, & Shrestha, 2015))


8

•

Improved post-earthquake reconstruction: The post-earthquake reconstruction strategic plan clearly emphasised the “Build Back Better” approach (NPC, 2015). This plan represents a significant deviation in the government’s response if compared with the 1988 earthquake. Increased capacity of the engineers and masons on seismic resilience techniques helped promote earthquake-resilient repair, retrofitting and reconstruction after the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Due to previously received training and exposure in to repair and strengthening techniques, engineers were able to act immediately (see Figure 9) avoiding long gestation time.

(a) RC bands and vertical bars in a residential building (2016)

(b) Repair and strengthening of infill wall of a RC frame building

(c) Stitching of a brick masonry wall

Figure 9: Repair and reconstruction of buildings damaged by the 2015 earthquake

5

BEYOND 2015

The following are recommendations as to how Nepal might further improve its earthquake resilience through earthquake risk reduction efforts: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

6

The successful initiatives undertaken for DRR need to be scaled-up. EDRR be integrated into development planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Communities included in the decision-making process when community-based DRM (CBDRM) is involved. The government and other agencies to intensively promote public awareness and earthquake preparedness programs throughout the country with rural areas needing special attention. Formation of an institution dedicated to EDRR to guide, monitor, and research seismic safety. A research institution is to be developed for action-oriented research on local issues such as seismological and geotechnical research, socio-economic and cultural issues, and building resiliency and intervention options. The community, NGOs, CBOs, and the private sector are included in EDRR. Existing legislation related to EDRR be further developed and enforced and the building codes are implemented. Awareness has been raised to an extent, but the knowledge gained needs to be internalised. A competence-based registration system for engineers and licensing for craftspeople be implemented. The activities of the Nepal DRM Flagship Program be scaled up, particularly those related to school and hospital safety, emergency preparedness and response capacity, integrated community-based DRR management, and policy and institutional support. A policy framework/guideline be developed for assessment and improvement of the seismic performance of the existing building stock. Risk-sensitive land-use planning is developed and implemented. Update seismic hazard and site (for example soil types) mapping. Timely revision of National Building Standards. Regularly evaluate the spirit of code provisions on seismic design and detailing and understood and followed by the design engineers. Disaster-related insurance policies are to be developed.

DISCUSSION

Nepal has taken a long stride for seismic safety, but the earthquake risk in Nepal is out pacing the efforts made due to the ongoing construction of vulnerable building and infrastructure, limited investment, limited political will to implement building related legislation and codes, fatalism, a weak economy, a lack of accessibility to the remote and rural community, and other pressing needs. Furthermore, there is no legal framework to improve the seismic performance of the existing building stock despite the vast majority of buildings remaining highly vulnerable to earthquakes. The scaling-up of successful pilot projects and the institutionalization and internalisation of achievements is a major challenge for further enhancement and sustainability of EDRR endeavours made thus far.


9

The current framework for DRM is mostly focused on urban areas, whereas the rural areas, where 83% of the population lives, have been left far behind and need significant additional input for EDRM. The economy, education level, awareness levels and accessibility in the rural areas is much lower than in the urban areas, which imposes additional challenge for EDRM. There remains limited research on issues such as engineering, socio-economic and cultural conditions, earthquake resiliency, and building safety in Nepal in the context of seismic protection. Many DRR programs in Nepal are driven by international donors. Although, these programmes have been driven for good cause, their agenda and limited time frames may not match with local context as the long-term sustainability of EDRR programmes require cultural shift which cannot be achieved in pre-decided limited time frame. Although community-based DRM (CBDRM) programmes are centred on communities, the decision-making process is controlled by international donors and national experts. As experts and community members perceive risk differently (Laursen, 2015), it is challenging to internalise acquired knowledge. Risk reduction depends on how risk is perceived, and it is a dynamic process. A continual process for dynamic risk assessment is required to reveal the drivers of earthquake risk and the effectiveness of policies focused on reducing risk. The policy framework needs to be responsive to changing dynamics. Safety is a cultural issue and until it becomes a part of daily life, its sustainability will remain questionable. Despite the scenario has substantially improved since 1988 (at least at awareness level in the urban areas), it is still marred by many issues as discussed above, which has impeded progress to improve seismic safety within the country. Considering improving seismic safety is a slow process, the pre-1988 issues presented here are still applicable in many instances and are contributing to Nepal’s earthquake vulnerability.

7

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Nepal has made significant improvements in its preparedness for major earthquakes over the last two and a half decades. Global motivation for DRR, investment, and knowledge sharing by international agencies, as well as improved understanding of earthquake disasters and mitigation strategies, have played a major role in the country’s EDRR efforts. Accordingly, many initiatives have been introduced at the policy and grassroots levels. Further sustained efforts and investment are needed to capitalise on these initiatives and offset Nepal’s growing seismic risk.

8 REFERENCES Bilham, R., Gaur, V. & Molnar, P. 2001. Himalayan Seismic Hazard. Science, Vol 293, 1442-1444. Bothara, J.K., Pandey, B. & Guragain, R. 2004. Seismic Retrofitting of Low Strength Masonry Non-engineered School Buildings, The Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol 37(1), 13-22. Bothara, J., Ingham, J. & Dizhur, D. 2018. Earthquake Risk Reduction Efforts in Nepal. In P. Samui, D. Kim, & C. Ghosh (Eds.), Integrating Disaster Science and Management Global Case Studies in Mitigation and Recovery ((in press) ed., p. 500), Elsevier Science Publishing Co Inc. Dixit, A.M., Dwelley-Samant, L.R., Nakarmi, M., Pradhanang, S.B. & Tucker, B. 2000. The Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project: An Evaluation. Auckland, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Dixit, A.M., Guragain, R. & Shrestha, S.N. 2015. Two Decades of Earthquake Risk Management Actions Judged Against Gorkha Earthquake of Nepal April 2015, Proceedings of New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia (USMCA 2015), Kathmandu, Nepal. Retrieved 01 12, 2017 Dixit, A.M., Shrestha, S.N., Parajuli, Y.K. & Thapa, M.B. 2012. Preparing for a major Earthquake in Nepal: Achievements and Lessons, 15th World Conference on Earthqake Engineering, pp. 10, Lisboa. Dixit, A.M., Yatabe, R., Dahal, R.K. & Bhandari, N.P. 2013). Public School Earthquake Safety Program in Nepal, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 5:4, 293-319. doi:10.1080/19475705.2013.806363 GoN. 1994. NBC000: 1994 - Requirements for State-of-the Art Design an Introduction, Kathamndu: Department of Urban Development and Building Construction, Government of Nepal. GON. (2013. Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium: Flagship Programme, Kathamandu: Government of Nepal. Retrieved 04 01, 2017, from http://flagship4.nrrc.org.np/sites/default/files/documents/NRRC_Flagship%20Programmes%20%28For%20Web%29_19%20Mar %202013-1.pdf HMG. 1994. A Management Plan for the Introduction of a National Building Code, Kathmandu, Nepal: His Majesty's Government of Nepal, United Nations Development Programme. Jain, S.K. 1992. On Better Engineering Preparedness: Lessons from the 1988 Bihar Earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, Vol 8(3).


10

Laursen, M.R. 2015. Community-Based Earthquake Preparedness in Nepal: A Matter of Risk Perceptions, UNISDR. Retrieved 05 01, 2017, from https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/assets/documents/privatepages/CommunityBased%20Earthquake%20Preparedness%20in%20Nepal%20-%20A%20Matter%20of%20Risk%20Perceptions.pdf MOH. 2003. Non - Structural Assessment of Hospitals in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health and Population (MoH), National Society for Earthquake Technology - Nepal (NSET), World Health Organization (WHO). Retrieved 01 14, 2017, from http://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/1964 MOHA. 1996. National Action Plan on Disaster Management in Nepal. 12. Kathmandu, Nepal, Nepal: Ministry of Home Affairs, His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Singh Durbar. Retrieved 12 22, 2016, from http://www.preventionweb.net/files/30532_nepalnationalactionplandisastermana.pdf MOHA. 2009. National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management, 2009, Kathmandu: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Nepal. Retrieved 02 10, 2017 MOHA. 2015. Nepal Disaster Report 2015, Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Nepal and DPNet-Nepal. doi:ISBN No.: 978-9937-0-0324-7 MOHA. 2016. Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal:Achievements, Challenges and Ways Forward, National Position Paper for the Asian Ministrial Conference DRR, pp. 12, New Delhi, India: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Nepal. Retrieved 03 15, 2017, from http://drrportal.gov.np/uploads/document/627.pdf NRA. 2016. Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Disaster Recovery Framework 2016-2020, Kathmandu, Nepal: National Planning Commission, Government of Nepal. Pokharel, L.N. 2015. Natural Disaster Relief Act 1982: To Manage Disaster. Retrieved 02 06, 2017, from http://www.nepalromania.com/?p=5892 Prajapati, S.K., Dadhich, H.K. & Chopra, S. 2017. Isoseismal map of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake and its Relationships with Groundmotion Parameters, Distance and Magnitude, Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, Vol 133, 24-37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2016.07.013 Rana, B.J. & Lall, K. 2013. The Great Earthquake in Nepal (1934 AD), Kathmandu, Nepal: Ratna Pustak Bhandar. ISBN 9789937330152. Sapkota, S.N., Bollinger, L., Klinger, Y., Tapponier, P., Gaudemer, Y. & Tiwari, D. 2013. Primary Surface Ruptures of the Great Himalayan Earthquakes in 1934 and 1255, Nature Geoscience, Vol 6, 71-76. Srivastava, H.N., Bansal, B. & Verma, M. 2013. Largest Earthquake in Himalaya: An Appraisal, Journal Geological Society of India, Vol 82, 15-22. Thapa, D.R. & Guoxin, W. 2013. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in Nepal, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol 12(4), 577-586. doi:10.1007/s11803-013-0191-z Thapa, N. 1989. Bhadau Panch ko Bhookampa 2045 (The Earthquake of 5th Bhadau, 2045 BS, in Nepali), Kathmandu: Niranjan Thapa. UN. 1989. International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, Resolution A/RES/44/236, International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, United Nations. Retrieved 01 22, 2017, from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r236.htm UN. 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 - 2030, United Nations. Retrieved 01 31, 2017, from http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_ sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf UNDP. 2009. Nepal Country Report-Global Assessment. ISDR Global Assessment Report on Poverty and Disaster Risk 2009, Kathmandu, Nepal: United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved January 01, 2017, from www.undp.org.np/uploads/publication/201010290938349 UNDP. 2015. An Overview of Ten Year's Progress of Implementation of Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA): 2005-2015 in Nepal, Kathmandu: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Nepal; United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved 05 06, 2017 WHO. 2002. A Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Hospitals in Kathmandu Valley, Kathamndu: World Health Organisation, Ministry of Health. Retrieved 03 14, 2017, from http://www.nset.org.np/nset2012/images/publicationfile/20130101161352.pdf


11