Professional Documents
Culture Documents
From The 1988 Udaypur To The 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, Nepal and Beyond
From The 1988 Udaypur To The 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, Nepal and Beyond
From The 1988 Udaypur To The 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, Nepal and Beyond
net/publication/324528896
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond
CITATIONS READS
0 384
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Seismic Performance of Rectangular Doubly Reinforced Concrete Walls under Bi-Directional Loading View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jason Ingham on 15 April 2018.
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 down-
to-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
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.
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond
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.
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.
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.
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
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond
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.
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)
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond
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
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).
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond
(a) Formal classroom training (b) Engineer training (c) Mason training on pre-soaking (d) On-site training: learning
bricks (1998) ductile detailing skills
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond
(a) A ductile RC frame building under (b) A masonry building with bands at (c) Timber bands in a residential house
construction various levels with a lightweight gable
(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))
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond
(a) RC bands and vertical bars in a (b) Repair and strengthening of infill wall of a (c) Stitching of a brick
residential building (2016) RC frame building masonry wall
5 BEYOND 2015
The following are recommendations as to how Nepal might further improve its earthquake resilience through earthquake risk
reduction efforts:
• 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.
6 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.
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond
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).
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond
From the 1988 Udaypur to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal and beyond