See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264790168

Sensitization Workshop on Integration of Disaster Risk Management in

Physical Infrastructure Development Process Ministry of Urban Development,
Nepal Developed under Comprehensive...

Technical Report · September 2012

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1448.6400

CITATIONS READS

0 838

1 author:

Md Nurul Alam
Asian Disaster Preparedness Center
34 PUBLICATIONS   82 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Retrofitting of Building in Central and South Asia View project

GIS-based multiple hazard risk assessment : a case study for the City of Kelowna View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Md Nurul Alam on 18 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sensitization Workshop on Integration of Disaster Risk
Management in Physical Infrastructure Development Process

Ministry of Urban Development, Nepal

Developed under Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management Programme of Nepal

This version of Training Handbook on the Sensitization Workshop on Integration of Disaster Risk
Management in Physical Infrastructure Development Process in Nepal’ for Ministry of Urban
Development, has been developed under the GoN-UNDP implemented Comprehensive Disaster Risk
Management Programme (CDRMP).

The handbook has been finalized after the delivery of the course on 13-14 September 2012 and
incorporates feedback received during the workshop.
Acronyms

CCA Climate Change Adaptation

CDRMP Comprehensive Disaster Risk
Management Programme
CRM Climate Risk Management
DDC District Development Committee
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
GoN Government of Nepal
GESI Gender equality and social inclusion
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
MCPM Minimum Condition and
Performance Measure
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MoUD Ministry of Urban Development

NAPA National Adaptation Plan of Action

NSDRM National Strategy for Disaster Risk
Management
Contents

Rationale ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Course Participants ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Course schedule ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Module 1: Overview of Assessing Risk and Identifying Risk Reduction Measures .................................... 11
Module 2: Risk Due to Earthquakes and other Co-lateral Hazards in Nepal ............................................. 17
Module 3: Earthquake Vulnerability & Risk Assessment of Buildings and Lifelines and Utilization of Risk
Information in the Infrastructure Development & physical Planning ....................................................... 21
Module 4: Pre-disaster Quantitative Risk Assessment, utilization of risk information in policy
development .............................................................................................................................................. 29
Module 5: Flood Vulnerability & Risk Assessment of Buildings and Lifelines, utilization of risk
information in policy development ........................................................................................................... 37
Module 6: Utilization of Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment in the Policy formulation for ensuring the
safety of future infrastructure development projects............................................................................... 40
Module 7: Post-disaster Needs Assessment and Recovery and Reconstruction for Housing and
Infrastructure Sectors ................................................................................................................................ 46
Panel Discussion......................................................................................................................................... 49

4
Rationale
• Disaster risk in Nepal is changing with the increase in vulnerability and exposure particularly
from the improper/unsafe construction processes, and as well as with the probable increase in
frequency and magnitude of hazards from change in climate.

• Over the years, the Government of Nepal (GoN) has shifted its focus from a reactive to a
proactive approach for disaster risk management (DRM) and has undertaken efforts in strengthening
Institutional and Legislative System for DRM, including legal frameworks; policy and planning;
organizational aspects; capacities and partnerships. In recent years the Ministry of Physical Planning
and Works of Government of Nepal (GoN) have undertaken preliminary yet important steps to
mainstream disaster risk management (DRM) within national development processes.

• In this context, it is essential to strengthen the institutional and legislative systems for disaster
risk management and the operational and technical capacities in the country, which would eventually
contribute towards ensuring disaster risk management is a policy priority, receives political
commitment, has access to financial resources and encourages multi-stakeholder partnerships for
implementation.

• The implementation of the National Strategy for DRM; 2008 requires desired capacities to
develop action plans and implementation of the flagship programs on DRM by the key ministries in the
Government of Nepal. However; the Government recognizes; one of the major challenges hindering
effective implementation of DRM is ‘lack of capacity and trained human resources at all levels as per
the HFA Report, 2011 (MoHA).

• It is therefore, important that the desired capacities are developed in the Ministries in a
sustained manner by imparting training, on-the-job mentoring and support as well as horizontal
learning and knowledge exchange.

• In 2012, the Ministry of MoPPW has been divided into two different Ministries, one the new
ministries (which is still called MoPPW) will still continue to look into physical infrastructure planning
(roads, highways etc.) and the new ministry titled Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) will look into
different urban issues e.g. Physical Planning and Urban Development, Housing & Building Construction,
Water Supply and Sanitation, Administration, Planning and Monitoring, and finally the Municipalities.
With the recurring impacts of disasters on development in Nepal as well as the increasing risk from
global climate change, there is a broad understanding within MoUD that further effort is required to
transform the initial endeavors on mainstreaming DRM into concrete outcomes. The decision makers
within MoUD (Former MoPPW) have expressed keen willingness to champion this process of
mainstreaming DRR into physical planning processes. Hence, the staffs of the Ministry should be
oriented and sensitized for the proper understanding of the process.

In light of the above, there is a need of the ‘Sensitization Workshop on Integration of Disaster Risk
Management in Physical Infrastructure Development Process’ for MoUD Focal Points in the Ministry
and Departments of the Government Nepal.

5
Objectives

• To support the GoN in training and capacity development for DRM, the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) has formulated the Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management
Programme (CDRMP), which aims to enhance capacity of nodal ministries in planning, executing and
monitoring disaster risk management programme and projects.

• It is realized that the leadership role in managing priorities of DRM policy/strategy and
monitoring progress of implementation at national, sub-national and local levels would need renewed
commitment by the key Ministries by making necessary enhancement in operational and technical
capacity of the DRM units. These will require a long-term approach of capacity development, through
which Ministries involved in development and implementation of DRM activities at the national level
are able to provide necessary support at the sub-national and local levels.

• In this regard, the training course on Integration of Disaster Risk Management in Physical
Infrastructure Development Process has been developed to meet the following objectives:

To enhance capacity of the DRM focal points in MoUD on strengthening capacities related to
DRM;

To enhance understanding and skills for disaster preparedness, response, recovery and
rehabilitation;

To develop better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of their Ministries through
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)

To enhance capacity to conduct the vulnerability assessment, damage assessment, selecting

retrofit options etc.

To enhance capacity to update/upgrade the existing building codes with regard to major
hazards (e.g. earthquake)

To enhance capacity to conduct Post-disaster Needs Assessment and recovery/reconstruction

planning

To enhanced capacity to conduct the mainstreaming DRR in land-use planning process etc.

The manual aims to:

• Improve understanding of the relationships between Development and Disaster Risk

• Improve basic understanding of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Climate Risk
Management (CRM)

• Identify action points on that can be taken by the MOUD for integrating DRR in urban development
processes

• Enhance capacity of participants to mainstream DRM/CRM concerns into urban

development processes

6
Participants will have:

• The ability to apply DRM/CRM related knowledge and skills gained through the training, in their
regular development work especially in the annual development planning cycle process 2012-2013

Teaching and learning methodologies

The following basic principles of adult education guide the design and conduct of the course:

• Adult learners bring with them a wealth of experience, knowledge and skills

• What is being taught should be relevant to the needs and problems of the work undertaken
by the participants

• While adult learners want to be independent, they also enjoy functioning

interdependently; learning is a cooperative and collaborative process

• People learn best as a result of similar experience

7
Course Participants

With the focus of the course being Disaster Management in Physical Infrastructure Development
Process, the course participants are the key officials from MoUD. However, DRM Focal Points from
MoPPW have been invited as they can be benefited from this training as well. Besides, focal points from
other ministries e.g. Ministry of Local Development, Dept. of Urban Development, Dept. of Water
Supply, Dept. of Telecommunication, Department of Electricity, Dept. of Education, Ministry of Health &
Population, National Planning Commission; Dept. of Roads etc. have attended the workshop.

COURSE SCHEDULE
Interactive sessions by guest speakers who have had the experience on mainstreaming DRM and CRM
into development planning processes have been included, which have provided the participants a good
feel of implementation challenges and think of innovative solutions to overcome them.

8
 Workshop Schedule

13-14 September 2012

No. Session Title Duration

Day 1
1 hr.
Opening Ceremony and Workshop
(0900-
Environment Setting
1000)
1000-
Coffee Break
1030
Session 1 1 hr. 30
(Presentation Introduction and Conceptual Clarity min.
and (1030-
Discussion) 1200)
1200-
Lunch
1330

Session 2 1 hr. 30
Risk Due to Earthquakes and other
(Presentation min.
Co-lateral Hazards in Nepal
and (1330-
Discussion) 1500)

1500-
Coffee Break
1530
Earthquake Vulnerability & Risk
Session 3 Assessment of Buildings and Lifelines 1 hr. 30
(Presentation and Utilization of Risk Information in min.
and the Infrastructure Development & (1530-
discussion) physical Planning 1700)

Day 2

Pre-disaster Quantitative Risk

Session 4 1 hr. 30
Assessment, utilization of risk
(Presentation min.
information in policy development
and Group (0900-
Discussion) 1030)

1030-
Coffee Break
1100

9
 No. Session Title Duration

Flood Vulnerability & Risk

Session 5
Assessment of Buildings and Lifelines 1 hr.
(Presentation
, utilization of risk information in (1100 -
and
policy development 1200)
Discussion)

1200-
Lunch
1300

Session 6 Landslide and Slope Stability in the

1 hr.
(Presentation Policy formulation for future
(1300-
and development projects
1400)
Discussion)

Session 7 Post-disaster Needs Assessment and

1 hr.
(Presentation Recovery and Reconstruction for
(1400-
and Housing and Infrastructure Sectors
1500)
Discussion)
1500-
Coffee Break
1530

1 hr.
Session 8
Panel Discussion (1530-
1630)

1630-
Way Forward and Closing
1700

10
Module 1: Overview of Assessing Risk and Identifying Risk
Reduction Measures

Mr. N.M.S.I. Arambepola,

Deputy Executive Director, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Thailand

Email: arambepola@adpc.net

A risk assessment is: A methodology to determine the nature and extent of risk by analyzing potential
hazards and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability that together could potentially harm exposed
elements ( such as people, property, services, livelihoods and the environment on which they depend.

Risk assessments (and associated risk mapping) include:

 A review of the technical characteristics of hazards such as their location, intensity,

frequency and probability;

 The analysis of exposure and vulnerability including the physical social, health,
economic and environmental dimensions

 Evaluation of the effectiveness of prevailing and alternative coping capacities in respect

to likely risk scenarios.

This series of activities is sometimes known as a risk analysis process.

Risk Assessment data can be used for

• Estimation of the value of physical damage and economic losses arising after potential
disaster events

• Identification of geo-political areas, individual sectors of the economy, population,

infrastrcuture etc that can get affected by the potential disaster events

• Determination of disaster impact on overall economic development and make macro-level

planning decesions

• Provision of quantitative inputs to define changes or modifications to public policies to lessen

disaster impact and to facilitate economic recovery after disaster events

• Analysis of the affected government´s capacity to meet on its own post-disaster needs and,
conversely, to identify external assistance needed for example : the international cooperation
requirements for immediate and long term recovery after future disaster events

• Provision of quantitative basis for defining financial needs and priorities for economic recovery
and reconstruction in case of occurence of disaster events

• Analysis of potential disaster scenarios for risk management scheme design

11
 • Provision of baseline for monitoring progress of risk reduction mesures undertaken

Components of the Risk Assessment are;

 Hazard Assessment

 Vulnerability analysis

 Risk Assessment

 Capacity Assessment

Hazard Assessment is the process of estimating, for defined areas, the probabilities of the occurrence
of potentially-damaging phenomenon of given magnitude within a specified period of time.

Magnitude is an important characteristic for assessing hazards since only occurrences exceeding some
defined level of magnitude are considered hazardous. The level of harm and area impacted are
governed by the following factors.

 Magnitude of the hazard

 Frequency of hazard or recurrence (The Return Period)

 Intensity at the impact point

Examples of magnitude, frequency and intensity can best be described using earthquakes. The Mercalli
intensity scale quantifies the effects of an earthquake on the Earth's surface, humans, objects of nature,
and man-made structures on a scale from I (not felt) to XII (total destruction). Values depend upon the
distance to the earthquake, with the highest intensities being around the epicentral area.

The Table below provides the magnitude, description of intensity and probable frequency of
earthquakes.

12
Magnitude Description Earthquake effects Global Frequency of
occurrence

Less than Micro Micro earthquakes, not felt. Continual

2.0

2.0–2.9 Minor Generally not felt, but recorded. 1,300,000 per year (est.)

3.0–3.9 Often felt, but rarely causes damage. 130,000 per year (est.)

4.0–4.9 Light Noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling 13,000 per year (est.)
noises. Significant damage unlikely.

5.0–5.9 Moderate Can cause major damage to poorly constructed 1,319 per year
buildings over small regions. At most slight
damage to well-designed buildings.

6.0–6.9 Strong Can be destructive in areas up to about 160 134 per year
kilometers (99 mi) across in populated areas.

7.0–7.9 Major Can cause serious damage over larger areas. 15 per year

8.0–8.9 Great Can cause serious damage in areas several 1 per year
hundred kilometers across.

9.0–9.9 Devastating in areas several thousand 1 per 10 years (est.)

kilometers across.

10.0+ Massive Never recorded, widespread devastation across Extremely rare

very large areas; see below for equivalent (Unknown/May not be
seismic energy yield. possible)

Source: U.S. Geological Survey

Flood magnitude is expressed as a combination of magnitude and return period (frequency). Examples
are 50 year and 100 year flood (What is really meant by a 100 year flood is a flood with recurrence
interval of 100 years - one that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year.) Droughts are usually
described in qualitative terms although quantitative indices have been suggested which are not in wide
usagei

Majority of hazards have return periods on a human time-scale. Examples are five-year flood, fifty-year
flood and a hundred year flood. This reflects a statistical measure of how often a hazard event of a
given magnitude and intensity will occur. The frequency is measured in terms of a hazard’s recurrence
interval. For example, a recurrence interval of 100 years for a flood suggests that in any year, a flood of
that magnitude has a 1% chance of occurring. Such extreme events have very low frequencies but very
high magnitude in terms of destructive capacity. This means that an event considered being a hundred
year flood would cause severe damage compared to a five-year flood. The Asian Tsunami of 24th

13
December 2004 is an example of a low probability (high return period), high magnitude and high
intensity at the point of impact.

The planning process in most development areas does not usually include measures to reduce hazards,
and as a consequence, development processes enhance natural disasters causing needless human
suffering and economic losses. From the early stages, planners should assess natural hazards as they
prepare investment projects and should promote ways of avoiding or mitigating damage caused by
hazards. Adequate planning can minimize damage. In many developing countries, political will is lacking
to invest beyond a fifty year event.

If a Infrastructure project is being developed for an area exposed to multiple hazards, for each hazard,
we need to check the status with regards to the following questions. The answers can be usually based
on past experience of hazard events.

 Could this hazard affect the area of the project under consideration?

 Is this hazard a significant threat there?

 How often does it pose a threat? E.g. Once every 5 years? 10 years?

 What is a close estimate of the population size that could be affected by this hazard event? Give
a rating that fits local context. Very high? High? Medium? Low?

 What is the expected duration of the hazard impact?

 What is the expected damage from the hazard event? Give a rating that fits local context. Very
high? High? Medium? Low?

 How predictable is the threat?

 Can the effect of the event be reduced?

Hazard Assessment is sometimes called Hazard Evaluation or Hazard Analysis (UNDRO, 1991).

Hazard Mapping: This is the process of establishing geographically where and to what extent particular
phenomenon is likely to pose a threat to people, property, infrastructure and economic activities.

Probability of hazard occurrence varies from place to place. The use of mapping to synthesize data on
natural hazards and to combine these with socioeconomic data facilitates analysis. It improves
communications among stakeholders in the hazard management process and between planners and
decision-makers. Two important techniques in use are

Multiple hazard mapping and Critical facilities mapping

The scale of the map is selected based on the intended use of the map for planning. Small scale maps
show less detail for a large area. Larger scales are used for regional development planning (1:50,000),
and community development plans (1:12,000 or more). The scale selected will depend upon the map's
purpose.

14
Vulnerability Analysis

Vulnerability is about Susceptibility and Resilience under threat of a hazard event. Susceptibility is the
proximity and exposure to an event. If susceptibility is very low and resilience is very high, then the
community has low vulnerability.

Factors affecting Vulnerability

Many factors determine the vulnerability of a community. Vulnerability analysis should give due
consideration to these underlying factors. Some use the term Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (HVA) or
Hazard Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (HVCA).

A Subjective Vulnerability Assessment for Decision Making

The gaps between the theoretical concepts of vulnerability and day-to-day decision-making raise the
need for vulnerability measurement for practical decision-making processes. It must provide disaster
managers with appropriate information about where the most vulnerable infrastructures are. Such
measurement should enable the administration at different levels to integrate vulnerability reduction
strategies into preventive planning. A realistic and practical assessment of vulnerability for decision
making within limited geographic areas such as a community may be to base the vulnerability
assessment on the hazard map and make subjective assessments from historical impact data for the
area. This would allow ranking of vulnerability as very high, high, medium and low. These rankings
would be specific to that area and inapplicable beyond. Impacts on physical, economic, social and
environmental elements can be subjectively assessed. The number of people affected, property
damage, livelihoods affected and other assessable criteria within hazard impact areas could yield the
level of vulnerability. Therefore, the strict separation between damage, impact and vulnerability
becomes less rigid in the course of practical application (Birkmann 2006).

Risk Assessment: It is a methodology to determine the nature and extent of risk by analyzing potential
hazard and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability that could pose a potential threat or harm to
people, property, livelihoods and the environment on which they depend (ISDR 2004).

Effective risk assessment should include the following.

 Identifying the nature, location, intensity and probability of a threat

 Determining the existence and degree of vulnerabilities and exposure to those

threats

 Identifying the capacities and resources available to address or manage threats

 Determining acceptable levels of risk.

Capacity Assessment

 It is the combination of all the strengths and resources available within a community, society or
organization that can reduce the effects of a disaster. Capacity may include physical,

15
 institutional, social or economic means as well as skilled personal or collective attributes such as
leadership and management. Capacity may also be described as capability.

 In extended understanding, capacity building also includes development of institutional,

financial, political and other resources, such as technology at different levels and sectors of the
society

16
Module 2: Risk Due to Earthquakes and other Co-lateral
Hazards in Nepal

Dr. Jishnu Subedi

Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University

Email: jishnusubedi@gmail.com

Synopsis

Nepal is in active seismic zone and experiences frequent earthquakes of large magnitude. Many major
earthquakes have resulted in substantial damage in the country. The first know earthquake in 1255 is
believed to have killed almost one-third of the population of Kathmandu city. Despite of the know
history of devastating earthquakes, the construction of public and private buildings do not comply with
the seismic safety requirements. The building code was adopted in 2004 but only five out of 58
municipalities have so far implemented the building code. Even in the municipalities implementing
building code, the compliance rate is very low. In order to increase effectiveness of building code
implementation a three-legged approach is suggested. The three legs include: development of tools,
capacity building and creation of demand from public.

Introduction

Earthquakes kill thousands of people every year around the world and millions are still exposed to
threats from earthquakes because of the vulnerable environment they are living in. Earthquake disaster
is interplay of natural hazard, which is beyond human control, and vulnerability, which is created by
people. Notwithstanding the tremendous increase in disaster risk reduction initiatives, programs to
raise awareness among people and advancement or knowledge and technology for earthquake safe
constructions, risk from earthquake has not reduced. The collapse of houses and buildings is the single
largest cause of human deaths and economic losses resulting from earthquakes. It is obvious that
regulations that ensure the structural safety of buildings play a key role in preventing these losses. The
vulnerability and hence impact of earthquakes on livelihood of people can be reduced by measures

such as adherence to earthquake resistant building design and construction standards, proper land use
planning and education and training for risk evasion.

Seismicity in Nepal

Nepal, lying in the boundary of two active tectonic plates, has a long history of devastating earthquakes.
The seismic record shows that a major earthquake strikes the region in every 75-100 years period.
Record of earthquake in the area including part of North India, Nepal and Tibet, with an area of roughly
700 x 1500 Km, experiences an earthquake of magnitude 7 or above within the interval of every 33
years (Figure 1).

17
Figure 1: Record of seismic events in Asian region from 1900-2012 as plotted by Seismic Eruption
program developed by Alan L. Jones (Left) and number of earthquakes above magnitude 4 in area
including Nepal and Bordering areas (700 x 1500 Km area) (Data compiled by Nabin Poudel, 2012, M. Sc.
IoE)

The oldest available data in Nepal records a major earthquake in 1255 AD. Three other major
earthquakes occurred in Kathmandu valley in the 19th century in 1808 (Panta, 2002), 1833 and 1866
AD. These earthquakes have devastated Kathmandu time and again by claiming lives and livelihoods of
thousands of people. The earthquake that occurred in 1255 not only killed one third of the population
of the city but also killed the then incumbent king – Abhaya Malla. Another earthquake in 1934 AD,
believed to be above 8 in Richter scale, wreaked heavy damage not only in Kathmandu but also
throughout the country. Nepal experienced another large earthquake in 1988 which was measured 6.8
in Richter scale. Although there was no major damage in Kathmandu, the 1988 earthquake killed 721
people and damaged more than 60,000 buildings. Last major tremor felt in Nepal was that from an
earthquake of magnitude 6.9 which occurred in Nepal-India boarder in September 18, 2011.

Building Code Implementation in Nepal

The Department of Urban Development and Building Construction (DUDBC) of the Ministry of Physical
Planning and Works (MPPW) developed the Nepal National Building Code (NBC) in 1993 with the
assistance of the United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Centre for Human
Settlement (UN-HABITAT). NBC went into force when the Building Construction System Improvement
Committee (established by the Building Act 1998) authorized MPPW to implement the code. The
Ministry published a notice in the Gazette in 2006 and the implementation of NBC became mandatory
in all Municipalities and some Village Development Committees (VDCs) in Nepal.

In 2002, prior to the formal entry into force of the code, Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City (LSMC) initiated
the implementation of NBC, becoming the first Municipality in Nepal to implement NBC (Subedi et al.,
2008). Kathmandu Metropolitan City followed in 2006 and Dharan Municipality in 2007 and total
number of municipalities to implement code as of now is five (out of 58 municipalities). The numbers of
municipalities implementing building code is very low and the codal compliance is very low even in the
municipalities where building code is implemented (Figure 2).

18
Figure 2: A building construction in progress within Kathmandu Metropolitan City (Top left). The detail
of one of the column section shows visibly improper way of reinforcement (top right) and proper way of
reinforcement shown in bottom left. A damaged column in one of the buildings after Gujarat
Earthquake (2001) which resulted from improper detailing.

Way forward

There are many reasons to it but one of the major challenges have been proper monitoring and
supervision mechanism in the field. Other reasons include lack of man power, lack of awareness and
lack of tools for standardization. The problem of lack of effective building code implementation is
evident in many other developing countries and effective building code implementation is a real
challenge (Subedi et al. 2009).

19
Figure 3: Three-legged approach for building code implementation

In order to implement the building code in all new constructions, in both municipal and non-municipal
areas, a three-legged approach is recommended (Figure 3). The three legged approach includes
development of tools, capacity building and creating demand from grass-root level for earthquake safer
construction. The tools include ready to use drawings which will facilitate typical construction in places
where designers are not available. Development of user-friendly software increases confidence of
designers in applying the codal provisions and also helps authorities to verify designs. Increasing
demand from public for earthquake safer construction will effectively put pressure in authorities for
implementing building code. Raising public awareness is an effective way to develop culture of safety
among general public. Financial instruments such as requirement of earthquake safety certificate to
issue loan from banks can effectively increase demand for earthquake safer constructions.

References

Pant, M. R. (2002). A Step towards a Historical Seismicity of Nepal. Adarsa: A supplement to Purnima,
the journal of the Samsodhana-mandala. Pundit Publication, Kathmandu

Subedi, J, Ando, S, Mishima, N. (2009). Effective Implementation of Building Code for Safe Cities: a Case
Study of Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative Project, EAROPH

Subedi, J, M. Naoko (ed.). (2008). Handbook on Building Code Implementation: Experience of Lalitpur
Municipality, UNCRD Publication.

20
Module 3: Earthquake Vulnerability & Risk Assessment of
Buildings and Lifelines and Utilization of Risk Information in
the Infrastructure Development & physical Planning

Md. Nurul Alam,

Senior Structural Engineer, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

Email: nurul.alam@alumni.ubc.ca

Earthquake vulnerability is rapidly increasing worldwide, especially in developing countries. The rapid
urbanization, lack of proper planning, constraint of resources to response, absence of vulnerability
reduction measures, poor enforcement of existing measures, and most importantly lack of awareness
of the community are the main reasons for increasing this vulnerability. The need to combat the
resultant colossal destruction of earthquake has been at the forefront concern of vulnerable nations. An
earthquake is a natural event and its risk cannot be completely eliminated. However, the destruction of
earthquake can be minimized largely by comprehensive earthquake preparedness and mitigation
strategies. The earthquakes in Haiti and Chile provide a good comparative example. Given the fact that
both countries sit atop of large active faults, in the first quarter of 2010, Haiti faced a major earthquake
of 7.0 magnitude which resulted to about 230,000 deaths, while Chile which was hit with even more
severe quake of 8.8 magnitude had only 486 deaths. This incomparable difference between the two
countries’ causalities comes from the implementation of comprehensive earthquake preparedness and
mitigation strategies.

The section has been designed to achieve the goal of supporting the creation of earthquake resilient
society. With rich experiences in providing similar training courses on natural disaster risk reduction at
international level, it provides a model training experience in this course by integrating study materials,
while bringing together earthquake preparedness and mitigation experience from severely affected
countries around the world.

21
 Module Overview

Goal

To present a holistic overview of the earthquake

vulnerability and damage estimation as a concept

Learning outcomes

After completing this session you will be able to

•Comprehend the categorization of earthquake vulnerability
into physical, social and economic components and
discuss them in detail
•Get idea regarding different on Seismic Damage
Assessment tools

Learning objectives

As you work through this session you will learn to

 Distinguish vulnerability, hazard and risk

 List Buildings’ Seismic Vulnerability Factors
 List available seismic damage estimation tools
 Apply MCDM in decision making

22
Hazard, vulnerability and risk

The risk assessment process provides the base for a mitigation planning process. Hazard identification,
asset inventory collection, vulnerability assessment and loss estimations are four basic components of
the risk assessment (Alam 2011). By assessing the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure,
this process assesses the potential casualty, and property damage resulting from natural hazards
(http://www.fema.gov). In this thesis, risk (Hardy 2005, Camia et al. 2004) is defined as the expected
damage due to a particular hazard on a specific spatial and temporal exposure. The simplistic definition
of risk is viewed as the Equation 2-1, which establishes the relationship between three terms hazard,
vulnerability and risk (Chen et al. 2003).

Equation 0-1

Equation 2-1 covers two different components in risk assessment, (i) hazard, which corresponds to the
probability of occurrence (likelihood of happening) of a particular disastrous event in a specific area and
(ii) vulnerability, that refers to the potential damage, that a hazard will cause, when it occurs (Blanchi et
al. 2002 ). Vulnerability can be defined as a system which integrates a lot of variables (natural and
human), the spatial and temporal dynamic of which can produce situations which can be harmful for an
exposed society. One of the major goals of a risk assessment strategy is to identify the factors
(variables) that are the source of the vulnerability. The major task in risk assessment is to express
vulnerability in measurable units or indices in order to be used for further assessment of the total risk
(Coburn et al. 1994). Here, risk is expressed as a degree of damage or percent loss (or index) of a
specific physical component for a given hazard severity level (Blanchi et al. 2002).

Seismic vulnerability assessment

Within minutes of shaking, the earthquake reveals the vulnerabilities of buildings, households,
communities, and of a country. The consequences expose flaws in governance, planning, sitting of
physical structure, design, construction, and use of the built environment in country with seismic
hazard. It reveals the influence of prevailing culture and way of life, on the capacity of the
community to be preparedness for an earthquake hazard. The scale of physical damage and social
disruption inflicted upon a community or a nation by an earthquake event is the measure of how
vulnerable the community or the nation is. Vulnerability is a set of prevailing or consequential
conditions, which adversely affect an individual, a household or a community's ability to mitigate,
prepare for or respond to the earthquake hazard. Vulnerability can also be defined as the degree of loss
to a given element at risk, or set of such elements, resulting from an earthquake of a given magnitude
or intensity, which is usually expressed on a scale from 0 (no damage) to 10 (total loss). Earthquake
vulnerability is thus a function of the potential losses from earthquakes (death and injury to people,
damage and other physical structures) and the level of preparedness (the extent to which a society has
been able to translate mitigation measures into practice).

It reflects the unattended weakness in the built environment of a community and the constraints in the
society that affects ability (or inability) to absorb losses after an earthquake and to recover from the
damage. Vulnerability condition precedes the earthquake event and contributes to its severity, impedes
emergency response, and usually continues long after the earthquake has struck.

Seismic vulnerability is defined as the degree of damage to buildings resulting from the occurrence of
an earthquake event (Coburn and Spence 2002). There is an increasing research in the development of
seismic vulnerability assessment techniques (e.g. Calvi et al. 2006, Okada and Takai 2000, Gueguen et

23
al. 2007, Lang and Bachmann 2004, Lantada et al. 2010, Martinelli et al. 2008, Roca et al. 2006, Spence
et al. 2008, Sucuoglu et al. 2007, Tesfamariam and Saatcioglu 2010).

The objective of vulnerability assessment is to address the seismic vulnerability characteristics of the
existing building stock, essential facilities and lifeline facilities. For assessment of the buildings several
steps were followed. Like as, CDMP-I, building surveys can be conducted into 3 levels of details, i.e.
Level-1, level-2, and level-3 for seismic vulnerability analysis. Following is the outline of the steps to be
followed during building assessment.

Figure 1: Outline of the Methodology followed

Level II investigation consists of developing the general attributes of the buildings. Some of the
prevailing vulnerability factors are also considered in this phase. The building attributes considered
during Level I survey were number of stories, occupancy class, structural type, number of occupants
during the day and the night, age of the building, presence of soft story (yes/no), presence of heavy
overhangs (yes/no), shape of the building (rectangular, narrow rectangular, irregular in plan view or
regular, setback, and narrow tall in elevation view), pounding possibility (yes/no), building in slope land
(yes/no), visible ground settlement (yes/no), presence of short columns (yes/no) and visible physical
condition (poor/average/good). In a normal condition, a surveyor with technical background can
conduct survey for 40-60 buildings per day. To identify, inventory, and rank potentially seismically
vulnerable buildings, a Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) procedure will be conducted (FEMA 2002). Level-1
is relatively a quick procedure in developing a list of potentially risky buildings, without the expensive
detailed seismic analysis of individual buildings. Finally, cut-off score (S) is developed. These estimates
of the score are based on limited observed and analytical data, and the probability of collapse is,
therefore, approximate. A ‘sidewalk survey’ approach is included which facilitates the surveyors to
24
classify the buildings into two classes, e.g. buildings acceptable as to risk to life safety or buildings which
may be seismically hazardous, where a detailed evaluation is required. In this study, after developing
the footprints, all buildings should be surveyed physically with Level 1 survey forms.

Level-2 survey can be carried out to acquire more detailed information for more in-depth seismic
vulnerability assessment of typical buildings. A hybrid method combining both the FEMA 310 (FEMA
1998) as well as IITK-GSDMA approach can be applied to assess the level 2 building vulnerability. About
5-7% buildings survey of level-I can be taken into consideration for Level-2 investigations. For Level II
survey of concrete buildings, considered features would be torsional irregularity (non-rectangular
shape, unsymmetrical infill, unsymmetrical shear wall), Short column (less than 25% of floor height, 25-
50% of floor height, more than 50% of floor height), Diaphragm discontinuity (mezzanine floor, floor
opening), Slab system (cast in-situ, pre-cast), Key dimensions (plan dimensions, typical column size, no.
of bays, span length, shear wall dimensions). Some special addition might be provided for brick masonry
buildings.

Level-3 survey is more detailed in nature. About 20-40 buildings from each category of buildings would
be analyzed in survey level-3 using necessary equipments to develop the necessary vulnerability and
fragility curves. Different non destructive testing (NDT) will be conducted which includes:

 Schmidt Hammer test for assessing concrete rebound strength

 Reinforcement detection with Profometer
 Ultrasound measurement for assessing concrete strength
 Direct shear test for masonry buildings
Besides some laboratory testing can be conducted to get the information on the materials. All the field
tests would conform the specification specified in FEMA 274 (1997). With the help of these tests each
building can be checked against some of the set values specified in the guidelines (FEMA 1997).

Seismic damage estimation methodologies

For decision making and emergency management purposes, seismic risk can be defined in terms of
potential economic, social and environmental losses from a particular earthquake event (Carreño et al.
2011).

For regional seismic risk estimation, a multi-disciplinary evaluation is required to assess the potential
physical damages and the number and type of causalities for a particular seismic event (Cardona and
Hurtado 2000). Several seismic loss estimation methods are developed from different perspectives
during the last decades under the umbrella of United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO
1980). In the civil engineering point of view, physical damage estimation is given the most emphasis
(Carreño et al. 2011). ATC-13 of Applied Technology Council is one of the first major projects regarding
the assessment of the seismic risk in terms of damage probability matrices proposed by Whitman et al.
(1973) based on which numerous approaches and methodologies are developed all over the world.

Different seismic risk assessment tools that integrate information from existing building inventory and
site seismicity are found in the literature (www.itc.nl). A basic subdivision of the tools can be made
between the commercial and non-commercial ones within the established seismic risk quantification
methods. Commercial catastrophe modeling techniques developed for seismic damage estimation
include the REDARS (risks from earthquake damage to roadway systems) (http://www.dot.ca.gov),
EQEHAZARD (EQECAT), EPEDAT (early post-earthquake damage assessment tool, Image Cat,
25
www.itc.nl), etc. which are developed by different insurance and government organizations. The non-
commercial loss estimation models are freely available software for which the manuals and software
can be downloaded from the internet. The natural hazards electronic map and assessment tools
information system (NHEMATIS) is developed by Emergency Preparedness Canada to "provide
emergency planners with a tool that supports the definition and execution of elaborate models which
will assist in predicting/estimating the potential impact of a natural hazard/disaster in a defined area of
interest." (Brun et al. 1997). MAEviz, developed by a joint effort between the MAE Center and the
National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) is one of the modern platform independent
open source seismic risk assessment software (http://cet.ncsa.uiuc.edu). It can be utilized for pre-
disaster planning, mitigation as well as for rapid response assessment after a disaster. However, the
complexity of using this software may require skilled technical persons, which may lead to a certain
amount of cost. The HAZUS (Hazard US) software is an interactive software released by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2004) and National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS).
HAZUS-MH (Hazard US-Multi hazard) is developed in an ARCGIS platform, where full datasets on a
micro level can be obtained for the entire United States (Kircher et al. 2006). However, it is difficult to
apply the HAZUS methodology in other parts of the world, due to the complexity and large quantity of
the input data required. The comparison of some of the well established non-commercial seismic loss
estimation processes are summarized in Table 1. HAZUS is deterministic whereas, CAPRA is probabilistic
software.

Table 1: Comparison of various non-commercial seismic loss estimation methodologies (after

www.nset.org.np/)

Possibility of use in
to

Stakeholders

developing countries
Resource Required
Involvement
Professionals

Methodologies
Community

Community
Authorities

Motivation

Accuracy

RADIUS M H M H M L YES

GIS GRID H L L L M-H H YES

SLARIM H M L L H H YES

COMMUNITY
L M H H L L YES
WATCHING

HAZUS H L L L H H YES

CAPRA H L L L H H YES

H: High, M: Medium, L: Low, S: Simple, C: Complex

The recent development of GIS technology have introduced the GIS as a media concept (Sui and
Goodchild 2001), which replaced the traditional use of GIS as only the database-mapping spatial
analytical tool. This new advancement emphasizes more on the communication of the geographical

26
information to a larger community. Seismic hazard and risk investigations have become more and more
complex in terms of handling a large amount of spatial data with subsequent analysis. Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) technology could be a suitable tool to cope with these complexities (Pessina
et al. 2009).

Applicability of MCDM in Selecting Seismic Retrofitting Options

For selecting suitable seismic retrofitting option, a multi-criteria decision making analysis (MCDM) can
be utilized. Two Multi criteria decision making (MCDM) tools, e.g. TOPSIS (Technique for Order
preference by Similarity to Ideal Situation) and AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) can be utilized to
rank the suitable approach among the selected alternatives.

The AHP is a decision-aiding method developed by Saaty (1980). The main goal of AHP is to quantify the
relative priorities for a given set of alternatives on a ratio scale, based on the judgment of the decision-
maker, and stresses the significance of the perceptive judgments of a decision maker as well as the
consistency of the comparison of alternatives in the decision-making process (Saaty 1990). The pair-
wise comparison of AHP can be utilized to generate the weights of different criteria, with the help of
the expert judgments.

To check the robustness of the proposed ranking method, another MCDM technique called TOPSIS can
also be employed. Hwang and Yoon (1981) described the TOPSIS concept as the ideal and anti-ideal
solutions, with reference to the positive and negative ideal solutions respectively. The TOPSIS method
defines an index called similarity (or relative closeness) to rank the alternatives based on the distance
(or similarity) of their evaluated score from the ideal solution in a MCDM problem. TOPSIS selects the
alternative which is closest to the ideal solution and farthest from negative ideal alternative (Olson
2004).

References

Alam, M. N. (2011). GIS-based multiple hazard risk assessment : a case study for the City of
Kelowna. A Masters Dissertation, UBC Circle, https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/39841

Alam, M.N., Mashfiq, K., Rahman, A., and Haque, S.M. 2010. Seismic vulnerability assessment
of buildings in heritage and non-heritage areas in the older part of Dhaka city. 3rd
International Earthquake Symposium, Bangladesh Dhaka, March 5-6, 2010, ISBN: 978-
984-8725-01-6.

Alam, M.N. M. Shahria Alam, S. Tesfamariam. 2012. Buildings’ seismic vulnerability

assessment methods: a comparative study. Natural Hazards (19 January 2012), pp. 1-20,
doi:10.1007/s11069-011-0082-4 Key: citeulike:10273375.

Alam M.N., Alam, M. Shahria, Tesfamariam, S. 2012. GIS-based Seismic Damage Estimation:
A Case Study for the City of Kelowna. Natural Hazards Review
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000082
27
ATC-21. 1988. Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook.
Applied Technology Council, Redwood city, CA, USA.

Calvi, G.M., Pinho, R., Magenes, G., Bommer, J.J., Restrepo-Velez, L., and Crowley, H. 2006.
Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years.
ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 43(3): 75-104.

CDMP. 2009. http://www.cdmp.org.bd/, accessed: April 12, 2011.

Comité Européen de Normalization (CEN). 2004. Eurocode 8: design of structures for

earthquake resistance-Part 1. General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings,
Brussels.

Durgesh, C.R. 2005. IITK-GSDMA guidelines for seismic evaluation and strengthening of
buildings. IITK-GSDMA Project on Building Codes, Gujarat State Disaster Management
Authority and Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.

FEMA. 2002. Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook.
FEMA154 (originally published in 1988), Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.

FEMA. 1998. Handbook for the seismic evaluation of buildings. FEMA 310, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

Sadat, M.R., Huq, M.S., and Ansary, M.A. 2010. Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings
of Dhaka city. Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB), 38(2): 159-172.

Tesfamariam, S., and Saatcioglu, M. 2010. Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced

concrete buildings using hierarchical fuzzy rule base modeling. Earthquake Spectra,
26(1): 235-256.

28
Module 4: Pre-disaster Quantitative Risk Assessment,
utilization of risk information in policy development

Dr. Maksud Kamal

Chairman, Department of Disaster Science and Management.

Email: maksudkamal@yahoo.com

Module 4 mainly talks about the following areas:

• Primary and secondary hazard data

• Data needs for comprehensive Risk Assessment at city level

• Overview of Risk Assessment of Buildings and Lifelines (bridges, roads etc.)

• Case studies from few cities

• Linkage between physical infrastructure development and disaster risk

• Integrating DRR in appraisal of physical infrastructure projects

• Utilization of seismic microzonation maps

The best practices of the seismic risk assessment (hazard, vulnerability and risk assessment) can be
depicted as follows:

Earthquake Hazard and Risk Assessment in Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet City Corporation Areas,
Bangladesh

Over the past decades, the process of urbanization in Bangladesh has been rapid and without
proper guidance. As a result of this, many of the urban centers have developed haphazardly.
These urban centers are fast growing and influence the economic developments of the country.
It is therefore essential to have a realistic understanding on the nature, severity and
consequences of likely damage/loss that a possible event of earthquake could cause. Although
Bangladesh is extremely vulnerable to seismic activity, the nature and the level of this activity is
yet to be defined. The last biggest earthquake occurred in 1897, known as the Great India
Earthquake with a magnitude of 8.7 and epicenter at Shillong Plateau. The great earthquake
occurred on 12 June at 5.15 pm, caused serious damage to masonry buildings in Sylhet town
where the death toll rose to 545. This was due to the collapse of the masonry buildings. The
tremor was felt throughout Bengal, from the south Lushai Hills on the east to Shahbad on the
west. Heavy damage was done to the bridges on the Dhaka-Mymensingh railway and traffic
was suspended for about a fortnight. In Dhaka damage to property was heavy.

29
 Because of being very close to active faults (Madhupur fault, Dauki fault, Plate Boundary Faults
(PBD-1,2&3), a strong earthquake affecting a major urban center like Dhaka, Chittagong, or
Sylhet may result in damage and destructions of massive proportions and may have disastrous
consequences for the entire nation.

Considering this reality, the Comprehensive Disaster management Programme (CDMP) of the
Government of Bangladesh (GoB) is being implemented by the Ministry of Food and Disaster
Management (MoFDM) and is supported by UNDP, DFID-B and the EC. CDMP is designed to
strengthen the Bangladesh Disaster Management System and more specifically to achieve a
paradigm shift from reactive response to a proactive risk reduction culture. Under Component
4a, CDMP has assigned responsibility to ADPC for implementation of Seismic Hazard and
Vulnerability Mapping of Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet city corporation areas.

Specific objectives and Commencement of the Project

The objective of seismic hazard and vulnerability assessment was to develop seismic hazard
and corresponding vulnerability maps for the critical infrastructures as well as the building
stocks of Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet city corporations including their area under future
extensions. Under this component several studies were carried out to develop different
earthquake scenarios for the study areas. Major studies carried out under this component
include Active fault study, development of engineering geological map & seismic maps,
development of building stock & critical facility database and maps, vulnerability assessment
of building and lifelines, assessment of probable economic loss due to earthquake.

Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP) has been designed with a view to
preparing Bangladesh with regard to potential hazards to the country. This is 8 year
programme which has now stepped into its second phase till 2014. As a part of the CDMP
mandate, the initiative has been taken for assessing the risk of earthquake for the first growing
cities in Bangladesh.

Financial and technical resources

The project was funded by the Comprehensive Disaster Management Program (CDMP) with the
funding support from European Union, UNDP, AusAid and the Government of Bangladesh. For
implementation of the project, CDMP engaged Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC),
Thailand & associates through technical input. A number of professionals like geologist, active
fault mapping specialist, earthquake engineers, urban planners from ADPC, Asian Institute of
Technology (AIT)-Thailand, Oyo International Corporation (OYO)-Japan, NSET-Nepal, Sylhet
Shahajal Engineering University (SUST), Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology
(CUET) , Dhaka University and Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET).

Technical Evaluation of the Project Activities

For technical evaluation of the activities conducted under this project, a Technical Advisory
Group (TAG) was formed by CDMP. The TAG was formed with the representatives from
different background professionals like Civil Engineering, Earthquake Engineering and Geology.
The professionals represented the institutes like academic, government and semi-government
30
agencies respectively from Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka
University, Geological Survey of Bangladesh (GSB), BRAC University and CDMP. The technical
Advisory Group used to monitor and evaluate the technical output of the project by the experts
in the respective fields.

Database and Information Used for risk assessment

A number of information was used during the seismic hazard and risk assessment project. The
information & data were the combination of primary and secondary source ranging from
different category. Following is the list of data & information used during the assessment

Category Detail Attribute Source

Base Map All features like settlements, river, Name, location, area Combination of Primary
water bodies, forest, open space Survey and secondary
Sources (e.g. City
Corporations, RAJUK, CDA
etc.)
Infrastructure Buildings and Related Features Age, structure type, use, Primary Survey as per
construction materials, HAZUS methodoloy
occupancy
Lifeline Road, Rail, Gas Network, Water Length, diameter Combination of Primary
Supply Network, Electricity Survey (HAZUS
Network, bridge methodology) and
secondary Sources (e.g.
City corporations, RHD,
WASA, etc.)
Geology Engineering Geology, Soil Type DU, CUET, GSB etc.

Process of Risk Assessment

A number of activities were carried out for overall risk assessment of the project. These include
Active Fault Study, Development of Base Map, Preparation Engineering Geological Map,
Preparation of Seismic Hazard Map, building and lifeline assessment, vulnerability assessment
and Seismic Assessment & loss estimation. Following is a brief on each of the activities carried
out under this project. The respective City Corporations (DCC, SCC, CCC) were informed at the
very beginning of the project. The Engineers of the respective City Corporations were trained in
different training module through-out the project period.

Active Fault Study

Active fault study was carried out to identify ruptured repeatedly during the Late Quaternary
and is capable of rupturing in future. Several places were surveyed during this project to
identify active fault. After intensive investigations five different segments have been
identified that are potential to be source of earthquake in the future.

31
 West Wall of Haluaghat Trench Stratigraphic Log of north wall at Feni Trench

The identified segments are known as Plate Boundary Fault-1,2 & 3, Dauki Fault and
Madhupur Blind Fault. Among these the possible occurrence of earthquake from Dauki Fault is
23.4% in next 50 years time which is the highest among the segments.

Development of Seismic Hazard Maps

Seismic Hazard maps were developed following both probabilistic and deterministic
approaches and based on the PS logging results. The maps show Liquefaction Susceptibility in
different scenarios of earthquake and slope angle for all three cities.

Amplification of PGA and Sa in Dhaka Amplification of PGA and Sa in Chittagong

32
Development of Engineering Geological Maps

Engineering geological maps illustrate the sub-surface conditions of the ground in terms of
geo-technical aspects. During this project, following geological investigation were done in
the process of Engineering Geological Map preparation.
(a) Boring with standard Penetration Test in three cities (139 in total), (b) PS Logging (19 in
total), (c) Cone Penetration Test, (d) Shallow Seismic Survey (30 each in three cities), (e)
Array Micro Tremor Measurement, (f) Single Micro Tremor Measurement.

The engineering geological maps developed under this project address detailed sub-surface
geo-technical parameters that are essential for determining the hazard potential of the
urban ground.

Thickness of Holocene Soil in Dhaka and Chittagong

33
Development of Base Map and Database

Base map of Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet city corporation areas were prepared utilizing
quickbird image (62 cm resolution) and corresponding field surveys using RTK-GPS and Total
station. The features included in the base map are buildings, roads, water bodies, open spaces
along with land use and building use.

Lifeline information like water, gas electricity supply network and other facilities are also
incorporated in the base maps. Attribute information like height, use, construction type are
included against each of the surveyed buildings of three city corporation areas. The total
number of buildings surveyed in Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet are three hundred twenty five
thousand, one hundred eighty thousand and fifty two thousand respectively.

34
Buildings, Infrastructures and Lifeline Assessment
All buildings, infrastructures and lifeline facilities like water supply, electricity, gas, roads etc
were taken into consideration for vulnerability assessment. In depth assessment were done
for 8500 buildings in Dhaka, 6000 buildings in Chittagong and 4000 buildings in Sylhet city
corporation areas.

Schmidt Hammer Test

To determine the natural frequency, micro-tremor machine was used during assessment of
the buildings. The other equipments used for buildings assessment includes Schmidt Hammer,
Ferro Scanner, vibration shaker etc. Results of the assessment helped to under the building
typology within these three cities and to develop fragility curves for both masonry and RCC
buildings.

Development of Vulnerability maps and Estimation of Casualties, Property Damage and

Economic Loss

Based on the active fault study, engineering geological maps & seismic hazard maps and
infrastructures (buildings, lifelines etc.) vulnerability maps were developed. HAZUS software
(HAZUS is a regional earthquake loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences) was used as
a tool to determine the vulnerability of infrastructures during different scenarios of
earthquake. Vulnerability maps indicate level of damage to masonry buildings, RCC buildings,
water supply network, gas supply network etc. Based on number of building damage
casualties were estimated for three different cities at different magnate of earthquake both
at night and by day time. Economic loss and damages due to collateral hazards like fire
following earthquake are also estimated.

35
 Earthquake Vulnerability of Concrete Building in Dhaka and Chittagong

The study result shows that in worst case scenario in Dhaka during an earthquake at 7.5 M
originated from Madhupur fault, about 78,000 building will be completely damaged which may
kill about one hundred thirty thousand people. During this time about 30 million tons debris will
be generated. Similarly an earthquake at 8.5 M originated from Plate boundary fault -1 will
completely damage 1 hundred 42 thousand buildings which may kill about one hundred
thousand people. During this situation 17 million tons of debris will be generated. In Sylhet
during an earthquake at 8 M originated from Dauki Fault, about twenty four thousand
building will be completely damaged which may kill about fourteen thousand people. During this
time about 20 million tons debris might be generated.

How the risk assessment results have been validated

Results of risk assessment were presented for the Technical Advisory Group (TAG). A number of
recommendations were received from TAG which was incorporated with the revised results of the
assessment. The assessment reports were sent to the respective implementing agencies for their
comments and overview. After overall process, the final results were presented in a wider forum
at national level workshop and CDMP has accepted the report for documentation. Several TAG
meeting were held time to time before submitting the final report to CDMP. A final workshop
showing the final outcome has been conducted to validate the process.

1. Collection of secondary database, weather etc. Lack of local awareness sometimes makes the
work difficult,

2. Local stakeholders should be involved from the very beginning of the project, the process of
output dissemination should be concrete

36
Module 5: Flood Vulnerability & Risk Assessment of Buildings
and Lifelines, utilization of risk information in policy
development

Guna Paudyal

Flood Risk Assessment Specialist

Email: gnpaudyal@gmail.com

Key points of this module are given as follows:

• Climate change and increase in flood risk in future

• Importance of undertaking Flood Risk assessment at city level

• Causes of damages and destructions to infrastructure due to flood events

• Data needs for comprehensive Risk Assessment at city level

• Overview of Flood Vulnerability & Risk Assessment of Buildings and Lifelines (bridges, roads etc.)

In the context of rapid demographic growth, urbanization and climate changes, urban flooding poses a
serious and growing development challenge, particularly for the residents of the rapidly expanding towns
and cities in Asia. To help confront the escalating urban vulnerability challenges faced by National and Local
Governments, the World Bank has recently published a new flagship report titled Cities and Flooding: A
Guide to Integrated Flood Risk Management, as part of its global commitment to Disaster Risk Reduction.
Flooding is the most common of all natural disasters. Flooding is an Asian phenomenon, as 90 percent of
people affected by floods live in Asia. Rapid and unplanned urbanization in the region is a significant
contributing factor to flood disaster, as it puts more people and assets in harm’s way. With the currently
staggering growth of urban areas in many countries, urban flooding is going to be a growing challenge for
development and poverty reduction in the coming decades. This module presents an integrated approach
to urban flood risk management. The module targets practitioners and people on the ground dealing with
issues related to urban flooding.

37
Presentation on the module on flood vulnerability & risk assessment contained the following topics:

Introduction / concepts

Flood Risk Assessment

Flood Risk Reduction

Introduction / concepts

Various concepts of flood vulnerability and risk assessment were presented in the introduction. Causes of
flood disasters, both natural and manmade including the uncertainty posed by climate change were
discussed. The participants were sensitized on the need and usefulness of carrying a flood risk analysis and
having an up-to-date flood risk map of a basin in order to plan a sustainable flood risk reduction
programme as well as to achieve an efficient disaster preparedness as well as recovery.

Flood Risk Assessment

Various examples of flood risk assessment based on modern modeling and GIS tools were presented.
Probabilistic concepts related to flood frequency and level of protection of a city or a rural area was
discussed. The participants asked questions related to the application of such tools in the context of Nepal.
Concerns were also expressed on data needs vis a vis data requirements for carrying out comprehensive
flood risk assessment in Nepal.

Flood Risk Reduction

The presentation on flood risk reduction centered around the integrated flood risk reduction approach
which is a combination of structural and non-structural measures comprising of land use management,
structural flood protection, flood preparedness an emergency management. The establishment of an
operational flood forecasting and early warning system was presented as a key to flood risk reduction by
preparing the society to face and manage floods. Emphasis was given to people oriented flood information
system and on the need of having an efficient dissemination and communication system.

The participants raised concerns on flash floods, data needs and national capacity in the context of
implementing flood risk reduction programs in Nepal.

The panel discussion on flood vulnerability and risk assessment focused on the following topics specific to
Nepal.

• Flash Floods

• Flooding modeling and data needs for risk assessment

• Flood management & forecasting

• National capacity

38
Flash Floods:

Participants discussed the various causes behind the recent devastating flash floods of the Seti river in
Pokhara. They also wanted to know what can be done to avoid such disasters in the future.

One of the effective measures to avoid loss of lives and minimize property damage identified during the
panel discussion was the establishment of a warning system along the Seti River. Such a warning system
should be installed right from source of landslides which generate debris flows and cause heavy flash floods
down the river.

Flood modeling and data needs for risk assessment

It was recognized that rivers in Nepal are of complex nature ranging from steep mountainous and flowing
into large flat lands. Flood modeling in large rivers can be carried out using similar technologies of
Bangladesh as demonstrated by the resources person. However, special tools and techniques may be
required for modeling flash floods along the mountainous rivers.

Data scarcity was mentioned for flood modeling as well as for risk assessment. However, it was clarified
that the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology has sufficient data for major river basins for flood
modeling. With additional efforts, data required for risk assessment can be collected.

Flood management & forecasting

Discussions were held on various aspects of flood management including structural flood control measures
and non-structural measures (preparedness, land use zoning, emergency operation). Use of bio-engineering
techniques was encouraged for sustainable flood protection in Nepal. For protection of exposed urban
property and lives, it was argued that well designed & robust engineering structures should be
implemented. However, it was critically mentioned that due to lack of budgets such structures are not
maintained properly resulting into future flood risks. It was also mentioned that structural protection
measures must accompany appropriate flood warning system so that potential risks due to possible
structural failures can be predicted in advance. The need of setting of operational flood forecasting and
warning systems for river basins in Nepal was highlighted.

National capacity

A strong need of building national capacity on flood risk management was expressed by the participants.
Several arguments were presented on which agency (home ministry or Ministry of Irrigation) should be
responsible for flood management in Nepal. It was a common understanding that the Home Ministry
should only be involved at coordination level but the implementation should be done by the Ministry of
irrigation.

39
Module 6: Utilization of Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment in
the Policy formulation for ensuring the safety of future
infrastructure development projects

Mr. N.M.S.I. Arambepola,

Deputy Executive Director, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Thailand

Email: arambepola@adpc.net

1. Introduction

It is a fact that the incidents of landslides have increased within many countries in Asia during the last
decade inflicting heavy property losses, economic impacts and many deaths. It is hard to believe the
possibility of changes of engineering geological parameters of affected areas within a short time period and
contributions of such changes in increase of landslide events. Therefore key likely factors for increase in
landslide events can be attributed to change of the pattern of the natural triggering factors (such as
increase in rainfall, increase in the number of earthquakes in hilly areas etc) as well as changes in the land
use pattern in prone areas due to physical development interventions. Scientists are working on the climate
change issues, possible attributes. It’s obvious that there is a variation in climate related factors within Asia
which is reflected in occurrence of frequent extreme hydro-meteorological events. There are hard
evidences to provide proof for the possible increase in associated rainfall events, its intensity so on within
even smaller catchments areas which can contribute to occurrences of landslide and other natural hazard
events. Certain development interventions can amplify the effect of such trigger mechanism and there is a
direct correlation between geo-environmental factors and physical factors associated with development
interventions which demands control in land use in order to bring about reduction of devastating impacts
of landslides. Usually infrastructure projects in urban areas are associated with significant changes in
existing land users and therefore it is essential that the risk information be used in planning for
infrastructure projects within landslide prone areas in order to reduce the futuristic losses due to
occurrence of landslides.

This paper tries to discuss the measures that can be taken to mainstream landslide DRR measures in
planning and development of infrastructure and to regulate the development interventions in landslide
prone areas in order to reduce the impacts due to future devastating events of landsides.

2. Relationship between landslides and development interventions

The way how a community uses land at a given time could be defined as “Land use” and usage of particular
land parcel for development interventions is categorized by the socio-economic description or functional
dimension of the land. In most cases the usage of land is decided by the owner considering its suitability for
a particular development interventions, convenience of the user, as well as social, economic and

40
environmental factors. On the other hand the vulnerability of people to natural hazards is determined by
the relationship between the occurrences of destructive hazard events, the proximity of people to these
occurrences, and the degree to which the people are prepared to cope with these hazardous events natural
or manmade. This is common to natural occurrences of landslides too and failure or limitation of the
human system to interact with the physical system depends on the degree of vulnerability. Careful
development of hillside slopes can reduce economic and social losses due to slope failures and land use
planning can ensure sustainable development within hill country areas.

Certain development interventions can increase the possibility of trigger of landslide events. For example
unsafe land in hilly urban areas can be allocated for establishment of new human settlements or
infrastructure development due to scarcity of land in urban areas. Therefore measures are needed to be
taken to use risk information in any type of development planning including infrastructure planning in hilly
areas in order to see that such planning helps in restoration and maintenance of the physical condition of
the land, preserve natural and cultural aspects, reduce threats to safety of population and neighborhood,
and provide opportunities for environmentally friendly usage for residential, recreational or commercial
purposes. Through such a systematic and interactive procedure carried out in land allocation for
infrastructure projects is needed in order to create an enabling environment for sustainable development
of land resources which meet people’s needs and demands as well as preserve the safety and stability of
the land in hill districts.

41
3 Approaches for reduction of landslide impacts in development planning in mountain areas

A risk assessment is a methodology to determine the nature and extent of risk by analyzing potential
hazards and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability that together could potentially harm exposed
elements ( such as people, property, services, livelihoods) and the environment on which they depend. It is
an appropriate measure to use such risk information in natural resource management and development
planning in order to reduce the impact of natural hazards such as landslides. It is a tool for mediating with
allocation of land for development purposes and thereby facilitating the regulatory development within
prone areas. Landsides unlike other natural hazards only can inflict damages within a comparatively smaller
area and sustainable use of the given land depends on the measures undertaken to stabilize the area or to
avoid actions that can influence the destabilization of slopes. The most effective and economical way to
reduce the landslide losses is to locate developments on stable ground and or to undertake slope
stabilization measures as a component of development initiative. The assurance for stability of the slope
comes with the commitment of the users to follow mitigation principals accompanied by engineering as
well as non-engineering measures.

All development within mountain areas need to follow an integrated planning approach by linking different
above mentioned strategies with land use planning and physical development strategies. Therefore
mountain area development can be viewed as an interdisciplinary issue where land use planning and
development planning together play an integral part. Its content and method has to be adapted according
to local conditions but by a group of competent people who can advise on various issues connected not
only with land management and development but also mitigation of impacts of landslides or maintaining
the stability of slope while it’s being used for particular type of development. For example it is necessary to
design road traces or any other infrastructure projects not only considering its cost effectiveness but also
the potential geo-environmental effects and landslide hazard potential. In most cases in such development
planning Environment Impact Assessment is used as a tool for control or analyzing the environmental
impact due to particular development. But there are instances of such infrastructure development projects
end up in utilizing considerable additional expenditure for landslide control and mitigation under repair and
maintenance budgets even after passing through the EIA process.

3. Tools for development control and planning for safer infrastructure

One of the most effective and economical ways to reduce the landslide losses is to locate developments on
stable ground and having introduce preparedness and mitigation initiatives as a component of
development initiative. The potential landslide prone areas or land parcels that have a potential to
destabilize due to particular type of development can be dedicated to other low-intensity users or
designated as open areas or as areas allocated for restricted development. In such areas development can
be restricted or discouraged.

42
The basis for action for mitigation and preparedness measures or allocating land for development is the
science based information such as information provided through landslide hazard zonation mapping. Such
maps can be prepared using complex methodologies using many parameters as well as simple hazard
zonation based on few parameters but should provide information on the hazard process or degree of
susceptibility. When such information is available high risk areas can be avoided and moderately hazardous
areas can be used for regulated development integrating measures to reduce risk potential

3.1. Relocation or converting existing development

If in some areas where existing development is threatened by landslides such development can be diverted
or relocated in to a safe area. The recurring damages can be eliminated or reduced by evacuating the area
or by allocating existing land to other alternative uses, which are less vulnerable to slope failures .In some
instances especially where human settlements or infrastructure facilities are threatened by landslide it will
be difficult to relocate such facilities to another area due to as socio-economic factors. In such cases the
minimum should be to have preparedness measures accompanied by good early warning system for early
evacuation at established threshold limits of rainfall. Conversion of existing structures and facilities to uses
that are less vulnerable may be undertaken by individual property owners or in the case of public
properties by the government. The success of conversion depends on the value and importance of facilities,
their potential for triggering or resisting slope failures or whether they can be retrofitted to resist failures.
In cases of such conversion or retrofitting to have higher safety level the government can encourage the
owner by providing incentives such as credit on soft terms, reduction of tax etc.

3.2 Measures for discouraging development in landslide prone areas

The successful methods used in developing countries to discourage development in high risk areas. Public
awareness programs can be used for disclosure of hazard potential to prospective property purchasers.
Exclusion of public facilities as well as prohibit or limit the services of such as water, gas, electricity etc or
imposing high tariff is also used in discouraging development in high risk areas. Display of warning signs,
Tax credits/discredits and special concession, new financing policies (restrictions imposed through
secondary sources such as lending institutions), request for Insurance coverage for development
initiatives(request for Insurance certificates to be provided by the owner of the land) ,Government
acquisition of unsafe land are some other such measures that can be used in discouraging in high risk areas
or encouraging to move into safe areas.

43
3.3 Regulating development

It is difficult to assume that whole development initiatives in landslide prone areas can be discouraged
indefinitely by non-regulatory methods discussed above. Therefore the more practical way is to restrict
particular development and allow for restricted development in areas with potential landslide hazards. In
order to regulate development the governments can introduce zoning regulations for the hazardous areas
depending on the hazard potential. Areas with high hazard can be allocated for passive users such as
reforestation, conservation (parks, play grounds etc), livestock, agriculture that does not increase potential
for instability. In addition government through employing competent professional can suggest designs
incorporating measures to reduce the landslide risk

3.4. Land use zoning regulations.

The Hazard zonation mapping of landslide areas provide information on high hazard prone areas. Such
information can be used in land use zoning of prone areas. It helps in restricting development for high
hazardous zones and directing the areas in undertaking other appropriate development initiatives in
corresponding zones with different degree of hazards. Zoning regulations control the location and density
of development on hillsides. For example areas with low hazard or no hazard can be allocated for housing ,
human settlement development, infrastructure development etc. In high hazard prone areas development
can be limited. Relevant limitations or regulations in high risk areas can include provisions that prohibit
specific land users/development or operations that might cause slope failures. Such practices are
development of human settlements, infrastructure, construction of roads and lifeline facilities, irrigation
systems, storage of hazardous waste etc. A least danger is associated with land uses such as woodlands,
parks, parking areas, non-irrigated agriculture, recreation, wildlife sanctuaries, forest areas etc, and
industrial uses such as temporary stores, storage yards, parking areas for portable or moving equipment,
etc. Such land uses can be located in medium hazard areas or areas allocated for controlled development.
Other controls such as subdivision regulations, special regulations for restricted areas, promotion of
Conservation practices and landslide reduction measure are also considered to be very effective tools in
regulating development in high risk areas.

4. Role of Urban Local Governments in development planning

Local government is the lowest unit of administration which is authorized to issue building control permits
and permits for infrastructure projects and other development initiatives. But at the local government
level, hazard mitigation is often a controversial issue. One might argue that the development control in high
hazard areas is a selfish way of controlling development Also since in many cases it is difficult to obtain
hazard zonation maps the decisions will be based on very subjective recommendations by professionals and
may lead to controversies. Technical staff and officials of local governments are usually subjected to
pressure from political authorities to issue permits for development initiatives and without proper technical
support they may have difficulties to maintain policies on land use and development control. Local officials,
as well as individual builders, property developers, contractors and other parties in the development

44
process, are increasingly being found liable for actions, or failures to act. The best opportunities for
reducing the impacts of landslide hazard events are found in mains terming development planning using
risk information and enforcement of codes and ordinance.

45
 Module 7: Post-disaster Needs Assessment and Recovery and
Reconstruction for Housing and Infrastructure Sectors

Swarna Kazi

GFDRR Focal Point, World Bank- Bangladesh

Email: skazi1@worldbank.org

This module talks about different aspects of PDNA, which will be very useful for the MoUD. The major areas
covered within this module are given as follows:

• Importance of undertaking post-disaster needs assessment

• Post-disaster needs assessment and management policy formulation

Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) considers the following key areas:

 Estimate the economic and human impact of the disaster

 Determine the reconstruction and recovery needs
 Prioritize reconstruction and recovery activities in the Recovery Framework

PDNA components

DaLA: Damage, Loss and Needs Assessment is a quantitative estimation of damage and losses and the
impact on the overall economy with identification of needs of recovery and reconstruction

HRNA: Human Recovery Needs Assessment “assessment to determine the requirements for the full and
resilient recovery of affected populations, including restoration of governance systems

Guiding Principles

 PDNA is a Government led process

 Partnership between EU, UN, WB, and development actors (civil society, donors, international
organizations)
 One process, one team, one output
 “Resilient Recovery” – inclusion of disaster risk reduction consideration into recovery and
reconstruction process

46
 Government
requests a PDNA
[average of 1 week
after a disaster]
Govt and
International
Community teams
work together
[3-5 weeks after Govt and
disaster] International
Community
Govt and International draft Report
Community draft ToRs [8 weeks after a
[2 weeks after a disaster]
disaster]

Figure: PDNA Milestones

47
48
Panel Discussion

Major Topics: Earthquake, Landslide and Flood Risk Management

Mr. Arambepola started the panel session stating that during the two days the resource persons have
provided an introduction to risk assessment and how the results of various hazard specific assessment
outputs can be used for infrastructure planning. Resource persons were trying to give relevant case
studies/examples of some sound practices from the sub-region. However, there can be specific issues
related to the utilization of such methodologies as well as difficulties/limitations in the application of
related results in infrastructure planning in the context of Nepal. Therefore, the panel discussion can be
used to address such issues and possible approaches to overcome the difficulties.

Mr. Arambepola began with the topic of landslide risk assessment and the utilization of results for
infrastructure planning in mountain areas. He brought forward certain good practices from Sri Lanka. Citing
the examples from Sri Lanka, Mr. Arambepola explained the importance of designating a mandated
institution to undertake landslide related studies and services including hazard zonation mapping. As an
example, Sri Lanka designated the National Building Research Organization to fulfill such tasks and oversee
the approval procedure for housing and infrastructure in mountain areas. Sri Lanka also has undertaken a
program to map all landslide hazard prone districts and develop 1:10,000 scale maps for urban areas/cities
that define very high, high, and moderate landslide hazard zones for regulated development. He
recommended that a city level landslide risk assessment be carried out in Nepal .He also suggested
necessary policy changes for designating such mandated functions to relevant institution/s as the priority
step to be carried out by the Government of Nepal (GoN) for ensuring the mainstreaming of landslide
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) into infrastructure planning. Another good practice towards landslide risk
management adopted by Sri Lanka is the introduction of precipitation thresholds for landslide EW at the
city level and setting up community based landslide EW systems in selected high risk areas. This is also
something Nepal can take into consideration in most vulnerable local government areas.

Additionally, Dr. Guna recommended providing landslide hazard zonation maps for every high risk village in
Nepal and also to carry out awareness programs to create general awareness on the ways of avoiding bad
practices which can contribute to slope instability. Good governance is another factor which will help in
proper implementation of these initiatives.

Dr. Maksud Kamal recommended establishing a focal institution responsible for coordination of disaster
management interventions in Nepal (similar to the Disaster Management Bureau (DMB) in Bangladesh). A
dialogue should be started among the stakeholders, relevant government authorities, Ministry of Home,
and other relevant parties to initiate a process for establishment of a formal organization to be the focal
point for DRR in Nepal. CDRMP-Nepal may provide necessary assistance for the formation of DMB-Nepal,
which will ensure the sustainability of the outcome of the CDRMP activities in the future. Guidelines such as
the Standing Orders for Disaster (SOD) in Bangladesh can be introduced in Nepal for undertaking systematic
action in responding to disaster events by stakeholders at all levels. Dr. Kamal argued that the first
49
agendum of the line ministries should be to develop the baseline data necessary for undertaking multi-
hazard risk assessments and to undertake hazard zonation mapping for priority hazard types for Nepal. Risk
assessments can be carried out to identify vulnerable areas for respective priority hazards and used to
design the appropriate set of preparedness and mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of future
disaster events. The process can then be mainstreamed and coordinated and monitored by a designated
authority. A similar process has been promoted by UNISDR. Because the Government of Nepal is
committed to follow the framework under Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), Nepal can receive technical
guidance from regional institutions such as UNISDR, ADPC, and others for compliance with such a
framework in future. Moreover, Dr. Maksud recommended revising the EIA process to emphasize proper
integration of DRR issues as well as making the process compulsory for granting approval for each and
every new infrastructure project undertaken in high hazard prone areas.

In terms of earthquake risk, Dr. Maksud emphasized the need for speedy action for implementation of the
Building Code for all buildings, infrastructure, lifeline facilities, and other structures in order to reduce
future earthquake risk.

The participants discussed different projects undertaken with the intension of mainstreaming DRR in
planning and implementing Infrastructure development within Nepal and probable causes of those projects
being discontinued without fully achieving the intended objectives. They suggested that the panel
recommend developing a small handbook under the UNDP project, which can be used as a guideline for
future projects to ensure mainstreaming risk reduction in infrastructure development and planning. The
participants also feel it is good if a few workshops on similar subjects can be organized for those
stakeholders involved in infrastructure planning and development in the future. The panel accepted the
request accordingly and agreed to include them under recommendations to CDRMP/UNDP.

Regarding the action plans of the line ministries, Dr. Kamal suggested that the individual ministries make 1-
2 page concept notes highlighting the expected support by the line ministries so that guidelines can be
prepared to suit the requirements of the line ministries. They need to decide on priority areas and come
back to UNDP and the Government of Nepal for more support in the above subject.

In reply to the comments from the participants, Dr. Guna suggested having more exposure to the state of
the art of technology in different areas of infrastructure planning minimizing the potential risk. Plus, he
asked the participants from line ministries not to be afraid of adopting new technologies when such
technologies can be utilized to develop risk information more accurately and efficiently.

Regarding Flood Risk Management, Mr. Arambepola stated that, for mainstreaming DRR, Nepal needs risk
information from national, sub-national as well as sectoral levels. UNDP may take initiative to project and
integrate such needs in the future phases of CDRMP. He also suggested initiating some risk mapping
programs where technology transfer and capacity building can be integrated in the scope so that local
agencies can be equipped with necessary tools and knowledge to continue providing risk information to
other stakeholders.

Dr. Maksud pointed out that one of the immediate needs in this regard for Kathmandu is to have seismic
micro-zonation maps for urban areas. He also emphasized the need for the compilation of all existing data,
outcome of past projects, and other pertinent information and making them available to others for future
studies.

50
The MoUD representative (Mr Rameshwor Dangal – Undersecretary, MoUD) and representative from the
participants (Mr Hari Bahadur Khatri – Joint Secretary ,Ministry of Energy) thanked UNDP, ADPC and all
other resource persons for sharing their experience on the subject. The main objective of “sensitization”
was already accomplished as the presentations addressed the need for mainstreaming DRR in
infrastructure planning and development as well as the strategies for meeting the challenges and
limitations.

As the way forward, MoUD agreed to organize this sort of forum for knowledge and experience sharing as a
continuous process. He requested that all of the participants have a look into their own guidelines, policies,
and other regulation to find the gaps in DRR mainstreaming aspects so that such policies and guidelines can
be reviewed and revised in a systematic manner. He also suggested having regular meetings among all the
relevant agencies and ministries regarding DRR mainstreaming into infrastructure development issues.
MoUD recommend the process of “Learning by Doing” rather than the traditional paper-pen based
theoretical learning in aspect of DRR mainstreaming. Finally, he told that it is his belief that the proposed
Disaster Management Bill would be enacted soon by the Parliament for the better management of disasters
in Nepal in the future and most of the unmet needs can be met and regularized once the mandated
agencies under the new act are in place.

51
 52

View publication stats