|
Earthquake
Vulnerability
Seventh,
individual level preparedness and city’s capability
to cope with earthquake disaster is inadequate.
There is no augmentation of emergency facilities
proportionate with population growth and expansion
of settlements. The fire office located in a dense
area of Kathmandu is understaffed, lacks trained
staff and necessary equipment, and under budgeted,
even not enough to keep vehicles in running
condition [out of 8 fire fighters only 3 are in
working condition]. Moreover, they have to fight
against traffic jams on narrow congested roads and
go to ‘Mahankal’ or some nearby river to fill up
their tanks before proceeding to the disaster site.
Blockage of roads and pedestrian lanes from debris
of collapsed buildings, huge traffic jams, failure
of electricity, water supply and telecommunication
will not only hamper immediate rescue and first aid
treatment but will also bring to a halt, the
function of health services in case of big
earthquakes. Lastly, many cannot afford to prepare
against an earthquake disaster that is uncertain, as
they need to spend a higher percentage of their
income on housing [28%] and clothing [10%] with
little money left for medicine and personal care
[4%] and education [4%]. Disparity in income level
in Kathmandu is wide - the bottom 60% earns only
5.8% compare to 85.4% by the top 20%.
The above mentioned many activities responsible for
intensifying earthquake vulnerability in Kathmandu
at present cannot be regulated under the existing
legal and institutional framework due to several
reasons. First, the absence of comprehensive Master
Plan for Kathmandu and Planning Standards and Urban
Design Guidelines have accelerated the present trend
of haphazard urban growth with production of
vulnerable building structures through
non-engineering and informal processes. Five tiers
of public agencies [Ministry of Physical Planning
and Works [MPPW], Department of Urban Development
and Building Construction [DUDBC], Kathmandu Valley
Town Development Committee [KVTDC], Kathmandu
Metropolitan City [KMC], and local Ward Offices [LWO]
have lost the opportunity to incorporate earthquake
mitigation components at least in the planned
developments of housing, land pooling projects and
other infrastructure schemes. Except for a case of
unit under Social Department within the KMC, none of
the above public agencies has a disaster management
unit within their organisations and hence no fund is
allocated for the mitigation and preparedness works.
Second, newly enacted National Building Code seems
to regulate new construction for earthquake safety
but it is not so in reality. Submission of different
blue prints in the city for easily getting building
permits, lack of trained staff at KMC for checking
earthquake safety standards in the submitted
drawings as well as for construction supervision,
and owners’ habits of modifying the design and
detailing during the construction phase, all have
reduced the effectiveness of the building code.
Moreover, involvement of different public agencies –
KMC for giving building permit, KVTDC for monitoring
construction and Chief District Office and Police
Department for punishing the defaulters – and
contradiction of nature of punishment in different
legislations [Building Bylaws, Ancient Monument Act
and Local Self Governance Act] for the same type of
default has failed even to enforce the simple clause
of height restriction in the existing bylaws. Third,
there is neither a clear responsible public agency
nor any clear cut clauses in the building bylaws to
control the vertical division of old houses and
their haphazard renovation as well as occupancy
change [change in building use from residential to
school, nursing home, factory, offices, etc.]
Though
governmental and other agencies have initiated many
disaster management programs, they are yet to
address the root causes of earthquake vulnerability.
The present ongoing activities can be visualised at
two different layers. On the top layer, failure to
regulate urban growth and haphazard building
transformation has resulted in formation of both new
and old settlements unsafe exposing higher
percentage of population under seismic risk,
degradation of infrastructure capacity creating
shortage of basic amenities such as drinking water,
electricity and so on, and reduction in capacity
[and preparedness level] to respond to an earthquake
disaster. Kathmandu is becoming more vulnerable with
each passing day.
While development work and disaster management tasks
are generally distinct at the organizational level,
the effects of their initiatives in hazardous
environments are highly intertwined. Ministries and
line agencies lacking the capacity to respond to
seismic risk; poor health care and education and
haphazard construction are all part of structural
poverty and need to be incorporated in development
work; otherwise earthquake vulnerability will be
increased. At the bottom layer, safety activities
such as seismic vulnerability analysis of hospitals
and public schools, calculation of loss and damage
estimation, and symposia, workshops and exhibitions
on occasions such as earthquake safety day [16th
January] are yet to bring tangible results in
society not only because most such events are
fragmented and framed under donors’ program and
financial support but also due to lack of linkages
of such fragmented activities with the legal and
institutional mechanism for replication on a larger
scale. Moreover, such efforts have been superseded
by the rapid growth of vulnerable settlements.
It is the nature of humans to learn from what they
see in their daily life rather than from speeches
and television conversations on special occasions.
As a result, many people have not only continued the
wrong practice of building transformation but also
taken the earthquake awareness program as an ‘event’
like ‘Dashain’ or ‘Deepawali’ to be celebrated once
a year rather than an issue of life and death. To
build earthquake safer Kathmandu, it is essential to
synchronise both layers through three different key
strategies. First, both ‘top – down’ approach – for
formulation of disaster management policy at
national level, enhancement of cooperation and
coordination among various agencies from central to
local levels [in vertical axis] and along different
line agencies [in horizontal axis] at the same level
– to incorporate earthquake mitigation components in
urban [re]development works and building
transformation processes, on the one hand, and
‘bottom-up’ initiation – for understanding
contextual situation, local resource mobilisation
and community motivation – to ensure local level
preparedness and to link mitigation components into
communities’ daily life activities, on the other
hand, is essential, which will be possible only
through a new set of legislation under a new
institutional arrangement. Second, earthquake safety
programs by individual agencies can never be
effective unless it has spatial relation with other
programs as well as linkages at upper and bottom
levels. Third, earthquake safety programs should be
implemented through urban design techniques so that
the people get multiple choices and incentives to
suit their needs. Technical support and financial
incentives in building transformation and
infrastructure improvement encourages community
participation on earthquake mitigation activities.
Last but not the least, research work on earthquake
disaster complements the planning and design of
mitigation programs as well as the updating of legal
and institutional framework which are essential to
address a dynamic societ
Acknowledgement
The author acknowledges Dr. Bijaya K. Shrestha (Head
of Department of Post Graduate Department of Urban
Design and Conservation of Khwopa Engineering
College) for assistance in editing this paper as
well as in providing many documents related to
earthquake disaster.
Previous
| Subscribe
|
