School earthquake safety program

Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program S afer 4 c ities Case studies on mitigating disasters in Asia and the Pacific

The School Earthquake Safety Program in Valley Building safer communities through schools

Imagine, the earth shakes for no more than a minute, but “many schools which did not prepare for an earthquake are now suffering. Many school buildings are heavily damaged with children trapped inside of them. The children who are safe are crying from fear . . . Many parents are worried and angry because their children have not returned home, nor are they in school, nor can they be seen on the road.”

The ’s Earthquake Scenario (a product developed by the Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project or KVERMP) Abstract sketched this chilling picture against the background of an earthquake The School Earthquake Safety with a magnitude close to 8.3 on the Richter scale – similar in degree to Program (SESP) is one of the priority the catastrophic earthquake that struck Nepal in 1934. initiatives under the Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project Introduction (1997-2001). The program evolved from a simple school retrofit activity Schools in Nepal pose extreme After an earthquake, standing and safe to a comprehensive program of earth- earthquake risks. School buildings, even schools play a crucial role in quake safety involving the whole community. This case study explains rehabilitating the community. Since those built recently, are generally the rationale for focusing on schools constructed without the input of schools are typically well distributed and the comprehensive process of engineers trained in earthquake- throughout the communities, they can be developing and implementing SESP in resistant design or construction. Low used as temporary shelters for the Kathmandu Valley including details of: budgets for the school management homeless, medical clinics and for other a survey and vulnerability assessment system increase the likelihood that poor emergency functions. of public school buildings through materials or workmanship are used. school headmasters; retrofitting and The vulnerability of schools is Before an earthquake, schools can play reconstruction of schools; local illustrated by the 1998 Udayapur a role in educating the children and their masons’ training on earthquake- resistant construction; a participatory parents, relatives and friends in earthquake in eastern Nepal, where community-based approach to approximately 6,000 school buildings earthquake preparedness and mitigation. earthquake mitigation; awareness were destroyed, luckily during non- raising and education on earthquake school hours. In view of the above, the Asian Disaster safety for teachers, school children Preparedness Center’s (ADPC) Asian and parents; empowerment of CHINA Urban Disaster Mitigation Program communities and general improvement implemented the School Earthquake of safety and livelihood; and Safety Program (SESP) as part of institutionalizing SESP in local Great Himalaya Range KVERMP (1997-2001). This case study government. NEPAL describes how SESP started, how it evolved and how it benefited The inside story Dhangadhi communities. 1 A survey of Kathmandu Valley school buildings, page 2 1 Indo - Gangetic Plain Pokhara Response to survey: Nepalganj Mt. Everest retrofit or reconstruct?, page 3 KATHMANDU 1 Masons: key to safer buildings, INDIA Lalitpur page 4 1 Community empowerment,

0 50 100 km Birganj Dharan page 4 Janakpur 1 Institutionalizing SESP, 0 50 100 mi Biratnagar page 6 Source: http://www.theodora.com/maps/abc_world_maps.html

January 2003 1 $ Three reasons to What is an earthquake? factfile focus on safer schools An earthquake is a sudden shaking or rupture in the earth ë Schools house the community’s caused by the release of accumulated stresses in the crust. Epicenter future. The point within the earth where the rupture starts is ëSchools that are still standing and are known as the focus. Directly above it on the surface of safe can be used as refuge after a the earth is a point called the epicenter. Earthquakes are disaster. measured according to these scales: ë Focus Schools can promote earthquake Modified Mercalli scale: Seismic intensity is an indicator preparedness and mitigation in the of the effects of an earthquake at a particular point. Every community. earthquake has many intensities, the strongest usually being at the epicenter. Intensities decrease with farther distance from the epicenter. Intensities are quantified using Issues to consider s the Modified Mercalli scale, which has numerical values ranging from I (detected when implementing only by seismic instruments) to XII (causing total destruction of most buildings). a school earthquake questions safety program to ask Richter scale: The magnitude of an earthquake rates an earthquake as a whole, independent of the effects at any particular point. It is measured on a logarithmic ëHow do we get communities inter- scale to the base 10 called the Richter scale. This means a magnitude 8 earthquake ested in strengthening schools? has an amplitude 10 times greater than a magnitude 7 earthquake, 100 times ë greater than a magnitude 6 earthquake, and so on. Earthquakes of magnitude 1 How do we build local capacities? to 3 on the Richter scale are detected only by seismic instruments. An earthquake ëHow do we mobilize resources? of magnitude 6 will damage poorly constructed buildings and other structures ëHow do we sustain the program? within tens of kilometers of its epicenter. Source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov

A survey of Kathmandu Valley school buildings NSET and communities check earthquake-resistance of schools

‘Most schools will perish using “traditional” materials such as adobe, number of schools were then selected to in a big quake’ stone rubble in mud mortar or brick in mud pilot the SESP, starting with one site during mortar – materials which were extremely 1999, then five sites in 2000 and four sites Over 66 per cent of Kathmandu Valley’s vulnerable to earthquakes. in 2001. A non-profit organization, Room public schools were likely to collapse Furthermore, 10 to 15 per cent to Read (formerly Books for Nepal), in an earthquake of intensity IX on Over 66 of the buildings were in very replicated KVERMP’s SESP model in two the Modified Mercalli scale. This per cent of poor condition. Many buildings communities outside Kathmandu Valley in emerged from the NSET Kathmandu had roofs that were on the 2001. (National Society for Earthquake Valley’s public verge of collapse or walls Technology) survey of the schools were that could crumble at any Communities participate earthquake vulnerability of 643 likely to collapse time. These would be in school survey public schools in the three in an earthquake dangerous to occupy even administrative districts of of intensity IX in normal times. In consultation with headmasters, Kathmandu Valley – Bhaktapur, engineers and international experts, a Kathmandu and Lalitpur. on the Modified Based on the school survey, school survey format was designed to Mercalli SESP started as a program to gather data on sizes and shapes of An earthquake of this intensity had scale. retrofit and reconstruct buildings, dates of construction, been experienced in the valley once vulnerable schools. In the process, construction materials, density of students, every 50 to 100 years over the past 900 it became clear that the initiative should extent of engineers’ involvement in years, the last time being in 1934. Such be accompanied by (1) training of masons; building design and construction, and so tremor during school hours could kill more and (2) training of teachers, parents and on. Upon finalization of a survey format, than 29,000 students and teachers (12 children on earthquake preparedness. A headmasters and the school management per cent of total public school occupants) and injure 43,000 more (18 per cent of total public school occupants). The direct loss in terms of damaged buildings would be more than seven million US dollars (based on costs in the year 2000). Including the impact on students, teachers and buildings of private schools, the devastation would be phenomenal.

Approximately 60 per cent of the surveyed Bhuwaneshwory Lower Secondary School in Nangkhel, Bhaktapur, public school buildings were constructed before and after retrofitting for earthquake safety 2 committee members from every school in technicians were hired to aid some inputs was less than USD15,000. The the valley, together with authorities from headmasters in completing the involvement of headmasters in the district and regional education offices, were survey forms. A structural The school survey not only shortened invited to participate in seminars that engineer visited 20 per cent involvement of the survey collection time, but promoted awareness of earthquake risk in of these schools to verify headmasters in the also raised people’s awareness Kathmandu Valley. At the seminars, the that the information school survey not of the earthquake risks in their headmasters were requested to assist in collected in the survey community. completing the school survey. A total of forms were accurate and only shortened the 17 one-day seminars were conducted with consistent. During these survey collection Following the completion of participation from 65 per cent of the valley’s visits, engineers also time, but also raised the survey, NSET classified headmasters. These seminars took place began investigating people’s awareness buildings according to their in school premises and opened to the potential methods and of the earthquake construction materials and public to maximize the exposure of costs for retrofitting and risks in their structural systems, conducted a teachers, students and other community reconstructing existing community. vulnerability assessment and groups to earthquake risks. buildings. identified structural mitigation measures such as retrofitting as well as After several months, 630 out of 643 The total cost of conducting this survey, non-structural options such as survey forms were completed, although excluding management costs and technical preparedness planning in schools.

Response to survey: retrofit or reconstruct? NSET weighs options for improving seismic resistance of schools

There were two options available for Secondary School in Nangkhel, Bhaktapur, Schools that participated seismic improvement of school buildings: to enhance evacuation safety during a in the School Earthquake (1) to demolish and reconstruct and (2) disastrous event. To demolish and Safety Program to implement seismic retrofitting. reconstruct a brick in mud mortar school of similar size would more than double the SESP 1999 Retrofitting was cheaper. Depending on cost. Retrofit: Bhuwaneshwory Lower the structural type and condition of the Secondary School, Nangkhel, school, it would cost USD30–50 per square However, there was a limit to which old Bhaktapur (photo on page 2) meter to retrofit a school in Kathmandu and poorly maintained buildings could be Valley. For a typical brick in mud mortar retrofitted. Buildings with weak materials SESP 2000 school serving 200 children, a retrofit would would benefit less from retrofitting as Retrofit: Bal Bikash Secondary School, Alapot, Kathmandu cost USD8,000. This included seismic compared to newer buildings with good Retrofit: Gadgade Primary School, retrofitting, repair and maintenance, construction materials of cement and , Bhaktapur management and improvement of existing steel. Obviously, a combination of the two Retrofit: Upayogi Primary School, , facilities. An example of the latter was options was required. Bhaktapur reducing the steepness of the staircase in Retrofit: Vaishnavi Secondary School, Bal Bikash Secondary School in Alapot, NSET decided to pilot the SESP with a Kirtipur, Kathmandu Kathmandu, or adjusting the swing of retrofit program in 1999. At that time Reconstruction: Bhuwaneshwory Lower classroom doors in Bhuwaneshwory Lower retrofitting was a new concept and its Secondary School, Nangkhel, Bhaktapur (building no. 2) introduction generated much interest and willingness to learn among local masons and SESP 2001 Guidelines: s other community members. Retrofitting Reconstruction: Himalaya Primary School, to retrofit or questions could be done in approximately four Thimi, Bhaktapur to reconstruct? to ask months while reconstruction would take Reconstruction: Kavresthali Lower more than one year. Aside from the costs, Secondary School, Kavresthali, ëWhat is the state of the building? the scale and duration of disturbance to Kathmandu ëHow much is the available budget? existing school functions would also be very Reconstruction: Nateshwory Primary School, , Bhaktapur high with the reconstruction option. ëWhat is the technical capability? Reconstruction: Gorakhali Primary School, Overall, it was believed that the option of ëWhat is the time frame allowed? Gorkha District of Prithvinagar retrofitting for suitable school buildings

Safer Cities

Safer Cities is a series of case studies that illustrate how people, communities, cities, governments and businesses have been able to make cities safer before disasters strike. The series presents strategies and approaches to urban disaster mitigation derived from analyses of real-life experiences, good practices and lessons learned in Asia and the Pacific. This user-friendly resource is designed to provide decision-makers, planners, city and community leaders and trainers with an array of proven ideas, tools, policy options and strategies for urban disaster mitigation. The key principles emphasized throughout Safer Cities are broad-based participation, partnerships, sustainability and replication of success stories.

The contents here may be freely quoted with credit given to the implementing institution, Asian Disaster Preparedeness Center (ADPC), and to the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ADPC or USAID. The information in this series is provided for purposes of dissemination. For more details, please refer to contacts listed at the end of this material. Publication of this case study was made possible through the support provided by the OFDA, USAID, under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. 386-A-00-00-00068.

Safer Cities 4, AUDMP 3 would increase the community’s Selection criteria for the School Earthquake Safety Program acceptability of earthquake safety. ü The school is rated highly vulnerable. ü The school building is of moderate size NSET selects schools ü The school headmaster had attended the with simple structures. to retrofit and reconstruct Headmasters’ Seminar. ü The school is out of the city core but with ü The School Management Committee shows good road accessibility. interest in introducing seismically resistant ü Construction materials are obtainable in Following the assessment of the building features to the school. the area. stock of public schools in Kathmandu ü Local masons in the vicinity are available. ü The school is willing to make arrangements Valley, schools were selected and ü The communities in the school’s vicinity to hold classes in an alternative site. prioritized for SESP based on a set of are committed to participate and provide ü The school has no dispute on land and selection criteria (right). contributions (in cash or in kind). building ownership.

Masons: key to safer buildings Masons trained in earthquake-safe construction

The lesson from SESP is not simply that a constructions and were motivated to reconstructed school translated to about school could be retrofitted. The obtain the required skills, then seismic 20 masons trained on earthquake-resistant retrofitting or reconstruction process could performance of existing and new buildings technology. This created a multiplier effect generate awareness-raising opportunities. could be improved. Therefore, NSET in which masons were able to convince For an additional USD2,000, twenty local conducted practical on-the-job training owners to construct earthquake-resistant masons in Kathmandu Valley could be programs on earthquake-resistant design houses. Following the retrofit of a school trained while retrofitting or reconstructing and retrofitting methods for masons. Since in Nangkhel, two houses were constructed a school, and community members could many of the masons were illiterate, hands- with seismic considerations within a few achieve raised awareness on earthquake- on demonstrations were emphasized. months. Similarly in Alapot, two seismically related issues at the same time. resistant houses were constructed by The training courses helped to convince trained masons using the owner’s own Communities relied heavily upon masons local masons of the affordability and funds. In Kavresthali, the community library for construction and technical guidance, possibilities of constructing earthquake- was constructed with earthquake-resistant even though the masons had no formal resistant buildings using slight features. If each mason built ten houses a training. If the masons were convinced of improvements in locally employed methods year, 20 masons could reduce the the feasibility of earthquake-resistant of construction. One retrofitted or vulnerability of 200 families.

Masons training curriculum

Module 1: Theory of Earthquakes • Structural response of building to earthquake • What is an earthquake • Weak aspects of Nepal’s building stock • How earthquakes occur • Consequences of structural failure • Why earthquakes concern us • In what ways earthquakes Module 3: Earthquake-Resistant damage buildings Construction Techniques Module 2: Earthquake Risk of Buildings • Retrofitting masonry building • Earthquake-resistant construction • Differences between earthquake force of masonry building and normal force • Earthquake-resistant construction • Critical structural components of of framed building building in earthquake • Quality control in construction $ The cost of earthquake resistance factfile

The use of seismically resistant techniques increases construction costs by only 4%–8% in SESP includes a combination of public masonry buildings (buildings with brick in cement mortar, reinforced concrete floor and roof meetings and hands-on demonstration slab) and 6%–10% in reinforced concrete frame buildings (up to three stories).

Community empowerment Community participation improves safety, awareness, livelihood and outreach

People participate Periodic public meetings were called to KVERMP activities promote in decision-making review work progress, to present a safety awareness and outreach financial update and collect views and From the start, the SESP had suggestions from villagers. These provided Other activities initiated under KVERMP actively incorporated community a forum for active participation in decision- complemented SESP in raising awareness participation as a critical element of the making and, at the same time, raised and encouraging people’s participation in process. people’s awareness of earthquake safety. promoting earthquake safety. One such 4 Examples of community to a high-intensity earthquake like that of (DDCs), Village Development Committees participation in SESP 1934. Local masons constructed 1:10 scale (VDCs), ADPC, Room to Read, GeoHazards models of typical Nepali school buildings – International (GHI), UNDP, UNESCO and • School headmasters assisted in completing with and without seismic reinforcements. so on. the school building survey. These models were made at the school • The criteria for school selection sites where school teachers, students and Stonecrete improves lives: emphasized good community solidarity and the community’s willingness to contribute villagers could witness the process. The a success story in kind and in cash to the strengthening of models were then placed on a shake-table the school building. that simulated a high-intensity earthquake. Kavresthali Lower Secondary School was • The masons identified for training were in For those who had never experienced an made of stones and once demolished the community or its vicinity. earthquake, watching the collapse of the produced a large heap of stones. Instead • Masons training was set up as informal non-reinforced building created a of being dumped as useless waste, the community gatherings during evenings. lasting visual memory. dismantled stones were creatively • Community members observed hands-on transformed into something demonstration of retrofitting and “Thank reconstruction techniques. To celebrate the completion you for useful by villagers. They were • The community provided about one fourth of a retrofitted or recon- making my school broken into small pieces and of the cost of labor. structed school for the safe. I suggest the next filled into concrete blocks • The communities themselves, with some community, formal school step should be that could be easily molded support from NSET, generated funds and hand-over ceremonies by villagers themselves, to strengthen our acquisition of materials for SESP. had been held since ESD creating a new and uniquely • The SESP committee managed the funds 2000. All community homes,” said Krishna Ghimire, strong building material and implementation of SESP. members including a student of Kavresthali Lower called “stonecrete.” Secondary School, when he students, parents, delivered a speech at the hand- activity was the Earthquake Safety Day teachers, headmasters over ceremony of his newly According to laboratory (ESD). This had been an annual event held and masons were invited reconstructed earthquake- tests, stonecrete blocks every 15 January since 1999, in memory to the ceremony. resistant school during were stronger and cheaper of the devastating earthquake that struck Governmental institu- Earthquake Safety Day 2002. than ordinary bricks. With the tions, non-governmental This is a good example of invention of stonecrete as an Kathmandu Valley on 15 January 1934. public education and The commemoration of this day comprised organizations and inter- alternative building material, national agencies also awareness raising at the community was able to a range of awareness-raising activities over the community participated in the ceremony. reduce the cost of building a one-week period. Each year, activities level. were organized by the ESD National They included the Ministry of construction. Furthermore, a new Committee instituted by the Royal Education, District Education Offices livelihood option was initiated – making Government of Nepal and chaired by the (DEOs), District Development Committees stonecrete during periods of field fallow. Minister of Science and Technology. Activities included international symposiums, high-level meetings, exhibitions, rallies, art and essay competitions, street performances, special earthquake-related programs and interviews on radio and television, shake- table demonstrations and school hand-over ceremonies. The last two activities were particularly relevant to this case study. Masons receive graduation certificates Broken stones from demolished school at the hand-over ceremony of buildings are filled into molds (left) The shake-table demonstration showed Kavresthali Lower Secondary School to make stonecrete blocks (right) how different building types would react

A breakthrough Nepali masons rebuild lives in Gujarat

The Honorable N.P. Saud, Minister of State Advocates and practitioners of earthquake for Education, was the chief guest at the safety used the aftermath of the Gujarat School Hand-over Ceremony of Kavresthali Earthquake on 26 January 2001 as an Lower Secondary School on 12 January 2002. His participation attracted many high-level opportunity for learning and awareness government officials to the event, raising the raising. In Patanka Village of Gujarat, the Making 1:10 scale model of school profile of the event. earthquake rendered 250 households homeless. To aid the reconstruction of The school lacked funds to complete Patanka, Nepali masons provided hands- reconstruction of its third floor. Following the on training on earthquake-resistant School Management Committee’s request for the completion of the school reconstruction, construction techniques to the local the Honorable Prem Lal Singh, Minister of masons in Patanka. This technological Environment and Population, and Room to exchange was made possible by the Read (formerly Books for Nepal), a non-profit partnership between NSET and the organization, each promised to contribute Sustainable Environment and Ecological NRs.150,000 (USD1959), raising 75 per cent Development Society in India (SEEDS Shake-table demonstration of the funds required to complete the work. India) as part of the Patanka Navjivan

Safer Cities 4, AUDMP 5 was especially relevant since stone masonry Nepal, plus some familiarity with the was a common practice. technology introduced. Some masons of Patanka even recalled the wisdom Social acceptance of this new building preached by their great-grandfathers on technique took time. For example, Patanka earthquake-resistant construction. villagers were accustomed to the thick stone walls of their houses. However, to During Nepal’s Earthquake Safety Day in make stonecrete cost-effective, the walls 2002, Nepali masons had the opportunity Nepali and Indian masons work had to be thinner. Demonstrations had to to show Indian masons the schools they together in Patanka, Gujarat be held regularly to convince local masons helped to retrofit through SESP in their that the thinner stonecrete walls were hometowns of Nangkhel and Alapot in Yojana (“Patanka New Life Project”) stronger and more durable than the thick Kathmandu Valley. This two-way exchange supported by NGOs in Kobe, GHI and the stonewalls. between Nepal and India proved extremely Disaster Management Planning Hyogo valuable to local masons, families, children Office of the United Nations Center for Rather than simply providing completed and teachers in the villages. Gujarati masons Regional Development (UNCRD). houses like most rehabilitation projects, this and engineers who visited NSET learned project aimed to strengthen the to construct a 1:10 building model and Houses in Patanka were typically 4x4 community’s capacity to help themselves, the shake-table. Subsequently, a shake- meters, with timber posts, 45-centimeter demonstrating a more developmental and table demonstration was done in thick stone walls in mud mortar and clay sustainable approach. Bageshwor of Uttaranchal, India, by local tile roofs. As part of the technological masons in July 2002. This is an example of exchange between India and Nepal, This exchange was successful largely a successful South–South cooperation stonecrete was introduced in Patanka. This because of the similar culture in India and from which all could learn.

lessonsï ð Insights from the School Earthquake Safety Program learned

ëInvolve the community right from the start. ëTransfer low-cost technology that is ëNever overlook the role of an individual in ëTransfer ownership of the program to “accepted” by the community. sparking behavior change. beneficiary community as early as possible. ëEmphasize local capacity, local materials and ëUse SESP as an awareness raising opportunity. ëDevelop a transparent management local technology. ëAdopt a training-of-trainers approach to structure. ëBuild local capacity through on-the-job training encourage a multiplier effect. ëConvey scientific and technical know-how in and hands-on demonstrations. ëBe patient. Promoting earthquake safety simple terms. ëUse earthquakes as learning opportunities. involves changing mindsets.

Institutionalizing SESP Communities set up structures and links to sustain safety program

Communities organize themselves Committee, normally present in every for effective implementation public school in Nepal. The headmaster of Management structure of the the school, appointed as secretary of the School Earthquake Safety Program The objective of SESP was NOT to have committee, had the responsibility of school buildings retrofitted or managing all expenses incurred in the SESP. Advisory Committee Advisory Committee reconstructed by outside sources, nor was The rest of the committee members were of Kathmandu Valley of Earthquake it to provide a lump sum amount for elected by the community and included School Earthquake Safety at communities to develop their schools. an NSET representative. Safety Program District Level Commonly witnessed by community groups in Kathmandu Valley, these two To manage the funds in a transparent School Earthquake Safety Program approaches blocked transparency in the manner, the Chairman of an SESP use of funds, which often ended up Committee and an NSET representative School benefiting or were perceived to benefit had to sign a Memorandum of Management Local only a privileged few, thus, generating Understanding (MOU) and open a joint Committee community conflict within a community. Moreover, bank account. The Chairman of the DDC these approaches did not contribute to had to approve the MOU. the sustainable development of the SESP Committee community and instead led to a general The SESP Committees made all decisions distrust of outside assistance. while NSET’s representatives assisted in the decision-making process when Construction Earthquake To ensure transparency and to win the requested. This helped achieve Management Response Planning community’s trust for effective transparency and optimized limited Sub-committee Sub-committee implementation of SESP, communities were resources. NSET provided assistance in given sole managerial responsibilities identifying the materials and Masons Student through the SESP Committees in each equipment required. It also worked with Training Earthquake school. Each Committee was headed by the community to obtain funds for Sub-committee Safety Club the chairman of the School Management procurement or materials’ donation from 6 within the community and outside, from Municipality, Kirtipur Municipality, DEOs, DEOs, VDCs and DDCs. DDCs, VDCs, school management committees and NSET. The Advisory Four sub-committees under the SESP Committee also provided the necessary Committee assisted in the decision-making political support for SESP and helped to and implementation processes. promote the SESP approach to other parts of Kathmandu Valley and Nepal. The Construction Management and Masons Training Sub-committees developed a Organized community establishes schedule of training and work in linkages with city government consultation with the community. The Leaflets, booklets and manuals are management of construction materials and As indicated above, SESP was some of the tools used in SESP masons was also the responsibility of the implemented with maximum participation two sub-committees. of governmental institutions, DDCs, VDCs, school management systems, teachers, national level and replicated throughout The Earthquake Response Planning Sub- parents and students. The governmental Nepal. The SESP management structure, committee worked with teachers and agencies provided funds and policy training curriculum, manuals and toolkits parents in developing an emergency guidance while the school management and other resources developed under the response plan for the school. An committees, with technical inputs and SESP could be used and adopted in other Earthquake Kit was developed for training supervision from NSET, handled the actual communities, cities and countries. the teachers and parents on earthquake implementation and construction. Such preparedness planning and establishment implementation scheme, together with SESP replicated of evacuation and fire drills in schools. the formation of municipal- and district- level advisory committees, considerably Signs of replication had emerged. The Student Earthquake Safety Club widened the outreach of the program and Organizations such as Room to Read had comprised of elected students who its ownership. adopted the SESP approach and replicated organized activities to promote earthquake similar initiatives in different parts of Nepal. safety in their school. For example, the SESP generates An example above showed the stonecrete first activity of a 13-member Student educational products technology replicated in Patanka, India. Earthquake Safety Club in Bal Bikash The SESP approach was also endorsed and Secondary School, Alapot, was their The initial process to structurally replicated by GHI, Japan International participation in the United Nations’ strengthen school buildings developed Cooperation Agency (JICA) and UNCRD in International Strategy for Disaster into a comprehensive program including their programs. More importantly, the Reduction Year 2001 Risk Mapping Contest two significant outputs: (1) a manual initiative of a community to adopt the SESP for children and local communities. The entitled “Protection of Educational Buildings approach was a major achievement club received the first prize. Against Earthquakes: A Manual for towards its replication. For example, Ward Designers and Builders,” developed by no. 8 of Gorkha District, Prithvinagar Advisory committees were formed at NSET in collaboration with UNESCO; and Municipality (in western Nepal), submitted municipal and district levels. The Advisory (2) a curriculum for masons training on a proposal to NSET for technical assistance Committee of Kathmandu Valley SESP, earthquake-resistant construction in school reconstruction and implementing chaired by the Director of the Central produced by NSET based on the curriculum SESP in the aftermath of an earthquake Regional Education Directorate, and the developed by the Royal Nepal (magnitude 5.1 on the Richter scale) that Advisory Committee of District Level SESP, Government’s Department of Housing and shook Gorkha on 16 July 2001. NSET did headed by the Chairman of the District Building Construction. In addition, an provide some technical support for school Education Committee, provided guidance Earthquake Kit was developed for training reconstruction. However, the community’s and direction to the overall SESP approach. teachers and parents on earthquake desire to construct a model earthquake- Members of the committees included preparedness planning. resistant village could not be implemented representatives of Kathmandu Metropolitan due to lack of resources. To realize this City, Bhaktapur Municipality, Lalitpur Sub- Wider applications for SESP are envisioned vision, community organizing and resource Metropolitan City, Thimi-Madhyapur to be institutionalized and managed at the mobilization are now underway.

Conclusions

Community participation – construction of their own houses and they Earthquake-safe a step to sustainability will be asking masons to adopt earthquake- technology is transferable safe technologies for the whole community. Construction of earthquake-resistant In India, Patanka Village (which suffered buildings is vital, but involving the Safety programs can be from the Gujarat Earthquake) was among community to do so is even more channels for improved livelihood the indirect beneficiaries of SESP. Masons important to achieve sustainability. from Nepal helped the local masons to Participation enables people to understand The SESP in Kathmandu Valley reconstruct and rehabilitate the village the concept of earthquake safety and the demonstrated that recycling of salvaged using their acquired knowledge of quake- need for earthquake-safe buildings. materials during reconstruction or safe construction of buildings. Agencies Consequently, they will be able to make retrofitting could provide a livelihood option committed to build safer communities informed decisions when it comes to the for the community. facilitated this exchange and cooperation. Safer Cities 4, AUDMP 7 € Further references ¨ On KVERMP On SESP Other relevant Safer Cities case studies ADPC Safer Cities 1: Community-Based Initiatives NSET-Nepal, 2001, Protection of Educational in Kathmandu Valley, January 2002. Buildings Against Earthquakes: A Manual for ADPC Safer Cities: School Earthquake Safety Designers and Builders. Program in Indonesia. The Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Action Plan, January 1999. NSET-Nepal, 2002, Report on Seismic Vulnerability of Public School Buildings of Kathmandu Kathmandu Valley’s Earthquake Scenario, 1998. Valley and Methods for Reducing it. Room to Read Nathe, S. et. al., 1999, Public Education for Friend’s Colony, Thapathali Earthquake Hazards, Natural Hazards Editorial Board Kathmandu, Nepal Informer (www.colorado.edu/hazards/ Tel: 97 71 246 381 informer/infrmr2/infrm2wb.htm). Safer Cities 4 has been reviewed by: Fax: 97 71 528 776 Dr. Suvit Yodmani, ADPC URL: www.roomtoread.org FEMA, 1990, Guidebook for Developing School Col. Brian Ward, ADPC E-mail: [email protected] Earthquake Safety Program. Mr. N.M.S.I Arambepola, ADPC Mr. Rajesh Sharma, ADPC SEEDS India NSET-Nepal, Curriculum for Masons Training. Mr. Amod Dixit, NSET, Nepal 315 Tower I. Mount Kailash NSET-Nepal, Guidelines for Community Disaster Ms. Megan Meline, OFDA, USAID New Delhi 110065, India Preparedness and Planning for Teachers, Mr. Kamal Kishore, UNDP (formerly at ADPC) Tel: 91 11 626 2489 Students and Parents. Fax: 91 11 625 0475 Author: Ms. Christine Apikul, ADPC URL: www.seedsindia.org Editor & designer: Ms. Lichelle Carlos E-mail: [email protected]

KVERMP

The Kathmndu Valley Earthquake Risk Mangement Project (KVERMP) in Nepal was launched in September 1997 under the Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program (AUDMP) of the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC). The objective of this national demonstration project is to reduce earthquake vulnerability of Kathmandu Valley through four main elements: (1) loss estimation, scenario development and action planning; (2) a program for school earthquake safety; (3) public awareness promotion; (4) and capacity building. Through these elements, KVERMP seeks to promote long-term sustainable seismic vulnerability reduction mechanisms in and beyond Kathmandu Valley.

Project Partners

Implementation: Funding:

National Society for Earthquake Technology GeoHazards International (GHI), USA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), (NSET) 200 Town & Country Village, Palo Alto U.S. Agency for International Development G.P.O. Box no. 13775, Kha-2-731 CA 94301, USA (USAID) Mahadevsthan, Baneshwor Tel: (1-650) 614-9050 Kathmandu , Nepal Fax: (1-650) 614-9051 Tel: (977-1) 474-192 URL: http://www.geohaz.org Fax: (977-1) 490-943 Contact: Dr. Brian E. Tucker URL: http://www.nset.org.np President Contact: Mr. Amod Dixit E-mail: [email protected] Secretary General E-mail: [email protected]

AUDMP

The Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program (AUDMP) is the first and largest regional program implemented by ADPC. The AUDMP started in 1995 with core funding from USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) until 2003. The program was developed with the recognition of increased disaster vulnerability of urban populations, infrastructure, critical facilities and shelter in Asian cities. In an environment where good governance and decentralization are high in most countries' political agenda, AUDMP aims to demonstrate the importance of and strategic approaches to urban disaster mitigation as part of the urban development planning process in targeted cities of Asia.

AUDMP supports this demonstration by building the capacity of local authorities, national governments, non-governmental organizations, businesses and others responsible for establishing public and private sector mechanisms for urban disaster mitigation as part of city management. AUDMP also facilitates knowledge sharing and dialogue between the key stakeholders to promote replication of the AUDMP approaches to other cities and countries worldwide. Currently, the AUDMP approaches have been introduced and sustained by national partner institutions in targeted cities of Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.

ADPC The Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) is a regional resource center dedicated to safer communities and sustainable development through disaster reduction in Asia and the Pacific. Established in 1986 in Bangkok, Thailand, ADPC is recognized as an important focal point for promoting disaster awareness and developing capabilities to foster institutionalized disaster management and mitigation policies.

For more information, please get in touch with us at: Asian Disaster Preparedness Center Tel: (66-2) 516-5900 to 10 P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang Fax: (66-2) 524-5350 Pathumthani 12120 E-mail: [email protected] THAILAND URL: http://www.adpc.ait.ac.th Contact: Information Scientist E-mail: [email protected] 8 Safer Cities 4, AUDMP