1. Lessons from Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project
AUDMP Working Group Meeting, Bandung
Shiva Bahadur Pradhanang
Ramesh Guragain
19 March 2002
NSET-Nepal

2. KVERMP/Project Performance
Performance Indicators
Base line
Life of Project Target
Project Achievement
Comment on Progress
Project Objective: Establishment of Sustainable Mechanisms for Earthquake Disaster Risk Reduction in Kathmandu Valley
Number of Institutions
None
10 Institutions
11 Institutions
Municipalities have shown Interests
Changes in thinking of different institutions
Number of Earthquake Disaster Risk Reduction Plans
1 Plan
3 Plan
KVERMP Action Plan has been prepared
DP and ER Plan for Health Sector
KV Plan prepared by JICA
Amount of Funding Committed to Earthquake Risk Reduction Projects following the start of this Project $0
$500,000
$281,348.67
(This figure includes only the in-kind contribution to KVERMP from non-AUDMP sources
OFDA
WHO/SEARO
GHI
UNCRD
JICA
Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

3. Methodology for Different Activities
Items
Base Line (Prior to Project)
Project Achievement
Remarks
Methodology for hazard assessment
Earthquake Hazard Map Existed for Nepal
Simplified interpretative EQ hazard map prepared for KV based on 1934 EQ
Simplified interpretative liquefaction susceptibility map for KV
Use of Existing information
No new research
Methodology for loss estimates
None used for KV
1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake taken as scenario earthquake
ATC-13/15 used for KV scenario earthquake (for MMI IX) and loss estimation made for critical facilities and casualty.
Electricity damage map
Telecommunication
Water supply
Road/Bridges
Casualty estimated for empirical consideration
Hospital hazard map created
Found to very simple in the case of the lack of in-built data, building inventory
Replicated under RADIUS in 9 cities
Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

4. Methodology for Different Activities
Items
Base Line (Prior to Project)
Project Achievement
Remarks
Methodology for writing earthquake scenario
None
Loss estimation results translated into simple language understood by common man in the form of text
(Target audience: common people, teacher, student, decision maker, municipal authority, policy maker)
Found to be very strong tool for awareness raising
Methodology for developing action plan for earthquake risk management
None used for KV
Interaction process for involving manager of critical facilities in developing doable action
Replicated under RADIUS in 9 cities
Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

5. Methodology for Different Activities
Items
Base Line (Prior to Project)
Project Achievement
Remarks
School Building Vulnerability Assessment
None
Vulnerability of 1100 buildings of 643 public schools assessed through workshops and subsequent survey by school teachers
Survey questionnaire designed
Analysis
Vulnerability assessment of groups of school buildings
Structural intervention for improving seismic performance of school buildings
Based on the building typology, identified possible cost-effective retrofitting options for typical masonry and from buildings
Masonry buildings:
Corner stitching, Horizontal bands, Vertical splints, bracing of walls
Frame buildings:
Jacketing of columns, addition of shear walls etc.
Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

6. Methodology for Different Activities
Items
Base Line (Prior to Project)
Project Achievement
Remarks
Implementation of retrofitting of school buildings (Development of SESP Concept)
None
Develop mechanism for implementation
Structural intervention to school buildings
Training to masons, teachers, students, parents etc.
Replicated in Chamoli,Bandung by UNCRD
Advocacy for building code implementation
First path
Building council act passed by parliament, council constituted
Building code implementation process started
Second path
Worked with NBSM for developing building code as Nepal Standards
Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

7. Methodology for Different Activities
Items
Base Line (Prior to Project)
Project Achievement
Remarks
Public awareness/ policy
None
ESD has become a sustained activity
Minister MOST is the chairman of ESD national committee
28 members including NSET
4 ESDs completed successfully
Wonderful target audience
National meeting – policy makers / donors
Symposium – professionals/decision makers
Earthquake safety rally, exhibition – all
Shake table demonstration – builders, technicians, house owners
Street drama - children
Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

8. Methodology for Different Activities
Items
Base Line (Prior to Project)
Project Achievement
Remarks
Institutional Development
NSET as a ERM center in Nepal
None
Credible institution with mission/vision statements and strategic objectives
Trusted by all (Govt., NGO, Donors)
OFDA
JICA
UNCRD
OCHA etc.
Very wide national/international outreach of NSET
Could implement JICA program “The Study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in The Kathmandu Valley, kingdom of Nepal”
ADPC/AUDMP was the starting assistance
Fund raising
In kind/cash contribution from outside AUDMP funds amounted to >60%
Objective Indicator No. 1: Number of institutions that have incorporated earthquake risk reduction as a permanent or significant part of their operations as a result of this project.

9. Ongoing Activities Implementation of APIP
Start September 2000 – End August 2003
Non-structural Vulnerability Reduction
Quantitative
Qualitative
Lectures and assessment work to some organizations
SESP
New donors like BFN, GHI and Others
Awareness raising
Publications
Radio TV
Articles in Newspapers

10. Lessons Learned
Awareness raising became part of all project components
Low-tech approach was optimal
Emphasis on community level work is important
SESP concept is very effective
NGO status both helped and hindered project implementation
Institutional development is a long-term process

11. Challenges Replication in Manpower Constraint Lack of Policies
Kathmandu Valley, Outside Valley, Outside Nepal
Manpower Constraint
Lack of Policies
Building Permit Process
Earthquake Forum Problems
Many Actors, No Work
False Sense of Competition
Institutional Problem
Internal
External

12. What Should We Continue Doing?
Policy Work-shop (With ADPC Support)
Training
Impact Assessment
Community Level Works
Awareness Raising Video
RADIUS Assessment for 58 Municipalities