Opinion
Ripe for rebuilding
The world has learned to build nations either through disasters or conflicts; In Nepal, it seems we must learn from the formerNetra Prakash Bhandary
Expected, but unprepared
This magnitude earthquake was not unexpected. Statistically, such large earthquakes have hit Nepal and the Himalayan region every 80-100 years. Scientifically too, the rate of effective northward movement or subduction of the Indian plate underneath the Eurasian plate stands somewhere between two-to-three centimetres a year, which is about 1.5 to 2.5 metres in 80-100 years. This is when the stored energy is released. Simultaneously, hundreds of major and thousands of local faults are also generated, which often release a part of the stored strain energy in the form of imperceptible to moderate earthquakes.
January marked 81 years since the last great earthquake of 1934 (>M8), which is quite within the estimated major earthquake frequency. Beginning 2005, based on the same estimation, experts had been stating that a big one would hit Nepal and devastate the Kathmandu Valley in the next 10-20 years. Almost everyone working in this field in Nepal was fully aware that a major earthquake was going to hit the country between 2014 and 2034. The government and its disaster management mechanisms were also aware of this fact, and they probably tried their best to incorporate public concerns and national as well as international pressure into strengthening disaster preparedness and disaster response.
However, the government’s efforts at disaster management in a country, where natural hazards and national development are more closely linked than perhaps anywhere else, were shameful. It seems the government and its disaster preparedness workforce have so far just taken disaster management as a tool to enable them to participate in plenty of international meetings and go around in the world.
Still, one good example of what the government has done in the past 25 years is the still-pending revised Disaster Management Act, which was drafted some seven or eight years ago, but has been accorded the lowest priority by the government as well as Parliament in its legal proceedings—which include tabling it for discussion in Parliament and enacting it as early as possible. Our government’s priorities, in every aspect, have been set more in the interest, direction, and pressure of international agencies. Even today, nation-building efforts are more focussed on international support rather than in investing our own resources in infrastructure development projects. The disaster management plan is no exception. Whatever we have done so far in this field has incurred zero expense to the nation. Even the 1988 earthquake and the 1993 and 2003 landslide and flood disasters could not change the mindset of our government officials.
Lessons unlearned
When it comes to policymaking and law enforcement, public awareness and stakeholder concerns alone can do little. For example, without the government’s effective involvement and interest, the efforts of NGOs and international agencies working to reduce disaster risk in Nepal are more or less confined to awareness raising and advocating. What such organisations did right or wrong is always debatable, but if the government had efficiently applied what many NGOs have done so far, the scenario of disaster preparedness and disaster response would not have been what we witnessed this time around. A state of emergency has been imposed, but the government’s manner of mobilisation has led to dissatisfaction among victims. This happened because we do not have adequate rules and regulations or working guidelines that could direct us in times of crisis.
Forget this earthquake, our incapacity to deal with any kind of disaster was exposed when were hit by a giant landslide in Jure, Sindhupalchok, last year. How long will we excuse ourselves in the name of political instability, lack of technical knowhow, and lack of resources?
Most mega-disasters have always changed the mindset of policymakers and development planners around the world. The 1995 Kobe Earthquake in Japan made Japanese engineers and architects think about revising building standards and adopting strict measures for ground liquefaction. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami brought in knowledge of such disasters to most-affected nations and led them to adopt early warning systems. The 2008 Sichuan Earthquake in China killed nearly 80,000 people, but it made Chinese engineers and planners think seriously about adopting a new model of building houses for those affected while developing the disaster-hit areas as tourism resources. Repeated earthquakes and volcanoes in Java, Indonesia have brought massive changes to the country’s disaster management plan and its level of disaster education. The recent mega earthquake of 2011 and the monstrous tsunamis in East Japan have made Japanese disaster experts and government authorities change their previous tsunami prediction criteria, and the whole scenario of predicted tsunami height for the next coming big earthquakes along the Pacific coasts has been changed two to three times.
A rebuilding plan
The total economic loss from this disaster is going to be no less than hundreds of billions of rupees, and it could increase by two-three times in the next year or two, because of serious effects on domestic production and tourism. The government has declared that we need at least one trillion rupees for reconstruction. Our resources alone will not be enough for reconstruction, but we could generate at least one-quarter of the required rebuilding budget internally. The rest could be sought as soft loans or grant-in-aid for reconstruction from friendly nations. Although there are rumors that the government is discussing a ten-year rebuilding plan, as a research civil engineer involved in disaster mitigation, I strongly insist that the rebuilding plan should not go beyond five years. More importantly, all cultural heritage sites must be rebuilt and made earthquake-resistant within two years. To avoid a tourism vacuum during the reconstruction period, we must adopt a method that attracts tourists even during the rebuilding process.
Japan has much experience in the reconstruction and rebuilding of historical monuments, and I am certain Japanese reconstruction experts will help us rebuild our cultural assets faster and stronger. The government has already passed a parliamentary commitment, but doubts will always exist for its honest implementation.
The world has learned to build nations either through disasters, through colonisation or conflict. It seems we in Nepal must learn from disasters.
Bhandary is an associate professor of civil engineering at the Graduate School of Science and Engineering at Ehime University, Japan