International Symposium on“More resilient non-engineered houses for earthquake disaster reduction”「途上国のノンエンジニアド住宅の地震被害軽減」に関する国際シンポジウム

資

場

主
後

料

集

2010 年 2 月 26 日（金）所：政策研究大学院大学 想海楼ホール

催：独立行政法人建築研究所、政策研究大学院大学

援：国土交通省、内閣府（防災担当）、国連防災戦略、国連地域開発センター









㧝㧚1WVNKPGQHVJG5[ORQUKWO






ᾀώOutline of the Symposium
Background and Objectives
Like the earthquake in Haiti on 12 January 2010, many people have been killed byearthquakes repeatedly in developing countries. In most of deaths caused by earthquakes, people
are killed by their own houses. Most of the world’s population lives in vernacular houses that are
built of adobe, brick, stone, and wood, and are non-engineered and thus vulnerable to earthquakes.
Generally, the safety structure of these non-engineered buildings are not verified when they aredesigned. There are also quality problems in materials used for construction and workmanship.
Although it is indispensable to improve the structural safety of these houses in order to reduce theearthquake disasters, the actual situation of these non-engineered constructed is not fully
understood.
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) and Building Research Institute(BRI) jointly conducting a research on non-engineered buildings in developing countries, namely,
Peru, Indonesia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Turkey in 2009-2010. GRIPS and BRI co-organized theInternational Symposium on “More resilient non-engineered houses for earthquake disaster
reduction” to share the result of the surveys and various efforts for safer houses, and to discuss how
we can improve the safety of the non-engineered buildings.
This Symposium was co-organized by Building Research Institute (BRI) and National
Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS), and supported by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure
Transport and Tourism (MLIT), Cabinet Office (Disaster Reduction), Cabinet Office (Disaster
Reduction), UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and UN Centre for
Regional Development (UNCRD).
Date.
February 26th 2010㧔Friday㧕9:30㨪17:00

Venue
Sokairo Hall, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)
Language
English and Japanese (simultaneous translation is available)
No. of Participants
Approximately 140䋭 㪈㪌㪎 䋭㧝㧚ࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ᭎ⷐ
⢛᥊ߣ⋡⊛
 ᐕ  ᦬ߦ⊒↢ߒߚࡂࠗ࠴࿾㔡ߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ㄭᐕㅜ਄࿖ߢᄢ࿾㔡ߦࠃߞߡᄙߊߩੱ๮
߇➅ࠅ㄰ߒᄬࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ⵍߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬ኂߪਥߦ‫ޔ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߦ᥉ㆉߦߺࠄࠇࠆ‫ࠟࡦ࡟ޔ‬ㅧ߿ࠕ࠼ࡌㅧߩ
ࠃ߁ߥ࿷᧪Ꮏᴺߦࠃߞߡᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚᐼ᳃૑ቛ߇ᄢ㊂ߦୟუߔࠆߎߣߦේ࿃߇޽ࠆ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬૑ቛߪᎿቇ⊛ߦ᭴ㅧ቟ోᕈ߇ᬌ⸽ߐࠇߡ߅ࠄߕ㧔ࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼㧕‫᧚ߚ߹ޔ‬ᢱ߿ᣉᎿߩຠ⾰ߦ߽໧㗴߇ᄙ޿‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ⵍኂࠍシᷫߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ‫࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛࡦࡁߥ߁ࠃߩߎޔ‬૑ቛߩ⠴㔡ᕈࠍะ਄ߐߖࠆߎߣ߇ਇนᰳ
ߢ޽ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߦ߅ߌࠆࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩታᘒߪ‫ޔ‬චಽᛠីߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߩ߇⃻⁁ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩߚ߼‫ޔ‬ᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲߣ᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇߢߪ‫ ޔ‬ᐕᐲߦࠗࡦ࠼‫ޔࠦ࡞࠻ޔࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ࡀࡄ࡯࡞‫࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛࡦࡁࠆߌ߅ߦ࡯࡞ࡍޔࡦ࠲ࠬࠠࡄޔ‬૑ቛߩ᭴ㅧ቟ోᕈ߿ᑪ▽᧚ᢱ‫ޔ‬ᣉᎿߩຠ⾰╬ߦߟ޿ߡ⃻࿾⺞ᩏࠍⴕ޿‫ޔ‬࿖߿࿾ၞߦࠃࠆ㆑޿ࠍᛠីߔࠆߎߣࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߚ౒ห⎇ⓥࠍታᣉߒߡ޿
ࠆ‫⎇ߩߎޔߪࡓ࠙ࠫࡐࡦࠪᧄޕ‬ⓥߩ৻Ⅳߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ฦ࿖ߩ⃻࿾⺞ᩏߩᚑᨐࠍ⊒⴫ߔࠆߣߣ߽ߦߣฦ࿖෸
߮ࠊ߇࿖ߩࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ⠴㔡ᕈะ਄ߩߚ߼ߩขࠅ⚵ߺࠍ⚫੺ߒ‫ޔ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߦ߅ߌࠆ࿾㔡ⵍኂシᷫߩߚ߼ߩ੹ᓟߩᣇ╷ߩ޽ࠅᣇߦߟ޿ߡ⼏⺰ߔࠆߎߣࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬‫ޟ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߩࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ࿾㔡ⵍኂシᷫߦ㑐ߔࠆ࿖㓙ࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ‫ⴕ┙⁛ޔߪޠ‬᡽ᴺੱᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲ $4+ ߣ᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇ )4+25 ߦࠃࠆ౒௅ߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬࿖࿯੤ㅢ⋭ /.+6 ‫ޔ‬ౝ㑑ᐭ㧔㒐ἴᜂᒰ㧕‫ޔ‬࿖ㅪ㒐ἴᚢ⇛ 70+5&4 ‫ޔ‬࿖ㅪ࿾ၞ㐿⊒࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ 70%4& ߩᓟេߦࠃࠅታᣉߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬㐿௅ᣣ ᐕ  ᦬  ᣣ㧔㊄㧕㨪႐ ᚲ᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇ ᗐᶏᭈࡎ࡯࡞૶↪⸒⺆⧷⺆߅ࠃ߮ᣣᧄ⺆㧔หᤨㅢ⸶૶↪㧕ෳട⠪ᢙ⚂  ฬ䋭 㪈㪌㪏 䋭ȻȻ̈́ɧʀɼʁʇʀʏͅȻ
ɤʉʏʀʍʉɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻɮʔʈʋʊʎʄʐʈȻʊʉȻȽɨʊʍʀȻʍʀʎʄʇʄʀʉʏȻʉʊʉɈʀʉʂʄʉʀʀʍʀɿȻʃʊʐʎʀʎȻ
ʁʊʍȻʀɼʍʏʃʌʐɼʆʀȻɿʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȻʍʀɿʐɾʏʄʊʉȽȻ

ȻʏʃɟɼʏʀɕȻɡʀɽʍʐɼʍʔȻɍɑ ȻɍɋɌɋ̈́ɡʍʄɿɼʔͅɔɕɎɋ̻ɌɒɕɋɋȻ
ɱʀʉʐʀɕȻɮʊʆɼʄʍʊȻɣɼʇʇɇȻɩɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻɢʍɼɿʐɼʏʀȻɤʉʎʏʄʏʐʏʀȻʁʊʍȻɫʊʇʄɾʔȻɮʏʐɿʄʀʎȻɃɢɭɤɫɮɄɇȻɯʊʆʔʊȻ
ɪʍʂɼʉʄʕʀɿȻɽʔɕȻɝʐʄʇɿʄʉʂȻɭʀʎʀɼʍɾʃȻɤʉʎʏʄʏʐʏʀȻɃɝɭɤɄȻɼʉɿȻɩɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻɢʍɼɿʐɼʏʀȻɤʉʎʏʄʏʐʏʀȻʁʊʍȻɫʊʇʄɾʔȻɮʏʐɿʄʀʎȻɃɢɭɤɫɮɄȻ
ɮʐʋʋʊʍʏʀɿȻɽʔɕȻɨʄʉʄʎʏʍʔȻʊʁȻɧɼʉɿɇȻɤʉʁʍɼʎʏʍʐɾʏʐʍʀȻɯʍɼʉʎʋʊʍʏȻɼʉɿȻɯʊʐʍʄʎʈȻɃɨɧɤɯɄɇȻɞɼɽʄʉʀʏȻɪʁʁʄɾʀȻɃɟʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȻ
ɭʀɿʐɾʏʄʊʉɄɇȻɰɩȻɤʉʏʀʍʉɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻɮʏʍɼʏʀʂʔȻʁʊʍȻɟʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȻɭʀɿʐɾʏʄʊʉɃɰɩɤɮɟɭɄɇȻɰɩȻɞʀʉʏʍʀȻʁʊʍȻɭʀʂʄʊʉɼʇȻ
ɟʀʑʀʇʊʋʈʀʉʏȻɃɰɩɞɭɟɄȻ
ȻɔɕɎɋ͗ ɔɕɐɋȻ Ȼ ɪʋʀʉʄʉʂɕȻ ȻȻȻȻɮʃʐʕʊȻɨʐʍɼʆɼʈʄɇȻɞʃʄʀʁȻɠʓʀɾʐʏʄʑʀɇȻɝʐʄʇɿʄʉʂȻɭʀʎʀɼʍɾʃȻɤʉʎʏʄʏʐʏʀȻɃɝɭɤɄȻ
ɯɼʏʎʐʊȻɣɼʏʏɼɇȻɫʍʀʎʄɿʀʉʏɇȻɩɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻɢʍɼɿʐɼʏʀȻɤʉʎʏʄʏʐʏʀȻʁʊʍȻɫʊʇʄɾʔȻɮʏʐɿʄʀʎȻɃɢɭɤɫɮɄȻ
ɨʀʎʎɼʂʀȻʊʁȻɨɼʍʂɼʍʀʏɼȻɲɼʃʇʎʏʍʊʈɇȻɰɩȻɮʀɾʍʀʏɼʍʔɈɢʀʉʀʍɼʇɂʎȻɮʋʀɾʄɼʇȻɭʀʋʍʀʎʀʉʏɼʏʄʑʀȻʁʊʍȻɟʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȻɭʀɿʐɾʏʄʊʉȻ
ɃɽʔȻɴʐʆʄȻɨɼʏʎʐʊʆɼɇȻɣʀɼɿɇȻɣʔʊʂʊȻɪʁʁʄɾʀɇȻɰɩȻɮʀɾʍʀʏɼʍʄɼʏȻʊʁȻʏʃʀȻɤʉʏʀʍʉɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻɮʏʍɼʏʀʂʔȻʁʊʍȻɟʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȻɭʀɿʐɾʏʄʊʉȻɃɰɩɤɮɟɭɄɄȻ
ɨʊʏʊʄȻɮɼʎɼʆʄɇȻɟʀʋʐʏʔȻɟʄʍʀɾʏʊʍɈɢʀʉʀʍɼʇɇȻɣʊʐʎʄʉʂȻɝʐʍʀɼʐɇȻɨʄʉʄʎʏʍʔȻʊʁȻɧɼʉɿɇȻɤʉʁʍɼʎʏʍʐɾʏʐʍʀɇȻɯʍɼʉʎʋʊʍʏȻɼʉɿȻɯʊʐʍʄʎʈȻɃɨɧɤɯɄȻ
ɮʃʊʄɾʃʄȻɣɼʎʀʂɼʒɼɇȻɟʀʋʐʏʔȻɟʄʍʀɾʏʊʍȻɢʀʉʀʍɼʇȻʁʊʍȻɟʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȻɨɼʉɼʂʀʈʀʉʏɇȻɞɼɽʄʉʀʏȻɪʁʁʄɾʀȻ
ɔɕɐɋ͗ ɌɋɕɎɋȻ Ȼ ɦʀʔʉʊʏʀȻɮʋʀʀɾʃȻʊʉȻȽɠɼʍʏʃʌʐɼʆʀȻɟɼʈɼʂʀȻɼʉɿȻɩʊʉɈʀʉʂʄʉʀʀʍʀɿȻɞʊʉʎʏʍʐɾʏʄʊʉȽȻ ȻȻɴʐʅʄȻɤʎʃʄʔɼʈɼɇȻɫʍʊʁʀʎʎʊʍȻʀʈʀʍʄʏʐʎɇȻɣʊʆʆɼʄɿʊȻɰʉʄʑʀʍʎʄʏʔȻ
ɗȻɝʍʀɼʆȻəȻ
Ɍɋɕɏɋ͗ ɌɍɕɎɋȻ Ȼ ɮʀʎʎʄʊʉȻɌȻȽɱʐʇʉʀʍɼɽʄʇʄʏʔȻʊʁȻʉʊʉɈʀʉʂʄʉʀʀʍʀɿȻʃʊʐʎʀʎȻɼʉɿȻʀʁʁʊʍʏʎȻʏʊȻʈɼʆʀȻʏʃʀʈȻʎɼʁʀʍȽȻ Ȼ ȻȻȽɪʐʏʇʄʉʀȻʊʁȻʏʃʀȻʅʊʄʉʏȻʍʀʎʀɼʍɾʃȽȻɦʀʉʅʄȻɪʆɼʕɼʆʄɇȻɫʍʊʁʀʎʎʊʍɇȻɩɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻɢʍɼɿʐɼʏʀȻɤʉʎʏʄʏʐʏʀȻʁʊʍȻɫʊʇʄɾʔȻɮʏʐɿʄʀʎȻɃɢɭɤɫɮɄȻ
ȽɫʀʍʐȽȻɞɼʍʇʊʎȻɵɼʑɼʇɼɇȻɟʄʍʀɾʏʊʍɇȻɥɼʋɼʉȻɫʀʍʐȻɞʀʉʏʀʍȻʁʊʍȻɠɼʍʏʃʌʐɼʆʀȻɠʉʂʄʉʀʀʍʄʉʂȻɼʉɿȻɟʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȻɨʄʏʄʂɼʏʄʊʉȻɃɞɤɮɨɤɟͅȻ
ȽɤʉɿʊʉʀʎʄɼȽȻɟʔɼʃȻɦʐʎʐʈɼʎʏʐʏʄɇȻɜʎʎʊɾʄɼʏʀȻɫʍʊʁʀʎʎʊʍɇȻɤʉʎʏʄʏʐʏʀȻʊʁȻʏʀɾʃʉʊʇʊʂʔȻɝɼʉɿʐʉʂȻɃɤɯɝɄȻ
ȽɤʉɿʄɼȽȻɩʄʏʄʉȻɱʀʍʈɼɇȻɮʀʉʄʊʍȻɫʍʊʂʍɼʈʈʀȻɪʁʁʄɾʀʍɇȻɮɠɠɟɮȻ
ȽɩʀʋɼʇȽȻɣʄʈɼȻɢʐʍʐɽɼɾʃɼʍʔɼȻɃɮʃʍʀʎʏʃɼɄɇȻɮʀʉʄʊʍȻɮʏʍʐɾʏʐʍɼʇȻɠʉʂʄʉʀʀʍɇȻɩɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻɮʊɾʄʀʏʔȻʁʊʍȻɠɼʍʏʃʌʐɼʆʀȻɯʀɾʃʉʊʇʊʂʔȻɃɩɮɠɯɄȻ
͂ɫɼʆʄʎʏɼʉȽȻɩɼʅʄɽȻɜʃʈɼɿɇȻɫʍʊʅʀɾʏȻɨɼʉɼʂʀʍɇȻɫʍʀʎʏʊʉȻɰʉʄʑʀʍʎʄʏʔȻ
͂ɯʐʍʆʀʔȽȻɜʇʋʀʍȻɤʇʆʄɇȻɜʎʎʊɾʄɼʏʀȻɫʍʊʁʀʎʎʊʍɇȻɱʄɾʀȻɣʀɼɿȻʊʁȻɟʀʋɼʍʏʈʀʉʏȻʊʁȻɞʄʑʄʇȻɠʉʂʄʉʀʀʍʄʉʂɇȻɤʎʏɼʉɽʐʇȻɯʀɾʃʉʄɾɼʇȻɰʉʄʑʀʍʎʄʏʔȻ
ȻɌɍɕɎɋ͗ ɌɎɕɎɋȻ Ȼ ɧʐʉɾʃȻ ȻȻɌɎɕɎɋ͗ ɌɐɕɏɋȻ Ȼ ɮʀʎʎʄʊʉȻɍȻ Ȼ ȽɥɼʋɼʉʀʎʀȻʀʁʁʊʍʏʎȻʁʊʍȻʎɼʁʀʍȻʉʊʉɈʀʉʂʄʉʀʀʍʀɿȻʃʊʐʎʀʎȽȻ Ȼ ȻȻɮʋʀɾʄɼʇȻʍʀʋʊʍʏȻȽɟɼʈɼʂʀʎȻʊʁȻɣɼʄʏʄȻɠɼʍʏʃʌʐɼʆʀȻɟʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȽȻ
ɣʄɿʀʏʊʈʄȻɪʄɇȻɜɿʑʄʎʀʍɇȻɢʇʊɽɼʇȻɠʉʑʄʍʊʉʈʀʉʏȻɟʀʋɼʍʏʈʀʉʏɇȻɥɼʋɼʉȻɤʉʏʀʍʉɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻɞʊʊʋʀʍɼʏʄʊʉȻɜʂʀʉɾʔȻɃɥɤɞɜɄȻ
ȽɮʐʈʈɼʍʔȻʊʁȻɤʉʏʀʍʉɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻʅʊʄʉʏȻʍʀʎʀɼʍɾʃȻʋʍʊʅʀɾʏȻʊʉȻɾʊʈʋʍʀʃʀʉʎʄʑʀȻʎʏʍɼʏʀʂʄʀʎȻʁʊʍȻʀɼʍʏʃʌʐɼʆʀȻɿʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȻʈʄʏʄʂɼʏʄʊʉȽȻ
ɯɼʏʎʐʊȻɩɼʍɼʁʐɇȻɤʉʁʊʍʈɼʏʄʊʉȻɞʀʉʏʀʍȻʁʊʍȻɝʐʄʇɿʄʉʂȻɜɿʈʄʉʄʎʏʍɼʏʄʊʉȻɃɤɞɝɜɄȻ
ȽɮʀʄʎʈʄɾȻɫʀʍʁʊʍʈɼʉɾʀȻʊʁȻɨɼʎʊʉʍʔȻɝʐʄʇɿʄʉʂʎȻɼʉɿȻɠʑɼʇʐɼʏʄʊʉȻɨʀʏʃʊɿʎȽȻ ȻɮʃʐʉʎʐʆʀȻɮʐʂɼʉʊɇȻɫʍʊʁʀʎʎʊʍȻʀʈʀʍʄʏʐʎɇȻɣʄʍʊʎʃʄʈɼȻɰʉʄʑʀʍʎʄʏʔȻ
ȽɧʀʎʎʊʉʎȻʁʍʊʈȻɼʎʎʄʎʏɼʉɾʀȻʁʊʍȻʍʀɾʊʉʎʏʍʐɾʏʄʊʉȻʄʉȻɤʉɿʊʉʀʎʄɼȽȻ ȻɦʊʕʊȻɩɼʂɼʈʄɇȻɤʉʁʊʍʈɼʏʄʊʉȻɫʊʇʄɾʔȻɟʀʋɼʍʏʈʀʉʏɇȻɥɼʋɼʉȻɤʉʏʀʍʉɼʏʄʊʉɼʇȻɞʊʊʋʀʍɼʏʄʊʉȻɜʂʀʉɾʔȻɃɥɤɞɜɄȻ
ȽɥɼʋɼʉɂʎȻɪɟɜȻɫʍʊʅʀɾʏȻʄʉȻɫʀʍʐɇȻɟʄʎʎʀʈʄʉɼʏʄʊʉȻʊʁȻɮʀʄʎʈʄɾȻɜɿʊɽʀȻɣʊʐʎʀȽȻ ȻɜʆʄʃʄʆʊȻɯɼʎɼʆɼɇȻɠʓɈɡʄʍʎʏȻɮʀɾʍʀʏɼʍʔȻʊʁȻɠʈɽɼʎʎʔȻʊʁȻɥɼʋɼʉȻʄʉȻɫʀʍʐȻ
ȽɞʊʈʈʐʉʄʏʔȻɽɼʎʀɿȻɿʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȻʈɼʉɼʂʀʈʀʉʏȻɼʉɿȻɼʎʎʄʎʏɼʉɾʀȻʁʊʍȻʍʀʏʍʊʁʄʏʏʄʉʂȽȻ ȻɮʃʊʄɾʃʄȻɜʉɿʊɇȻɰʉʄʏʀɿȻɩɼʏʄʊʉʎȻɞʀʉʏʍʀȻʁʊʍȻɭʀʂʄʊʉɼʇȻɟʀʑʀʇʊʋʈʀʉʏȻɃɰɩɞɭɟɄȻ
ȽɠɼʍʏʃʌʐɼʆʀȻɭʄʎʆȻɭʀɿʐɾʏʄʊʉȻɼʉɿȻɭʀɾʊʑʀʍʔȻɫʍʀʋɼʍʀɿʉʀʎʎȻʄʉȻɮʊʐʏʃȻɜʎʄɼȽȻ ȻɜʏʎʐʎʃʄȻɦʊʍʀʎɼʒɼɇȻɜʎʄɼʉȻɟʄʎɼʎʏʀʍȻɭʀɿʐɾʏʄʊʉȻɞʀʉʏʀʍȻɃɜɟɭɞɄȻ
ɗȻɝʍʀɼʆȻəȻ
Ɍɐɕɐɋ͗ ɌɒɕɋɋȻ Ȼ ɫɼʉʀʇȻȽɣʊʒȻʏʊȻʋʍʊʈʊʏʀȻʎɼʁʀʏʔȻʄʈʋʍʊʑʀʈʀʉʏȻʊʁȻʉʊʉɈʀʉʂʄʉʀʀʍʀɿȻʃʊʐʎʀʎȻʄʉȻɿʀʑʀʇʊʋʄʉʂȻɾʊʐʉʏʍʄʀʎȽȻ ȻȻɞʃɼʄʍɕȻɯɼʄʆʄȻɮɼʄʏʊɇȻɞʃʄʀʁȻɭʀʎʀɼʍɾʃʀʍɇȻɝɭɤȻ ȻɫɼʉʀʇʄʎʏʎɕȻɞɼʍʇʊʎȻɵɼʑɼʇɼɇȻɟʔɼʃȻɦʐʎʐʈɼʎʏʐʏʄɇȻɜʇʋʀʍȻɤʇʆʄɇȻɩɼʅʄɽȻɜʃʈɼɿȻɼʉɿȻɣʄʍʊʎʃʄȻɡʐʆʐʔɼʈɼȻɃɞʃʄʀʁȻɭʀʎʀɼʍɾʃʀʍɇȻɝɭɤɄȻ ȻȻɌɒɕɌɐɈȻ Ȼ ɭʀɾʀʋʏʄʊʉȻ Ȼ Ȼ ȻȻȻ䋭Ȼ 㪈㪌㪐Ȼ Ȼ䋭Ȼ Ȼ ȻȻ Ȼ Ȼ

（リーフレット）

 ‫ޟ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߩࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ࿾㔡ⵍኂシᷫ‫ߦޠ‬㑐ߔࠆ࿖㓙ࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ 㐿௅ᣣ㧦 ᐕ  ᦬  ᣣ㧔㊄㧕㨪႐ ᚲ㧦᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇ ᗐᶏᭈࡎ࡯࡞ਥ ௅㧦⁛┙ⴕ᡽ᴺੱᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲ‫ޔ‬᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇ‫ޔ‬࿖ㅪ㒐ἴᚢ⇛‫ޔ‬࿖ㅪ࿾ၞ㐿⊒࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ᓟ េ㧦࿖࿯੤ㅢ⋭‫ޔ‬ౝ㑑ᐭ㧔㒐ἴᜂᒰ㧕㧙㐿ળ᜿ᜦ ᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲℂ੐㐳᧛਄๟ਃ ᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇቇ㐳౎↰㆐ᄦ࿖ㅪ࡮㒐ἴᜂᒰ․೎ઍ⴫ ࡑ࡞ࠟ࡟࡯࠲࡮ࡢ࡞ࠬ࠻ࡠࡓ ࡔ࠶࠮࡯ࠫઍ⺒ ࿖ㅪ࿖㓙㒐ἴᚢ⇛੐ോዪ౓ᐶ੐ോᚲઍ⴫᧻ጟ↱ቄ㧕࿖੤⋭ᄢ⤿ቭᚱክ⼏ቭ㧔૑ቛዪᜂᒰ㧕૒‫ᧁޘ‬ၮౝ㑑ᐭᄢ⤿ቭᚱክ⼏ቭ㧔㒐ἴᜂᒰ㧕㐳⼱Ꮉᓆ৻㧙 ၮ⺞⻠Ṷ‫ޟ‬࿾㔡ⵍኂߣࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼ᑪ▽‫ ޠ‬ർᶏ㆏ᄢቇฬ⹷ᢎ᝼ ⍹ጊ␭ੑ㧨ભᙑ 㧪㧙 ╙㧝ಽ⑼ળ‫ޟ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߩࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ⣀ᒙᕈ෸߮⠴㔡ᕈะ਄ߩߚ߼ߩദജ‫ޠ‬‫౒ޟ‬ห⎇ⓥߩ᭎ⷐ‫ޠ‬᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇᢎ᝼ጟፒஜੑ
‫ߩࠄ߆࡯࡞ࡍޟ‬ႎ๔‫࡯࡞ࡍ ޠ‬ᣣᧄ࿾㔡㒐ἴ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ᚲ㐳 ࠞ࡞ࡠࠬ࡮ࠨࡃ࡜
‫ߩࠄ߆ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޟ‬ႎ๔‫ࡦ࠼ࡦࡃ ޠ‬Ꮏ⑼ᄢቇ ಎᢎ᝼࠳ࠗࠕ࡮ࠢࠬࡑࠬ࠹ࡘ࠹ࠖ
‫ߩࠄ߆࠼ࡦࠗޟ‬ႎ๔‫ࡑ࡞ࠔࡧ࡮ࡦࠖ࠹࠾࡯ࠨࠖࡈࠝࡓ࡜ࠣࡠࡊࠕ࠾ࠪ ࠭࡯ࠪ ޠ‬‫ߩࠄ߆࡞࡯ࡄࡀޟ‬ႎ๔‫࡞࡯ࡄࡀޠ‬࿾㔡Ꮏቇදળ㧔05'6㧕᭴ㅧኾ㐷ኅ ࡅࡑ࡮ࠣ࡞ࡃ࠴ࡖ࡝ࡖ㧔ࠪࡘ࡟ࠬ࠲㧕 ‫ߩࠄ߆ࡦ࠲ࠬࠠࡄޟ‬ႎ๔‫ࡦ࠻ࠬ࡟ࡊ ޠ‬ᄢቇࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ࡑࡀࠫࡖ࡯࠽ࠫࡉ࡮ࠕ࡯ࡔ࠼ ‫ߩࠄ߆ࠦ࡞࠻ޟ‬ႎ๔‫࡞࡯ࡉࡦ࠲ࠬࠗޠ‬Ꮏ⑼ᄢቇ࿯ᧁᎿቇ⑼೽㐳ಎᢎ᝼ࠕ࡞ࡄ࡯࡮ࠗ࡞ࠠ
㧙 ᤤભߺ 㧙 ╙㧞ಽ⑼ળ‫ޟ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߩࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ⠴㔡ᕈะ਄ߩߚ߼ߩᚒ߇࿖ߩขࠅ⚵ߺ‫ޠ‬․೎ႎ๔‫࠴ࠗࡂޟ‬࿾㔡ߩⵍኂߦߟ޿ߡ‫ޠ‬࿖㓙දജᯏ᭴࿾⃿ⅣႺㇱࠕ࠼ࡃࠗࠩ࡯ ᄢ੗⧷⤿‫✚ޟ‬ว⊛ߥ࿾㔡ⵍኂシᷫᣇ╷ߦߟ޿ߡߩ࿖㓙౒ห⎇ⓥߩ᭎ⷐ‫ޠ‬ᑪ▽ⴕ᡽ᖱႎ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ᑪ▽ⴕ᡽⎇ⓥᚲ⎇ⓥㇱ㐳ᬰᐭ㦖㓶‫⚵ޟ‬Ⓧㅧᑪ▽ߩ⠴㔡ᕈ⢻ߣ⹏ଔᴺ‫ޠ‬ᐢፉᄢቇฬ⹷ᢎ᝼⩲㊁ବ੺‫ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޟ‬ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេߩᢎ⸠‫ޠ‬࿖㓙දജᯏ᭴ ᖱႎ᡽╷ㇱ᳗⷗శਃ
‫ࠆߌ߅ߦ࡯࡞ࡍޟ‬ᣣᧄߩ 1&# ࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻㨪ࠕ࠼ࡌ⠴㔡૑ቛߩ᥉෸㨪‫ޠ‬೨࡮࿷ࡍ࡞࡯ᄢ૶㙚ᦠ⸥ቭ↰㒋ᤘᒾ‫ࠖ࠹࠾ࡘࡒࠦޟ‬㒐ἴߣᑪ▽⠴㔡ൻߩᡰេ‫ޠ‬࿖ㅪ࿾ၞ㐿⊒࠮ࡦ࠲࡯㒐ἴ⸘↹౓ᐶ੐ോᚲ㐳቟⮮ዏ৻‫ޟ‬ධࠕࠫࠕߦ߅ߌࠆ࿾㔡㒐ἴኻ╷ߩផㅴ‫ࠕࠫࠕޠ‬㒐ἴ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ᚲ㐳ᤚỈఝ㧨ભᙑ 㧪㧙 ࡄࡀ࡞࠺ࠖࠬࠞ࠶࡚ࠪࡦ‫࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛࡦࡁޟ‬૑ቛߩ⠴㔡ᕈะ਄ࠍ޿߆ߦㅴ߼ࠆ߆‫ޠ‬⼏㐳㧦ᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲ࿖㓙࿾㔡Ꮏቇ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯਄Ꮸ⎇ⓥຬᢧ⮮ᄢ᮸ࡄࡀ࡝ࠬ࠻㧦ࠞ࡞ࡠࠬ࡮ࠨࡃ࡜㧔ࡍ࡞࡯㧕‫ࠖ࠹ࡘ࠹ࠬࡑࠬࠢ࡮ࠕࠗ࠳ޔ‬㧔ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ㧕ࠕ࡞ࡄ࡯࡮ࠗ࡞ࠠ㧔࠻࡞ࠦ㧕‫࠼ࡔ࡯ࠕ࡮ࡉࠫ࠽ޔ‬㧔ࡄࠠࠬ࠲ࡦ㧕‫⑔ޔ‬ጊᵗ㧔ᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲ਄Ꮸ⎇ⓥຬ㧕㧙   ᙣⷫળ  䋭 㪈㪍㪇 䋭









1RGPKPI







2㧚Opening㧔㐿ળ᜿ᜦ㧕ᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲ ᧛਄ℂ੐㐳᜿ᜦ⊝᭽߅ߪࠃ߁ߏߑ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᓮ⚫੺޿ߚߛ߈߹ߒߚᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲℂ੐㐳ߩਛ᧛ߢߔ‫ޕ‬ਥ௅࿅૕ߩ߭ߣߟߣߒߡ‫ߏ⸒৻ޔ‬᜿ᜦࠍ↳ߒ਄ߍ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᧄᣣߪᦺᣧߊ߆ࠄ‫ޟ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߩࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ࿾㔡ⵍኂシᷫߦ㑐ߔࠆ࿖㓙ࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ‫ߏߦޠ‬ෳട޿ߚߛ߈߹ߒߡᄢᄌ޽ࠅ߇
ߣ߁ߏߑ޿߹ߒߚ‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩࡂࠗ࠴ࠍᆎ߼ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᄢ࿾㔡߇⿠߈߹ߔ
ߣ‫⊒ޔ‬ዷㅜ਄࿖ߢᄢᄌᄙߊߩ߆ߚ߇੢ߊߥࠄࠇ߹ߔ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᄙߊ߇૑ቛߩୟუߦࠃࠆ߽ߩߢߔ‫⊒ޕ‬ዷㅜ਄࿖ߩ⠴㔡ᕈࠍ⠨߃ߡ⸳⸘ߐࠇߡ
޿ߥ޿૑ቛࠍࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߣ๭ࠎߢ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬లಽߦᎿቇ⊛ߦㆡ↪ߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߣ޿߁ᗧ๧ߢߔ‫੹ޕ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ἴኂߦࠃࠆੱἴ‫ޔ‬ἴኂߦ߅޿ߡੱ๮ࠍᢇ߁ߚ߼ߦ‫ޔ‬਎⇇⊛ߦࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ
ᡷༀ߇ᄢᄌᄢ߈ߥ⺖㗴ߢߔ‫ޕ‬ߎߩࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬Ꮏቇ⊛ߥ⎇ⓥ㐿⊒߇ߛ޿߱ਇ⿷ߒߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬⠴㔡ൻᎿᴺߦ
㑐ߒߡ߽లಽߥᚑᨐߪᓧࠄࠇߡ޿߹ߖࠎ‫ߩࠇߙࠇߘޕ‬࿖ߩᛛⴚ࡟ࡌ࡞ߩ㆑޿ߦࠃࠅ‫ޔ‬వㅴᛛⴚ߇઒ߦ޽
ߞߚߣߒߡ߽‫ࠍࠇߘޔ‬ታ㓙‫⥄ߏޔ‬りߩ࿖ߩ૑ቛߦㆡ↪ߔࠆࠃ߁ߥᛛⴚၮ⋚߇ߥ޿ߩߢߔ‫߇ޘੱޕ‬వㅴᛛⴚࠍ૶߁ߛߌߩ೙ᐲၮ⋚‫␠ޔ‬ળၮ⋚߽ᔅⷐߥߩߢߔ‫࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛࡦࡁޕ‬૑ቛߩ᥉෸ߩߚ߼ߦߪ‫ޔ‬⡯ੱ޽ࠆ޿ߪᛛⴚ⠪ߩੱ᧚⢒ᚑ‫ޔ‬ᢎ⢒໪⊒߽฽߼ߚขࠅ⚵ߺ߇ᄢಾߛߣ޿߁ߎߣߢߔ‫ޕ‬ߎ߁޿ߞߚⷰὐ߆ࠄᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲߢߪㆊ෰  ᐕ‫⊒ޔ‬ዷㅜ਄࿖ߩੱߚߜࠍኻ⽎ߣߒߡ࿖㓙⊛ߥ࿾㔡Ꮏቇ⎇ୃࠍ⛯ߌߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫߆  ߦߢߔޕ‬࿖߆ࠄ  ੱࠍ⿥߃ࠆ߆ߚ߇⎇ୃࠍୃੌߒ‫ᦨޔ‬ㄭߢߪ )4+25 ߣㅪ៤ߒߡୃ჻ภࠍขᓧߢ߈ࠆᨒ⚵ߺࠍ૞ߞߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬තᬺ↢ߩᣇ‫߇ޘ‬ฦ࿖ߦᏫࠄࠇߡ‫ⷐޔ‬⡯ߦߟ߆ࠇ‫ߘޔ‬ࠇߙࠇߩ࿖ߩ⠴㔡᡽╷ߦᄢᄌᄢ߈ߥነਈࠍߐࠇߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬੹࿁ߩࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓߪߘ߁޿߁ᣇ‫߽ߣޘ‬දജߒߡ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߩߚ߮ߦᄢᄌᄢ߈ߥἴኂߩ⿠߈ࠆࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ
࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩߐࠄߥࠆᡷༀࠍ࿑ࠈ߁ߣ޿߁⿰ᣦߩ࿖㓙ળ⼏ߢߔ‫੹ޕ‬ᣣߪࡍ࡞࡯‫ޔ࠼ࡦࠗޔࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ࡀࡄ࡯࡞‫ޔߤߥࠦ࡞࠻ޔࡦ࠲ࠬࠠࡄޔ‬ᄙߊߩ⎇ⓥ⠪ߩᣇ‫ߏߦޘ‬ෳടߒߡ޿ߚߛ޿ߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫⻠ߚ߹ޕ‬Ṷᓟߦߪ‫⎇ߩߘޔ‬ⓥ⠪ߩ⊝ߐࠎߣࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ⠴㔡ᕈ⢻ࠍ޿߆ߦㅴ߼ࠆ߆ߣ޿߁࠹࡯ࡑߢࡄࡀ
࡞࠺ࠖࠬࠞ࠶࡚ࠪࡦࠍⴕ߁੍ቯߢߏߑ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ળ႐ߩ⊝᭽߆ࠄߩᵴ⊒ߥߏ⊒⸒ࠍᦼᓙߒߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬੹࿁ߩࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ߇੹ᓟ⿠߈ࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿ᄢ߈ߥ࿾㔡ߦ஻߃ߡ৻ೞ߽ᣧߊࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛ
ߩ⠴㔡ᕈ⢻ߩᡷༀߦ❬߇ࠆߎߣࠍᦼᓙߒߡ‫ߏޔ‬᜿ᜦߦ߆߃ߐߖߡ޿ߚߛ߈ߚ޿ߣᕁ޿߹ߔ‫ࠅ޽߽߁ߤޕ‬߇ߣ߁ߏߑ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬䋭 㪈㪍㪊 䋭᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇ ౎↰ቇ㐳 ᜿ᜦ ᧄᣣߪ⊝᭽߅ᔔߒ޿ߣߎࠈ߅⿧ߒ޿ߚߛ߈߹ߒߡ޽ࠅ߇ߣ߁ߏߑ
޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬᧛਄వ↢ߩ߅⹤ߦ޽ࠅ߹ߒߚࠃ߁ߦ‫੹ޔ‬ᐕ㧝᦬ߩࡂࠗ࠴࿾㔡ߢ 20ਁੱߩዅ޿๮߇ᄬࠊࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ߘߩ߽ߩߪㆱߌࠄࠇߥ޿ࠊߌߢߔ
߇‫ޔ‬ኾ㐷ኅߩᜰ៰ߦࠃࠇ߫‫⇟৻ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߥේ࿃ߪᑪ‛߇࿾㔡ߦኻߔࠆኻ
╷߇ߚߡࠄࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ᑪ‛ߢ޽ߞߚߣ޿߁ߎߣ‫ޔߡߞࠃߦߣߎߩߘޕ‬޽ࠇߛߌߩᄢ߈ߥⵍኂ߇಴ߚߣ޿߁ߎߣߩࠃ߁ߢߔ‫ⵍߪߣߎ߁޿ߣޕ‬ኂߩᄙߊߪੱἴߢ޽ߞߚߣ⸒߃ࠆߩߢ޽ࠈ߁ߣᕁ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫ ߩߎޔߊߥߪߢߌߛ࠴ࠗࡂޔ‬21 ਎♿ߦߥߞߡ߆ࠄฦ࿾ߢᲤ
ᐕߩࠃ߁ߦᢙਁੱⷙᮨߩⵍኂߩ಴ࠆ࿾㔡߇⿠߈ߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޔࡦ࠲ࠬࠠࡄޔࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔࡦ࡜ࠗޔ࠼ࡦࠗޕ‬ਛ࿖‫ߚߞ޿߁ߘޕߔ߹޿ߡ߈⿠ߣޘ⛯ߦ߁ࠃ߁޿ߣ࡯ࡑࡦࡖࡒޔ‬࿾ၞߩ૑ዬ߇ࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛ‫ޔ‬଀߃߫࡟ࡦࠟ‫ᧁޔ‬ㅧ‫ޔ‬⍹ㅧߥߤߩ‫ޔ‬ㄭઍᎿᴺߣߪ೎ߩવ⛔⊛ߥᎿᴺߢᑪߡࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆᑪ‛ߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬లಽߥ⠴㔡᭴ㅧ‫ޔ‬Ꮏቇ⊛ߥភ⟎߇⻠ߓࠄࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߣ޿߁ࠊߌߢߔ߆ࠄ‫ߪࠇߎޔ‬૗ߣ߆ߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒߥ߇ࠄવ⛔⊛ߥᑪ‛ߦኻߔࠆ⠴㔡ൻࠍߤ߁ߒߚࠄ޿޿߆ߣ޿߁⎇ⓥߪᔅߕߒ߽ㅴࠎߢ޿ߥ޿ߩߢ
ߔ‫ޕ‬᡽╷⊛ߦ߽‫ߦࠇߘޔ‬ኻߔࠆኻᔕ߇චಽߢߥ޿ߣ޿߁ߎߣߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲߣ GRIPS ߪ౒ห⎇ⓥࠍ߿ߞߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ᧄޕ‬ᐕᐲߪࡍ࡞࡯‫ࡦࠗޔ࡞࡯ࡄࡀޔࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬࠼‫ߩ࠻ࡊࠫࠛޔࠦ࡞࠻ޔࡦ࠲ࠬࠠࡄޔ‬㧣ࠞ࿖ߣߣ߽ߦ‫ޔ‬࿷᧪Ꮏᴺߩᑪ▽⃻႐ߦታ㓙ߦ಴ะ߈‫⺞ޔ‬ᩏߒ‫ޔ‬⸳⸘߿ᑪߡᣇ‫ޔ߆ࠆ޿ߡࠇࠊⴕߦ߁ࠃߩߤ߇᧚⾗ޔ‬ᑪ▽ഭ௛⠪߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߦ௛޿ߡ޿ࠆߩ߆ࠍ⺞ᩏߒߡ‫ޔ‬⠴㔡ൻߩⷰὐ߆ࠄ቟ోᕈะ਄ߩߚ߼ߦߤ߁޿߁ߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ߆ߣ޿߁ߎߣࠍ⺞ᩏߒߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬੹ᦺߩ⊒⴫ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ฦ࿖ߩ⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐߣ‫ޔ‬ฦ࿖ߢࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼Ꮏᴺߦኻߒߡ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߤޔ‬቟ోᕈะ਄
ߩភ⟎߇ขࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ߆ࠍ⊒⴫޿ߚߛߊߎߣߦߥࠅ߹ߔ‫੹ߪߢࡓ࠙ࠫࡐࡦࠪޕ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬⠴㔡ᕈะ਄ߩߚ߼ߦ
ߤ߁޿߁ߎߣ߇⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆߩ߆ࠍ⊝᭽ߦ⼏⺰ߒߡ޿ߚߛ߈߹ߔ‫߅ࠄ߆࠴ࠗࡂޔߦࠄߐޕ‬Ꮻࠅߦߥߞߚ߫
߆ࠅߩ JICA ߩᄢ੗᭽ࠃࠅࡂࠗ࠴ߩ⁁ᴫߦߟ޿ߡ߅⹤޿ߚߛ߈߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᄢ࿾㔡߇޽ߞߚᓟߢ‫ߚ߹ޔ‬రߣหߓᑪ‛ࠍᑪߡߚࠄήᗧ๧ߥࠊߌߢߔ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ࠍᯏળߦ⠴㔡ᕈߩะ਄ߒ
ߚᑪ‛ࠍㅧࠇࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣ߇ᔅⷐߛࠈ߁ߣᕁ޿߹ߔ‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩࠪࡦࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ߇‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩㅜ਄࿖ߢߩᑪ‛ߩ⠴㔡ᕈะ਄ߩߚ߼ߦᓎߦ┙ߜ‫ߩ࠴ࠗࡂߦࠄߐޔ‬࿾㔡߆ࠄߩ࿁ᓳߦ߽Ꮏቇ⊛ߦᓎ┙ߟߎߣߦ❬߇ࠆߎߣࠍ␨ᔨ޿ߚߒ߹ߒߡ‫ߏߩ⑳ޔ‬᜿ᜦߣߐߖߡ޿ߚߛ߈߹ߔ‫ޕߚߒ߹޿ߑߏ߁ߣ߇ࠅ޽߽߁ߤޕ‬䋭 㪈㪍㪋 䋭Message of Ms. Margareta Wahlström,
UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Disaster Risk Reduction
To be delivered on her behalf by Ms. Yuki Matsuoka, Head of the UNISDR Hyogo Office                    Dear Participants,
I am pleased to share with you the message of Ms. Margareta
Wahlström, UN Secretary General’s Special Representative forDisaster Risk Reduction to the participants of the International
Symposium on “More Resilient non-engineered houses forearthquake disaster reduction”, organized by the National Graduate
Institute for Policy Studies and the Building Research Institute, incollaboration with several partner organizations.
As all of you know, 5 years ago in Kobe, at the UN World
Conference on Disaster Reduction, 168 Governments adopted the
Hyogo Framework for Action to build resilience of nations andcommunities to disasters by 2015, underlining thus the urgent needto shift efforts from only preparing for disaster response to focusing
on reducing risk and vulnerability, and spelling out the specific responsibilities of Governments,
international and regional organizations on how to do so. For the last five years, significant progress has
been achieved as recognized at the second session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction
held in June 2009 and reported in the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction issued in
2009, particularly in terms of life-saving measures such as improved disaster preparedness and response,but much more needed to be done.
Governments, international and regional organizations, NGOs, and other partners have been more united
in the belief that greater urgency is required to address the factors that are driving the increase in disaster
risk, such as rural poverty and vulnerability, unplanned and poorly managed urban growth, and decline of
ecosystems. Urgent action is necessary not only to reduce disaster risk, but also to maintain momentumin Millennium Development Goal achievement, including poverty reduction, adaptation to climate change
and better health outcomes.
Ladies and gentlemen, it has now been more than a month since the catastrophic earthquake struck Haiti,
leaving much of the Capital city Port-au-Prince andsurroundings totally devastated. The entire international community, including the UN is doing theirutmost to assist the Haitian Government and the millions of people who have been affected by thetragedy, and is helping to push forward the relief and recovery process. The United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) will pursue the work with President Clinton, the UN Special
Envoy for Haiti, to make the country more resilient to future disasters.
The principal causes of destruction and death in Haiti were construction on unstable land and collapsingbuildings. The problems with building construction were not just a lack of seismic building standards but
the inadequate standards of construction to resist the risks that are common in Haiti such as hurricanes,
floods and mudslides. Haiti’s burden is heavy, but there is also a new opportunity today to engage with
the international community that is genuinely supportive, to plan a determined reconstruction effort thatwill ensure its long-term safety and stability. Hopefully, no new hospital, school or public structure will bebuilt without integrating disaster risk reduction principles into its design and construction.
The initiative of organizing today’s international symposium entitled “More resilient nonengineered houses
for earthquake disaster reduction” is very timely in this context. People from developing countries
sometimes mention that they cannot use nor develop highly advanced technology to make buildings more
resilient such as in countries like Japan. However, there is a lot of expertise that can be shared with thesecountries and be of concrete use to build more resilient buildings and housing. In this context, this
symposium can certainly make an important contribution to international efforts to understandnon-engineered construction and improve the structural safety of houses, buildings, and so forth.

䋭 㪈㪍㪌 䋭

Ladies and gentlemen, as we begin the second decade of a new century, more than half of the world’s
population lives in cities and urban centers. Urban settlements are the lifelines of today’s society. They
serve as nations’ economic engines, centers of technology and innovation and function as living
examples of our cultural heritage. But the consequences of their success are inherent in the importantroles they play in society. Cities also can become generators of new risks evidenced by poverty, social
inequality and environmental degradation. This makes many urban citizens more vulnerable to suffer
losses if a natural hazard strikes.
The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction is working with its partners to raiseawareness and commitment for sustainable development practices as a means to reduce disaster risk
and to increase the wellbeing and safety of citizens- to invest today for a better tomorrow. Building on
previous years’ campaigns focusing on education and school, and also hospital safety, UNISDR partners
are launching a new campaign in 2010 – Making Cities Resilient – to enhance awareness about thebenefits of focusing on sustainable urbanization to reduce disaster risks. The Campaign will seek toengage and convince city leaders and local governments to be committed to a checklist of Ten Essentials
for Making
Cities Resilient and to work on these together with local actors, grass-root networks
and national authorities.
The UNISDR secretariat looks forward to having your active engagement in the Making Cities Resilient
Campaign, and working closely with all of you in promoting disaster risk reduction, towards a safer world. I
am also looking very much forward to hearing more about the research conducted in majordisaster-affected countries, and the recommendations drawn from this research, as well as learning fromyour discussions on how to improve the safety of non-engineered buildings.
Thank you very much and I wish you all a very successful Symposium.
Margareta Wahlström
Special Representative of the UN Secretary-Generalfor Disaster Risk Reduction
by Yuki Matsuoka
Head, Hyogo Office, UN Secretariat of the International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (UNISDR))      䋭 㪈㪍㪍 䋭࿖੤⋭ ૒‫ᧁޘ‬ᄢ⤿ቭᚱክ⼏ቭ ᜿ᜦ                     ⊝᭽‫ޕߔ߹޿ߑߏ߁ࠃߪ߅ޔ‬᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇߣ⁛┙ⴕ᡽ᴺੱᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲߩ౒௅ߢⴕࠊࠇ߹ߔߎߩ௅ߒߦ߅㓸߹ࠅߦߥࠄࠇߚ⊝᭽ߦ‫ޔ‬࿖࿯੤ㅢ⋭ࠍઍ⴫޿ߚߒ߹ߒߡ‫ߡߒߘޔ‬ᓟេߔࠆ┙႐ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᔃࠃࠅ᱑ㄫࠍ↳ߒ਄ߍ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ ᧄᐕ 1 ᦬ߦ⊒↢ߒ߹ߒߚࡂࠗ࠴ߦ߅ߌࠆᄢ࿾㔡ߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬20 ਁߣ߽‫ޔ‬30 ਁߣ߽޿ࠊࠇࠆᣇ‫߇ޘ‬੢ߊߥߞߚߣ޿߁⹤ࠍ⡞޿ߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᚒ߇࿖ߦ߅޿ߡ߽ 1995 ᐕߦ㒋␹᷆〝ᄢ㔡ἴ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬ᣂẟߢߩਛ⿧࿾㔡߽޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᚒ߇࿖ࠍߪߓ߼‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߩᄙ⊒࿾Ꮺߦ૑߻⠪ߦߣࠅ߹ߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ⵍኂߦࠃࠆⵍኂࠍዋߥߊߒߡ޿ߊߎߣ߇ᭂ߼ߡ㊀ⷐߥ⺖㗴ߣߥߞߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ߦ․ޕ‬ㄭᐕ‫ޔ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߢᄢ࿾㔡ߦࠃߞߡᄙ
ߊߩ߆ߚ߇ߚߩੱ๮߇ᄬࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆࠊߌߢߔ߇‫ⵍߥ߁ࠃߩߎޔ‬ኂߦߟ߈߹ߒߡߪㅜ਄࿖ߦᄙߊ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޔ‬ᛛⴚ⠪߇㑐ࠊࠄߕߦㅧࠄࠇߚࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛ߇ᄢ㊂ߦୟუߔࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣߦࠃߞߡ‫ޔ‬㕖Ᏹߦᄢ߈ߥⵍኂ߇↢ߓߡ޿ࠆߣ޿߁ታᘒ߇޽ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߦ߅ߌࠆ࿾㔡ⵍኂߩシᷫߩߚ߼ߦߪ‫࠾ࠫࡦࠛࡦࡁޔ‬ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ⠴㔡ᕈࠍะ਄ߔࠆߣ޿߁ขࠅ⚵ߺࠍㅴ߼ߡ޿ߊߎߣ߇૗ࠃࠅ߽㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ ᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲߣ᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇߦ߅޿ߡߪ‫ߥ࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛ࡮ࡦࡁޔ‬᭴ㅧߦὶὐࠍᒰߡߚ૑ቛߩ቟ో
ᕈߦ㑐ߔࠆ⎇ⓥࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ࠍฦ࿖ߩ⃻࿾⺞ᩏ߽฽߼ߡㅴ߼ߡ߅ࠅ‫࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛ࡮ࡦࡁޔ‬૑ቛߩታᘒߦ
ߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬࿖߿࿾ၞߦࠃߞߡ⇣ߥࠆߚ߼‫ޔ‬ቇ໧⊛ߦ߽᡽╷⊛ߦ߽ขࠅ⚵ߺ߇ㆃࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᗧ๧ߢᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲߣ᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇ߇ታᣉߒߡ޿ࠆᧄ⎇ⓥࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ߪ‫ᤨߦߣߎ߹ޔ‬ቱߦ߆ߥߞߚ⾆㊀ߥߎߣߛߣ⠨߃ߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ ੹࿁ߩࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓߦ߅߈߹ߒߡߪ‫౒ߩߎޔ‬ห⎇ⓥߩ৻Ⅳߣߒߡฦ࿖ߩࡁࡦ࡮ࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩታ
ᘒߣ⠴㔡ᕈะ਄ߩߚ߼ߩข⚵ࠍ⚫੺ߒ‫ޔ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߦ߅ߌࠆ࿾㔡ⵍኂシᷫߩߚ߼ߩ੹ᓟߩᣇ╷ߩ޽ࠅᣇߦߟ
޿ߡ⼏⺰߇ߥߐࠇࠆߣ߅ુ޿ߒߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ ߎߩࠃ߁ߦ਎⇇ฦ࿖ߦ߅ߌࠆขࠅ⚵ߺࠍቇ߮޽޿‫ޔ‬ಽ߆ߜว߁ߎߣߢ‫ࠍࠢࠬ࡝߇ߜߚ⑳ޔ‬ૐᷫߐߖߡ
޿ߊขࠅ⚵ߺࠍᐢ߼ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߣାߓߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ⷞߚߒ߁ߘޕ‬ὐ߆ࠄ⑳ߤ߽ߪ੹࿁ߩࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ
ߩ⼏⺰ߦ㕖Ᏹߦᦼᓙࠍߒߡ޿ࠆߣߎࠈߢߔ‫ߏޕ‬ෳળߩ⊝᭽ᣇ߇‫ߢߎߎޔ‬ቇ߫ࠇߚߎߣࠍᤚ㕖਎⇇ߩ࿾㔡ߩ㒐ἴߦᓎ┙ߡߡ޿ߚߛߌࠇ߫ߣᕁ޿߹ߔ‫ߩߢߎߎޔߚ߹ޕ‬੤ᵹ߇ߘࠇߙࠇߩ಴り࿖ߦ߅޿ߡ߽ᐢߊ౒
᦭ߐࠇࠆߎߣࠍᦼᓙߒߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫߽ߤߒߚࠊޕ‬࿖࿯੤ㅢ⋭ߪߎ߁ߒߚขࠅ⚵ߺࠍ੹ᓟߣ߽ᒝߊᡰេߒߡ
޿߈ߚ޿ߣ⠨߃ߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ ᦨᓟߦ‫ᧄޔ‬ᣣߩࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ߇ታࠅᄙ߈߽ߩߦߥࠅ߹ߔߎߣ‫ࡓ࠙ࠫࡐࡦࠪߩߎߚ߹ޔ‬㐿௅ߦ߅ߌࠆ㑐ଥ⠪ߩ⊝᭽ߩߏഭ⧰ߦᷓߊᢘࠍ⴫ߒ߹ߒߡ‫ߩ⑳ޔ‬᜿ᜦߦߐߖߡ޿ߚߛ߈߹ߔ‫ޕ‬䋭 㪈㪍㪎 䋭ౝ㑑ᐭ 㐳⼱Ꮉᄢ⤿ቭᚱክ⼏ቭ ᜿ᜦ⊝᭽‫ߚߒ߹ࠅ߆ߕ޽੺⚫ߏ੹ߛߚޕߔ߹޿ߑߏ߁ࠃߪ߅ޔ‬ౝ㑑ᐭ㒐ἴᜂᒰክ⼏ቭߩ㐳⼱Ꮉߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᧄᣣߪ⁛┙ⴕ᡽ᴺੱᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲਗ߮ߦ᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇߩ౒௅
ߢߎߩࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ߇㐿௅ߐࠇ⊝᭽ᣇߦ߅㓸߹ࠅ޿ߚߛ߈߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬⋓ᄢߦ㐿௅ߐࠇ߹ߔߎߣࠍ߅༑߮↳ߒ਄ߍ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᶏᄖ߆ࠄ߅⿧ߒߩᣇ߽߅ࠄࠇࠆߩߢ‫ޔ‬⑳߇ߎߎߦ๭߫ࠇ߹ߒߚᚲએ
ࠍ߅⹤ߒߒ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߢߪ㒐ἴኻ╷ߦฦ⋭ᐡߢขࠅ⚵ࠎߢ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬଀߃߫‫ޔ‬࿖࿯੤ㅢ⋭ߢߪᴡᎹᢛ஻‫ޔ‬ႇ㒐ᢛ஻ߥߤฦ⒳㒐ἴኻ╷ߦขࠅ⚵ࠎߢ޿߹ߔ‫ߩߘޕ‬ਛߢ૑ቛዪߢߪ⠴㔡ൻၮḰߠߊࠅ‫ޔ‬⠴㔡ൻᑪ‛ߩჇടߦขࠅ⚵ࠎߢ޿ࠆ‫߽ߤߒߊߚࠊޕ‬ౝ㑑ᐭߢߪ‫ޔ‬ฦ⋭ᐡߩขࠅ⚵ߺࠍో૕ߣߒߡขࠅ߹ߣ߼ߡ‫ޔ‬࿖ో૕ߩ㒐ἴኻ╷ࠍㅴ߼ߡ޿ߊ┙႐ߢ઀੐ࠍㅴ߼ߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᤓᣣ᧪‫⹤ߩ࠴ࠗࡂޔ‬㗴߇ߢߡ޿߹ߔ߇‫ޔ‬ᶏᄖߢ⿠ߎࠆἴኂߦ㑐ߔࠆදജߦߟ޿ߡ߽‫ߩ߽ߤߒߊߚࠊޔ‬ᣇߢⓍᭂ⊛ߦขࠅ⚵߹ߖߡ޿ߚߛ޿ߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᓟ߶ߤ‫ߣࠆ޽߇⹤߅ޔ‬ᕁ޿߹ߔ߇‫ޔ‬㧶㧵㧯㧭ߩᣇ‫߇ޘ‬⃻࿾⺞ᩏߦะ߆ࠊࠇߚ⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐႎ๔ߥߤ߽᜙⷗ߐߖߡ޿ߚߛ޿ߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᶏᄖߦ߅ߌࠆ࿾㔡ߦߟ޿ߡߩ஻߃߇ߥߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ታᘒߦߟ޿ߡߪࠊߚߊߒߤ߽߽ᄢᄌᘷ޿ߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ࠊߚߊߒߤ߽߽‫ޔ‬࿖㓙㒐ἴදജߦ᭽‫ޘ‬ขࠅ⚵ࠎߢ߅ࠅ߹ߔ߇‫ޔ߫߃଀ޔ‬࿾㔡ߦࠃࠆⵍኂߩシᷫߦⓍᭂ⊛ߦขࠅ⚵߻ߚ߼ߦ 20 ᐕᐲ‫ޔ‬21 ᐕᐲߢߪ 2 ▎ᐕߦਗ਼ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᄖോ⋭ਥ௅ߩ㒐ἴἴኂήఘᡰេߩ⾗㊄දജ੐ᬺߢ‫ޔ‬࿖ㅪ㐿⊒⸘↹ࠍㅢߓߡධࠕࠫࠕ࿾ၞߦ߅ߌࠆ࿾㔡㒐ἴኻ╷⸘↹ߩขࠅ⚵ߺࠍㅴ߼ߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ߎ߁޿ߞߚਛߢߪ‫࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛࡦࡁޔ‬ᑪ▽‛ߦ߽ὶὐࠍᒰߡߡ‫߇ࠊޔ‬࿖ߩ⍮⷗ࠍ↢߆ߒߡ߅ᓎߦ┙ߟߴߊ‫␹ޔ‬ᚭߩࠕࠫࠕ㒐ἴ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ߩኾ㐷ኅߥߤࠍᵷ㆜ߒߡ޿ࠆߣߎࠈߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᤓᐕߩ 10 ᦬ߦ␹ᚭߢᣣਛ㖧ߩ㒐ἴᜂᒰᄢ⤿⚖ળว߇޽ࠅ‫ޕ‬㧟࿖ߢ⠴㔡ൻ߳ߩขࠅ⚵ߺࠍㅴ߼ࠃ߁ߣวᗧߒផㅴࠍߒߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ࡂࠗ࠴ߦߟ޿ߡ߽‫੹ޔ‬ᓟࠊ߇࿖ߣߒߡ⽸₂ࠍߒߚ޿ߣ⠨߃ߡ޿ࠆ߇‫߇ࠊޔ‬࿖߇ᜬߟ⍮⷗‫ޔ‬⠴㔡ൻ߳ߩᛛⴚ‫ޔ‬ၮḰߦߟ޿ߡ߽ᄢ߈ߊᦼᓙߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߚߞ޿߁ߘޕ‬ᗧ๧ߢ߽ദജࠍ⛯ߌߡ߹޿ࠅߚ޿ߣᕁߞߡ߅
ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
ߎߩࠃ߁ߥࠦࡦ࠹ࠢࠬ࠻ߩߥ߆ߢ‫ᧄޔ‬ᣣߩࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ߇㐿௅ߐࠇ߹ߔߎߣࠍ‫ߦ⺈ޔ‬༑߫ߒ޿੐ߣ⠨߃ߡ߅ࠅ߹ߔ‫⊝ޕ‬᭽ᣇߩߏ⼏⺰ࠍㅢߓߡ‫ޔ‬ታࠅᄙ޿ࡕࡁ߇ᓧࠄࠇ‫߇ࠇߘޔ‬਎⇇ߩ㒐ἴኻ╷ߦᓎ┙ߞߡⴕߊ੐ࠍߏ␨ᔨ⥌ߒ߹ߔߣߣ߽ߦ‫ᧄޔ‬ᣣਥ௅ߐࠇ߹ߒߚᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲ‫ޔ‬᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇߩ⋉‫⊒ߏߩޘ‬ዷࠍߏ␨ᔨ↳ߒ਄ߍ߹ߒߡߏ᜿ᜦߣߐߖߡ㗂߈߹ߔ‫ޕߚߒ߹޿ߑߏ߁ߣ߇ࠅ޽ޕ‬䋭 㪈㪍㪏 䋭









-G[PQVG5RGGEJ3. Keynote Speech “Earthquake Damage and Non-Engineered Construction “Yuji Ishiyama Professor Emeritus, Hokkaido University NewsT Research Lab.

International Symposium on“More resilient non-engineered houses
for earthquake disaster reduction”

Typical Earthquake Damage
to Engineered Construction

Earthquake Damage and
Non-Engineered Construction

 Earthquake Damage
 Behavior of Buildings during Earthquakes

and Earthquake Forces

Yuji Ishiyama
Professor Emeritus, Hokkaido University
NewsT Research Lab.

(1978 Miyagi-ken-oki Earthquake)

Since the shear force becomes max. at 1st story,
damage to 1st story is common.

Damage to 1st story (soft and weak first story)
1995 Hyogo-ken-nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake

䋨1978 Miyagi-ken-oki Earthquake䋩Damage to 1st story (soft and weak first story)䋭 㪈㪎㪈 䋭(1995 Kobe Earthquake)Damage to water tank

Uppermost small parts suffer fromsevere damage

Overturning of Computers(1978 Miyagi-ken-oki Earthquake)(1989 Loma Prieta, California Earthquake)

Unusual mid-story collapse
1995 Hyogo-ken-nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake(1995 Kobe Earthquake)

Three typical distributionsof seismic force parameters(1)

9th floor

1st floor

Max. 1040 gal

Uniform
Seis. force(2)

Inverted
triangular

(3)

㺕
㱍

Seismic
force(coeff.)ab

SeismicdecMax. 260 gal

shear

Acceleration time histories of 9th floor & 1st floor(1978 Miyagi-ken-oki Earthquake)䋭 㪈㪎㪉 䋭forcef

(1978 Miyagi-ken-oki Earthquake)

Damage to non-structural elements
䋨1978 Miyagi-ken-oki Earthquake)(1978 Miyagi-ken-oki Earthquake)

Overturning of furniture(1978 Miyagi-ken-oki Earthquake)

Damage caused by soil failure(1993 Kushiro-oki Earthquake)

Damage caused by soil failure(1974 Izo-oshima-kinnkai Earthquake)䋭 㪈㪎㪊 䋭

NonNon-Engineered Construction
and its Earthquake Damage
 NonNon-engineered buildings are spontaneously

and informally constructed in the traditionalmanner without intervention by qualified
architects and engineers in their design.
 NonNon-engineered construction is mostcommon construction technique in the world
and also most vulnerable against
earthquakes.

UnUn-reinforced brick masonry with nocolumns and beams (Java, Indonesia)

Un-reinforced brickwall farmed with RCcolumns and beams(Confined masonry)

Wooden houses
have better
performanceagainst EQ’s.

Wood frame fordoor sash cansupport brick wall.

Roof sheathingboard is not used.

Damage to brickmasonry, most ofthem have noreinforcement.

Seismic force is the inertia force.

ma
W=mg

a

2006 Central Java,
Indonesia EQ䋭 㪈㪎㪋 䋭Hydraulic jacks
applying lateralforces (Peru)

Hydraulic jacks
where there arefloor diaphragms

Lateral componentof gravity forces
acts as EQ forces

Tilting table(Indonesia)

Unreinforced
masonry infill walls
are used in many
countries.

Structural test
(Lima, Peru)

Reinforced
concrete framewith un-reinforced
brick infill walls

Brick infill wallin Egypt

Tilting Table with a long stroke
hydraulic jackLow-rise building with
RC frame with unreinforced brick infill
walls (Confined
masonry) (Lima, Peru)

High rise buildings
with un-reinforced
brick infill walls(Lima, Peru)

Hydraulic jack is
not veryexpensive.

䋭 㪈㪎㪌 䋭

Tilting Table in Cuzco, Peru

Research Center for
Human Settlement(RCHS, Indonesia)

Tilting table
moved to a newlaboratory

Damage to Adobe(sundried mud block)construction (1996
Nazca, Peru EQ)

Damage to Tapial
construction (1990
Peru EQ)

Tapial is cast-in-place
mud construction(1990 Peru EQ)

Damage to Adobe(2001 Atico, Peru EQ)

Damage to
Japanese traditional
wooden houses(1995 Kobe EQ)

Narrow boards nailed
to frame cannot
resist lateral forces(1995 Kobe EQ)

Braces are
effective to resist
lateral forces (1995
Kobe EQ)

Connections ofbraces and framesshould be sound(1995 Kobe EQ)䋭 㪈㪎㪍 䋭Connections of RC
members are also
important

Haiti Earthquake Widespread damage: lack of attention andconstruction to the possibility ofearthquakes
 The earthquake did not produce sufficient

to severely damage wellwell-engineered
structures.
 Many bearingbearing-wall structures survive theearthquake, even though they are unlikely
to have ductile details.

Re-bars of columns
should be anchoredto foundation (2006
Central Java,
Indonesia EQ)

USGS/EERI Advance Reconnaissance Team Report, Feb 18, 2010

Guidelines for
Earthquake Resistant
NonNon-Engineered
Construction

Key Requirements
 Quality of materials
 Structural members

Revised Edition (1986)

 Connection of

structural members

International
Association for
Earthquake
Engineering(IAEE)(After 2006 Central
Java, Indonesia EQ)

Anand S. Arya (India)
Teddy Boen (Indonesia)
Yuji Ishiyama (Japan)
A. I. Martemianov (USSR)
Roberto Meli (Mexico)
Charles Scawthorn (USA)
Vargas Julio N. (Peru)Ye Xaoxian (China)

Easy to understandwith many illustrations䋭 㪈㪎㪎 䋭Applicable atconstruction site

Down Load
http://www.nicee.org/IAEE_English.php

Thank youfor your attention

If you have interest, please contact
Anand S. Arya : anandsarya@gmail.com
Teddy Boen : tedboen@cbn.net.id
Yuji Ishiyama : toto-yuji@nifty.com

䋭 㪈㪎㪏 䋭








5GUUKQP
̌8WNPGTCDKNKV[QHPQPGPIKPGGTGFJQWUGUCPF
GHHQTVUVQOCMGVJGOUCHGT̍4.1 Outline of the joint researchPresented by Kenji Okazaki, Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)
᡽╷⎇ⓥᄢቇ㒮ᄢቇ ᢎ᝼ ጟፒஜੑSession 1:“Vulnerability of non-engineered houses and efforts tomake them safer”

International Symposium on “More Resilient
Non-engineered Houses for Earthquake Disaster
Reduction”
26 February 2010, GRIPS, Tokyo

Objectives of the session
To share some findings from the joint survey on “nonengineered houses in developing countries” and share theefforts and activities to make them safer.

Presentations- Peru: Japan-Peru Center for Earthquake Engineeringand Disaster Mitigation ᲢCISMIDᲣ
- Indonesia: Center for Disaster Mitigation, Institute ofTechnology Bandung (ITB)- India: SEEDS- Nepal: NSET-Nepal- Pakistan: Preston University- Turkey: Istanbul Technical University (ITU)

Data to be collected

A Study on Non-engineered ConstructionzObjective of the study
To collect basic data on non-engineered houses in developing
countries to better understand their actual conditions and practices.



Method of the Study
The study is Jointly conducted 2009-2010 by Building ResearchInstitute (BRI) and National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies(GRIPS) together with the partner institutions in Peru, Indonesia, Nepal,
Pakistan, India, Turkey, and Egypt.

Data collection
The partner institution conducted a field survey to 5 construction sites
or more to collect necessary data, following the same data sheet.

z䋭 㪈㪏㪈 䋭General- Most common building types and their brief description- Technical requirements for the brick masonry construction
Field Survey at 5 construction sites- Location, construction cost, soil type, building function, size andarea, foundation type, masonry type, plan and elevation, etc.
- Wall: material, thickness, height to thickness ratio, opening ratio- Beams and columns: material, yield strength, steel bars and stirrup- Roof structure and connection of structural elements- Non-structural elements: Roofing material, floor material- Masonry: brick/stone, grout mortar, plaster- Concrete: compression strength, aggregates, composition,water/cement ratio- Steel: strength and durability- Contractor: number of workers, skill, education

4.2 Report from Peru
Presented by Carlos Zavala, Director, Japan Peru Center for Earthquake Engineering andDisaster Mitigation (CISMID䋩 / 䊕䊦䊷ᣣᧄ࿾㔡㒐ἴ䉶䊮䉺䊷 ᚲ㐳 䉦䊦䊨䉴䊶䉰䊋䊤

What is a non engineered building?

Vulnerability ofNon-engineered Buildings
And Efforts To Make Them
Safer

• Housing build without standards andquality control

Dr. Carlos Zavala
Msc. Lourdes Cárdenas
Msc. Jenny TairaEng. Francisco Ríos
February 2010

Japan-Peru Center for Earthquake Engineering Research and Disaster Mitigation-CISMID
National University of Engineering

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

What is a non engineered building?

What is a non engineered building?

• Building that try to imitate conventional
structural system without engineer
assistance

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

• Building that try to imitate conventional
structural system without engineer
assistance

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

What is a non engineered building?

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

What is a non engineered building?

• Building without elements of reinforce

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI• Housing build without previous studies ofsoil, materials, disasters hazards

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

䋭 㪈㪏㪉 䋭C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNIWhat is a non engineered building?

Factors that contribute withvulnerability
COLOMBIAECUADORZONA 1

BRASIL

NA
2

NA
ZO

ZO

3

• Soil conditions• Topography• Morphology of roof systems• Non reinforce elements• Seismic Zone
• Type of housing

BOLIVIA• Housing build by their or owner or anempirical technician.

CHILE

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Zone and type of Housing
COLOMBIAECUADOR

Zone 3- Coastal city (Lima)

ZONA 1

BRASIL

N

ZO

ZO
2

NA

A
BOLIVIA

3

DISTRIBUTION OF
ISOACELERATION FOR 10%
EXCEDENCY IN 50 YEARS

CHILEZone 2 - Highland city (Cuzco)(Alva y Castillo, 1993)

Zone-1 Jungle city (Lamas)

C
O
EA
N
O
PA
C
IF
O
IC

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Coastal City
Lima

- Capital city of the country- Location: Western coast overthe Pacific Ocean- Population: 8`219,000 Inhab.
- Size: 2,800 sq meter.
- Growth rate in last five years: 1.5%
- Average income: US$ 500.00- Common types of buildings:
Confined masonry, unconfined masonrywalls buildings, concrete resistantframes.
Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Lima Microzonification and Soil types

Source: CISMID-UNI APESEG Project
C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

䋭 㪈㪏㪊 䋭C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNIExpected Intensities in Lima

Source: IGP

Surveyed locations

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Basic scheme of Masonry
Construction in Lima

Typical Roof System

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Site condition

2
1

Residential (1)Residential andcomercial (4)

3

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

0

0

1

2

3
4
Data sheet number

5

1

2

3
4
Data sheet number

5

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

40%

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010(2) Semi Urban(4) Urban

Residential
Comercial & Residential
60%1(1) Flat gentle slope(2) On step slope(3) Under slope

Building Function

Building Function

Rural or Urban Area
3
Location

Site condition

Statistical results from survey
building function

3.5

4

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Statistical results from survey
Site condition and location
5

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

2

3

4

5

Data sheet number

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

䋭 㪈㪏㪋 䋭C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNIStatistical results from survey
Type of foundation and soil

Statistical results from survey
Wall Information parameters

Type of foundation sub soil

Wall height to thickness ratio
20%

25.0

3.5
3

Sof t Soil

2.5
2

20.0

Wall height tothickness ratio

Soft Soil (2) Sand (3)Type of Foundation Sub Soil

Sand

1.5
1

15.0
10.0
5.0

80%

0.5
0

0.0
1

1

2

3
4
Data she et numbe r

2

3

4

5

Data shee t number

5

Height / thickness ratio
Average 17.9

Type of foundation

Confined wall panel area

(2) Stripe(4) Stripe and squareconfined wall panel
area

14
12
10

40%
strip
strip+square
60%

8
6
4
2

Confined panel
Average

0
1

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

2

3
4
Data sheet number

5

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Statistical results from survey
Wall Information parameters

Statistical results from survey
Wall Information parameters
Concrete resistance stress

Brick Material Strength25
20stress (Mpa)

Compressive streght
(Mpa)

25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0

15
10
5

5.0

0
0.0
1

2

3

4

5

Data shee t numbe r

Brick Material strength
Average 17.9 MPa

1

2

3

4

5

Data sheet number

Concrete strength
Average 14.4 MPa

Total length of wall divided by floor area
0.50

20

0.40

15

0.30

L/A

0.20

10

0.10
5

0.00
1

2

3

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

5

L/A= Length/ Area

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Final state of house

Efforts to improve Nonengineered housing

495

636

323
323
373 373

4 30 433

430
557

557

430
430

495

4 95

557

557
5 57

43 0

430

7

495

66

2

557 495 373
55
7 284
349
207
151 323

590

495

430

557
207
3 23

186

349

433

430
615

662

323

430

662

430
430

168

323

465
495

636

430
430 433

557
430

430
433

557

557

151

495

557

495

248

3
37 5254 30

557 495

4 33
433
349

662

557

7
55
557

5 57

557
557
323

615

615

557

557

557
557

323

557
557
557

323
3 23
495

430

433 495
323

323

430

2 84

235
1 07

143

430

349

323
3 23

433
433

465

400

465

349

465

430

4 95

495

465

349 207
5 25
168
636
5 90
349 123
86
525
2 07
433
465
66
2
284
323
323

557

1 86

433

4 95

433

495

495

2 35

284

3 49

4 30
557

465

662

590

4 65

590

557

590

495
323

4 65

323
557

433

8

495

433

590

433
495

207

590

9

349 557
24

207

662

430
34

248

495

32 3
61 5

615

662

186

151

123

6 62
662
3 73

323
433

4 33
4 33 323

465

151

662

400 302

151

207

465

590

590

433

590

349

4 95

5 90

495

495

0
59

430
430

636

636

207

433

4 65

6

349

123

590

18

302

495

4 39 207

5 57

430

143

590

430
5 90

7

6

590

323

590

4 95
55 7

63

55

6

400

123
168

5 57

6 36

323

373

207
495 430
5 57 430

430

151

495

6 36

636

430

4 30

63

123
349 207 495

465

207

143

557

373

4 00

0

5 57
430

123

4 95

123

349
4 00 400
248
248

433

557

5 90
6 36

636

207
168
525

186

349

207

107

284

207

207

590

6

2

2 35

123

557

662

30

349

32 3

123
24
8
43 0

495

465
430
465
433
465
6 36
323

5 57

323

3 02

63

6 36

430
590

168
123
433
615 433
207
349
168
557
3 23
373
430
248
465
662
284
349
433
433
349
323 433662
1 51
349 662
557
2 48
495
3 02
495
433
615
433

107

662

525

495

465
248

57 400

495

430

495

107

207

323

662

495

207

323

495

557

43

349
465

433

465

495

433

323

557

525

636

495

86

465

465

525

590

430
465

636

349
590

248
4 65 465
3 49

248

46 323
5

430

590

465

557

323

557

662

590

557

5 57

557 495

590

465

349
4 65

0
59

525

400

590

465
465

433

495
5

6 36

557

557

373

349

557
590

5

6 36

349

46

525

525

61

557

636

430

557
5 57

525 6
63

525 525

590
5 90

323
430

615

430

3 02
373
3 49
495 373430

495
590430615

615 465
465

465

525

465
235 52 5465 590

465

6

525

525
525

0

349

495

557

433

557

3 23

615

3 49

615
557

557

465

590 465

4 30

465
557

63

0

400

615
430
430
3 02
495 495
323
323
433
495
4 33
557
433 615 495
433
615
433
6 15
323
495
557
323
495
430
323
495
323
373

430

662

430

465

330

590

6 62

590

59

5 70

40
525

6 62

662

373

495

465
282
615
662

465

59034 9

465

349

557

557

465

349

557

373

433
7

465 495
557 557615

433373

323

495
55

525

557
525

495

495

465

400
400

433

433

400

5 57

495

557 495

495

61

430

433

0

615

590

4 33
577400

3 23

43

323

5

495

590

400
525

3

465

465

302

5 90
495

4 95

557
349

495
7
55

557

495

302

495

248

323

465

433

63

5 57

6

590

143

86

248

32

3

525

6 36 6 36

495

0

465

465

0

32

590

59

590

525

59

2001-2003
Construction Technology Development and Promotion
Program by MLIT, IDI, JAPAN in cooperation withCISMID

4 30

3 02

302

3

430

3 23
3 23

4 33

302

32

525
636

590

590

349

590

525

5 90

636

323

400

590

590

525

615

465
465
590
3 49
465 465

557
465

525

465

525

5

590

465 557

465

400

325

557

323

302

557

636

349

465

302

662

349

373

61

465

662

557

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 20104

Data sheet number

Data sheet number

20

5

1 68

4

495

3

207

2

3 23

1

Average thickness mortar
16 mm.

430

0

615

Thickness (mm)Average thickness of mortar between bricks
25

433

430
615

Drift
1/65

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

䋭 㪈㪏㪌 䋭C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNIProcedure for reinforce masonry walls

Use of wire mesh for reinforce masonry walls• Wire mesh
• Nails and wire
• Epoxy• Mortar• Tools• Put out the plaster• Reduce the wall
thickness
C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Procedure for reinforce masonry walls

Procedure for reinforce masonry walls• Fix the wire mesh (4”x4” with
4 mm.) with nails on both
directions each 50 cm. anduse the cracks for fix thewire.
Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI• Put mortar of
cement sandratio 1:4

• Final plaster

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Efforts to improve Nonengineered housing

Efforts to improve Nonengineered housing

Estera2004-2006
Dissemination of Seismic Adobe Houses by JICA, in cooperation with SENCICO(National Services of Training for the Construction Industry) and CIDAP, Peruvian NGO.

MaderaMuro de Adobe

Mortero Suelo Cemento
AlambreCostalillo

MaderaMuro de Adobe

Mortero Suelo Cemento
AlambreModel house in Cañete, no damage in 2007 Pisco earthquake

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Proposal for reinforce adobe walls on existing housing
Eng. Lucia Igarashi – Dr. Carlos Zavala

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

䋭 㪈㪏㪍 䋭C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNIManual for reinforce adobe
existing walls

Dynamic tests through shaking table
1/8 scale at CISMID-UNI LabNON REINFORCE

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Mud blocks

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

First layer

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Construction of the nonreinforce specimen

earth

WOOD+MATS REINFORCE

Construction of the reinforce
specimen

Finishing model

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Footing

Mats + wood

Reinforce

Increment of Section

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Efforts to improve Non engineered housing

Shacking Table Test on 1/8
specimens

CISMID/FIC/UNI - Laboratorio de Estructuras
Ensayo Cíclico en Muro ML-6 y ML-5

2

Esfuerzo de corte (kgf/cm )

0.60
0.40
0.20

-0.015-0.010-0.005

0.00
0.000
-0.20

0.005

0.010

0.015

-0.40
-0.60

NON REINFORCE

WOOD+MATS REINFORCE

Distorsión
ML-6

ML-5

Proposal for reinforce adobe walls on existing
Housing – JICA Project – Professor
Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

䋭 㪈㪏㪎 䋭C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Efforts to improve Nonengineered housing
Refuerzo Horizontal
Norte
Sur
Ortogonal
Caña
Caña partidaCaña partida
partida @@ 4 hiladas@ 4 hiladas
2 hiladas

ID

Tipo

MC-1,MC-2

C

ML-1, ML-2

L

Geomalla@ 4 hiladas

ML-3, ML-4

L

Geomalla@7 hiladas_

Geomalla@ 7 hiladas

ML-5, ML-6

L

_

_

_

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010_

Geomalla@ 4 hiladas

Refuerzo
VerticalMaterial

Cañas @
600 mmAdobe

ColumnetasdeConcreto
ColumnetasdeConcreto
Varillas de3/8”

CONCLUSIONS• Survey methodology was applied on 6
countries producing interesting data.
• Diverse documents has been developedfor improve the resistance of walls.
• CISMID proposal for masonry walls, andadobe walls are an alternative forcontribute to have a safer non engineeredhouse.

Adobe

Adobe

TapialC. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

Symposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

Thank youSulpaaGraciasSymposium on Non-engineered Houses
GRIPS – Tokyo 26th 2010

C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI䋭 㪈㪏㪏 䋭C. Zavala
CISMID-FIC-UNI

4.3 Report from Indonesia
Presented by Dyah Kusumastuti, Associate Professor, Institute of technology Bandung (ITB)䊋䊮䊄䊮Ꮏ⑼ᄢቇ ಎᢎ᝼ 䉻䉟䉝䊶䉪䉴䊙䉴䊁䊠䊁䉞

Introduction

Data Collection on
Non-Engineered Constructionin IndonesiazzzCase Study: Bandung, IndonesiazDyah Kusumastuti
Krishna S. PribadizzIndonesia has high seismic risk
Past earthquakes show that structural damages due to earthquake
caused many fatalities and economic losses
70 percents of buildings in Indonesia are non-engineered structures,
i.e. built traditionally with very little or no assistance from engineers,
Most buildings affected by earthquake are non-engineered
structures, including houses and public facilities
Occupancy rates for public facilities are highExperience shows that:z

Center for Disaster Mitigation
Institut Teknologi Bandung
Tokyo, 26 February 2010z

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

1

Good quality of non-engineered structures can survive earthquakewith little or no damage
Poor quality of non-engineered structures are vulnerable toearthquakes, and the occupants are susceptible to earthquake

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

2

Seismic Zonation of Indonesia(based on Seismic Risk Analysis)

Bandung

Jakarta

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

3

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

4

Change in building technology

Vulnerability is increasing in how people live…

Traditional house on stilts

Change of habitat style, inadequate building practices

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

New type of (inadequate) houses in masonry….

5

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

䋭 㪈㪏㪐 䋭Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

6Problems Found on
Non Engineered Structuresz

Problems mainly due to minimum reference to codes:
z
z
z
z

z

Problems Found on Non Engineered Structures

Poor detailing for joint,poor rebars and ties,
no seismic hooks

No/minimal verification of design adequacy
Structures are built by local masons/workers, using local
materials and traditional construction methods
Minimum supervisions during construction
Building permits may be issued without proper inspections

Poor detailing
Poor brick laying
4mm stirrups andlarge spacing,no seismic hook
Excessive water

z

z
z
z

Improper structural design (structural irregularities,
inadequate, structural elements, heavy masses for roofs or
facades)
Poor detailing
Wide variety of quality of materials
Wide variety of construction methods

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

7

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Damage on
Non Engineered Structures

z
z

z
z

z
z

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

9

z
z
z
z

z

z

Development of system for dissemination of building standards/codes
Publication of national standard of field manuals and guidelines for proper
design and construction for non-engineered structures
Installment of system for strict enforcement (regulations) for building construction
Introducing a common perception of damage level in educating the community
regarding buildings’ safety and earthquake vulnerability
Development of seismic risk map for Indonesia that considers local soil
characteristics and potential seismic sources
Development of appropriate building technology using local materials and local
construction techniqueszz

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

10

Project:z

Background:zzzz

Evaluation of existing structural conditions to improve safety against futureearthquake risk.
Conducting appropriate retrofitting strategy for structures with deficiencies andpoor quality
Buildings with high occupancy rates such as school buildings should havehigher priority for technical evaluation and possible retrofitting efforts

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

Data collection on non-engineered construction in developing
countries

Possible approach for existing structures:z

Improvement should consider building functions, occupancy,
and available resources
Different approach should be used for new buildings andexisting structures

Research Collaboration of
CDM ITB – GRIPS

Possible approach for new buildings:zMultidisciplinary aspects
Involve all parties in building construction
On national level

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Improving Performance of
Non-Engineered Structuresz

8

Structures should be built properly according to the building
codes/standards
Better understanding of earthquake hazard and structural
behavior due to earthquake
Efforts should be:zTokyo, 26 February 2010

Typical houses with façade and canopy adapted fromtraditional house concept

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

Improving Performance of
Non-Engineered Structureszz

Poor brick material

Typical problems on buildings:z

11

Many buildings were damaged due to recent earthquakes indeveloping countries
Damage on buildings caused casualties and economic losses
Most buildings in developing countries are non engineered
structures
Majority of damaged buildings are non engineered structures

Objectives:zz

To better understand the current situations and practices of the
non-engineered construction in developing countries
To develop appropriate technologies and policies to reduce thevulnerability of non engineered construction against earthquakes

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

䋭 㪈㪐㪇 䋭Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

12Location of the Surveyed
Construction Sites in Bandung

Field Survey (January – February 2010)zz

Location: Bandung City
Information on Bandung:zzzCapital of West Java Province
107º 36´ East and 6º 55´ SouthSouthern Bandung until the line of grade
crossing is relatively flat, while the northernpart is mountainous.

Consisted 30 districts (Kecamatan) 䋬 andthe population reached 2,390,120 persons(2008).
z Growth rate in the last five years is about
1.73%
z Average of local income of population peryear is IDR 26.3 million/USD 2,874 (2008)
z Potential hazards are earthquake, flood,
wind/storm, and landslidezTokyo, 25 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

13

Tokyo, 25 February 2010

Surveyed Construction Sitesz

Site 2

14

Building Regulationsz

Site 1

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in IndonesiazSite 3zz

Site 5Site 7Site 4z

Indonesia has a national building law (UU No.28/Th.2002)
No building code for non-engineered structures, but the national
government provided some guidelines of earthquake resistantconstruction for non-engineered building
Building law is mandatory for whole country, but implemented
through Government Regulations and/or other related laws
including Local Government Regulations.
Not all local governments in Indonesia have local regulation onbuilding construction.
In Bandung City, building regulation is mandatory by local
authority regulation and each building construction should havebuilding permit.
However, many building constructions in Bandung City were
found with no building permit.

Site 6
Tokyo, 26 February 2010
DK

DataData
Collection
on Non-Engineered
Constructionin Indonesia
Collection
on Non-Engineered
Constructionin Indonesia

15
15

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Reinforced Concrete with Infill Masonry Walls Building
z
z

z

z
z
z

z

Relies on the reinforced concrete columns and beams as themain load bearing structural elements.
Masonry infill walls will behave as strutting components when thelateral loads are applied.

Confined Masonry BuildingzRelies on masonry walls as the main load bearing structuralelements.
Confinement also contributes to maintain the integrity of the wall.
Confinement can be of various systems, such as practicalcolumns/beams, and iron wire mesh.
Most structures in Bandung are confined by reinforced concrete
practical columns/beams.

Unconfined Masonry Buildingzzz

Relies on the wall as the only load bearing structural elements.
No confinement or reinforcement used on this type of building.
Rarely found in Bandung area.

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

16

Survey Findings

Typical Non Engineered Structuresz

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia• The survey was conducted to study thecharacteristics of non engineered constructions
in Bandung, and to assess their vulnerability
against earthquake.
• The survey sites only consists of a very small
population (7 samples) of non engineeredbuildings in Bandung city. Therefore, the results
may not represent the typical conditions of nonengineered buildings in the area.
• All buildings surveyed were located at theflat/gentle slope area.
• The construction cost could not be estimatedbecause it depended on the availability of thebudget.
• Most buildings use simple equipments forconstruction.

17

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

䋭 㪈㪐㪈 䋭Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

18Survey Findings

General Problems• Improper detailings• Use of plain rebars as longitudinal rebars• No seismic hook on transverse reinforcements• Improper connections of buildings elements(orthogonal walls, column and walls, beams andcolumns)• Most craftmen do not have formal training on
building constructions and they obtained their skill
from practices/experiences.
• Many building owners and craftmen have limited
knowledge on proper construction methods, andthey do not consider earthquake as potential hazard.
• Guideline for non engineered structures is not welldisseminated.
• Some owners tend to lower the structural quality to
reduce the construction cost due to limited budget,
although craftmen may understand that the practice
is not appropriate.

• Fired brick wall is still the most popularmaterial for wall construction.
• The arrangement of bricks in unconfined
masonry was found to be better than in
confined masonry / reinforced concrete
frame with infill walls• Most buildings use sideways roof structure.
• The use of light steel truss for roof structure
is increasing.
• Few workers had some knowledge on
determining proper spacing of stirrups at
joint and midspan• Problems on connections and detailing

19

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Recommendations

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

20

SD Padasuka II• Guideline for non engineered
structures should be well disseminated,
and the implementation should be
enforced by regulation, i.e., building
permit.
• Workers should be educated on simple
earthquake resistant constructions to
produce good quality of building.
• Wall reinforcement should be explored
to strengthen wall elements and to
reduce the risk of damage due toearthquake.
• Considering the increasing use of lightsteel trusses, there is a need on
developing specific national codes forlight steel construction.
Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

Located in Kabupaten
Bandung, West Java, withmoderate seismic riskz High occupancy during the day
z

z
z

z

Building layoutzz

2 buildings, 4 rooms each

Structural systemz

21

400 students
School time: 7:00 – 17:00

Unconfined masonry structures

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

22

Typical Layout of SD Padasuka II

CDM ITB - UNCRD Collaboration
on Reducing Vulnerability of
School Children to EarthquakeData Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in IndonesiaSchool Earthquake Safety Initiative (SESI)
Background of project:

z

z
z

z



School buildings need to perform well under earthquake loads
Children are more vulnerable during the earthquake
School buildings may be used for emergency facilities in postearthquake recovery efforts, thus need to behave elastically underearthquake loading

z











7$ 03
$ .
'(3$ 1* ('<1* 























$











































&

&



* <'$ 1*%

Reducing vulnerability of school children to earthquakes
Reducing number of victims due to earthquakes
Preparing school communities/elements in facing earthquake disaster

%
5

.(3
$ /$ 
6(.2/$+$SD Cirateun Kulon II, Bandung
SD Padasuka II, Bandung

$







Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia


































'(1$ + * ('<1* 
6.$ /$ 








Tokyo, 26 February 2010






6.$ /$








Participants
z








Objectives of project:
z












z







z










z






z




z




Tokyo, 26 February 2010

23

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

䋭 㪈㪐㪉 䋭$Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia



24

Existing Condition of SD Padasuka II

Structural Surveyzzz

Similar structural system for both buildings
Unconfined masonry structures
Inadequate foundation system
z
z

z

z
z
z

z
z

z
z

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

25

Retrofitting Strategy of
SD Padasuka II

Poor connection of roof system and walls
Poor quality of roof truss members and connections
Roof was deformed on top chordnan

Damage on walls with cracks and gaps
Conclusions:zTokyo, 26 February 2010

Shallow foundation, no tie beam
Soil cover and support eroded on some parts

Inadequate roof system

Inadequate structural system to support lateral loads
Poor quality of materials and detailing
Need of finishing/cosmetic repair and improvement on sanitation
facility

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

Design of Retrofitting of SD Padasuka II'(7$,/.2/20
'* 1
3(5.<$ 7$ 1
.$ > $7
$1 @$ 0

Install columns with footings on cornerszInstall wire mesh for strengthening wall elementsz

Add double tie beams for better foundation system

7$03
$ .
'(3
$1
R
z
H

IH

H

L
N
P
R
H

KP
R
L
KH

PP
R
H
H

H
`
H


7$ 03
$ .
'(3
$1

3
zL
L

H

zL
IH




J


L
IH
z


J

L
H
Q
H
N
H

H
O

L

PR
H
z
zPO
H

7$ 03
$.
'(3
$ 1
6



Pz
L
R




zL
IH



J
L
IH
N
H
P
IL
R
PPN

zL
L

H


L
N
PR
H

KP
R
L
KH

PP

R
H
H

H
`
H

R
z
H

IH
H

/



KPKPN

H

IH
H

KPKPN

H

IH

H




Improvement for structures:z

Replacement of roof truss members and installing proper
detailing of roof truss systemsz

Repair of nonstructural elements, e.g. doors, windows, andceilings

z





KPKPN

H

IH
H

R
z
H

IH
H

z

'(1$ +



'(1$ +

3
zL

L

H

zL
IH




J

L
IH
z


J

L
H
Q
H
N
H

H
O
L

P
R
H
z
zPO
H

7$ 03
$.
' (3
$1
H

H









.$> $7
$1@$0
¾





_


',
3
$6$1 * 
3
'
6(7,
$3

%$* ,
$ 1
.2/20
%$7<
%$7$
@$1* 
',
,
.$7
'*1
.$> $7
3'.(' <$6,6,

.$ > $ 7
$@$0.$> $7
$1@$0
¾





_


',
3
$ 6$ 1* 
3'
6(7,
$3

%$* ,
$1
R
z

IH


IH
H

@$1 * ',,.$ 7' * 1
.$ > $7
3'.('<$
6,6,

.$ > $ 7
$@$0





z



Retrofitting strategy






z

26

Repair of sanitary facilities



7$ 03
$ .
'(3
$1







L
N
PR
H

KP

R
L
KH

P
P
R
H
H


H
`
H

.$ > $7
$ 1@$0
¾





_


R
z
H

IH

H ',3$6$ 1* 
3
'
6(7,
$3

%$* ,
$1




/



Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

27

Tokyo, 26 February 2010











.2/20
%$7$ 
@$ 1* ',,.$ 7'* 1 
.$ > $7
3'.(' <$ 6,6,.$> $ 7
$ @$0

.$> $7
$1 @$0
¾





_


',
3
$6$ 1* 3'
6(7,$3%$* ,$1.2/20
%$7$ 
@$1 * 
',
,
.$7
'*1
.$> $7
3'.(' <$ 6,6,.$> $ 7
$ @$0

3
(563
(.7,
)




Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

28

Design of Retrofitting of SD Padasuka II

Design of Retrofitting of SD Padasuka II
L

R
H
H

IL






'(1$ +

L

R
H
H

IL


R
H
H

H
`
H






/$ 17$ ,

%







%

&

$

7$ 03
$ .
6$ 03
,
1* 
',
1',
1* 
'* 1
3
(5.<$ 7$ 1
.$ > $ 7
$ 1 @$ 0',$ * 21$ //$ 1 7$ ,

%




&

R
H
H

H
`
H

KP
H
N
H
z
H
KH

L

L
H

KL
N
H

R
H
H

H
`
H

R
z


L
N
H
Q
H
KP
M
M
L


H
N
H


R
H
H

H
`
H


P
KH
R

L
R



















R
H
H

H
`
H





%

$

7$ 03
$ .
6$ 03
,
1* 
',
1',
1* 
@$ 1* 7(5'$ 3$ 7-(1'(/$ $ 6'(1* $ 1
3(5.<$ 7$ 1
.$ > $ 7
$ 1@$ 0'(7$ ,/7</$ 1* $ 1
¾







¾




¾



IH
H

¾

¾



¾

IH

H
6L
P

IH
H

KPR
L

R

L
KH
zH

PP


J

%

&


¾

¾




¾

¾



%

P
P



J


'


¾


¾

&

¾




¾

¾




¾


¾

¾




¾

¾




¾

'

'(1$ +  
32721* $ 13
(5.<$ 7$ 1
',
1',
1* 
%$ > $ +












¾



¾






¾

¾

¾









¾



3
21 '$ 6,
%$ 7<
.$ /,

',
%2%2.

¾

¾







¾






¾






¾




6L
P
IH
H

KPR
L

R

L
KH
zH

PP



J
R
L

KP
H

KP
N
H
P

H
K
R
H



L
L




H
P





Tokyo, 26 February 2010

3
(5.<$Collection
7$ 1
63
(on
6,

',
1',
1* 
%$ 7$Construction

'$ 1
3
/(67(
5$ 1
Data
Non-Engineeredin Indonesia
&H
H
H



zL

L

H

Q

N
H

L
N
N
H
R
H

H
K
R
H



L
L




H
P




3
2721* $ 1
% 3
2721* $ 1&29Tokyo, 26 February 2010

䋭 㪈㪐㪊 䋭


3
2721* $ 1

'










'(7$ ,/7</$ 1* $ 1

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

30Implementation of Retrofitting of SD Padasuka II

Building Performance during
West Java Earthquake

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

32

Performance of School Buildingin Soreang

Performance of SD Padasuka II

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Tokyo, 26 February 201031

33

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

34

Building Performance during
West Java Earthquake
z
z
z

z

Damage were non structural and required finishing/cosmetic
repairMinor cracks were found near openings and connections toplafond
Damage on the buildings were less severe compared to otherbuildings in the area with similar existing conditions
Considering the condition prior to retrofitting projects, thestructural repair was successful in improving structural
performance against earthquake loads

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

THANK YOU

35

Tokyo, 26 February 2010

䋭 㪈㪐㪋 䋭Data Collection on Non-Engineered Construction in Indonesia

364.4 Report from India
Presented by Nitin Verma, Senior Programme Officer, SEEDS䉲䊷䉵 䉲䊆䉝䊒䊨䉫䊤䊛䉥䊐䉞䉰䊷 䊆䊁䉞䊮䊶䊯䉜䊦䊙“Vulnerability of
Non-Engineered Buildings and Efforts
to Make them Safer in India”“Vulnerability of
Non-Engineered Buildings andEfforts to Make them Safer inIndia”•••

Presentation By:
SEEDS Technical Services, India

•

•
•
•
•

General Conditions of Buildings inIndia
Findings from the Field Survey
Efforts to tackle these Non-Engineeredhouses for structural improvement
Based on the Outcome of the Survey It
would be necessary to ….

General Conditions of Buildings inIndia
Findings from the Field Survey
Efforts to tackle these Non-Engineeredhouses for structural improvement
Based on the Outcome of the Survey It
would be necessary to ….

In India an overwhelming majority of buildings are
Non-Engineered.

In Contemporary buildings one finds a mix of traditional andnew materials / technology such as cement and concrete.

In India an overwhelming majority of buildings
are Non-Engineered.

On the contrary In India…….

Baring exceptions a majority of these structures
have no engineering input and the people whobuild them have no formal technical knowledgeof construction.
For various reasons most of these buildings havenot been built to withstand the forces of anearthquake.

Traditional Constructions especially houses, have been
built using locally available materials and prevailingpractices.
These buildings incorporate sensibilities being
promoted as good practices for safety of the building
against seismic activity.

䋭 㪈㪐㪌 䋭

Findings from the survey…
••••

General Conditions of Buildings inIndia
Findings from the Field Survey
Efforts to tackle these Non-Engineeredhouses for structural improvement
Based on the Outcome of the Survey It
would be necessary to ….

Selection of 5 sites for sample survey included selection on basis ofpractices and varied construction technologies

Sample Sites

Category

1.

2.

Balasore

Dehradun Barmer

Traditional

Contempor Traditionall Contempor Traditionalaryy adapted ary

Construction August
Period2008 toDec 2008
Project
Owner
Delivery
appointed
Method1995

3.

Jan - July
2007

4.

5.

Portblair

Shimlacomplete 1990
d Jan 2008

PublicCommunit Trust
departme y Driven
owned
nt (Govt.) construction

PrivateShimlaDehradunFindings from the Survey……Building Codes• In India there is big gap between knowledge
and practice.
• Building Codes (NBC) and Regulations(BIS)exist but are not enforced.
• Barring few local bodies in urban areas noagency is responsible for its enforcement
especially in rural parts• Now Guidelines have been issued forconstruction of Non-engineered buildings by
NDMA.

BarmerBalasore

Port Blair

Dehradun School Building

Findings from the Survey……Building facts• In traditional construction (and traditionallyadaptive buildings) the storey height iscontrolled by limiting walls height to thickness
ratio.
• All the buildings surveyed had small opening
against high wall area to display the fact thatcare has been taken in design of structures forseismic resistance.

䋭 㪈㪐㪍 䋭Balasore Residence
Dehradun School Building

Findings from the Survey……Building facts

The roof structure of the sloping roofs needs its
integrity through bracing and proper connectivity
with the walls. Such integrity is automaticallyprovided by reinforced concrete slabs whereverused for floors and the roof.

Connections; though not with RCC bands but with wooden
members were located in buildings in higher seismic risk
regions and built with traditional practices.

Findings from the Survey……Work Force•••• All mason teams who have worked on theseprojects have learnt these skills traditionallyand were not exposed to any formal trainingor certification programme.
• The fact is that communities depend on thesemasons for technical advices and decides
against calling an engineer or an architect.

•

Efforts to tackle these Non-Engineered
Buildings for Structural Improvement•••• Structural Retrofitting• Strict Adherence to building codes in all future
constructions• Mason Certification programme•䋭 㪈㪐㪎 䋭General Conditions of Buildings in India
Findings from the Field Survey
Efforts to tackle these Non-Engineeredhouses for structural improvement
Based on the Outcome of the Survey It
would be necessary to ….

General Conditions of Buildings in India
Findings from the Field Survey
Efforts to tackle these Non-Engineeredhouses for structural improvement
Based on the Outcome of the Survey It
would be necessary to ….

Based on the Outcome of the survey
It would be necessary to…….
•••

Noted the major deficiencies indicating noncompliance with Codal provisions.
The house owner may need to be sensitized withthe kind of damage to which his building may besubjected.
Those deficiencies will need to be considered for
upgrading the seismic safety by retrofitting thebuilding suitably to prevent total or partial
collapse of in future.

䋭 㪈㪐㪏 䋭

4.5 Report from Nepal
Hima Shrestha, Senior Structural Engineer, National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET)䊈䊌䊷䊦࿾㔡Ꮏቇදળ䋨NSET䋩 ᭴ㅧኾ㐷ኅ 䊍䊙䊶䉲䊠䊧䉴䉺

Study of Non-Engineered
Buildings in Nepal

NonNon-Engineered Building Types in Nepal• Prevalent Building Types in Nepal-Unreinforced masonry buildings mostly inInternational Symposium on”
More Resilient Non-engineered
Houses for Earthquake Disaster
Reduction

semi urban and rural areas-Brick in cement in hilly and plain region andStone in cement/mud in mountainous region-More than 60% of the buildings are of thesetypes (NSET,JICA 2001, Study on
Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in
Kathmandu Valley)-RC buildings with brick masonry infill in urban
and semi urban areas

Hima Shrestha
National Society for Earthquake
Technology-Nepal(NSET)
26th Feb 2010, Tokyo, Japan-Non-engineered / Owner built-Haphazard construction-Urbanization and hike in land price-Rise in building heightSources of Earthquake Risk in Kathmandu (source:
GESI)

Outcomes on Study of NonNon-Engineered
Brick Masonry Buildings in Nepal
Location of survey area
• Three districts of Kathmandu
Valley-Kathmandu-Lalitpur-Bhaktapur
2 types of brick masonrybuildings prevails in Nepal-Brick in cement masonry-RC frame with brick infill

Primary Hazard
SecondaryHazards{{

Lack ofPreparedness /Capabilities

Characteristics of RC Buildings with brickmasonry infill

Characteristics of Selected Brick Masonry
Construction• Unreinforced Masonry• Mostly built by local masons andcraftsmen• With no consideration for earthquake
Typical structural details of selectedbuildings• Rapidly growing in Urban and Semi Urban
region, Informal Construction• Light frame irrespective to height• Poor ductile detailing• High seismic vulnerability/Experience fromrecent earthquakes-230mm wall thick-cement mortar-Thickness of mortar layer-19mm-Compressive strength of local bricks=6-10
MPa-RC slab of 100mm thick-Brick on edge over door/window-No bands, vertical reinforcement andcorner stitches

Typical structural details of selected buildings-Column size 230 X 230 mm with 6 nos ofvertical bar and 8 mm dia stirrup @ 150200 mm spacing-Beam size 230 X 325 mm-Slab thickness = 100mm-Grade of steel = 415 tor or 500, 550 TMT-Concerte mix =1:2:4, Water poured frompipe
-Thickness of brick infill 230mm

䋭 㪈㪐㪐 䋭

Laboratory Experimental Test

Typical Deficiencies (Masonry Buildings)
•
•
•
•
•

Probable Damage to Masonry buildings

Lack of integrity between walls
Lack of roof anchorage to wall
Lack of strength/Lack of ductility
Long unsupported walls
Door/Window opening attached to wall
junction

National Building Code Requirement

t

TAEC
NSET

Typical Deficiencies (RC Buildings withmasonry infill)
•
•
•
•
•
•

Probable Damage to RC buildings with brick
infillInsufficient size of structural elements
Lack of ductility/Improper detailing of steel
bars
Weak columns and strong beams
Open ground floor
Lack of connectivity between frame andbrick infill
Large Window openings

Reinforcement lapping at thesame location and too small lap
length.

䋭 㪉㪇㪇 䋭

National Building Code Requirement

Why Vulnerable Buildings???
• Out of 75 districts Building Code is Mandatory only in 6
districts• Building Code prevails but not practically implemented• Lack of Awareness in community• Lack of Ignorance because the last big earthquake
was 76 years back• Lack of monitoring from Government Agencies/Lack ofresources• Lack of capacity of Technicians/Engineers• Knowledge gap between academic researchers andend users

Focus on Proper
Configuration and Detailing

NSET Activities on Earthquake Risk
Management• Earthquake
orientationtocommunity/variousorganizations for awareness raising• Earthquake Safety day celebration• Mason Training• Engineer /Overseer Training• School Earthquake Safety Programme• Constructionofearthquake
resistantbuildings/Retrofitting of buildings• Free consultation every Friday for the general public• Earthquake mobile clinic

Intervention Options
Suitable strengthening
measures for nonengineered buildings in
Nepal• Splint and Bandage• Reinforced Concrete Walljacketing• GI Wire Mesh WalljacketingConclusions• Highly vulnerable building stock to impending
earthquake• New constructions at least should meet the building
standard• Strengthening of existing structures necessary to reduce
the existing high vulnerability• Challenge for the government, NGO’s and INGO’s andother stakeholders working for earthquake risk reduction• Strategic approach has to be taken to make it practicallyfeasible in developing countries like Nepal.

䋭 㪉㪇㪈 䋭Reasons- Most economic out ofvarious available
methods- Practically feasible- Local materials andmanpower can be used
- Most widely used as
viable methods

4.6 Report from Pakistan
Presented by Najib Ahmad, Project Manager, Preston University䊒䊧䉴䊃䊮ᄢቇ 䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃䊙䊈䉳䊞䊷 䊅䉳䊑䊶䉝䊷䊜䊄

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON “MORE
RESILIENT NON-ENGINEERED HOUSES FOR
EARTHQUAKE DISASTER REDUCTION”“VULNERABILITY OF NON-ENGINEEREDHOUSES AND EFFORTS TO MAKE THEM
SAFER IN PAKISTAN”
DR. KENJI Okazaki – GRIPS, Japan
Engr. Najib AHMAD - DRI – Preston University,

Field Help by

February 26, 2010

MR. GHULAM ABBAS, ETSSR Centre, Pakistan.
Engineering Staff – DESIGNMEN
Engr. Akash Shahzad Khan
Engr. Asjid Ali

National Graduate Institute for Policy
Studies, (GRIPS) Tokyo

Engr. Shahid Amin
Engr. Muhammad Khurshid

1.0 Introduction¾ In most deaths caused byearthquake, people are
killed by their own houses.
¾ Majorityof the world
population in developing
countries lives in their nonengineered abode, whicharevulnerable
toearthquake, and otherdisasters.
non-engineered
multi-storey structures inburnt clay brick houses in
Yemen (see photograph).

¾

The non-engineered houses in seismic zones are
responsible for deaths upto (85%) of total casualties
in an earthquake.

¾

This latest research, which has been initiated jointly
by National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies(GRIPS) and Building Research Institute (BRI) on
non-engineered buildings, which is initiated in six
selected developing countries i.e. Peru, Indonesia,
India, Nepal, Pakistan and Turkey.

¾

We are here to share the results of the survey toimprove the safety of the non-engineered buildings.

¾ Typical

2.0

Typical buildings and multistorey structures in burnt
clay bricks

Location and Features of Study Areas¾ A

study of typical non-engineered house
construction in Pakistan in two areas.

¾

To clearly appreciate and see, if different types ofmaterials are being used in different areas.

¾

Both areas are 100 – 150 KM apart and havedifferent types of soil conditions.

¾

One area is in North (near Islamabad) has analtitude of 1500 – 1800 feet (500 – 600 m.) from sea
level, and seismically is in higher zone.

¾

Topographically it is a plateau and has stones, claystone and gravely surface with ground water quite
deep.

¾

The second area is in plains of Punjab, wheregenerally the level is around 300 feet (100 m.) frommean sea level. The soil is mostly sand, silt andclay..

¾ The research survey was conducted in central

part of Pakistan where more than 60% of thetotal population resides.
¾ ThisCentralpart
canbedividedtopographically into two regions i.e. Potohar
Plateau and Plains of Punjab.

䋭 㪉㪇㪉 䋭Group-1
Group-2¾¾¾

The location of 6 sites (GRIPS 1 TO GRIPS-6) within
the two areas are grouped as described below:

The materials for manufacture of burnt bricks aredifferent in both areas, similarly the sand being
used in mortar/plaster both areas are from quite
different source and constituents.

GROUP-1
i. Grips 1, 5 & 6

The sand in north is mostly clear, particle size islarger, with smaller amount of clayey silt. The
aggregate is also different, resulting in different
strengths of concrete, with same volumetricratios.

GROUP-2
ii. Grips 2, 3 & 4

1. Potohar Plateau - Lawrancepur Sand
2. Plains of Punjab - Chenab Sand/Ravi Sand

3.0 General Condition of Non-engineered
Houses in Pakistan

Description of Site Responsibility
Project Site

Site Survey
Date

SurveyConducted By- Plains of Punjab (Hafizabad)

The soil types and available sands used in mortar
are:Three typical houses were taken in each area,with a view to have a better understanding of
construction being done in Pakistan.

Table of Duties

Sr. No.

- Potohar Plateau

Engr. Asjad Ali

Engr. Shahid
Amin Khan

Engr. Akash
Shahzad Khan

Engr.
Khursheed¾ Non-engineered houses, are vulnerable to any
natural phenomenon like floods, tsunami, fire,
mud slides etc., which can lead to a disaster, but
earthquake are most important, as they are
responsible for loss of lives in much greaternumber in a disaster.

1.

GRIPS Site 01

24 – 12 – 09

Engr. Asjad Engr.
ShahidEngr. Akash

SamplePreparation andPhotography

SamplePreparation anddata collection

Data Collection
and Photography

N/A

2.

GRIPS Site 02

30 – 12 – 09

Engr. Asjad
Engr. Akash

Site Selection andsamplePreparation

Data Collection
and Photography

N/A

N/A

3.

GRIPS Site 03

31 – 12 – 09

Engr. Asjad
Engr. Akash
Engr. Khursheed

Data Collection
and Photography

N/A

SamplePreparation

SamplePreparation

4.

GRIPS Site 04

01 – 01 – 10

Engr. Asjad
Engr. Akash
Engr. Khursheed

N/A

Data Collection,
Photography

N/A

SamplePreparation

5.

GRIPS Site 05

13 – 01 – 10

Engr. Asjad
Engr. Akash
Engr. Khursheed

Data Collection
and Photography

N/A

SamplePreparation andPhotography

SamplePreparation

6.

GRIPS Site 06

14 – 01 – 10

Engr. Khursheed
Engr. Shahid

N/A

SamplePreparation andPhotography

N/A

Data Collectionand Sample
Preparation䋭 㪉㪇㪊 䋭

¾ The vulnerability of these non-engineered housestructures in Pakistan can be due to manyreasons, the important ones are listed below; forthe typical (most common) non-engineered housestructure, which is made of burnt clay bricks;

(Some Photographs of Non-engineered structures)¾ Low quality of bricks.
¾ Bricks

not layed in proper
systematic manner. Whenbricks are laid in mortar in aproper systematic manner,
they form a homogenous mass,
which can withstand lateraland vertical forces without
disintegration.
¾ Useof low cement-sandmortar ratio or use of mud
mortar.
¾ Large sizes of rooms, wherethestructure
doesn’t
behave/act as a ‘box” or inother words the “shoe box
effect” is lost due to abnormal
sizes
and
unsysmetricgeometry (See Fig .)¾

Similarly, other factors in structural elements likeoverhangs, small dia “verandah” columns madeup of pipes which are vulnerable and can cause
damage in an earthquake.

¾

Abnormal height of rooms should be avoided.

¾

Though RCC slab helps in certain level ofstability, but it was seen that it caused much
more damage, was responsible for deaths ofchildren in schools (8th October, 2005
earthquake).

¾

Therefore, lighter wooden/steel roof should be
used.
Samples under preparation of project site.

4.0

1. Box Structure

2. Unsafe _______

Non-engineered house with columns in Verandah

Current Situation “Field Survey Result”¾

As indicated above 6 projects were under taken
within the parameter of survey developed by theCenterfor
Disaster
Mitigation-InstituteTechnology
Bandung,Indonesia,
incollaboration with GRIPS, Tokyo, Japan.

¾

The Data sheets, are used to collect and record
the basic data on the non-engineered buildings,
which includes the structural safety, construction
work, quality of construction materials, current(technical) requirements pertinent to nonengineered structures, etc. consisting ofquantitative as well as qualitative data.

¾ The data on typical mortar being used for bricklaying and plaster was collected and mortar cubes
were got tested from standard laboratory of aEngineering University near Islamabad. Similarly,
the concrete samples for quality of concrete being
used in roof slabs was also collected and samples
got tested.
¾ Slump tests were made for each site, for fresh
concrete when concrete slabs were poured. The
results of slumps were recorded and noted (seeTable 1.2).

䋭 㪉㪇㪋 䋭

Table 1.2¾¾

Similarly, relevant features of each project site
was recorded for location of the house (sitecondition), Characteristics and types of hazards,
soil type and condition, design intervention etc.

Sr. No.

Project Site

Slump (mm)1.

GRIPS Site 01--------

2.

GRIPS Site 02

150

3.

GRIPS Site 03

Collapse

4.

GRIPS Site 04

102

5.

GRIPS Site 05

205

6.

GRIPS Site 06

101

A summary of the test results on different
construction materials obtained, is presented
below (See Table 1.3).

SUMMARY OF TEST RESULT FOR DATA SHEET

Summary of Test Results for Data Sheets
Sr.
No.

Basic Data on Non – Engineered Buildings

Project Site

Compressive
Strength ofConcrete (Mpa)*
14
DAYS

Conducted & Prepared By :

28
DAYS

Compressive
Strength of Mortar(Mpa)a14 DAYS

Crushing
Strength of
Bricks(Mpa)*

TensileStrength ofReinforcement (Mpa)*(Bar
No.)

28
DAYS

GROUP-1

DESIGNMEN Consulting Engineers (Pvt) Ltd.
ETSSR CENTRE.

1.

Grips Site 01

-----

-----

4

4.45

9

562(#2),570(#3)

5

Grips Site 05

14

17.5

10

12.5

9

462(#4)

6

Grips Site 06

20

25

11

13.75

10

460(#4)

GROUP - 2

Tests Conducted at:
University of Engineering & Technology, Taxila,
Pakistan.

2

Grips Site 02

15

18.75

7

8.75

9

347(#3),390(#6)3

Grips Site 03

11

13.75

2**

4

4

318(#2),401(#4)

4

Grips Site 04

9

11.25

2**

4

10

318(#2),401(#4)*Rounded up to the next whole number.
** Compressive strength of mortar cube tested at 7 days.

Sr. No.

Project Site

Mix Ratio

Mix Ratio

Mix Ratioof Concreteof Mortarof Plaster

Group 1

1

Grips Site - 01

1:2:4

1:6

1:4

5

Grips Site - 05

1:2:4

1:5

1:3

6

Grips Site - 06

1:2:4

1:5

1:4

5

Grips Site - 05

13-01-10

01-02-1014

6

Grips Site - 06

14-01-10

01-02-10

14

Group 2
2

Grips Site - 02

30-12-09

16-01-10143

Grips Site - 03**31-12-09

16-01-10144

Grips Site - 04**

01-01-10

16-01-10

14

Group 2
2

Grips Site - 02

1:2:4

1:6

1:4

3

Grips Site - 03

1:2:4

1:4

1:4

4

Grips Site - 04

1:2:4

1:4

Cast Date
Sr. No.

Project Site

1:4
Difference* Reported to the nearest number of(Days)*

days as specified by codes.
** Compressive Strength of mortar
cubes measured at 7 days.

Test Dateof Test Samples
Group 1

1

Grips Site - 01

24-12-09

16-01-1021

䋭 㪉㪇㪌 䋭5.0

Mix – Ratios

Comparison of Data

The strength of mortar/plaster and concrete in thesamples from Group-1 is better than that of Group-2
because of the possible variation of aggregates usedas the aggregates found in the Potohar area arestronger than the river aggregate being used in plains.
They have also better shape factor like less flaky etc.
¾ The quality of both the sands is different that isprobably another reason for better strength obtainedin GROUP-1, sample tests as compared to Group-2
result of mortar and concrete.
¾ The low strength of mortar used at site 1 is quite loweven when taken at 28 – days possibly due to thereason that the mix ratio reported by the contractor
was incorrect.
¾

The mix ratio of concrete by volume at all sites
was reported to be 1:2:4, i.e.;¾ 1 part of cement.
¾ 2 parts of fine aggregates.
¾ 4 parts of coarse aggregates.
¾ Similarly for mortar and plaster the ratio ranges
from 1:4 to 1:6, i.e.,¾ 1 part of cement.
¾ 4/6 parts of sand.
¾ Where the above quantities are measured byvolume¾¾¾The steel reinforcement being used in the plain
areas of Group-2 are of much lower strength dueto the fact that the bars are not being rolledaccording to the standard specifications. Most of
the bars tested were under weight (Figure).

¾

Bricks of the both area are of almost the same
strength although the quality and strength is much
lower as compared to the bricks being used in thehouses where proper engineering design ininvolved.

¾

Another factor, which is not taken but people
should be made aware of is curing. Even with low
cement-sand ratio, better results are expected due
to curing, and therefore, this should beemphasized. Water cement ratio may have also
played some part in strength variation.

¾

No particular quality control system was found on
the construction sites.

The percentage elongation of the steel samples in
the Group – 2 showed a higher value than that ofGroup – 1 probably due to the same reason
described above.

6.0

Efforts To Make Them Safer¾ Efforts are afoot, after the great Northern Pakistan

earthquake of 8th October, 2005 for improvement inconstruction of safer houses.
¾ The improvement in “risk perception” in general of

the people and the resulting desire to have safer
houses is leading people to ask question, about
safety of their houses and buildings.
¾ Training to masons & contractors by UNDP, JICA,

BRI etc. have contributed towards efforts toimprove construction in earthquake prone areas.

䋭 㪉㪇㪍 䋭7.0 Necessary Steps for Improvement/ Retrofittingthese buildings in Pakistan.

¾ Efforts

made to improve the minimum design
standards which are applied without generalintervention of the engineers (by different
development authorities in some cities).

¾

As anticipated and is quite obvious housestructures vulnerable to earthquake require to be
designed properly or in case of non-engineered
construction, some minimum parameters to betaught to the master masons, which can reducethe vulnerability of these houses.

¾

The minimum parameters should be such thatthey can be followed easily, without engineeringintervention and provide resistance for a certain
level of earthquake.

¾ Awarenessto improve construction techniques ofbricks to have proper bonds to ensure the greatest
possible interlocking for longitudinal and lateralstrength of structure.

¾ Awarenessto Introduce confined masonry concept
with columns and plinth beams, seismic based etc.
this is the most simple and direct technique, which is
gaining some respect. Some literature in this respect
has been prepared by ERRA & UN HABITATE.

¾

For the existing structures, vulnerability reduction
can be achieved by using some “minimum amountof Retrofitting, like strengthening of corners or
strengthening of “verandah etc”., where support isbeing provided through very vulnerable columns.

¾

Another way can be by use of Light Weight roof,
instead of heavy RCC slabs, which can causemuch damage. This is being some what followed
now in public buildings (engineered) but still the
local house construction requires some minimum
rules.

¾

Still much has to be done and awarenessinculcated in the people for improvement inconstruction of non-engineered houses.

8. Photographs of the Typical NonNonEngineered Building Sites

THANK YOU䋭 㪉㪇㪎 䋭

4.7 Report from Turkey
Presented by Alper Ilki, Associate Professor, Vice Head of Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul
Technical University /䉟䉴䉺䊮䊑䊷䊦Ꮏ⑼ᄢቇ ࿯ᧁᎿቇ⑼೽㐳 ಎᢎ᝼ 䉝䊦䊌䊷䊶䉟䊦䉨

Introduction
Istanbul is the heart of Turkey
Population: 13 000 000 (Turkey ~ 70 000 000)
Probability of M>7 EQ in few decades is over 50%
Foreseen death toll is around 75 000
Heavily injured around 120 000

Mustafa Comert
Alper Ilki
Photo:Ara Güler

Seismic risk map of Turkey

Introduction
Poor construction (existing buildings); RC, Masonry
All > NONENGINEERED (PARTIALLY-ENGINEERED?)

New buildings; RC, much better quality after 1999 Eqs
No new masonry buildings
Deprem aratrma dairesi

76% of existing buildings RC + so-called RC
22% of existing buildings unreinforced masonry

Locations of the buildings

Buildings

2, 15 and 35 in Yenikapi

Wide openings
Vertical discontinuities
Existing damages
Wall removals
Story addition
Non-orthogonal
6-1 and 13 in Uskudar

EuropeUskudar
Building 6-1and 13

Sirkeci
Building 61, 69 and 97
Yenikapi
Building 2, 15 and 35

Asia

All 8 buildings are in the first level EQ zone
61, 69 and 97 in Sirkeci

䋭 㪉㪇㪏 䋭Structural load
bearings

Non-bearing
partitions

Roof structurematerials

Foundations
Strip stone
masonry

Building 15

Fired Brick Walls

Fired Brick Walls

Reinforced
concrete slab andwooden truss

Building 35

Fired brick andhollow brick walls
Fired Brick Walls
and reinforced
concrete columns

Reinforced
concrete slab andwooden truss

Strip stone
masonry

Building 2

Fired Brick Walls

Fired Brick Walls

Reinforced
concrete slab

Strip stone
masonry

WoodenReinforced
concrete slab andwooden truss

Yenikapi

Building 61

Fired brick andhollow brick walls

Sirkeci

Strip stone
masonry
Strip stone
masonry
Strip stone
masonry

Building 69

Fired Brick Walls

Fired Brick Walls

Steel truss

Building 97

Fired Brick Walls

Fired Brick Walls

Brick vault

Building
6-1

Fired Brick Walls

Fired Brick Walls

Reinforced
concrete slab andwooden truss

Strip stone
masonry

Building 13

Fired brick andFired Brick Walls
hollow brick walls

Reinforced
concrete slab andwooden truss

Strip stone
masonry

Brick vaults supported by one-way steel
members, I140 or I160.

UskudarBoth mortar and bricks are poor

Yenikapi

Building 15
Building 35
Building 2

Regional average
Sirkeci

Building 61
Building 69
Building 97

Regional average
Building 6-1
Uskudar
Building 13
Regional average
City average
City standard deviation

Average compressive
strength of brickmortar prisms (MPa)
1.10
4.10
1.20
2.13
1.70
4.20
2.50
2.42
4.20
1.70
2.53
2.59
1.37

Comparison of several characteristics with code
requirements

Comparison of several characteristics with code
requirements

Ratio of minimum wall lengths to floor area in comparison with code limits

Dominant quantitative problems• i) generally the heights of the buildings are
remarkably higher than permitted,• ii) the irregularity of the structural system;
generally strong in one direction and weak in
the other,• iii) insufficient wall lengths, less than 20% of
the floor area,• iv) large openings of certain walls reaching up
to approximately 80% for some buildings.

Maximum wall opening ratios in comparison with code limits䋭 㪉㪇㪐 䋭

Seismic risk map of regions

Denizli Typical house type

Deprem aratrma dairesi

wowturkey.com

Wooden horizantalring beams

Typical floor plans

Entrance

Typical wall details

1st Storey

Buildings are generally two stories

Tokat-Typical house type

Negative factors of this regions buildings• Irregularity on vertical arrangements of windows• Windows and doors are too close to corner of walls• Irregular wall bonding (continuity of vertical mortar
layer)• Mud mortar (less adhesive effect)• Thin or unsupported walls• Less shear effects in one direction (Because of one
way wooden slab beams)• Weak connections at the corners• Irregularity of structural load bearing system in plan

www.turkiye-resimleri.com

䋭 㪉㪈㪇 䋭

Timber structures

Typical floor plans

1st Storey

Entrance
Entrance

Buildings are generally twostories•Wooden frame is main load
bearing system•Adobe is used as infill materials

1st Storey

Erzurum-Typical house type

Negative factors of this regions buildings•Generally 1st storey load bearing walls has 40
cm – 70 cm offset in two side of buildingswww.erzurumgazetesi.com.tr• Plan irregularity
problem

is

the

most

encounteredwww.netresim.net•One side of the buildings are attached to one
side of the next building•Most of this regional buildings were constructed
as attached to next building

Typical floor plans

Negative factors of this regions buildings• Generally 1st storey load bearing walls has 50 cm – 150
cm offset in two side of buildings• Plan irregularity•Soil roof (high weight contrubition during seismic event)•Big openings because of windows of doors•Irregular shear strength and out-of-plane stability of walls
because of one way wooden slab beams

Buildings are generally two stories䋭 㪉㪈㪈 䋭

Bitlis-Typical house type

Typical floor plans

Entrance
1st Storey
1stStoreyEntrance

Buildings are generally two stories

Negative factors of this regions buildings

Comparison of the regional materials
Structural load
bearings•The region is on the high slope•Soil roof (High weight contrubiton
during seismic events)•Generally, high ratio of wall openings
are encountered at living room walls

MortarFoundations

Windows
andStaircases
doors

Stone walls andWoodenhalf timber
Thatched
beams + soil
frames with
mud
roofs
adobe infills

Strip stone
masonry

WoodenWoodenThatched
mud andlime
mortarStrip stone
masonry

WoodenWoodenStrip stone
masonry

WoodenWoodenStrip stone
masonry

WoodenWoodenNon-bearing
partitions

Bitlis

Uniform ashler
stone walls

Erzurum

Corners andsome parts ofexterior walls
are ashler
stone walls
and the others
are random
rubble walls

Adobe walls

Tokat

Half timber
frames with
adobe infill
walls

Adobe walls

Denizli

Variable sizestone Walls

Stone andwooden walls

Roof structurematerials

Woodenbeams + soil
roofs

Wooden slabs
and wooden
Thatched
beams +
mudtraditional tileroofs
Wooden andwoodenMudbeams + tileroofs

Typical problems and strengthening concepts

Typical problems and strengthening concepts• Wrong type of bricks, wrong
coursing, removal of walls• Heavy roofs and one way structural
system of roofs/floors䋭 㪉㪈㪉 䋭

Typical problems and strengthening concepts

Typical problems and strengthening concepts• Too many and too wide openings• Insufficient diaphragm action

Wooden grids

Typical problems and strengthening concepts

Conclusions• Weak corner connections• This survey study revealed that all examined buildings haveinconsistencies with the relevant regulations at different
levels in terms of configuration of structural system andmaterial quality.
• Further studies towards increasing the number of examinedbuildings may create a chance of identifying the typologies ofexisting masonry buildings more realistically, and this canbring forward some efficient and feasible retrofitting
techniques

References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Tokat Houses, Halit Çal, Publications of Ministry of Culture, 1988 (In Turkish)
Erzurum Houses, Haim Kapuz, Publications of Ministry of Culture, 1989 (InTurkish)irinköy Houses, Cengiz Bekta, Bekta Engineering and Architecture Publications,1987 (In Turkish)
Bitlis houses, Yüksel Sayan, ahabettin Öztürk, Publications of Ministry of Culture,2001 (In Turkish)
Earthquake report of Erzurum- Kars earthquake (30 October 1983), Ministry of
public works publications, 1983 (In Turkish)
Earthquake report of Erzurum- Kars earthquake (30 October 1983), Chamber ofCivil Engineering publications, 1983 (In Turkish)
Report of Denizli Earthquake (19 August 1976), Publication of Geophysicists
Association of Turkey, 1977 (In Turkish)
Earthquake report of Erzurum- Kars earthquake (30 October 1983), Istanbul
Technical University, 1983 (In Turkish)Thanks & Questions䋭 㪉㪈㪊 䋭








5GUUKQP
̌,CRCPGUGGHHQTVUHQTUCHGTPQPGPIKPGGTGFJQWUGU̍5.1 Special report “Damages of Haiti Earthquake Disaster” / ․೎ႎ๔䇸䊊䉟䉼࿾㔡䈱ⵍኂ䈮䈧䈇䈩䇹
Presented by Hidetomi Oi, Adviser, Global Environment Department, Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) / ࿖㓙දജᯏ᭴ ࿾⃿ⅣႺㇱ 䉝䊄䊋䉟䉱䊷 ᄢ੗⧷⤿ⵍኂ䈱᭎ⷐ䊊䉟䉼㔡ἴᓳ⥝ᡰេᱫ⠪217,366ੱㆱ㔍⠪ 120ਁੱኅደ
285,677ᚭ䋨ోუ97,294䇮ඨუ188,383䋩㚂ㇺ䈎䉌࿾ᣇ䈻䈱⇹㐿 50ਁੱ- Towards a Resilient Haiti 2010ᐕ2᦬26ᣣᄢ੗⧷⤿䋭 㪉㪈㪎 䋭ᓳ⥝䊆䊷䉵⺞ᩏ(Post Disaster Needs
Assessment䋺PDNA)

PDNA⺞ᩏಽ㊁

࿖࿯ᢛ஻

࿖࿯ᢛ஻

ࠟࡃ࠽ࡦࠬ

࿾ᣇಽᮭൻ

ⴕ᡽࡮౏౒ࠨ࡯ࡆࠬ

ᵹၞ࡮ጊ࿾ᢳ㕙▤ℂ2᦬ 8ᣣ䌾2᦬17ᣣ Planning Mission
2᦬18ᣣ䌾2᦬20ᣣ 䉥䊥䉣䊮䊁䊷䉲䊢䊮
2᦬22ᣣ䌾3᦬11ᣣ ᧄᩰ⺞ᩏ
䌾3᦬12ᣣ ႎ๔ᦠ䊄䊤䊐䊃
䌾3᦬18ᣣ ಽᨆ䇮ද⼏䌾3᦬24ᣣ ᦨ⚳ႎ๔ᦠࠗࡦࡈ࡜␠ળࠨ࡯ࡆࠬ

⚻ᷣಽᨆࡑࠢࡠ⚻ᷣಽᨆ

ㇺᏒࠗࡦࡈ࡜

ಽ㊁ᮮᢿ⊛࠹࡯ࡑ

ࠫࠚࡦ࠳࡯࡮㕍ዋᐕ

੤ㅢ

ⅣႺ

ࠛࡀ࡞ࠡ࡯

࡝ࠬࠢߣἴኂߩ▤ℂ

ㅢାࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖ࡯ࠗࡦࡈ࡜

㓚ኂ⠪࡮ቅఽ࡮ࠛࠗ࠭ᖚ⠪ᡰេ

ᢎ⢒

⛎᳓
ⴡ↢࡮ਅ᳓

ᡰេ࿖ળว

Ṫᬺ࡮ㄘᬺ
໡ᬺ࡮Ꮏᬺ
ⷰశ

3᦬17ᣣ ᡰេ࿖ታോ⠪ળว䋨ᣈ䊄䊚౒䋩
3᦬31ᣣ ᡰេ࿖ળว䋨䊆䊠䊷䊣䊷䉪䋩㓹↪

䋭 㪉㪈㪏 䋭᳃ਥൻࡊࡠ࠮ࠬ

૑ቛ

଻ஜ

↢↥

ᴺᴦ࿖ኅ
มᴺ࡮⼊ኤ࡮࿖Ⴚ⋙ⷞ

࿯࿾▤ℂ‫ޔ‬ᡰេ╷䈱ၮᧄ⊛䈭⠨䈋ᣇ㒐ἴ૕೙• ⍴ᦼ䇮ਛᦼ⊛䈭ᡰេ䊆䊷䉵䈮හ䈚䈢ᡰេ• ᣣᧄ䈱දജ䈱⛮⛯ᕈ• ᣣᧄ䈱ᒝ䉂䇮䊥䉸䊷䉴䈱ᵴ↪
• ઁ䊄䊅䊷䈫䈱⺞ᢛ• ታᣉน⢻ᕈ䋨䉴䉨䊷䊛䇮ታᣉ૕೙╬䋩䂓 National Disaster Risk Management Systems (NDRMS) 2001
䂓 National Disaster Risk Management Plan (NDRMP)
䂓 National Risk and Disaster Management Committee (CNGRD)
䂓 Directorate of Civil Protection (DPC) 1997
䂓 Permanent Secretariat of Risk and Disaster Management (SPGRD)
䂓 Department DRM Committee at all 10 departments
䂓 Municipal DRM Committee at 110 municipalities out of 165

䋭 㪉㪈㪐 䋭

5.2 Summary of International joint research project on comprehensive strategies for earthquake
disaster mitigation / ✚ว⊛䈭࿾㔡ⵍኂシᷫᣇ╷䈮䈧䈇䈩䈱࿖㓙౒ห⎇ⓥ䈱᭎ⷐ
Presented by Tatsuo Narafu, Information Center for Building Administration (ICBA) /ᑪ▽ⴕ᡽ᖱႎ䉶䊮䉺䊷ᑪ▽ⴕ᡽⎇ⓥᚲ⎇ⓥㇱ㐳ᬰᐭ㦖㓶

Summary ofInternational Joint Research Project onComprehensive Strategies
for Earthquake Disaster Mitigation

Background of Joint Research Project

Earthquakes cause serious damages to human societiesNon-engineered houses are the main cause of humancasualties

International Symposium on“More resilient nonnon-engineered houses for earthquake disaster reduction”
reduction”
at Sokairo Hall, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS),Tokyo, Japan

February 26, 2010

Dr. Tatsuo Narafu
Director, Research Department-1, Building Administration Research Institute,
Information Center for Building Administration (ICBA)

Comprehensive approach isnecessary for disastermitigation including
appropriate technologies,
dissemination of technologies
and risk management
system/approach

Approach of the Joint Research Project

Outline of the research projectR&D focuses on realization of mitigation of disasters•



To concentrate on conventional houses which is the maincause of human losses

Term of R&D
three years(2006-2008)•

Target structuresNon-engineered
constructions indeveloping countries,
also applicable todeveloped countries
like Japaneseconventional houses

To prepare complete
proposal of strategies
based on comprehensive
approach•

Funds
The Asia S&T Strategic
Cooperation Promotion
Program prepared by
Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports,
Science andTechnology (MEXT)

Participating institutes

Participating institutes

Indonesia: Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB)
Research Institute for Human Settlement (RIHS), Ministryof Public Works
Gadjah Mada University (UGM)
Syiah Kuala University (Unsyiah)

Nepal: Nepal Engineering College (nec)
National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET)
Department of Urban Development and Building
Construction (DUDBC), Nepal GovernmentPakistan: Preston University
NWFP University of Engineering and Technology
Peshawar䋭 㪉㪉㪇 䋭



Turkey: Istanbul Technical University (ITU)
Middle East Technical University (METU)
Earthquake Research Division, Ministry of Public Worksand Settlement, TurkeyJapan: Building Research Institute (BRI)
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
Reduction (NIED)
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)
Mie University

Research topics

Platform activities for the joint research project International symposium andFeasible and Affordable Seismic Constructions
To develop appropriate seismic structures and construction
practices, which will be expected to be accepted by communities

video workshops connecting
all the participating countries 18 events for three years for
close collaboration- Study by full scale shaking table experiments- Bridge between engineering and construction practices- Simple and affordable seismic isolation
Strategies for Dissemination of Technologies toCommunities
To develop strategies and tools for dissemination of technologies topeople and communities



Risk Management System
To develop systems and tools for evaluation of seismic risks byassumed earthquakes and for managing them

Topic 1: Feasible and Affordable Seismic Constructions
Study by Full Scale Shaking Table Experiments

Topic 1: Feasible and Affordable Seismic Constructions

Study by Full Scale Shaking Table Experiments
Full Scale Shaking Table
Experiments on Several Types ofStructures in Asia



Shaking Table Experiment in NIED in
Tsukuba on Dec. 27, 2007

Collapse
Procedure

Table: 14.5mx15m
Loading Capacity: 90cm/sec., 940gals

Several Methods are applied toanalyze the results



ᵄ᧼㋕᧼
GI-C

ዊደ⚵
A roof system

Activities Program

ᝄ
േ
ᣇ
ะ

2007 First Experiment in NIED2007 Second Experiment in NIED2008 Third Experiment in Peru ⹜㛎૕㠽⍑࿑㧔᧲ᱜ㕙㧕

Topic 1: Feasible and Affordable Seismic Constructions
Study by Full Scale Shaking Table Experiments

Topic 1: Feasible and Affordable Seismic Constructions
Study by Full Scale Shaking Table Experiments
Prepare DVD of results of experiments and distribute toshare the data Organize workshops for detail explanation and discussion
 Approaches for analysis

Analysis by several methods by participating
researches
Finite element method (FEM)
Distinct element method (DEM)
Result of FEM- Finite Element Method (FEM)- Distinct Element Method (DEM)- Frame Analysis Method

Left䋺Indonesia Right䋺Pakistan- Simplified Evaluation Methods䋭 㪉㪉㪈 䋭Result of DEM

Topic 1: Feasible and Affordable Seismic Constructions

Samples from Indonesia, Peru and Iran

Bridge between Engineering and Construction Practices

Indonesia

Monitoring Construction Practices on Site
Elaborating Recommendations which could be accepted
and adopted by Local Workers



Buy at a small
shop and obtain at
a construction sitePeru
Buy at a small
shop and a home
centerIran
Obtain at a radey
mixed concrete
plant and aconstruction site

Bridge between Engineering andCompression strength ofcement mortar by sample cement

Construction Practices

age: 28 days
age: 3 days

• Proposed designs andresult of cyclic loading test

㪏㪇㪅㪇
䋺᧚㦂䋳ᣣ

Indonesia㪎㪇㪅㪇䋺᧚㦂㪉㪏ᣣ

Japan (in different mixing)

Iran

Peru

㪍㪇㪅㪌
㪌㪋㪅㪍

㪌㪇㪅㪈

㪌㪇㪅㪇

㪌㪊㪅㪊

㪌㪈㪅㪎

㪋㪇㪅㪏

㪊㪊㪅㪌

㪊㪉㪅㪌

㪊㪉㪅㪇

㪊㪎㪅㪎
㪊㪋㪅㪈

㪊㪌㪅㪎

㪊㪋㪅㪎
㪊㪉㪅㪊

㪉㪏㪅㪎

㪉㪏㪅㪍

㪋㪏㪅㪉

㪊㪐㪅㪇

㪊㪊㪅㪈

㪊㪈㪅㪍

㪉㪌㪅㪇

㪋㪐㪅㪈

㪋㪌㪅㪈

㪋㪇㪅㪇

㪊㪉㪅㪍

㪌㪈㪅㪉

㪌㪇㪅㪏

㪌㪇㪅㪏

㪋㪐㪅㪍
㪋㪍㪅㪉

㪊㪇㪅㪇

㪌㪏㪅㪐

㪌㪍㪅㪏

㪉㪋㪅㪎

㪊㪈㪅㪇

㪊㪇㪅㪉

㪉㪏㪅㪎
㪉㪌㪅㪋

㪉㪋㪅㪌

㪉㪋㪅㪌

㪉㪇㪅㪇
㪈㪌㪅㪉
㪈㪇㪅㪏

㪐㪅㪇

㪋㪅㪉㪐

㪇㪅㪇
㪄㪜
㪄㪝
㪄㪘
㪄㪙
㪄㪚
㪄㪛
㪄㪞
䍚䍏
䍚䍏
䍚䍏
䍚䍏
䍚䍏
䍚䍏
䍚䍏
䍢䍼䍦
䍢䍼䍦
䍢䍼䍦
䍢䍼䍦
䍢䍼䍦
䍢䍼䍦
䍢䍼䍦
䍐䍻
䍐䍻
䍐䍻
䍐䍻
䍐䍻
䍐䍻
䍐䍻

䍐䍵

㪘
䍻㪄

䍐䍵

㪙
䍻㪄

䍐䍵

㪚
䍻㪄

㪘
㪙
㪚
䍎㪄
䍎㪄
䍎㪄
䍫 䍽䍷
䍫䍽䍷
䍫䍽䍷

䉍
ਛ
ਛ
᳓
᳓
ਛ
ਛ
㪈㪑㪏
✵
᳇
᳇
ട
ട
᳇
᳇
ᧄ
㪑㪪㪔
ᓟ
ᓟ
ᣣ
䇭ᚻ
㪟ᓟ
㪟ᓟ
㪟ᓟ
㪟ᓟ
䇭㪚
䇭㪚
㩷㪈㪟
㩷㪊㪟
㪄㪘
㩷㪉㪋
㩷㪎㪉
㩷㪎㪉
㩷㪉㪋
㪄㪘
㪄㪘
ᧄ
㪄㪘
㪄㪘
ᧄ
ᧄ
㪄㪞
㪄㪞
㪄㪘
㪄㪘
ᣣ
ᧄ
ᧄ
ᣣ
ᣣ
ᧄ
ᧄ
䍚䍏
䍚䍏
ᣣ
ᣣ
ᣣ
ᣣ
䍢䍼䍦
䍢䍼 䍦
䍐䍻
䍐䍻
㪄㪘

㪈㪑㪌
㪑㪪㪔

Topic 1: Feasible and Affordable Seismic Constructions

Topic 1: Feasible and Affordable Seismic Constructions

Bridge between Engineering and Construction Practices

Simple and Affordable Seismic Isolation
Research Topics- development of low cost isolation
devices- low cost rigid base- simple construction procedures
 Activities- Experiments on devices- Workshops for dissemination- Pilot projectJoint experiment of proposed

designs in Bandung, Indonesiaട ㅦᐲ ⸘

ᄌ ૏⸘

Dimension ofᄌ૏⸘of devices
ᐔAttachment
㕙࿑

఺
㔡ㇱ ᧚
Devices

Devices  

㪈㪇㪅㪇

Devices

Devices

 

┙㕙࿑

Shaking Table in Building
Research Institute (BRI)
in Tsukuba used for theexperiments㍝
Weight఺㔡ⵝ⟎਄ㇱ㋕㛽 ࿶❗ᒝᐲ㩿㪥㪆ঝ㪀

㪌㪌㪅㪈

㪌㪇㪅㪇

㪍㪌㪅㪇

㪍㪋㪅㪋

㪍㪇㪅㪇

Devices఺㔡ⵝ⟎఺㔡ⵝ⟎ਅㇱ㋕㛽ᝄ േ บ࿕ ቯ ↪㋕ 㛽࿑㧝ฦ⹜㛎૕ߩട㊀̆ᄌ૏ᦛ✢ߩ൮⛊✢

Shakingᝄേ บ ട ᝄTableᣇะ㧔䋭 㪉㪉㪉 䋭㧕

Topic 1: Feasible and Affordable Seismic Constructions
Simple and Affordable Seismic Isolation


Several proposals were examined-sliding device with stone and metal plates-scrap tire pads
-geo textile sheets-low cost rolling device

Topic 2: Dissemination of Technologies to Communities
Interview survey by same questionnaires in five countries
䊶 interviewee-people in two communities in different experiences ofdisasters in each countries-construction workers-officials of central governments-officials of local governments



Topic 2: Dissemination of Technologies to CommunitiesComprehensive Study on Dissemination of Technologies consisting
followings- collecting and analyzing good practices- interview survey on risk perception of communities- survey on policies of
local and central government
on disaster mitigation
strategies- pilot project with several
approaches- analysis of effectiveness ofeach approach

Topic 2:Dissemination of Technologies to Communities


Pilot project for dissemination and evaluation of effects infour countries
㵥Indonesia䋺disaster management education in primaryschools㵥Nepal䋺training programs for house wives
㵥Pakistan䋺demonstration with simple shaking table,
training programs for masons㵥Turkey䋺disaster management education in rural areas
Nepal

Interviews

Pakistan

Turkeyin NepalInterviewsin Pakistan

Topic 3: Risk Management SystemDevelopment of a new system for Risk Management which enhances risk
recognition of communitiesCommunity-based approach/Community participation



Activities Program- preparation of tools
mapping base using
satellite image/aero
photossimple evaluation
criteria of seismic
safety of houses- case study in several
districts- elaboration of thesystemTopic 3: Risk Management System䋭 㪉㪉㪊 䋭Case study with tools prepared by the joint research project
Successful resulthigh school students could have a good command of the toolsFirm international platform for collaboration
was establishedthrough intensive joint research
We drew a lot of lesson from our activities
and share them by
periodical video workshops

Thank you for your kind attention

䋭 㪉㪉㪋 䋭

5.3 Lessons from assistance for reconstruction in Indonesia / 䉟䊮䊄䊈䉲䉝ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䈱ᢎ⸠
Presented by Kozo Nagami, Information Policy Department, Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) / ࿖㓙දജᯏ᭴ ᖱႎ᡽╷ㇱ ᳗⷗శਃ䉟䊮䊄䊈䉲䉝දജἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䈱ᢎ⸠╙৻ㇱ䋺ർ䉴䊙䊃䊤ፉᴒ࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេLessons from JICA Disaster
Reconstruction Assistance inIndonesia

Part 1: Reconstruction
support program for Aceh

February 2010
Japan International Cooperation Agency
᳗⷗ శਃ Kozo Nagami

2004 Indian Ocean Earthquakeർ䉴䊙䊃䊤ፉᴒ࿾㔡ᵤᵄ䉴䊙䊃䊤ፉർ⷏ㇱᴒ䈱㔡Ḯ࿾䋨M9.0䋩Epicenter(2004ᐕ12᦬26ᣣඦ೨8ᤨ7ಽ䋺⃻࿾ᤨ㑆)

2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake
Devastating Damage (M9.0䋩
Damage in Indonesia
12/26/2004
Killed and Missing䋺 more than 200,000
Seriously Damaged Houses䋺 81,942
Partly Damaged Houses䋺 58,785
Source: BRR and International Partners (Aceh and Nias One Year After the
Tsunami, 2005)
㪪㫆㫌㫉㪺㪼㩷㪑㩷㪬㪥㪄㪦㪚㪟㪘಴ౖ䋺 䉟䊮䊄䊈䉲䉝࿖ർ䉴䊙䊃䊤ፉᴒ࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂ✕ᕆᓳᣥ䊶ᓳ⥝䊒䊨䉫䊤䊛(URRP)
䉟䊮䊄䊈䉲䉝࿖ർ䉴䊙䊃䊤ፉᴒ࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂ✕ᕆᓳᣥ䊶ᓳ⥝䊒䊨䉫䊤䊛(URRP)

Tsunami Impact on Economy

JICA Reconstruction Assistance

5 % Economic Decrease Projection in Aceh

Emergency Relief right after
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Assistance

20 % Economic Decrease Projection in Nias
32 % Income per capita decrease
5.176 SMEs damaged/destroyed

Core Project = URRP (Urgent Rehab and Recon Plan)

7.529 Small shops damaged/destroyed
800 km x 1 to 6 km
destroyed

1.191 Restaurants damaged/destroyed
25 General Banks damaged/destroyed
People’People’s Credit Banks (BPR)

4damaged/destroyed

20 Microfinance Institutions damaged/destroyed

Community Empowerment (Trauma care, Livelihood
Revitalization etc.)

195 markets damaged/destroyed
800 kmJakarta

20.000 ha fishpond damaged
SurabayaSource: Blue Print 2005-2009• BA City Reconstruction Urban Planning• Engineering Survey for the Infrastructure Rehabilitation Nonproject Type Grant Aid• GIS Data Mapping• Septage Treatment Plant Rehabilitation

60.000 ha agricultural land damaged

220.907 people lost their job಴ౖ䋺BRR䋨2007ᐕ4᦬CFAN3ႎ๔䋩 / Source: BRR (CFAN3 report, Apr. 2007)䋭 㪉㪉㪌 䋭

BA Reconstruction Urban Plan
Blue Print

URRP Spatial Plan಴ౖ䋺 䉟䊮䊄䊈䉲䉝࿖ർ䉴䊙䊃䊤ፉᴒ࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂ✕ᕆᓳᣥ䊶ᓳ⥝䊒䊨䉫䊤䊛䋨URRP䋩✕ᕆᓳᣥ䊶ᓳ⥝䊒䊨䉫䊤䊛䋨URRP䋩

⴫1䋺 䉝䉼䉢ᓳᣥ䊶ᓳ⥝ᡰេ੐ᬺ䈱ዷ㐿⁁ᴫ䋨2005ᐕ11᦬ᤨὐ䋩࿑1䋺 䊋䊮䉻䊶䉝䉼䉢Ꮢᓳ⥝䊙䉴䉺䊷䊒䊤䊮䋨JICAᡰេ䋩

Table 1: JICA Aceh Rehab and Recon Overview (as of Nov. 2005)

Chart 1: BA City Reconstruction Master Plan

Sanitary/Environmental Education

Septage Treatment Plant Rehab

Poster for Community AwarenessAfter Project䋨Dec. 2005䋩

Workshop for Neighborhood

Before Project 䋨Jun. 2005䋩

Study Tour for Junior High

Site Visit by SBY

౮⌀1䋺 ✕ᕆ䉟䊮䊐䊤ᓳᣥ䋨䈚ዩಣℂ႐䋩 Photo1: Urgent Rehabilitation

Sanitary and environmental negative impact from the humanwaste ocean dumping by collection vehicles
Capacity: 50 m3/day (100,000 population)
One of few projects completed before the first anniversary

Damage on Banda Aceh City

Transit to MidMid-/Long/Long-term Recon.
Trigger: GAM Peace Agreement (Aug 2005)
Reflection from the prior results

Population change by the EQ and Tsunami

Insufficient integration between infrastructure and community• Infrastructure assistance in coastal heavily damaged area
• Community assistance in inland less damaged area

Integrated assistance at the community buildings
Urban Disaster Mitigation Facility (JICA Mater Plan)= Community buildings
Livelihood revitalization activity• Activities: local cake baking, dried-salted fish, traditional handicraft, etc• Institutionalization and instruction by facilitators• Succeeded as a model reconstruction activity• Resulted in sustainable replication (second and third generation)䋭 㪉㪉㪍 䋭Community Building
Livelihood Revitalization Assistance౮⌀3䋺 䉮䊚䊠䊆䊁䉞䊶䊎䊦ᑪ⸳ / Photo 3: Community Building䊋䊮䉻䊶䉝䉼䉢Ꮢ䉡䊧䊧࿾඙(2008ᐕ3᦬ቢᚑ䋩 / Ulee Lheue, Banda Aceh City (Mar. 2008)

Escape facility for the coastal zone (3 in Ulee
Lheue)
Community daily activity base౮⌀2䋺 ૑᳃↢⸘ะ਄ᡰេ / Photo 2: Livelihood Revitalization Activity䊋䊮䉻䊶䉝䉼䉢Ꮢ䉡䊧䊧࿾඙(2006ᐕ䋩 / Ulee Lheue, Banda Aceh City (2006)

Extending Community Assistance
Project on SelfSelf-sustainable Community
Empowerment Network Formulation (䉝䉼䉢ᎺRadio Broadcasting Support૑᳃⥄┙ᡰេ䊈䉾䊃䊪䊷䉪ᒻᚑ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃)૑᳃⥄┙ᡰេ䊈䉾䊃䊪䊷䉪ᒻᚑ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃)

Extending the Ulee Lheue model to otherregions in Aceh province䋨
province䋨Jan 2007 – Mar
2009䋩
2009䋩
౮⌀4䋺 䉝䉼䉢ᓳ⥝ᡰេ䊤䉳䉥⇟⚵䋨2007ᐕ9᦬䋩
Photo 4: Aceh Radio Broadcasting Support (Sep 2007)

Broadcasted from RRI station rehabilitated by the Japan
Grant Aid
Weekly one hour program (from Jul 2005 – Mar 2009)
Interactive telephone dialogue with listeners

BRR Strategy

Problems in the Aceh Recon Process
Initiative from the central government

NGOs/International
NGOs
and International
Agencies
Agencies

100%

Political importance 㹢 BRR (Apr 2005)• Prolonged GAM conflict• Need quick remedy for social and economic
confusion

BRR
BRR
Ministries

Local
Local
Governments
Governments

CentralGov’t

Insufficient local government capacity (Acehprovince, kabupaten and BA)

DEC
2004

• Massive damage scale• Local gov officials also disaster affected

2005

2006

2007

2008

Remaining Time for
Housing Delivery

Difficult community involvement

Emergency
Response
Phase

2009

End of BRR Mission

Development
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction
Phase
Phase
࿑2䋺 BRR䈮䉋䉎ᓳ⥝੐ᬺਥ૕䈱ਛᦼ䉲䊐䊃⸘↹ / Chart 2 BRR Mid-term Shift Plan಴ౖ䋺BRR䋨2007ᐕ4᦬CFAN3ႎ๔䋩 / Source: BRR (CFAN3 report, Apr. 2007)䋭 㪉㪉㪎 䋭

Progress after 2.5 years
Problems in the Aceh Recon Process
Delay in house reconstruction (Apr 2007)
Direct support (temporary/permanent houseprovision) by GOI and NGOs
• Limited support from donors
㹤 donors were rather concentrating on transportationand education sector infrastructure

Problems in acquiring speed and quality• Low quality house problems• Limited house option for residents (allocated by areas)
World Bank, Oct 2006

࿑3䋺 䉶䉪䉺䊷೎䈱ᓳ⥝੐ᬺᡰ಴⁁ᴫ / Chart 3: Recon expenditure by sector಴ౖ䋺BRR䋨2007ᐕ4᦬CFAN3ႎ๔䋩 / Source: BRR (CFAN3 report, Apr. 2007)

Delay in House Reconstruction
Reconstruction and
Relocation

ORGS

Need

NGO/IA

MDF

136,000

BRR

Total

136,000

CommitComplete

104,148

48,450

8,113

2,645

33,224

10,623

145,485

61,718Rehabilitation

Need

39,00039,000

Delay in Community Revitalization

Renters/Squatters

CommitComplete

2,058

1,605

3,271

3,210

8,776

8,496

14,105

13,311

Need

CommitComplete492

012,0000

012,0000

0House reconstruction delay resulted incommunity revitalization delay
It took 1.5 years until JICA could proceed into
integrated assistance for community (since mid
2006)
Infrastructure assistance by donors could notproperly yield the expected impact due to thecommunity recovery delay

Total reconstruction delay

⴫3䋺 ฦਥ૕䈮䉋䉎૑ቛౣᑪ੐ᬺ䈱ㅴ᝞⁁ᴫ / Housing Progress by Organizations
಴ౖ䋺BRR䋨2007ᐕ4᦬CFAN3ႎ๔䋩 / Source: BRR (CFAN3 report, Apr. 2007)╙ੑㇱ䋺䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ

䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂCentral Java Earthquake
DamagePart II: Central Java
Earthquake Reconstruction
Program

5/27/2006
Killed and Missing䋺 5,716
Houses Destroyed䋺 156,664
Houses Damaged䋺 202,032
Source: International Recovery Platform (The Yogyakarta and Central Java
Earthquake, 2006)䋭 㪉㪉㪏 䋭

Damage Assessment Result

Actions Taken by GOI
GOI announcement
Community self-supported reconstruction
Local government initiative

Majority in housing• Yogyakarta special district (DIY) + Kota/Kabupaten• Little intervention from central (except fund)• Reflections from Aceh experience

House reconstruction subsidy
Source: CGI Report (2006/6/14) “Preliminary Loss and Damage
Assessment”

Chart 4: Damage by sector
Source: CGI Report (2006/6/14) “Preliminary Loss and Damage Assessment”

Subsiding house reconstruction cost (15 mil rup. perhousehold)
Subsidy delivery through POKMAS (victim
cooperatives)• Consist of 10-15 destroyed house owners• 11,545 POKMAS (141,691HH)

Mobilizing facilitators• Technical support of house reconstruction• 3 per (building, structure, social science)㬍1,500 teamFlow Chart of Subsidy

Facilitator Assignment Result
⸘↹ੱᢙ

⋵࡮Ꮢ

ᐕᐲ㈩⟎ᷣߺੱᢙᐕᐲ㈩⟎ᷣߺੱᢙ



ࠪ࠾ࠕ

ᛛⴚ♽

␠ળ♽

ࠪ࠾ࠕ

ᛛⴚ♽

␠ળ♽

Sleman⋵

405

112

137

125

374

124

147

132

403

Gunungkidul⋵

382

21

110

121

252

23

117

128

268

Kulon Progo⋵

153

49

47

51

147

49

48

51

148

JogyakartaᏒ

318

-

70

96

166

-

141

143

284

Bantul⋵ౝ⸶Bantul⋵a)Bantul 1

ว⸘


ว⸘

2,185

-

930

1,041

1,971

-

1,073

1,066

2,139

447

-

168

240

408

-

222

238

460

b)Bantul 2

453

-

143

172

315

-

212

187

399

c)Bantul 3

370

-

185

185

370

-

185

185

370

d)Bantul 4

528

-

243

252

495

-

260

264

524

e)Bantul 5

387

-

191

192

383

-

194

192

386

ว⸘

3,443

182

1,294

1,434

2,910

196

1,526

1,520

3,242

Committee Responsible
for a Subsidy
Distribution (KPPN
Yogyakarta)಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃᧖ጊኾ㐷ኅႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪎䋩(6) Verification(Verifikasi)(10) (SP2D)

Provincial Management
Consultant (KMP)Bank(Bank Pelaksana)

District Management
Consultant (KMK)

Facilitator(Tiom Facilitator)(5) Coordinating application
between district management
consultant and district
commitment maker(3) Coordinating application
between Facilitator and headof village

District Commitment
Maker (PPK Kab /Kot)(4) Application
document delivery

Head of Village(PJP,Lurah)Society Group(Kelompok Masyarakat)(1) Establishing Society Group⴫4䋺 ታ㓙䈱䊐䉜䉲䊥䊁䊷䉺䊷㈩⟎⁁ᴫ / Table 4: Facilitator assignment result

Provincial
Commitment
Maker (PPK
Provinsi)(7) Coordinating application between
provincial management consultant andprovincial commitment maker(11) Moneytransfer(Transfer
Dana BLM)

Society GroupBank Account(Rekening
POKMAS)ᵈ㧞㧕 ߩᄾ⚂ᦼ㑆ߪࡃࡦ࠻࡯࡞⋵߇ᐕ᦬㨪ᐕ᦬‫࡮⋵ઁߩߘޔ‬Ꮢ߇ᐕ᦬㨪ᐕ᦬

Task Force(SATKER)(9) Letter of confirmation to pay (SPP/SPM)(8) Verification(Verifikasi)න૏㧕ੱ⾗ᢱ㧕Ꮊ౏౒੐ᬺዪߩౝㇱ⾗ᢱ‫ޔ‬2007ᐕ3᦬9ᣣ⃻࿷ᵈ㧝㧕 ߩᄾ⚂ᦼ㑆ߪᐕ᦬㨪ᐕ᦬

Governor(GUBERNUR)(2) Making Agreement between society groupand head of village, and Submission ofApplication಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃᧖ጊኾ㐷ኅႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪎䋩࿑5䋺 ⵬ഥ㊄ᡰ⛎䈱ᵹ䉏 / Chart 5: Flow mechanism of subsidy

Challenge in Program Formulation
Biggest needs in housing
Obstacles㽲 Housing = Private property –> unfair?
㽳 GOI public administration capacity
㽴 Urgency in disaster recon assistance

Prolongation risk

Adverse opinions and questionable comments on
effectiveness⴫4䋺 䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ੐ᬺ䈱ዷ㐿⁁ᴫ䋨2006ᐕ11᦬ᤨὐ䋩
Table 4: JICA Yogya Rehab and Recon Assistance Overview

䋭 㪉㪉㪐 䋭

House Reconstruction AssistanceInventory Survey“Sub-project on building administration capacity
enhancement to improve the vulnerability of
housing”䇸૑ቛౣᑪଦㅴ෸䈶ᑪ▽ᒝᐲᡷༀ䈱䈢䉄䈱ᑪ▽ⴕ᡽ᡰេ䉰䊑䊶䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃䇹䈱ታᣉ

Information gathering for “Key Requirement”
Feasibility and objectivity assurance
Surveying 133 houses (29 types) by NGO/GOI
Tie beam (example)
Plinth Beam
Size (cm)

To disseminate, publicize and enlighten the know-how
and technique of improving building strength
To propose essential conditions of EQ-resistant houses
affordable even for the poor
To propose a rational, efficient and accountable processof building administration
To propose a comprehensive plan for dissemination of
EQ-resistant building

NA

15X20
15X15
12X12
0

10

Column

20

30

40

50

Percentage (%)

Column Bar (mm)Column Dimension (cm)

NA
NA

4P12
15X15

4P10
13X13
0

4P8
10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

Percentage (%)

20

30

40

50

Percentage (%)಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃᧖ጊኾ㐷ኅႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪎䋩࿑6䋺 䉟䊮䊔䊮䊃䊥⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐ䋨଀䋩 / Chart 6: Inventory Survey Result Examples

Key Requirement
Essential conditions of EQ-resistant houses attaining both feasibility andeffectivenessCo-editing with local expertise (Teddy Boen and UGM faculty)
Items
᧚ᢱຠ⾰
Materialਥⷐㇱ᧚䈱᭴ㅧᢿ㕙
Structural Profile

Category䉮䊮䉪䊥䊷䊃 concrete䊝䊦䉺䊦 mortarၮ␆⍹ foundation stoneੇ῎䈚䈢ᧁ dried woodၮ␆ foundationᐩ㕙᏷ bottom width਄ㇱ᏷ upper width㜞䈘 heightᦨዊᢿ㕙 dimension
ਥ╭ steel bar⡻╭ stirrups

Standard
cement䋺fine aggregate䋺coarse aggr䋽1䋺2䋺3
cement䋺fine aggr䋽1䋺4
Yes
Yes
over 60䌣䌭
over 30䌣䌭
over 60䌣䌭
over 20䌣䌭㬍15䌣䌭
over 4 㬍10䌭䌭
8䌭䌭@15䌣䌭 spacing or 6䌭䌭@12䌣䌭 spacing

ᩇ column

ᦨዊᢿ㕙 dimension
ਥ╭ steel barᏪ╭ stirrups

over 15䌣䌭㬍15䌣䌭
over 4 㬍10䌭䌭
8䌭䌭@15䌣䌭 spacing or 6䌭䌭@12䌣䌭 spacing

᪞ beamᦨዊᢿ㕙 dimension
ਥ╭ steel bar⡻╭ stirrups

࿾ਛ᪞ tie beam᭴ㅧㇱ᧚䈱ធว
Structural Member
Jointingოᦨᄢ㕙Ⓧ maximum wall dimensionᆄ஥ᢳ䉄╭ inclined beam at gableო䊐䊧䊷䊛 wall frameᩇ䈫࿾ਛ᪞䈱ቯ⌕ anchoring b/w column and u/g beamო䈻䈱ធว anchor of wallᆄ஥ቯ⌕ anchor of gableደᩮᩴ஥╭䈎䈇 wind bracing㋕╭ቯ⌕㐳䈘 overlapping of reinforcements

over 12䌣䌭㬍15䌣䌭
over 4 㬍10䌭䌭
8䌭䌭@15䌣䌭 spacing or 6䌭䌭@12䌣䌭 spacing
less or equal 9 square meterYes
Yesover 40䌣䌭
Yes
Yes
Yes
over 40䌣䌭

⴫5䋺 䉨䊷䊶䊥䉪䊪䉟䊟䊜䊮䊃ⷙ⒟ౝኈ / Table 5: Key Requirement Prescriptions

࿑7䋺 䉨䊷䊶䊥䉪䊪䉟䊟䊜䊮䊃䊶䊘䉴䉺䊷 / Chart 7: Key Requirement Poster

Legislation on Key Requirement
POSYANIS set at 17 Kecamatan, Bantul(1/30/2007)
Empowering Kecamatan regarding the IMB(building certification) process (2/6/2007䋩
Bupati decree on the technical support centers(PUSYANIS (Kabupaten) and POSYANIS(Kecamatan)) (2/8/2007)౮⌀㪄 㪛㪣㪠㪥㪞㪦㇭䈱㪧㪦㪪㪰㪘㪥㪠㪪㪧㪿㫆㫋㫆㪄 㪧㪦㪪㪰㪘㪥㪠㪪㩷㪸㫋㩷㪛㪣㪠㪥㪞㪦౮⌀㪄 ᧛䈪䈱ౣᑪ⚵ว䊥䊷䉻䊷䈻䈱ᛛⴚ᥉෸㓸ળ㪧㪿㫆㫋㫆㪄 㪫㪼㪺㪿㫅㫀㪺㪸㫃㩷㪮㫆㫉㫂㫊㪿㫆㫇㩷㪽㫆㫉㩷㪧㪦㪢㪤㪘㪪㩷㫃㪼㪸㪻㪼㫉㫊

Legislating the key requirement, exceptional free ofcharge IMB process, process flow, proto-type house
design.

Public announce of officials at PUSYANIS andPOSYANIS by name (2/17/2007)౮⌀㪄 㪧㪦㪪㪰㪘㪥㪠㪪⡯ຬะ䈔ᑪ▽↳⺧⎇ୃ㪧㪿㫆㫋㫆㪄 㪠㪤㪙㩷㪧㫉㫆㪺㪼㫊㫊㩷㪫㫉㪸㫀㫅㫀㫅㪾㩷㪽㫆㫉㩷㪧㪦㪪㪰㪘㪥㪠㪪㩷㫆㪽㪽㫀㪺㫀㪸㫃㫊಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃┻⼱䉳䉢䊈䊤䊦䊶䉝䊄䊋䉟䉱䊷ႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪎䋩䋭 㪉㪊㪇 䋭

Significance of Self Recon Process

Value Criteria Survey on Housing

Value criteria survey for housing
Safety is the highest 㹤 Social failure• Constructor (mandor) skill? Moral?
• Lack of monitoring mechanism by the gov?
㫅䋽㪈㪃㪈㪍㪉਎Ꮺ(point)

3.81
4.0
3.5

3.12

3.14

2.85

2.83

3.0
2.5

2.0

1.5

಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃᧖ጊኾ㐷ኅႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪎䋩
1.0High safety level with balanced scores (except cost)

0.5

0.0

ᔟㆡ/comfort

ࠦࠬ࠻/costᯏ⢻/function

࠺ࠩࠗࡦ/design

቟ో/safety಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃᧖ጊኾ㐷ኅႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪎䋩࿑㪏䋺 ૑ቛଔ୯ⷰ⺞ᩏ䈱⚿ᨐ 㪆㩷㪚㪿㪸㫉㫋㩷㪏㪑㩷㪭㪸㫃㫌㪼㩷㪪㪺㪸㫃㪼㩷㪪㫌㫉㫍㪼㫐㩷㪩㪼㫊㫌㫃㫋Community Participation

Value Criteria Survey on HousingHigh
participation㪥㫌㫄㪹㪼㫉㫊㩷㫆㪽㪩㪼㫊㫇㫆㫅㪻㪼㫅㫋㫊㪈㪇㪇㪇㪚㫆㫅㫊㫋㫉㫌㪺㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㪧㫉㫆㪺㪼㫊㫊
㪏㪋㪎
㪎㪇㪏

㪏㪇㪇
㪍㪇㪇

㪍㪈㪉

㪋㪌㪊

㪋㪇㪇
㪉㪇㪇
㪇

㪠㫅㫍㫆㫃㫍㪼㪻
㪥㫆㫋㩷㫀㫅㫍㫆㫃㫍㪼㪻㪥㫆㩷㪸㫅㫊㫎㪼㫉

㪌㪋㪏

㪊㪈㪉
㪈
㪠㪻㪼㪸㫊

㪊

㪉

㪟㫌㫄㪸㫅㩷㪩㪼㫊㫆㫌㫉㪺㪼㫊㪚㫆㫊㫋಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃᧖ጊኾ㐷ኅႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪎䋩࿑9䋺 ᑪ▽䊒䊨䉶䉴䈻䈱૑᳃ෳട₸ / Chart 9: Participation Rate

Contribution to enhancing community㪥㫌㫄㪹㪼㫉㩷㫆㪽㪩㪼㫊㫇㫆㫅㪻㪼㫅㫋㫊
㪈㪉㪇㪇
㪈㪇㪇㪇

㪐㪎㪋

㪐㪌㪏

㪟㪸㫇㫇㪼㫅㪼㪻
㪥㫆㫋㩷㪿㪸㫇㫇㪼㫅㪼㪻㪥㫆㩷㪘㫅㫊㫎㪼㫉

㪏㪇㪇
㪍㪇㪇
㪋㪇㪇
㪉㪇㪇

㪈㪐㪏

㪈㪏㪈
㪍

㪇

㪚㫆㫄㫄㫌㫅㫀㫋㫐㪫㫆㪾㪼㫋㪿㪼㫉㫅㪼㫊㫊㪎㪪㫆㪺㫀㪸㫃㩷㪚㫆㫅㪽㫃㫀㪺㫋಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃᧖ጊኾ㐷ኅႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪎䋩಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃᧖ጊኾ㐷ኅႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪎䋩࿑㪈㪇䋺 䉮䊚䊠䊆䊁䉞㑐ଥ䈻䈱ᓇ㗀 㪆㩷㪚㪿㪸㫉㫋㩷㪈㪇㪑㩷㪜㪽㪽㪼㪺㫋㩷㫆㫅㩷㪚㫆㫄㫄㫌㫅㫀㫋㫐㩷㪩㪼㫃㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㫊㪿㫀㫇ExEx-post Assessment Result

Community Awareness on IMB

Increased IMB applied
Enhanced but still limited process capacity (Unprocessed
application increased)

Received Subsidy

Reason for IMB application
Because legislated in PERDA

Because conditioned for subsidy

IMB application rate಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘ᑪ▽ⴕ᡽ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃⊕Ꮉኾ㐷ኅႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪏䋩಴ౖ䋺㪡㪠㪚㪘ᑪ▽ⴕ᡽ᡰេ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃⊕Ꮉኾ㐷ኅႎ๔䋨㪉㪇㪇㪏䋩࿑㪈㪈䋺 ᦬೎ᑪ▽⏕⹺䋨㪠㪤㪙䋩⊒ⴕᢙ 㪆㩷㪚㪿㪸㫉㫋㩷㪈㪈㪑㩷㪧㫉㫆㪺㪼㫊㫊㪼㪻㩷㫅㫌㫄㪹㪼㫉㩷㫆㪽㩷㪠㪤㪙࿑㪈㪉䋺 ૑᳃ᗧ⼂䈱ᄌൻ 㪆㩷㪚㪿㪸㫉㫋㩷㪈㪉㪑㩷㪚㪿㪸㫅㪾㪼㩷㫀㫅㩷㪚㫆㫄㫄㫌㫅㫀㫋㫐㩷㪘㫎㪸㫉㪼㫅㪼㫊㫊䋭 㪉㪊㪈 䋭Comparison Aceh and Central Java╙ਃㇱ䋺ᢎ⸠䈫ឭ⸒
Part 3: Lessons andRecommendation

Aceh

Central Java (Yogyakarta)

GOI policy

Central Gov initiative

Community self reconstruction

House Recon
Actor

BRR

House owners

Fund Flow

Nation to BRR

Nation/province to community

Constructor

BRR

Owners or mandor (local masterbuilder)House Recon
Speed

68,881 houses / 2 year

JICA Assistance(house related)

Urban recon planning(incl. Community building)

Building administration enhance
IMB (Building certification) processenhancement for EQ resistant house

JICA Assistance(other)Community empowerment
Economic reconstruction
Infrastructure rehabilitation
Local government CB
Social welfare service (education)

Community empowerment
Local industry revitalization
Reconstruction design of schools
and health centers
Junior experts

Total JICA Exp.

approx. 874 mil yen (as of 11/2005)

approx. 400 mil yen (as of 11/2006)

Source: BRR (2007)

146,173 houses / 1 year
Source: Java Reconstruction Fund (2007)

Japan Grant Aid approx. 14,600 mil yen
approx. 1,000 mil yen
⴫5䋺 䉝䉼䉢䈫ਛㇱ䉳䊞䊪䈱䉬䊷䉴Ყセ / Table 5: Comparison Aceh and Central Javaᢎ⸠ Lessons

ᢎ⸠ Lessons
Common understanding “direct assistance not applicable topersonal property i.e. housing” might lead to ୘ੱ⽷↥䈪䈅䉎૑ቛౣᑪ䈱⋥ធᡰេ䈲㔍䈚䈇䈫䈇䈉౒ㅢ⹺⼂ 㹢

Opportunity given in the Central Java EQ Recon
Program 䉳䊞䊪ፉਛㇱ࿾㔡ᓳ⥝䈮䈍䈔䉎ᯏળ
GOI policy to subsidize house owners enabled indirect
housing assistance in the IMB process. ૑᳃䈻䈱⵬ഥ㊄⋥ធᡰ⛎䈫䈇䈉䉟䊮䊄䊈䉲䉝᡽ᐭ䈱᡽╷ 㹢 ⴕ᡽㕙䋨ᑪ▽⏕⹺䊒䊨䉶䉴䋩䈎䉌૑ቛౣᑪᡰេ䉕ታᣉ
Quick actions e.g. legislation and decrees by GOI. 䉟䊮䊄䊈䉲䉝᡽ᐭ஥䈱ㄦㅦ䈭೙ᐲൻ䋨⋵⍮੐઎䈭䈬䋩

Housing issue not included in the recon program. ᓳ⥝ᡰេ䈪૑ቛౣᑪᡰេ䈏⟎䈐෰䉍䇯
Just a technical assistance such as retrofitting pilot and buildingcode revision cannot assure the effectiveness. ⠴㔡⵬ୃ䉇ᑪ⸳ၮḰ䊶ᣇᑼ䈮䈎䈎䉎ᛛⴚឭ⸒䇮䊌䉟䊨䉾䊃ᑪ⸳䈪䈱ዊⷙᮨଏ⛎䈪䈲ታലᕈ⏕଻䈏⺖㗴䈮䈭䉎䇯Thus, infrastructure biased recon program might further delay thecommunity revitalization and thus yield insufficient assistance
impact. 䉟䊮䊐䊤ᡰេ஍㊀䈱⚿ᨐ䇮䈘䉌䈮䉮䊚䊠䊆䊁䉞ో૕䈱ᓳ⥝ㆃᑧ䈏↢䈛䇮ᡰេ䉟䊮䊌䉪䊃䈏⊒⃻䈚䈮䈒䈒䈭䉎䇯ᢎ⸠ Lessons

Success Factor ᚑഞⷐ࿃੹ᓟ䈱⺖㗴䋨ឭ⸒䋩 Recommendation
Legislation assistance on the house reconstruction subsidy
mechanism before EQs. ૑ቛౣᑪᡰេ䋨⵬ഥ㊄ᡰ⛎䋩䈮䈎䈎䉎೙ᐲ⸳┙ᡰេ䋨ᐔᏱᤨ䈎䉌ᴺ೙ᐲൻ䋩
Building administration assistance with the Key Requirement
after EQs. ૑ቛౣᑪᡰេ೙ᐲ䈱ⵍἴ࿾䈮䈍䈔䉎ᣉⴕᡰេ䋨䉨䊷䊥䉪䊪䉟䊟䊜䊮䊃᥉෸╬䋩
Consider housing as the core issue when designing the entire
reconstruction program. ᓳ⥝ᡰេ䈮䈎䈎䉎૑ቛౣᑪᡰេ䈱㊀ⷐᕈ䈱⹺⼂ᒝൻ䈫䇮૑ቛౣᑪ䉕ᐙ䈮䈚䈢ᓳ⥝ᡰេో૕௝䈱⸳⸘䈱㊀ⷞ
Schematic invention to directly assist housing such as financial
assistance loan. ૑ቛౣᑪᡰេ䈮䈎䈎䉎⋥ធᡰេ╷䋨⽷᡽ᡰេ䊨䊷䊮╬䈱ᵴ↪䋩
Combined assistance with house provision by NGOs and donors.
NGO䊶ઁ䊄䊅䊷䈫䈱૑ቛౣᑪㅪ៤䋨଀䋺೙ᐲ㕙JICA+૑ቛଏ⛎
NGO䋩

Key Requirement• Recognized as the highest priority government actionthat is highly feasible even with the immature public
administration capacity in a severe post-disastersituation. ᧂᾫ䈭ᑪ▽ⴕ᡽⢻ജ䉕䉅䈦䈩䈚䈩䉅䇮䉁䈢䇮㔡ἴᓳ⥝䈫䈇䈉෩䈚䈇⁁ᴫ䈪䈅䈦䈩䉅䇮චಽ䈮ታ⃻น⢻ᕈ䈏㜞䈒䇮䈎䈧䇮⌀䈮㊀ⷐ䈪ᦨఝవ䈜䈼䈐ⴕ᡽⺖㗴䈫䈚䈩⹺⼂䈘䉏䈢䈎䉌• Replication request was made for the West Sumatra(Padang) EQ Reconstruction 䊌䉻䊮ᴒ࿾㔡ᓳ⥝䈪䉅ห᭽ᡰេⷐ⺧䉕ฃ䈔䈢䋭 㪉㪊㪉 䋭

5.4 Japan's ODA Project in Peru, Dissemination of Seismic Adobe House /䊕䊦䊷䈮䈍䈔䉎ᣣᧄ䈱ODA䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃䌾䉝䊄䊔⠴㔡૑ቛ䈱᥉෸䌾
Presented by Akihiko Tasaka, Ex-First Secretary of Embassy of Japan in Peru /೨䊶࿷䊕䊦䊷ᄢ૶㙚ᦠ⸥ቭ ↰㒋ᤘᒾ

Abstract
Japan‘s ODA Project in Peru,
Dissemination of Seismic Adobe House.
䊕䊦䊷䈮䈍䈔䉎ᣣᧄ䈱ODA䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃䌾䉝䊄䊔⠴㔡૑ቛ䈱᥉෸䌾Akihiko TASAKA, Ex-First Secretary of Embassy of Japan in Peru1↰㒋ᤘᒾ(೨䊶࿷䊕䊦䊷ᣣᧄᄢ૶㙚 ৻╬ᦠ⸥ቭ)

1.Social background

2.Project background

3.Project-Phase 1



4.Project-Phase 2



5.Consideration

2

1.Social Background

1.Social Background

Geographical Features

Topography and Climate

Republic of Peru
Land Area 1,285,216 km2
latitude S3-18, longitude W69-81“Shierra”“Costa”“Selva”

3

4

1.Social Background

1.Social Background

PopulationSocial Situation

Population has increased, but inflow from mountain to costal are has
accelerated.
Currently, 75.9 percent of the population are concentrated in urban areas,
while urban and rural gap widening.

2006

2007

2008

GDP GrowthSocial INDEX

7.74%

8.86%

9.84%

Inter-American Development Bank

Government Budget

45,38861,99871,342

Ministry of Economy and Finance

GNI per capita (USD)

2,960

3,450

3,990

World BankDAC Category

Lower Middle Income Countries(LMICs)OECD-DAC

Poverty Rate
(Extreme Poverty)

44.5 䋦
(16.1%)

39.3%(13.7%)

36.2%(12.6%)

27

25

17

(Million Nuevo Soles)

Area

28,221 thousnds

Costal Area

54.6%

Mountain Area

32.0%

Jangle Area

13.4%

Mortality rate, infant(per 1,000 live births)
GINI Index

5

Source : Censos Nacionales 2007: XI de Población y VI de Vivienda
Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI)

Source6䋭 㪉㪊㪊 䋭49.6

*1USD=2.85 Nuevo Soles (Jan,2010)

Instituto Nacional de Estadística e
Informática (INEI)
Encuesta Nacional de Hogares
Anual 2004-2008
World Bank

UNDP,
Human Development Report 2009

2.Project Background

2.Project Background

Abstract

Earthquake History
Historic Earthquake in Peru

1.Social background
2.Project background

3.Project-Phase 1



4.Project-Phase 2



5.Consideration

1970.5.31



1974.10.3

Lima (M 8.1)



2001.6.23

Moquegua (M 8.4)

Chimbote,Hualas (M7.9)



2005.9.26

Moyobamba (M 7.5)



2006.10.20

Ica (M 6.7)



2007.8.15

Ica (M 8.0)

82.Project Background

2.Project Background

House Type㪊㪊

Instituto Nacional de Defensa Civil, Peru

Residents of Adobe House㪉 㪈

Relation between Poverty rate and adobe house
㪈㪇㪇
㪐㪇

㪈㪇

㪏㪇

㪩㪚㩷㫆㫉㩷㪙㫉㫀㪺㫂㪘㪻㫆㪹㪼㪮㫆㫆㪻㪼㫅
㪨㫌㫀㫅㪺㪿㪸
㪪㫋㫆㫅㪼㪜㫊㫋㪼㫉㪸
㪦㫋㪿㪼㫉

Rate of Adobe House (%)

㪋㪎

㪎㪇
㪍㪇
㪌㪇
㪋㪇
㪊㪇
㪉㪇
㪈㪇

㪊㪌

㪇
㪇
Source : Censos Nacionales 2007: XI de Población y VI de Vivienda
Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI)

9

2.Project Background

㪉㪇

㪋㪇

㪍㪇

2.Project Background

Building Codes

Adobe houses have been damaged severely, every time anearthquake occurs.

On the other hand…

“REGLAMENTO NACIONAL DE EDIFICACIONES”-NORMA E.080 Adobe

1112䋭 㪉㪊㪋 䋭㪏㪇㪈㪇㪇poverty rate (by Department) (%)
Source : Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI)

10Adobe houses Damage
Source:The United States Geological Survey(USGS),

1970 Hualas (Photo: INDECI)

7

2.Project Background

2.Project Background

Project background

Focus of the Project

If constructed in appropriate method…

Conventional method
Local materials
Conventional construction system(Constructed by non-engineered residents)

Appropriate construction methods

Safer Seismic Adobe House

Photo: JICA

13

14

3.Project Phase 1

3.Project Phase 1

Abstract

1.Social background

2.Project background

3.Project-Phase 1



4.Project-Phase 2



5.Consideration

Project Objectives[Overall Goal ]Decrease of earthquake damages by disseminating
the technologies of seismic house in poverty areas.
[Project Objectives]
Dissemination of technologies of seismic nonengineered adobe house in the project areas.
[Term]
August 2005 – March 2007

15

16

3.Project Phase 1

3.Project Phase 1

Overview of the Project






17

Project Site

WorkshopConstruction of Model Houses
Regular Monitoring by Engineers18䋭 㪉㪊㪌 䋭site

Building Type

LunahuanáHouse (1)Pacarán

House(2)ZúñigaCommunal Refectory (1)Huangáscar

Communal House(1)Mothers’ Center (1)Huac-Huas

Communal House(1)Google Map

3.Project Phase 1

3.Project Phase 1

WorkshopDesign of the Model House
{
{




Construction of Model Houses


Adaptive design to the lifestyle of residents
Residents’ increasing interest in their houses throughparticipation.

On the Job Training with NGO

Enlightenment of Seismic AwarenessLearning program about Adobe Construction

Photo:JICA

Photo:JICA

19

20

3.Project Phase 1

3.Project Phase 1

Regular Monitoring by Engineers

Evaluation (by JICA and Experts)

Peruvian Engineers Japanese ExpertPhoto:JICA

Model House was constructed inappropriate method, keeping high quality.



Through the WS, residents have higher
interests in their own houses.

Residents and their community basically
accept model houses and it’s construction
method, as well as their concept.

Photo:JICA

21

22

3.Project Phase 1

3.Project Phase 1

Issues to Solve (By JICA and Experts)
Continued Monitoring
{
{





Improvement of easier or reasonable construction method ,through the continued Monitoring.
“Dissemination” has achieved some degree, then“implementation “?

{Communication with Community{Further reduction
Government involvement. Subsidy System, Establishmentof system for compliance with building codes{䋭 㪉㪊㪍 䋭Not only the construction method, but themeaning of that method.

Cost Reduction{

24

Through NGO, through community leaders

Further Training{

Cost Reduction – achieve some reduction, but…
{

23

Lessons Learned (By JICA and Experts)

Cost of cargo transportation (mountain area)
Local materials

3.Project Phase 1

4.Project Phase 2

Abstract

Project Objectives



1.Social background

2.Project background

3.Project-Phase 1



4.Project-Phase 2



5.Consideration[Overall Goal ]Improve the safety and health conditions of adobe
houses in poverty areas.
[Project Objectives]
Dissemination of technologies of seismic, sanitary
functional and durable adobe house, so that engineers,construction masters (Maestro de Obra) and residents
in poverty areas can acquire them.
[Term]
April 2007 – March 2010

25

26

4.Project Phase 2

3.Project Phase 1

Overview of the Project

Training to Architects, Engineers,
Construction Master and Residents

Site

Construction of Model HousesRegular Monitoring by EngineersStructure ExperimentProject Site
Building Type

District

Department

Lunahuaná

Lima

House (2)Guadalupe

Ica

Communal House(1)San juan

Cajamarca

Communal House(1)

Tarma

Junín

Communal House(1)Lunahuaná

Lima

House (2)JosésabogalCajamarca

Communal House(1)(cancellation)

Improvement of Manual

Google Map

27

28

4.Project Phase 2

4.Project Phase 2

Propuesta del JICA para la 2da. Etapa del Proyecto“Viviendas Seguras y Saludables”(Año 2007-2009)

Ministerio de Vivienda

Project Team

Bonos,
Banco deMateriales

Extensionistas
Nivel 1
Arq e Ing.

Architect(Project Coordinator)

Engineer

Nivel 2

Maestros de Obras

SupervisePla

Trained “Maestro de Obra”
Trained Arch./Eng.
Advice(Site Supervisor)

Resident

e lo
od

ss

Central deServicios
Técnico y financiero
Promueve
Autoconstrucción

Supervise

Japanese
ExpertssM
noResident

Construction of Adobe House

Team 1- Tarma Department (Acobamba and Palca)

Resident

Resident

Team 2 - Cajamarca Department (San Juan and San Marcos)
Team 3 – Ica Department (Guadalupe)2930

䋭 㪉㪊㪎 䋭Espacio Territorial(Comunidad, Centro Poblado)

Estación ó Planta demateriales

4.Project Phase 2

4.Project Phase 2

Training to Construction Masterand Residents

Training to Architects and Engineers
NºNombre y Apellido

Profesion

Centro de Trabajo

Cargo

Distrito

Provincia

Departamento

1

German Oswaldo Ascoy Vidal

Ingeniero Civil

Munic. Distrital De Magdalena de Cao

Asistente de oficina de Desarrollo
Urbano y Obras

Magdalena de
Cao

Ascope

La Libertad

2

Orgio Luis Chota Calampa

Ingeniero Civil

Munic. Distrital de San Juan

Responsable de diversas obras

Cajamarca

Cajamarca

Cajamarca

3

Anner Moreno Adrianzén

Ingeniero Civil

Munic. Distrital de San Juan

Responsable de diversas obras

San Juan

Cajamarca

Cajamarca

4

Carlos Alfonso Najarro Becerra

Arquitecto

Munic. Distrital de Pocsi

Gerente de Infraestructura

Pocsi

Arequipa

Arequipa

5Alex Walter Alvarado Cruz

Ingeniero Civil

Munic. Provincial de Pomabamba

Evaluador de Proyectos

RecuayRecuayAncash6

Haynes Cordova Peña

Profesor

Diócesis de Chulucanas - Piura

Responsable de diversas obras

ChulucanasMorropon

Piura

7

Wilder Sandro Jesús Contreras

Bach.
Ingenieria
Civil

Municipalidad Distrital de Acobamba

Asistente de la Oficina de Obras y
Desarrollo Urbano

Acobamba

Tarma

8Jose Perata Ostolaza

Arquitecto

Ministerio de Vivienda

Encarg. Cartera de Proyectos

San Isidro

Lima

Lima

9

Marco Risco Zevallos

Ingeniero

Ministerio de Vivienda

Encarg. de Ing. Cartera Proy.

San Isidro

Lima

Lima

10

Liliana Ninaquispe Romero

Arquitecta

Ministerio de Vivienda

Coord.Cartera de Proyectos

San Isidro

Lima

Lima

11

Yoel Herrera Paraguez

Arquitecto

ONG CIED-PerúAsesor Técnico ONG CIED

Antioquía

Huarochirí

12Constante Guillermo Castillo
Alva

Arquitecto

Municipalidad Provincial de Sánchez
Carrión

Encargado de la División dePlaneamiento Urbano y Catastro

Huamachuco

Sánchez
Carrión

La Libertad

13

Freddy Salas Chavez

Ingeniero Civil

Gobierno Regional de Arequipa(COPASA)

Apoyo en la elaboración deexpedientes tecnicos

Arequipa

Arequipa

Arequipa

14

Noé Juan Huamán Coronel

Arquitecto

Municipalidad Distrital de Palca

Sub-gerente de obras públicas ydesarrollo urbano y rural.

Palca

Tarma

Junín

15

Paolo Minaya Gonzáles

Ingeniero Civil

Municipalidad Provincial de
Pomabamba

Proyectista

Pomabamba

Pomabamba

Ancash16

Cristóbal Cornetero Ayudante

Agrónomo

Municipalidad Distrital Jose Sabogal

Jefe Oficina de Agua y Saneamiento

José Sabogal

San
MarcosCajamarca

Junin

Lima

Photo:JICA

31

32

4.Project Phase 2

4.Project Phase 2

Construction of Model Houses

Regular Monitoring by Engineers

Photo:JICA

Photo:JICA

Photo:JICA

Photo:JICA

Advice for the projectEvaluation of the model houses of phase 1
Propose of improved method

Photo:JICA

33

4.Project Phase 2

34

4.Project Phase 2

Structure Experiment

35

Improvement of Manual

Material Experiment
Expert’s proposal36䋭 㪉㪊㪏 䋭Simple Manual 䋨JICA)

Photo:JICA

4.Project Phase 2

4.Project Phase 2Interim Evaluation (by Experts)
Interim Evaluation (by Experts)

Problems?

{ Not disseminated enough

Proposal{ Improvement of the method (considering

the local situation){ Still Higher Cost
{ Lack of Publication{ Cost Reduction{ Incorrect Maintenance{ More public relations{ Difficulty in Coordination with Ministry{ Monitoring of Model House of phase 1

37

38

5.Consideration

5.Consideration

AbstractConsideration


1.Social background

How to disseminate or Implement?
{ Approach from “Community Side”, not from thegovernment side.


2.Project background

3.Project-Phase 1



4.Project-Phase 2



5.Consideration{ Target and concept.



Why people don’t use this method.



Who take the main role ?

{ Social and cultural background.

{ Government, Community, House Owner, NGO…
{ “Academic” or “Political”?

39


40

䋭 㪉㪊㪐 䋭Continuity

5.5 Community based disaster management and assistance for retrofitting /䉟䊮䊄䊈䉲䉝ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេ䈱ᢎ⸠
Presented by Shoichi Ando, United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) /࿖ㅪ࿾ၞ㐿⊒䉶䊮䉺䊷 㒐ἴ⸘↹౓ᐶ੐ോᚲ㐳 ቟⮮ዏ৻I.

䉮䊚䊠䊆䊁䉞㒐ἴ䈫ᑪ▽⠴㔡ൻ䈱ᡰេCommunity Based Disaster
Management (CBDM) & Housing
Erathquake Safety Initiative (HESI)ᦨㄭ䈱ᶏᄖ䈱ἴኂ੐଀䈎䉌ቇ䈹
Lessons from recent Disasters

Recent World Disasters ᦨㄭ䈱਎⇇䈱ἴኂ䋱䋮Indian Ocean Tsunami 䉟䊮䊄ᵗᵤᵄ 䋨2004.12.26䋩
䋲䋮Pakistan Earthquake 䊌䉨䉴䉺䊮࿾㔡 䋨2005.10.8䋩
䋳䋮Java Earthquake䉳䊞䊪ፉ࿾㔡

䋨2006.5.27䋩

࿖㓙ㅪว࿾ၞ㐿⊒䉶䊮䉺䊷 䋨UNCRD)

䋴䋮Peru Earthquake䊕䊦䊷ධㇱ࿾㔡

䋨2007.8.15䋩

቟⮮ዏ৻ Shoichi ANDO Dr.

䋵䋮China Earthquake ਛ࿖྾Ꮉᄢ࿾㔡 䋨2008.5.12䋩
䋶䋮Cyclones in Asia 䉝䉳䉝ฦ࿾䈱บ㘑 䋨2009䈾䈎䋩

26 Feb. 2010
Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN/DESA)

2010ᐕ2᦬26ᣣ

䋷䋮Haiti Earthquake䊊䉟䉼࿾㔡(PAP) 䋨2010.1.12䋩ᵤᵄ䈱ⵍኂ Damages by Tsunamiἴኂ䈱⢛᥊ Background of Disasters䋱䋮⥄ὼ⃻⽎䈮䉋䉎䊊䉱䊷䊄䈲⛘䈋䈝⊒↢Constant occurrence of natural hazards
䋲䋮ੱญ䈱Ⴧട䇮ㇺᏒ䈱᜛ᄢ╬䈪䊥䉴䉪䈏Ⴧᄢ
Increasing risks by expansion of population/city䋳䋮ㅜ਄࿖䈱⽺࿎ጀ䈮ⵍኂ䈏㓸ਛ䈜䉎௑ะ
Trends of heavier damages to the poor in LDCs
䋨࿾㔡䈲ਛ㑆ጀ䈱႐ว䉅: Earthquake to middle incomes etc.䋩䋴䋮↢ᘒ♽䈱ᖡൻ䇮᳇୥ᄌേ䈱ỗൻ
Degradation of eco-system / Climate Change
UNCRD
Aug. 2005

䉟䊮䊄䊈䉲䉝䇮䊋䊮䉻䉝䉼䉢 Banda Aceh, Indonesiaඨᐕᓟ ᓳ⥝䈻A half year after:
Towards recovery౮⌀: UNCRD

ቇᩞୟუCollapsed School50ੱએ਄䈱↢ᓤ䈏หᤨ䈮੢䈒䈭䉍䇮䈖䈱࿾඙䈮䈲ቇ㦂ᦼ䈱ሶଏ䈏䈇䈭䈒䈭䈦䈢䇯
More than 50 students were
killed and there is no school
children in this community.

2006ᐕ3᦬࿾ၞ⠴㔡䊝䊂䊦૑ቛ䋨NSET)
Local earthquake
proof model
housing (NSET)䋭 㪉㪋㪇 䋭ඨᐕᓟ A half year after:

౮⌀: UNCRD
2006ᐕ9᦬

3䊱᦬ᓟ 3 months after౮⌀: UNCRD
2007ᐕ4᦬䊶૑᳃䈱⥄ഥദജ䈫౏ഥ
Self-help and cooperation䊶ᣂ䈚䈇Ꮏᴺ䈱ዉ౉ദജ
Introduce new technology䊶ᄬ䉒䉏䈢ᧁㅧ䈱વ⛔
Lost traditional wood frame৻ᐕඨᓟ䈱ⵍἴ࿾
One and a half year after౮⌀: UNCRD

৻ᐕᓟ䈱ⵍἴ࿾
One year after

2006ᐕ9᦬

3䊱᦬ᓟ 3 months after⠴㔡Ꮏᴺ᥉෸䊘䉴䉺䊷:
Poster for earthquake proof house౮⌀: UNCRD
2007ᐕ7᦬1ㅳ㑆ᓟ One week after䊕䊦䊷䈱ᄥᐔᵗጯ䈲㔎䈏㒠䉌䈝
᷷ᥦ䈭䈢䉄ደᩮ
䈏シ䈇The roof islight as there
is no rain andwarm weather.
౮⌀: UNCRD
2007ᐕ8᦬ⵍἴ䈚䈢䉝䊄䊔૑ቛ䈱ౝ஥Inside of affected adobe house౮⌀: UNCRD
2007ᐕ8᦬䋭 㪉㪋㪈 䋭2007.8 䊕䊦䊷࿾㔡
Peru Earthquake1ㅳ㑆ᓟ One week after

CISMID(䊕䊦䊷ᣣᧄ࿾㔡㒐ἴ䉶䊮䉺䊷)

II. UNCRD 㒐ἴ䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃 (1999 – 200䋹)ἴኂᓳ⥝䊒䊨䉳䉢䉪䊃䉮䊚䊠䊆䊁䉞㒐ἴ࿾㔡䈮䉁䈔䈭䈇
ቇᩞ⸘↹䋺SESI䉳䉢䊮䉻䊷㈩ᘦ䈫ㇺᏒൻ䈮ኻᔕ䈜䉎Community Based Disaster Management䉮䊚䊠䊆䊁䉞㒐ἴ( HTF 7 - 11)

ESI䋺࿾㔡቟ో⸘↹(ੱ㑆䈱቟ో଻㓚ၮ㊄)࿾㔡䈮䉁䈔䈭䈇
૑ቛ⸘↹䋺HESI࿖ㅪ㒐ἴ਎⇇ળ⼏(⠴㔡ᑪ▽ၮḰ᥉෸䋺ABCD)౓ᐶ⋵ ␹ᚭᏒᜬ⛯น⢻䈭䉮䊚䊠䊆䊁䉞㒐ἴ( HTF 4 - 6 )WCDR 2005ㇺᏒෂ㒾ᐲ⹏ଔ䋺GESI䉮䊚䊠䊆䊁䉞㒐ἴ䋺CBDM

HTF䋺౓ᐶା⸤ၮ㊄( HTF 1 - 3 )ἴ ኂ ⺞ ᩏProjects (1999 - 2009) of UNCRD Hyogo
Recovery Projects␠ ળof disaster affected areas

Gendered DM
and Urbanisationin CBDM( HTF 7 - 11)
Sustainability
in CBDM( HTF 4 - 6 )Hyogo Trust Fund

School Earthquake
Safety Initiative: SESI
(Human Security Fund)World Conference
on Disaster Reduction
WCDR 2005

Community Based
Disaster Management࿾㔡䈮䉁䈔䈭䈇૑ቛ⸘↹ (HESI)
Ꮢ᳃䈻䈱
ᗧ⼂໪⊒

Earthquake Safetyᑪ▽ⷙ೙䇮

Housing Earthquake
Safety Initiative: HESI⠴㔡ᑪ▽ၮḰ䇮(Anti-seismic Building
Code Dissemination)

૑ቛ䈱
቟ో

䈭䈬

ㇺᏒ⸘↹

Global Earthquake
Safety Initiative: GESI(Urban risk assessment)

቟ోၮḰ䈫
䊥䊮䉪䈚䈢
⾗ᩰ೙ᐲ
Ⲣ⾗೙ᐲ

⚻ ᷣ

଻㒾೙ᐲ
䈭䈬

䉣䊈䊦䉩䊷

ᛛⴚ▤ℂ䇮✛ൻ䈭䈬( HTF 1 - 3 )Field SurveyⅣ Ⴚof disaster affected areas䋭 㪉㪋㪉 䋭㑐ଥ䈜䉎᡽╷ಽ㊁

HESI Workshop 䊪䊷䉪䉲䊢䉾䊒

Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative

SocialEconomic

Loan system
Raising publicwith safety
awareness,
License standards,
Building control,
Assurance
Seismic
Safety ofsystem,codes,
Housesetc.
Urban
Energyetc.
Planning
Saving

Nepal
䊈䊌䊷䊦
HESI
2007. 8.
2-3

Peru 䊕䊦䊷 HESI 2007. 8. 23

Technology management,
Landscape, etc.

Environmentalሶ䈬䉅䈢䈤䈏ᑪ▽⾗᧚䉕૞䈦䈩䈇䉎࿾㔡࿖䈏ᄙᢙ䈅䉎䇯

III. ⚿⺰ Conclusion

There are many countries where children prepare
construction materials.
䉝䊐䉧䊆䉴䉺䊮 Afghanistan 2003ᑪ▽‛䈱ୟუ䈏࿾㔡ἴኂ䈱ᦨᄢⷐ࿃䇯The collapse of building causes tragedies.
቟ో䈭ᑪ▽䈲䇮ᛛⴚ⠪䈫ⴕ᡽䈱දജ䈏ᔅⷐ䇯
Cooperation of engineers and governments,䈠䈱᥉෸䈮䈲䇮ᑪ▽ၮḰ䇮ᬌᩏ೙ᐲ䈱䈾䈎䈮ᛛⴚ⠪ᢎ⢒䈱઀⚵䉂䉇䈠䈱᧚ᢱ䈏ᔅⷐ䇯
Building code, inspection system, engineer
education and its materials are the keys.

ᑪ▽ⷙ೙䉕㐿ᆎ䈚䈢䊤䊥䊃䊒䊷䊦Ꮢઁ䈱࿾㔡࿖䈱⚻㛎䉕ෳ⠨䈮䈜䉎䈖䈫䉅㊀ⷐ䇯

Lalitpur (Patan) City establishedseismic building code.

Experiences of other earthquake-prone country䊈䊌䊷䊦 Nepal

IV. 㒐ἴ䈮㑐ㅪ䈜䉎࿖ㅪᯏ㑐䈫ኻ⽎▸࿐⺞ᢛᯏ㑐 ISDR䋨ᣥ IDNDR, UNDRO䋩

Coordinationੱ㆏ᡰេᯏ㑐

᡽ᴦ Policy㒐ἴ૕೙䇮᡽╷

OCHA䇮UNICEF

Disaster related
UN agencies /type of Hazards

Humanitarian㐿⊒Ⲣ⾗ᯏ㑐
W orld Bank䇮ADB

Finance⚻ᷣ Economy㒐ἴ੐ᬺ䇮⽷᡽㐿⊒දജᯏ㑐
UNDP䇮䋨JICA䋩

Development␠ળ㐿⊒ᯏ㑐

␠ળ Social Affair㒐ἴᢎ⢒䇮↢ᵴ

UNESCO䇮WHO

Social Dev.
⎇ⓥ䊶⎇ୃᯏ㑐
UNU䇮UNCRD

R&D / Training⍮⼂ Knowledge㒐ἴᛛⴚ䇮᥉෸

ἴኂ

Hazards

ᵩ᳓
᥸㘑
࿾䈜䈼䉍
ᵤᵄ
࿾㔡
ྃἫ
ᐓ䈳䈧
∉∛
᫪ᨋἫἴ
᷷ᥦൻ
䈭䈬

FloodsCyclones
Land Slides
Tsunamis
Earthquakes
VolcanoDraught
Epidemics
Forest Fires
Global Warm
etc.

Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
United Nations Centre for Regional Development࿖㓙ㅪว࿾ၞ㐿⊒䉶䊮䉺䊷㒐ἴ⸘↹౓ᐶ੐ോᚲ䋭 㪉㪋㪊 䋭END

5.6 Earthquake Risk Reduction and Recovery Preparedness in South Asia /ධ䉝䉳䉝䈮䈍䈔䉎࿾㔡㒐ἴኻ╷䈱ផㅴ
Presented by Atsushi Koresawa, Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC) /䉝䉳䉝㒐ἴ䉶䊮䉺䊷ᚲ㐳 ᤚỈఝAsian Disaster Reduction
Center (ADRC) established in
Kobe, Hyogo Pref. in 1998

Earthquake Risk Reduction and Recovery
Preparedness Programme (ERRP)
for South Asian Region

Atsushi KORESAWA
Asian Disaster Reduction CenterFebruary, 2010

ADRC Member Countries

Asian Conference on Disaster management
Held in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, on 17-19 January 2010
Organized jointly by ADRC, UNSIDAR and Japan’s Cabinet Office

28 Member Countries, 5 Advisor Countries

Natural Disasters in South Asia

Earthquakes caused the deadliest disasters

South Asia is regarded as one of the most criticalhotspot of disasters
Disasters with more than 10,000 fatalities (1975-2008)
1983

Ethiopia

Drought

300,000

1976

China

Tangshan earthquake

242,000

2004

South Indian Ocean

Indian Ocean tsunami

226,408

1983

Sudan

Drought

150,000

1991

Bangladesh

Cyclone Gorky

138,866

2008

MyanmarCyclone Nargis

133,655

1981

Mozambique

Drought

100,000
87,476

2008

China

Sichuan earthquake

2005

India, Pakistan

Kashmir earthquake

73,3382003

EuropeHeat wave

56,809“Earthquakes are the deadliest natural hazard of
the past ten years and remain a serious threat for
millions of people worldwide as eight out of theten most populous cities in the world are on
earthquake fault-lines”“Disaster risk reduction is an indispensable
investment for each earthquake-prone city andeach community. Seismic risks is a permanentrisk and cannot be ignored. Earthquake canhappen anywhere at any time.”
Margareta Wahlstrom, UN Special Representative of the Secretary-Generalfor Disaster Risk Reduction

Source: EMDAT䋭 㪉㪋㪋 䋭Conceptual Framework

Disaster Risks

Challenges facing South Asian countries
 Frequencies of earthquakes continue to result in
extensive damages and loss of life

Less Disaster Risks

 Limited capacities of national organisations andlow awareness in the most vulnerable
communities add to the devastating impact ofthese disasters
HazardVulnerability

Mitigation

 Public buildings (schools, hospitals, community
centres etc.), infrastructure and private houses arein many cases highly vulnerable to earthquakes

Capacity

Earthquake Risk Reduction and Recovery
Preparedness Programme (ERRP)
Period:Agencies:
Budget :Coverage:

Roles of ADRC
At Regional Level

April 2007 – March 2010
UNDP in partnership with ADRC
Approx. USD 4.8 million from Gov. of Japan
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan- Co-organize Regional Workshop- Arrange Japanese and other experts as resources- Facilitate regional cooperation- Conduct “Pull Down Test”

Objectives:--

To strengthen the institutional and community capacity toplan and implement earthquake risk reduction strategies
integrating disaster preparedness, mitigation and postdisaster recovery

At Country Level- Provide training services- Develop teaching materials- Conduct Risk Assessment Reviews- Hold Mini-workshop

To support regional cooperation for DRR and recovery
preparedness in the context of SAARC Framework for
Disaster Management

Regional Workshop

Technical Assistance at country level
Delivered lectures to local officials and engineers atworkshops in Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh on:- Earthquake Safe Construction Design- Retrofitting Techniques,- Quality Management of Reinforced Building- Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment
Developed:䊶 Lecture Notes for the Students of Colleges in Pakistan
䊶 Training Slides on “Earthquake Damage to Buildings”
䊶 Poster on “Key requirement for safer construction”
Reviewed:䊶 National Building Codes (Nepal)
䊶 Existing Government and Municipal Policies (Nepal)
䊶 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings (Bhutan)䊶 Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation Guidelines (Bhutan)

 Venues

Katmandu (Aug 2008), Islamabad (Apr 2009), Delhi (Jul 2009),
Dhaka (Dec 2009)
Organizers
ADRC, UNDP, SAARC DMC, National Governments
 Objectives- Provide technical expertise on ERRP
through presentations by experts- Identify priority issues andaddress course of actions- Facilitate knowledge-sharing andSouth-South cooperation䋭 㪉㪋㪌 䋭

Retrofitting Method

Pull Down Test

(Jacketing) Objectives- Main causes of deaths in past earthquakes were related
to the collapse of buildings, especially non-engineered
masonry buildings- Examine seismic resistance of buildings with and without
retrofitting and demonstrate differences
 Retrofitting methods applied- Use 1.6mm diameters, 19mm center-to-center distancegalvanized wire mesh sheets on both sides of walls- Drill holes for inserting binding wire @1 ft on center- Plastering with 1:3= Cement :Sand Mortal

Process Image of Pull Down Test

Bird’s Eye View of “Pull Down Test “1516

Preparation for the pull down test
Original

Pull Down Test
Oct. 15, 2009 :Nov.2-3 2009 :After separation

1st Pull Down Test for non-retrofitted BLD
2nd Pull Down Test for Retrofitted BLD

Brick Masonry in Mud Mortar
built in 1967

1718

䋭 㪉㪋㪍 䋭

1st Pull Down Test for non-retrofitted BLD

19

20
20

Cracks started at
maximum load 16.8 ton
21

22

23

24

䋭 㪉㪋㪎 䋭2nd Pull Down Test for Retrofitted BLD

25

26

The building did not fall down beyond 26.3 ton
without any crack.

Main outcomes of the pull-down test The non-retrofitted building completely fell
down by pulling with the intensity of 16.8 ton,whereas the retrofitted building did not evencause cracks when the intensity reached asmuch as 26.3 ton.
 The wire mesh with mortal coating method
has been proved to be a effective and consteffective retrofitting method to increase
seismic resistance of masonry buildings.
 More importantly, non-experts and ordinary
citizens have witnessed such a difference. 28

27

Coverage by local newspapers

Thank you very much!
So successful.

30䋭 㪉㪋㪏 䋭Special Announcement from ADRC and IRP

Roster of Experts on Haiti Recovery
International Recover Platform (IRP) is urging experts to become amember of the Technical Expert Group for Haiti Recovery. The list will bemade available for Haitian Government and International organizations

Invest today for a safer tomorrow

 Themes and Topics
shelter, infrastructure (utilities, telecom, roads and bridges, buildings, schools
and hospitals, water and sanitation), health, psycho social, environment,
livelihoods, and building code enforcement and implementation

 Role of Experts

 Experts could be deployed in Haiti (or Washington DC) for about two weeks
and work with the Haitian government and international organizations
 Experts could provide assistance through virtual means,including email, video conference, and teleconference Qualification
English speaker䋬long-term commitment
 How to register
The registration form is available in this venue. Please fill in the form and send it
to Ms. Gulizaer Keyimu (gulzar@recoveryplatform.org ) by FAX, email or mailThank you very much!
International Federationof Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies䋭 㪉㪋㪐 䋭








2CPGN&KUEWUUKQP̌*QYVQRTQOQVGUCHGV[KORTQXGOGPVQH
PQPGPIKPGGTGFJQWUGUKPFGXGNQRKPIEQWPVTKGU̍






6.1 Outline of discussion







㧝㧚࠴ࠚࠕࡑࡦ᜿ᜦ
ᧄᣣߩ࠴ࠚࠕࡑࡦࠍߟߣ߼߹ߔᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲ࿾㔡Ꮏቇ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ߩᢧ⮮ߣ↳ߒ߹ߔ‫ᧄޕ‬ᣣߩࠪࡦࡐࠫ࠙ࡓ
ߪᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲ‫ޔ‬㧳㧾㧵㧼㧿ߩ౒หߢ㐿௅ߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲߪㅜ਄࿖ᡰេߣߒߡㆊ෰ 50 ᐕ㑆ߩ࿾㔡Ꮏቇ⎇ୃࠍⴕߞߡ߈ߚ‫ ߢ߹ࠇߎޕ‬1,400 ੱએ਄߇ୃ
ੌߒߚ‫ޔ߽ࠄ߆ࠇߎޕ‬ᣣᧄߩදജߩ৻┵ࠍᜂߞߡⴕ߈ߚ޿ߣᕁߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬㧞㧚ࡄࡀ࡝ࠬ࠻ߩ⚫੺ฝ߆ࠄ‫⑔ޔ‬ጊᵗ㧔ᣣᧄ㧕‫ࡉࠫ࠽ޔ‬㧔ࡄࠠࠬ࠲ࡦ㧕‫࡜ࡃࠨ࡮ࠬࡠ࡞ࠞޔ‬㧔ࡍ࡞࡯㧕‫ࡗࠗ࠳ޔ‬㧔ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ㧕‫ޔ‬ࠕ࡞ࡄ࡯㧔࠻࡞ࠦ㧕‫ޕ‬㧡ฬߩࡄࡀ࡝ࠬ࠻ߪ࿾㔡ᄙ⊒࿾Ꮺߢ޽ࠆධ☨‫᧲ޔ‬ධࠕࠫࠕ‫ޔ‬ਛᄩࠕࠫࠕ‫ޔ‬ਛ᧲ߩ಴り⠪ߢ޽ࠆߎ߆ࠄ
ㆬቯߒߚ‫ޕ‬࿾ၞߩ⁛․ߩ੐ᖱ߿ᑪ⸳ⅣႺ߇⇣ߥࠆ‫ࠍ⹤ߚߞ޿߁ߘޕ‬⡞ߌࠇ߫ߣᕁߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬㧟㧚ࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼ߩቯ⟵㧔ᢧ⮮㧕࡮ᛛⴚ⊛ߥ⷗࿾߆ࠄࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼‫ࠅ߈ߞߪߣࠆߺࠍ࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛࡦࡁޔ‬ಽ߆ࠇߡ޿ࠆ⸶ߢߪߥ޿‫࠼ࠕޕ‬ࡌ‫ޔ‬⍹ㅧ‫ߦ࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛࡦࡁߪࠟࡦ࡟ޔ‬ಽ㘃ߐࠇ‫ޔ‬⠴㔡ᕈߩⷰὐ߆ࠄߪ‫ޔ‬⠴㔡ᕈ߇ૐ޿‫ޕ‬Ꮐਅߦ࿯ߩ
᭴ㅧ‛߇ಽ㘃ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮Ꮏቇ⊛ߥᛛⴚ߇෻ᤋߐࠇߡ޿ߊߣ㋕╭ࠦࡦࠢ࡝࡯࠻‫ޔ‬㋕㛽ㅧߦߥࠅᑪ‛߽ᄢⷙᮨൻߒߡ޿ߊ‫ޕ‬ฝ஥ߦะ߆ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߪฝ਄ߩ㗔ၞߦᑪ‛߇޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬਎⇇ߢⵍኂ߇⿠߈ߡ޿ࠆߩߪᏀਅߩᑪ‛‫ޕ‬䋭 㪉㪌㪊 䋭࡮ࠕ࠼ࡌࠍᱛ߼ߡ‫ޔ‬㋕╭ࠦࡦࠢ࡝࡯࠻ㅧ߿㋕㛽ㅧߦะ߆ߞߡⴕߊߩ߇‫ޔ‬ᱜߒ޿ᣇะߥߩ߆ߤ߁߆⊝ߐࠎߩᗧ⷗ࠍ⡞߈ߚ޿‫ޕ‬࡮ࠕ࠼ࡌ߿⍹ㅧߪᢥൻߥߩߢᱷߒߥ߇ࠄ቟ోᕈࠍ㜞߼ࠆ‫ࡌ࠼ࠕޕ‬ㅧ߽ࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼ߦߥࠆߩߢߪߥ޿߆
ߣ޿߁⼏⺰߽޽ࠆߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬㧠㧚ࠕ࠼ࡌㅧࠍࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼ߦߒߚ੐଀㧔⑔ጊ㧕࡮ࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ໧㗴ὐࠍᢛℂߒ‫ޔ‬዁᧪ߩᣇะᕈࠍ⠨߃ߡ޿ߊ଀ߣߒߡ‫ࡃ࡞ࠨ࡞ࠛޔ‬Problems࠼࡞ߩ㧶㧵㧯㧭⠴㔡ࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ࠍ⚫੺ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ߪ‫ߥ⊛⥸৻ޔ‬૑ቛߩ⠴㔡ᕈߣ1) Lack of knowledge & information of people
about scenario of E.Q. damages

᥉෸╷‫ޔ‬ᛛⴚ⊛ߥะ਄ࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮ࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛࠍᑪ⸳ߔࠆ৻⥸ߩᣇ‫ޘ‬ߦኻߒߡԘ࿾㔡ߩ㓙ߩ፣უߩࠪ࠽࡝ࠝ‫ޔ‬᳇ࠍઃ2) Lack of information how to construct theseismic resistant housesߌߥߌࠇ߫޿ߌߥ޿໧㗴ߩᖱႎ‫ޔ‬⍮⼂߇චಽߦⴕ߈ᷰߞߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ԙ቟ోᕈࠍ⏕଻ߒߚ૑ቛߩ
ߟߊࠅᣇߦߟ޿ߡ߽චಽߦⴕ߈ᷰߞߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬Ꮐ⸥ߩ㧞ὐ߇㓚ኂߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬

࡮2001.7/1 ߩᄢ࿾㔡ߢࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼ߩ૑ቛߦᄢ߈ߥⵍኂ߇಴ߚ‫ࠍࠄࠇߎޕ‬⢛᥊ߦૐᚲᓧ⠪ะߌߩ૑ቛߢߩᕋᚒੱ߿ᱫ⠪ࠍᷫࠄߔߩ߇⋡⊛ߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮྾ߟߩᣉᎿᣇᴺࠍ⠴㔡ᕈࠍ᭴ㅧታ㛎ߢ⺞ߴ‫ޔ‬᥉෸ߩߚ߼ߩᑪ▽ࡑ࠾ࡘࠕ࡞ߠߊࠅ‫ޔ‬᥉෸ߩߚ߼ߩࡢ࡯
࡚ࠢࠪ࠶ࡊߩ㐿௅‫⃻ߦ✜৻ߣࠖ࠹࠾ࡘࡒࠦޔ‬࿾ߢࡕ࠺࡞૑ቛߩᑪ▽ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬࡮ߘߩ⚿ᨐ‫ޔ‬᡽ᐭ߿㧺㧳㧻ߦࠃࠅ‫ ⚂࡞ࡀࡄࠢ࠶ࡠࡉޔ‬100 ᫟‫ ࡌ࠼ࠕޔ‬118 ᫟ߩ૑ቛ߇ᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬
Output 4

The strategy for dissemination has been developed and executed

Construction systems investigated

4 easy-reading handbooks on each of thefour construction systems investigatedwere produced

Duringimplementationof TAISHIN
project, a large
number ofcommunity
leaders wheretrained byproject
researchers.

Block Panel System

Reinforced adobe

Soil Cement confined masonryConcrete Block system

Massive dissemination has been
carried out through TV programs
and radio spots.

࡮␆⍹ㅧߩࠠࠗߪ㕙ᄖ⎕უࠍએਅߦ㒐ߋ߆ߦ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᛶ᛫ᯏ᭴ߢ⵬ᒝߒߚࠕ࠼ࡌ‫ߢࡌ࠼ࠕ࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛޔ‬ߪ 38ࠑߩ௑ᢳ㧔ᦨᄢ௑ᢳ㧕ߢ߽፣უߒߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬䋭 㪉㪌㪋 䋭

Output 5

Earthquake resistant Popular housing is promoted among population

By November 2008, 103
block panel houses and
118 reinforced adobe
houses where built by thegovernment and NGOs.

38 cᲢ= 0.62 gᲣ
gᲣ࡮੹ᓟߩᣇะߪએਅߩ㧢ߟ‫ޕ‬หߓવ⛔⊛‫ޔ‬ᢥൻ⊛ߥ᭴ㅧᒻᑼߢ߽‫ߊ޿ߡߒߦ࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛޔ‬Ꮏᄦߪ޽ࠅ
ᓧࠆ‫ޕ‬

Future directions
1) Develop the simple & effective model ofearthquake resistant mechanism
2) Propose the effective methods on seismic safety
improvement of houses without changing its
original structural types3) Investigate the structural performance of the
proposed safety improvement methods by tests4) Develop the seismic safety evaluation methods
based on the resistant mechanisms5) Develop the construction manual based on theevaluation methods
6) Establish the supervision system for construction
quality control

㧡㧚ࡄࡀ࡞࠺ࠖࠬࠞ࠶࡚ࠪࡦ
ᢧ⮮㧔ᣣᧄ㧕

Improvement strategy࡮੹ᓟߩኻ╷ࠍ⠨߃ࠆ㓙ߦ‫ޔ‬ᛛⴚ㕙‫ޔ‬ᴺᓞ࡮ࠟࠗ࠼࡜
ࠗࡦ‫ੱ߁૶ࠍࠇߘޔ‬㆐ߩ⹤ߒ‫ޔ‬૑߻ੱߩ⹤‫ޔ‬ታ⃻ߔࠆ

PeopleMoney

Earthquake risk perception

Construction cost

Discipline / Morality

Retrofitting costߚ߼ߩ৻⇟ߩ㓚ኂߣߥࠆ߅㊄ߩ⹤߇޽ࠆ‫ࠄࠇߎޕ‬㧠ߟߦಽߌߡࡄࡀ࡝ࠬ࠻ߣߩ⼏⺰ࠍㅴ߼ߡ޿ߊ‫ޕ‬Ԙฦ࿖ߩࡄࡀ࡜࡯߇⠴㔡ᕈะ਄ߦ߅޿ߡ㊀ⷐᐲ߇㜞Technique
Structural system
Retrofitting technique

Regulation & Guideline
Design code
Construction guideline
Inspection system / penalty
Quality control޿ߣ⠨߃ࠆ੐㗄㧫࠽ࠫࡉ㧔ࡄࠠࠬ࠲ࡦ㧕࡮ࡄࠠࠬ࠲ࡦߢߪੱ‫ߦࠢࠬ࡝ߩޘ‬㑐ߔࠆฃߌᱛ߼ᣇ߇
ᦨ߽㊀ⷐߛߣ⠨߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᛛⴚߪ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬᭽‫⎇ߥޘ‬ⓥ߽ㅴ߼

ࠄࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬቟ోߥ૑ቛࠍߟߊࠆࡄࡦࡈ࡟࠶࠻߿ዊౠሶ߽↪ᗧߒߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ࠍࠇߘ߇ޘੱޔ‬ฃߌ౉ࠇࠆ
⁁ᴫߦߥ޿‫ޕ‬䋭 㪉㪌㪌 䋭࡮ᦨㄭ‫ޔ‬㧢ߟߩࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ࠍⴕߞߚ߇⠴㔡ᕈߩ㕙ߢ቟ోߢߪߥ߆ߞߚ‫ߪޘੱޕ‬ෂ㒾ᕈ‫ߦࠢࠬ࡝ޔ‬㑐ߒߡ‫ޔ‬૑ቛᑪ⸳ߦ㑐ߒߡᗧᕁࠍߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮߹ߚ‫ޔ‬ㅜ਄࿖ߢߪ⾗㊄㕙ߢߩ໧㗴߽޽ࠆ߇‫޿⦟ߪޘੱޔ‬ᑪ‛ߦߪ߅㊄ࠍᡰᛄ߁‫ޕ‬ᒰ੐⠪ߩෂᯏᗧ⼂‫ޔ‬ߘߩฃߌᱛ߼ᣇߦ໧㗴߇޽ࠆߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮ࡄࠠࠬ࠲ࡦߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ߩࠢࠬ࡝ޔ‬ฃߌᱛ߼ᣇ߽฽߼ߡᡷༀ࠮ࡒ࠽࡯‫ޔ‬໪⫥߇ᔅⷐߛߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠞ࡞ࡠࠬ࡮ࠨࡃ࡜㧔ࡍ࡞࡯㧕࡮࠻࡞ࠦ߿ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߩࠃ߁ߥ⠴㔡ࡊࡠࠣ࡜ࡓ߽޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬⠴㔡⵬ᒝᛛⴚߪᣢߦ޽ࠆ߇‫ߡ߃޽ޔ‬቟ోᕈߩૐ޿ኅߦੱ‫ߪޘ‬૑ࠎߢ޿ࠆ‫⚻ޕ‬ᷣߩ໧㗴߽ᒰὼ޽ࠆ߇‫⾗ޔ‬㊄ߛߌ߇໧㗴ߥࠊߌߢߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬᳿ቯ⽿છࠍᜬߟ࿾ၞߩᏒ㐳ߥߤ߇⥄ࠄ߽⠴㔡ᕈ⢻ߩߥ޿ኅደߦ૑ࠎߢ߅ࠅᴺᓞࠍฃߌ౉ࠇߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᴺᓞࠍㆩ቞ߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬࡮ࡍ࡞࡯ߢߪ‫ߩߡోޔ‬૑ቛᑪ⸳ࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ࠍ࠴ࠚ࠶ࠢߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿‫߇࠻ࠢࠚࠫࡠࡊޕ‬ᑪ▽ၮḰࠍḩߚߒߡ޿ࠆ߆ࠍ࠴ࠚ࠶ࠢߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿‫߁޿ߣޕ‬ᴺᓞߩᦠ߈߱ࠅߦߪߥߞߡ޿ࠆ߇࡮࡮࡮࡮࡮࡮
࡮2007 ᐕߦ JICA ࡒ࠶࡚ࠪࡦ߇ߟߊߞߚᣂⷙᑪ⸳ߩࠟࠗ࠼࡜ࠗࡦ‫ᦨޔ‬ૐၮḰ߿⠴㔡ᬌᩏߩᴺᓞ߽޽ࠆ߇
᳿ቯᮭࠍᜬߟੱ㆐߇ᴺᓞࠍዅ㊀ߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬࡮ᑪ‛ࠝ࡯࠽࡯߇⍮੐‫ޔ‬Ꮢ㐳‫ޔ‬඙㐳ࠍ⾈෼ߒߡ‫ޔ‬㧞㓏ᑪߩࡎ࠹࡞ߩ㧡㓏ᑪߡ߳ߩᄌᦝࠍ⸵นߒߡߒ߹߁
႐ว߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾ᣇ⥄ᴦ૕ߦ߅㊄ࠍᛄ߃߫‫⸘⸳ޔ‬࿑߽ή޿⸵น߇ਅࠅߡ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟߪోߊ࠴ࠚ࠶ࠢ߇಴᧪
ߥ޿‫ߪߢ࡯࡞ࡍޕ‬Ꮢ㐳ߥߤ᳿ቯ஥ߦᴺᓞࠍዅ㊀ߒߡ޿ߥ޿ߎߣߦ໧㗴߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࠳ࠗࡗ㧔ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ㧕࡮ᛛⴚߩ໧㗴ߢߪߥߊ‫ߩޘੱޔ‬໪⊒‫ޔ‬ᗧ⼂ߩะ਄߇ᄢಾ‫ޔ‬ᗧᕁ᳿ቯ⠪ߦ߽ⷙೣ߿ࠟࠗ࠼࡜ࠗࡦߩ㑐ଥߢ໧㗴߇޽ࠆ‫ⵍޕ‬ἴ⚻㛎ߩ᦭ή߇ኻᔕߩ㆑޿‫ޔ‬໧㗴ᗧ⼂ߩ㆑޿ᗧߦ⴫ࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ࡦࡃ߿࠹ࠕ࡜ࠚࠫࡦࠕޕ‬࠳ࡦ࿾ၞߢߩࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻ߢߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ⚻㛎߇᦭ࠆߩߢ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߦኻߔࠆ໧㗴ᗧ⼂߽㜞ߊ‫ࠆ޽ޔ‬⒟ᐲ߅㊄ࠍᛄߞߡ߽߽⥄ࠄࠍࠍ቞ࠅߚ޿᳇ᜬߜ߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮㔡ἴߣߪ㑐ଥߩߥ޿ࡃࡦ࠳࡞࿾ၞߢߪ‫ޟ‬᳇ߦߒߥ޿‫ޠ‬‫ޔ‬10㧑ߩࠦࠬ࠻਄᣹ߢ߽ੱ‫ޟߪޘ‬⠴㔡ᑪ▽ߪᅢ߹ߥ޿‫߁޿ߣޠ‬࿁╵ߦ⃻ࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬10㧑ߩ߅㊄ߩ㆑޿ߪᄢ߈޿‫߽ੱߩߒࠄ᥵࠻࡯ࡄࠕޔ‬ዬࠆ‫ޔ‬ᵩ᳓߽㗫❥ߥߩߢ࿾㔡ⵍኂߛߌߢߪߥ޿ߣߩℂ↱‫ޕ‬࡮໪⊒໪⫥߇㊀ⷐߢ‫ోޔ‬࿖৻ᓞߩⷙ೙‫⺃ޔ‬ዉߦࠃࠅ‫߇ੱࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗߩߡోޔ‬หߓ໧㗴ᗧ⼂ࠍᜬߟߴ߈‫ޕ‬ਛᄩ᡽ᐭ߇Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦ࿖᳃ߩ໪⊒ߦขࠅ⚵߻ᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮ⷙೣ߽޽ࠆ⒟ᐲ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⠴㔡ᑪ▽ߩⷙೣ߽޽ࠆ߇ో࿖৻ᓞߢߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬࿾ᣇߢ߽ㆩ቞ߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߥദജ߇
ᔅⷐ‫ޕ‬࡮ో࿖࡟ࡌ࡞ߩᑪ▽ၮḰᴺߪ޽ࠆ߇ㆇ↪ߪ࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭߩⷙ೙ߩਅߢⴕࠊࠇࠆ‫ߤߥ࠲࡞ࠞࡖࠫޔࡦ࠼ࡦࡃޕ‬ᄢㇺᏒߪ਄ᚻߊ޿ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬㔌ፉߢߪ߶ߣࠎߤ࡞࡯࡞ࠍ቞ࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬ਛᄩ᡽ᐭߩ࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭߩ໪⫥ദജ‫ޔ‬⋙〈߇ᔅⷐ‫ޕ‬ࠕ࡞ࡄ࡯㧔࠻࡞ࠦ㧕࡮ᑪჇࠍߒߚࠕࡄ࡯࠻߇ୟუߒ 37 ฬ߇ᱫ੢ߒߚࡆࠣ࡜࿾㔡ⵍኂߩ⽿છߪ‫ޔ‬࿯ᧁᑪ▽ኾ㐷ኅߩ⾗ᩰ೸ᅓߢ⚿ክߒߚ‫ޕ‬㧡㓏ߦᑪჇߒߒߚࠝ࡯࠽࡯߿⸵นߒߚᏒߩᓎຬߪ⽿છࠍ໧ࠊࠇߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬࡮㧡㧑Ⴧߩ⵬ᒝࠦࠬ࠻ߪ⠴㔡ߩߚ߼ߩࡀ࠶ࠢߦߪߥࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬⠴㔡቟ోᕈ߿ᣢሽᑪ‛ߩᡷୃߥߤ⚦߆ߥ 2007ᐕࠟࠗ࠼࡜ࠗࡦ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮᭽‫ߥޘ‬೙ᐲᡷᱜ߇޽ࠅ‫╙ޔ‬ਃ⠪߿⁛┙ߩᬺ⠪߇࠺ࠩࠗࡦ߆ࠄࠕࡊ࡝ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ߹ߢ⽿છࠍᜬߟࠃ߁ߦ
ߥߞߚ‫ޔ߽ߢࠇߎޕ‬ᬌᩏࠍ਄ᚻߊ಴᧪ߥ޿ਛዊᬺ⠪ߩᬌᩏᛛⴚߦߪ⇼໧߇ᱷࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮ࠗࠬ࠲ࡦࡉ࡯࡞ߦᴛጊ޽ࠆ‫ߩࠖ࠹࠾ࡘࡒࠦࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛޕ‬ਛ㜞ጀ‫ޔ‬ૐጀࠕࡄ࡯࠻ߦߪ‫ࡦࠗ࠹࠶ࠤࡖࠫޔ‬ࠣߥߤᣂߒ޿⠴㔡ᛛⴚ߽಴ߡ߈ߚ߇‫ᤨ৻ޔ‬᠗෰ߒߥ޿ߣ⠴㔡⵬ᒝ߇಴᧪ߥ޿‫ޕ‬䋭 㪉㪌㪍 䋭࡮ࠗࠬ࠲ࡦࡉ࡯࡞ߥߤߩㇺળߩ႐ว‫ޔ‬⠴㔡⵬ᒝߪᄢᎿ੐ߦߥࠆߩߢ‫ᤨ৻ޔ‬ォዬ߇ᔅⷐߦߥߞߚࠅ‫ޔ‬૑ࠎߢ޿ࠆੱߦᾘ㔀ߥኻᔕࠍ᳞߼ࠆߎߣߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮ࠗࠬ࠲ࡦࡉ࡯࡞ߩ㧞ᄢ࡝ࠬࠢ࿾ၞ‫ޕߚߞⴕࠍࠖ࠺࠲ࠬࡦ࡚ࠪࡊ࠮࡯ࡄߢ࠹ࡦࠩ࡝ࡂߣࠢ࡞ࠞࡉޔ‬࡮ᰴߦ࿾㔡߇⿠ߎߞߚࠄᄢ߈ߥⵍኂ߇ᗐቯߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧞ߟߩ↸ߪ‫ߦࠢࠬ࡝ޔ‬㑐ߔࠆᗧ⼂ߪ㜞޿߇‫․ޟ‬Ბߩ↪ᗧߪߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޔ‬಴᧪ࠆߛߌ⠨߃ߥ޿ࠃ߁ߦߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬‫⚿߁޿ߣޠ‬ᨐߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬࡮࠻࡞ࠦߢߪੱ‫ߩޘ‬૑ቛߩᐥߩ઀਄ߍ߿⦡߳ߩ㑐ᔃߣห᭽ߦ‫ޔ‬⠴㔡⵬ᒝߩ㊀ⷐᕈ߳ߩ⹺⼂ࠍ㜞߼ࠆᔅⷐ߆޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
࠾࠹ࠖࡦ㧔ࠗࡦ࠼㧕࡮࠴ࠚࠕࡑࡦߩࠬ࡜ࠗ࠼ߪࠕࡦ࠮࡯ࡈ‫ࠄ߆࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛࡦࡁޔ‬಴⊒ߔࠇ߫Ꮐਅߦߥࠅ‫ޔ‬૑ቛߥࠄ߫⥄ὼߦᤨ⸘࿁ࠅߦേ޿ߡⴕߊߎߣߦߥࠆߣᕁ߁‫ࡈ࡯࠮ࡦࠕ࡮࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛࡦࡁޕ‬ψ࠮࡯ࡈ࡮ࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾
ࠕ࠼ψࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼࡮࠮࡯ࡈߦ⒖ࠆߩ߇⥄ὼߛߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬⍫ශߩ⟎߈ᣇࠍᄌᦝߒߚᣇ߇⦟޿ߣᕁߞߚ‫ޕ‬࡮⥄ࠄ߇ኅࠍᑪ⸳ߔࠆ႐ว‫޿ߥߪߢࡈ࡯࠮ߑࠊߑࠊޔ‬ኅߪߟߊࠄߥ޿‫ߩ࠼ࡦࠗޕ‬㧺㧳㧻ߦ߽ᛛⴚߪ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ࠟࠗ࠼࡜ࠗࡦߪ޽ࠆ߇‫⥸৻ޔ‬ᄢⴐߦ߹ߢᐢ߹ߞߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬⠴㔡⵬ᒝߦ 100 ࠼࡞ࠍ಴ߖࠆੱ߽ዬࠆߣᕁ
߁‫ޕ‬ᱷࠆ⺖㗴ߪ‫ޔ‬໪⊒ߔࠆ‫ߩޘੱޔ‬໧㗴ᗧ⼂ࠍ㜞߼ࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࡅࡑ㧔ࡀࡄ࡯࡞㧕࡮ੱ‫ߩޘ‬⠴㔡ᗧ⼂ߪૐ޿‫ޕ‬ਛૐᚲᓧߩੱߪ߅㊄ߩ໧㗴߽޽ࠆ߇‫ߩ࠭ࡦࡑ࠻ࠞޔ‬૑ቛߪࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼‫ޔ‬ࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼ࠍ໧ࠊߕ 60㧑એ਄߇චಽߥ⠴㔡ᕈ⢻ߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬࡮ᦨㄭߩ໧㗴ߣᤄߩ໧㗴ߪ㆑޿‫ߩ੹ޔ‬໧㗴ߪ㕖ኻ⒓ᕈߩ໧㗴߇޽ࠆ‫ޔ‬ቇᩞࠍ૶ߞߡ໪⫥߽ߒߡ޿ࠆ߇ࠛ
ࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ߿ᛛⴚ⠪ߦ⍮⼂߇⿷ࠅߥ޿‫ޕ‬࡮ࠗࡦ࠼ߩⵙ್ᚲߢߪ࡟ࠬࡐࡦࠬߪ㧡୚ߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ഭ௛ࠍ 10 ୚ᷫࠄߔߣ‫ޔ‬ᑪ⸳⠪ߪ⸳⸘ၮḰ߿⠴㔡ᕈߩၮ␆߽ಽߞߡ޿ߥ޿ߩߢ‫ࠍࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛޕ‬ኻ⽎ߣߒߚ‫ޔ‬ၮᧄ⊛ߥ⠴㔡⍮⼂ᢎ⢒߇㊀ⷐߛߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬㜞ᚲᓧߥࠝ࡯࠽࡯ߪ૑ቛߦኻߒߡ‫⋧ޔ‬ᒰᄙߊߩ㊄㗵ࠍᡰᛄߞߡ޿ࠆ‫⽿ߩࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛޕ‬છߪ㊀ߊ‫ޔ‬ᢎ⢒㧔࠻࡟࡯࠾ࡦࠣ‫ޔ‬ᗧ⼂ࠍ㜞߼ࠆ㧕߇㊀ⷐߛߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬૒‫ޘ‬ᵄ㧔ᣣᧄ㧕࡮ᣂߒ޿਎♿ࠍ⷗ᝪ߃‫ޔ‬Ԙࠛࠦࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ૑ቛߣ⠴㔡ᕈ⢻ࠍࡑ࠶࠴ߐߖߚᣂߒ޿Ꮏᴺߩ㐿⊒‫ޕ‬ԙૐᚲᓧ⠪↪૑ቛᑪ⸳ࡠ࡯ࡦࠍኻ⽎ߣߒߚࠣ࡜ࡒࡦࡃࡦࠢࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩዉ౉‫ޕ‬એ਄㧞ὐࠍឭ᩺ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠞ࡞ࡠࠬ࡮ࠨࡃ࡜㧔ࡍ࡞࡯㧕࡮ࡍ࡞࡯ᑪ⸳⋭ߪૐᚲᓧ⠪㧔1.2 ਁ౞એਅ㧛᦬㧕߇⾗᧚㌁ⴕࠍ೑↪ߒߡ 10㨪20 ᐕࡠ࡯ࡦߢ⥄ࠄ૑ቛࠍᑪ
▽ߒߡ޿ࠆࠤ࡯ࠬ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⠴㔡ᕈߩ޽ࠆࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࡝ࡦࠣ૑ቛߩ⸳⸘࿑ࠍ㌁ⴕߦឭ಴ߒߡ‫᧚⾗ޔ‬㌁ⴕߢߪㆇ៝↪ߩࠞ࡯࠻ߣᑪ▽⾗᧚ࠍ୫ࠅࠆ੐߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࡊ࡟࠹ࠖ㧔ࠗࡦ࠼‫ޔ‬ජ⪲ᄢቇ㧕࡮ࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼‫⚻߽ߡߞߣߦࠣࡦࠫ࠙ࡂ࠼ࠕ࠾ࠫࡦࠛޔ‬ᷣߪ㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬࡮ᑪ▽ၮḰࠍ቞ࠄߥ޿‫ⷙޔ‬ೣࠍ⎕ߞߡ૑ቛᑪ▽ࠍߒߡ޿ࠆੱ߽ዬࠆ‫ޕ‬ᛛⴚߪ㐿⊒ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ᄢⴐߩ‛ࡕࡁߦߥࠆ߶ߤ᜛߇ߞߡߪዬߥ޿‫ޕ‬࡮ߟ߹ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᑪ▽ၮḰ߿ᛛⴚࠍㄘ᧛࿾ၞ߿㇠ᄖߦ૑߻৻⥸ᄢⴐߦ᥉෸ߐߖࠆߚ߼ߩ‫ࡊ࡮ࡉࠗ࠹ࡦ࠮ࡦࠗޔ‬ࡠࠣ࡜ࡓࠍᢙᐕ㑆ዉ౉ߒ㒐ἴᗧ⼂ࠍ⢒߻ߎߣ߇಴᧪ߥ޿߆‫ޕ‬ԙࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼૑ቛߩ⠴㔡ൻߦะߌߚ࿖㓙⊛දജߦᦼᓙߔࠆߎߣ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߦᦸ߹ࠇࠆදജ
࠽ࠫࡉ㧔ࡄࠠࠬ࠲ࡦ㧕࡮ᣣᧄߪࡄࠠࠬ࠲ࡦߦߣߞߡߩᦨᄢߩេഥ࿖ߢ޽ࠆ߇‫ ߩߘޔ‬30㨪40㧑ߪ᦭ലߦᵴ↪ߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬࡮ᣣᧄ᡽ᐭ߇໪⫥ᵴേࠍߔࠆߎߣ߇಴᧪ࠆ߆߽⍮ࠇߥ޿ߒ‫ޔ‬JICA ߿㧳㧾㧵㧼㧿߽ੱ‫ࠍޘ‬໪⫥ߔࠆߎߣ߇
಴᧪ࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬䋭 㪉㪌㪎 䋭࡮଀߃߫‫࡞࡯ࡒࠪࠞޔ‬࿾ᣇߢߪ 2005 ᐕߩⵍἴ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡࡝ࠬࠢߩฃߌᱛ߼ᣇ‫߇⼂⹺ޔ‬㜞߹ࠅ‫ࠄ߆⥸৻ޔ‬߽࡝ࠬࠢߩ㜞޿ᑪ‛ߦኻߔࠆᒰዪ߳ߩᛕ್߇಴ࠆࠃ߁ߥ⁁ᴫߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ߦ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬㧶㧵㧯㧭߿ᣣᧄ᡽ᐭߩදജߪ㐳ᦼ⊛ߥലᨐࠍ߽ߚࠄߔ‫ޕ‬ࠞ࡞ࡠࠬ࡮ࠨࡃ࡜㧔ࡍ࡞࡯㧕࡮ᢎ⢒߽㊀ⷐߛ߇‫⥸৻ޔ‬ᄢⴐ߿᡽╷᳿⠪߳ߩ⍮⼂ߩ᥉෸ߦ㑐ߒߡࡑࠬࠦࡒߩදജ߇ᔅⷐߛߣᕁߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ኻ⽎ጀߦࠊ߆ࠅᤃ޿⸒⪲ߢ⺑᣿ߒ‫ޔ‬⠨߃ᣇࠍᄌ߃ࠆ߈ߞ߆ߌߠߊࠅ߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ሶଏߩ㗃߆ࠄ⠴㔡⵬ᒝߩ㊀ⷐᕈࠍ⹺⼂ߔࠆߎߣߩࡁ࠙ࡂ࠙ߩឭଏ߇㊀ⷐߣ⠨߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮ᣣᧄߦ߅޿ߡߤߩࠃ߁ߦੱ‫ߩޘ‬ᗧ⼂ࠍ㜞߼ࠆߎߣ߇಴᧪ߚ߆‫ߦ߁ࠃߩߤޔ‬૑ዬࠍᡷୃߔࠆ᳇ߦߐߖߚ
ߩ߆‫ޕ‬ㆊ෰ߩ⚻㛎ࠍᢎ߃ߡ᰼ߒ޿‫⵬ޕ‬ᒝߔࠆ࠹ࠢ࠾࠶ࠢߪ޽ࠆߩߢ‫ࠍࠇߘޔ‬᥉ㅢߩ⸒⪲ߢ৻⥸ߦવ߃
ߡℂ⸃ߐߖߡ޿ߊߩ߇ᄢಾ‫ޕ‬ᢧ⮮㧔ᣣᧄ㧕
࡮ࡑ࠾ࡘࠕ࡞߿ࠟࠗ࠼࡜ࠗࡦࠍ᥉෸ߐߖߡ޿ߊ࠷࡯࡞߇ᔅⷐߥߩߢߪߥ޿߆‫౒ߪࠇߘޕ‬ㅢ໧㗴ߥߩߢࠪࠚࠕ߇಴᧪ࠆ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬࿖㓙දജ߽චಽߦน⢻ߥಽ㊁ߛߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬࠳ࠗࠕ㧔ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ㧕࡮࡚ࠫࠗࡦ࠻ߢ౒ห⎇ⓥ߇಴᧪ࠆߎߣߦ㕖Ᏹߦഥ߆ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ታ㛎⸳஻‫ޔ‬ᣉ⸳ߩ౒ห೑↪߿ಽᨆ⢻ജߩะ਄ߦᗵ⻢ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮੹ᓟߪ⃻ታ⊛ߥⷰὐ߆ࠄߩ⚻㛎ࠍⓍ਄ߍߡⴕ߈ߚ޿ߣᕁߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߩ࿾㔡ኻᔕߩ⚻㛎㧔⚵❱ኻᔕ‫ޔ‬චಽߥࠬ࠲࠶ࡈ‫ޔ‬ታᣉߥߤ㧕ࠍ↢߆ߔᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫߿ࡦࠗ࡜࠼ࠗࠟޕ‬ᛛⴚ߇৻⥸ߦⴕᷰߞߡ޿ߥ޿ߩߢ‫ޔ‬ߘߩ᥉෸࡮໪⊒ߩᣇᴺߩᬌ⸛ࠍᣣᧄߩขࠅ⚵ߺ߆ࠄቇ߮ߚ޿ߣᕁ߁‫ߩߢ߹੹ޕ‬ข⚵ߢߪߘߎ߇ᰳߌߡ
޿ߚߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬ࠕ࡞ࡄ࡯㧔࠻࡞ࠦ㧕࡮ߎࠇߥߢ߽ᣣᧄ߆ࠄߪ࠻࡞ࠦߩ࿾㔡Ꮏቇ⇇ߦᴛጊߩᡰេࠍ޿ߚߛ޿ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬⍮੐࡮Ꮢ㐳࡮࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭߩ
ᛛⴚ⠪ߩ㒐ἴ▤ℂ⎇ୃߩᜰዉࠍᣣᧄੱߦࠃࠅฃߌߚ‫ޕ‬ㆊಽߩߏදജࠍ޿ߚߛ޿ߡ޿ࠆߩߢߎࠇએ਄ᦼ
ᓙߒߡߪ޿ߌߥ޿ߣ߽ᕁ߁‫ޕ‬࡮߅੕޿߇දജߒߡ౒ㅢߩ໧㗴ࠍቇ߮ว߁ᯏળߪ㊀ⷐߛߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬࡮᥉ㅢߦ᥵ࠄߒߥ߇ࠄ߽ਇଢߢߥ޿⠴㔡⵬ᒝߩᛛⴚࠍ㐿⊒ߔࠆ⎇ⓥ߇ᔅⷐ߆‫ޕ‬૑᳃ߦఝߒ޿‫ࠅ߹޽ޔ‬㇎㝷ߦߥࠄߥ޿⠴㔡⵬ᒝߩ࡝ࠨ࡯࠴߇ᔅⷐ߆‫ޕ‬ࠞ࡞ࡠࠬ࡮ࠨࡃ࡜㧔ࡍ࡞࡯㧕࡮ਛ☨ߢߪἫጊ῜⊒ߩኻᔕ‫ޔ‬໪⫥ߩߚ߼ߩ࠼࡜ࡑ߇ᵹⴕߒߚ‫ߚߞ૶ࠍࡒࠦࠬࡑޕ‬ᄢⴐᗧ⼂ߩะ਄߇㊀ⷐ߆ߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮⠴㔡⵬ᒝߩ઀ᣇ߿࿾㔡ߩ㓙ߩ૑ዬߩୟუߩ઀ᣇࠍᤋ௝ߢ⷗ߖࠆߩߪ᦭ല߆߽⍮ࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬⑔ጊ㧔ᣣᧄ㧕
࡮߅੕޿ߩ໧㗴ὐߪหߓߛ߇‫ޔ‬ㆊ෰࿖ߩ⁁ᴫ߇⇣ߥࠆ‫ޕ‬᭽‫ߥޘ‬ขࠅ⚵ߺࠍㅢߓߡ‫ޔ‬ၮḰ߿ᛛⴚ߽㐿⊒ߐࠇߡ᧪ߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬ᛛⴚࠍ⫾Ⓧߒ‫ޔ‬ฦ࿖ߩ࿾㔡ⵍኂߩ⚻㛎ߩᖱႎࠍ౒᦭ߔࠆߎߣ߽㕖Ᏹߦ㊀ⷐߛߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮⥄↱ߦᖱႎࠍࠪࠚࠕߢ߈ࠆⅣႺߠߊࠅߦᣣᧄߪචಽߦ⽸₂ߢ߈ࠆߩߢߪߥ޿߆‫ޕ‬࡮ᔅߕߒ߽ࡁࡦࠛࡦࠫ࠾ࠕ࠼ߦ㒢ቯߒߚ⹤ߢߪߥߊ‫ߩ⥸৻ޔ‬ᣇ‫ޔߦޘ‬ᅤ૗ߦߎߩ⁁ᴫࠍ⍮ߞߡ߽ࠄ߁߆‫ޕ‬ߎࠇߪෂ㒾ߥᑪ‛߽߹ߛ߹ߛᴛጊ޽ࠆᣣᧄߢ߽㊀ⷐߥ໧㗴ߥߩߢ‫⑳ޔ‬㆐߽ข⚵ࠎߢ޿ࠆᦨਛߦߥߞߡ
޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬࡮⊝ߢᚑഞ੐଀ࠍ෼㓸ߒ‫ޔߊ޿ߡߒࠕࠚࠪޔ‬දജߢ߈ࠆಽ㊁ࠍࠪࠚࠕߒߡ޿ߊ‫࠲ࠅࠃࠍࠢ࡯ࡢ࠻࠶ࡀޔ‬ࠗ࠻ߦߔࠆข⚵ߺߦߟߥ߇ߞߡ޿ߌ߫⦟޿ߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬䋭 㪉㪌㪏 䋭Ԛᣣᧄ߇಴᧪ࠆ࿖㓙දജ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟㅴ߻ߴ߈ᣇะᕈ㧔ળ႐߆ࠄߩ⥄↱ᗧ⷗㧕⮮᧛㧔㣮ፉᑪ⸳㧕࡮ᣣᧄ⵾ߪ‫ޔ‬ᛛⴚ‫⎇ޔ‬ⓥ࡟ࡌ࡞ߪ㜞޿߇‫߽࠻ࠬࠦޔ‬㜞޿‫▤߫ࠇߔ߁ߤޕ‬ℂ㧔ᣉᎿ㧕ߩᚻ㑆߇⋭ߌࠆ߆ࠍᬌ⸛ߔࠆߎߣ߇㊀ⷐ‫ޕ‬᳗⷗㧔㧶㧵㧯㧭㧕
࡮࡟ࠡࡘ࡟࡯࡚ࠪࡦߪ㧠ߟߩࡈࠔࡦ࡚ࠢࠪࡦߣਗ೉ߢߪߥߊ‫ޔ‬㧟ߟߩ⽎㒢ࠍขࠅᜬߟࡈࠔࡦ࡚ࠢࠪࡦߥ
ߩߢߪߥ޿߆‫ޕ‬࡮ࠠࠗ࡮࡝ࠢࡢࠗࠕࡔࡦ࠻ߪߟߊߞߡ⚳ࠊࠅߢߪߥߊߡ‫ޔ‬ขࠅ⚵ߺߩ㗄⋡ࠍ⛉ߞߡലᨐࠍ਄ߍࠆ࡟ࠡࡘ
࡟࡯࡚ࠪࡦ࡮ࠠࡖࡄࠪ࠹ࠖ࡮ࡆ࡞࠺ࠖࡦࠣߩዉ౉ߩലᨐ߇㜞޿ߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬䋭 㪉㪌㪐 䋭

6.2 How to promote safety improvement of non-engineered houses in developing countries /䊉䊮䉣䊮䉳䊆䉝䊄૑ቛ䈱⠴㔡ᕈะ਄䉕䈇䈎䈮ㅴ䉄䉎䈎
Presented by Hiroshi Fukuyama, Chief Researcher, BRI / ᑪ▽⎇ⓥᚲ ਄Ꮸ⎇ⓥຬ ⑔ጊᵗ

How to promote safety improvementof nonnon-engineered houses indeveloping countries

Contents
1) Problems2) Introduction of JICA Project in El Salvador(Project Taishin)
Taishin)3) Future Directions

Hiroshi Fukuyama
Building Research Institute, Japan

Problems

1) Lack of knowledge & information of people
about scenario of E.Q. damages

Introduction of JICA Projectin El Salvador (Project Taishin)
Taishin)2) Lack of information how to construct theseismic resistant houses

Background

Strengthening of theTechnology for theConstruction and
Dissemination ofEarthquake-resistant
Popular Housing䋭 㪉㪍㪇 䋭

GoalsOverall Goal
Earthquakerelated damages
to low-income
population havebeen reduced

Project Goal
Earthquakeresistant popular
housing has beenenhanced

Output 1Design, construction and equipment of Large –scale Structures Laboratory

TAISHIN Project was implemented from
December 2003 through November 2008,
achieving
important progress on scientificresearch as well as dissemination activities.

Output 1

Ǧ  Ȃ 

Quick specs:
Inclination capacity: 40㫦
Maximum supported weight : 60
tons
Dimensions: 8m x 5m
Location: National University of El
SalvadorLarge-scale Structures
Laboratory at UCAconstruction and equipment

The Tilting Table was designed by
Salvadorean researchers withadvice from Japanese andMexican experts.

Large-scale Structures
Laboratory at UCA
was finished on
December 2004

Output 2

Construction systems investigatedCounterpart Training•Researchers and dissemination teammembers have been trained in Mexico andJapan•Short-term Mexican and Japanese experts
advice project counterpart•At the present time 10 Salvadoreancounterparts have obtained master degrees
at Building Research Institute - BRI

Block Panel System

Reinforced adobe

Soil Cement confined masonryConcrete Block system䋭 㪉㪍㪈 䋭

Output 3

Scientific research on Block PanelsystemTesting a adobe house on Tilting
Table at UES

Output 4

Output 3

Constructive systems investigatedConstruction systems investigatedModel house built at Juayua using
Block Panel construction system

Scientific research on Soil
Cement confined masonry

Model house built at Suchitoto using
reinforced adobe

Scientific research on Concrete
Block system

The strategy for dissemination has been developed and executed

Model house built at San Juliá
Juliánusing Soil Cement bricks

Model house built within VMVDU
headquarters using Concrete BlocksystemConstruction manuals

4 easy-reading handbooks on each of thefour construction systems investigatedwere produced

Duringimplementationof TAISHIN
project, a large
number ofcommunity
leaders wheretrained byproject
researchers.

Massive dissemination has been
carried out through TV programs
and radio spots.

Output 5

Dissemination
Display for dissemination

Earthquake resistant Popular housing is promoted among population

Workshop for technical transfer

By November 2008, 103
block panel houses and
118 reinforced adobe
houses where built by thegovernment and NGOs.

䋭 㪉㪍㪉 䋭

GoalsOverall Goal
A system todisseminate theimprovedearthquake-resistantsocial housing in El
Salvador is developed

Scientific research will continue as important part of the project:
Reinforced Adobe, Soil Cement and Concrete Block systems will be instigatedfurther.
A Block Panel technical manual will be elaborated and made official by thegovernment .

Project Goal
Government
administration in the
housing sector topromote disseminationof improved
earthquake-resistantsocial housing isenhanced

VMVDU Staff and technical personnel of local branches will receive
training concerning earthquake resistant social housing, construction
approval procedures and supervision.
Main activities are:•Officialization of 3 construction norms•Officialization of a technical manual•Elaboration of a training program for pilot offices•Training of official regarding operational guides

Future directions
Dissemination team has developed a plan which is geared to
institutional strengthening and human security.

Whole Society:
Government/population

Human Security•Fight against natural
disasters myths

Culture of prevention•Offer more information
concerning to natural
disasters•Awareness

Disaster mitigation•Insist on prevention•Demythologizing

Buildings codes

Regulation andsupervision

Institutional
strengthening forbuilding supervision

Seismo-resistanceNew houses•Review ofbuilding codes
existing in El
Salvador•Teachingmaterials
elaboration

Existing housing•Disseminationand training•Training stage•Retrofitting•Knowledge about how to construct houses
using system investigated in TAISHIN
project.

•House maintenance•Reparation (house restoration)•Costs (for each system investigated)䋭 㪉㪍㪊 䋭1) Develop the simple & effective model ofearthquake resistant mechanism
2) Propose the effective methods on seismic safety
improvement of houses without changing its
original structural types3) Investigate the structural performance of the
proposed safety improvement methods by tests4) Develop the seismic safety evaluation methods
based on the resistant mechanisms5) Develop the construction manual based on theevaluation methods
6) Establish the supervision system for construction
quality control

14 cᲢ= 0.24 gᲣ

22 cᲢ= 0.37 gᲣ
gᲣ

38 cᲢ= 0.62 gᲣ

38 cᲢ= 0.62 gᲣ
gᲣ
38 cᲢ= 0.62 gᲣ
gᲣ䋭 㪉㪍㪋 䋭

Future directions
1) Develop the simple & effective model ofearthquake resistant mechanism
2) Propose the effective methods on seismic safety
improvement of houses without changing its
original structural types3) Investigate the structural performance of the
proposed safety improvement methods by tests4) Develop the seismic safety evaluation methods
based on the resistant mechanisms5) Develop the construction manual based on theevaluation methods
6) Establish the supervision system for construction
quality control

Building Research InstituteJAPAN䋭 㪉㪍㪌 䋭