(4) Panel Discussion "International Cooperation on Earthquake Disaster Management to ProtectLives"

1) UNESCO
Mr. Rouhban, acting as moderator, opened
the panel discussion by remarking thatearthquake risk and natural hazards do
not recognize geographical, political orgeopolitical boundaries. The study ofseismology

andearthquake

risk

mitigation over the past five decades has
gained from international cooperation,
and without this cooperation it is notpossible to advance in the future.
International cooperation benefits fromthe individual input of institutions andentities located in different countries. The panel discussion should therefore illuminate
lessons drawn from individual experiences in international cooperation, and how to improve
this cooperation in the future.

2) Chile
Mr. Raul Alvarez, Professor at theUniversidad Catolica de Chile statedthatthe2010

magnitude

8.8

Chile

earthquake highlighted many problems
with disaster preparedness and response.
There was a lack of coordination between
different government departments. The
primary

responsible

institution

wasoverwhelmed by the circumstances of theevent.

Management

insufficientpersonnel

technical

hadcompetence,autonomy and budget. There was a lack ofcrisis coordination and management. Knowledge was concentrated in the capital. Somegovernment buildings were destroyed leaving no base for coordination. Political power’s
response to looting and vandalism was delayed. The population was not educated on a crisis
management plan. Buildings had been constructed in vulnerable areas, and inappropriate
building materials had been used as well as structural solutions from non-seismic countries.
There was no early tsunami warning. Mobile communications were severely crippled. There
was a lack of proper and properly maintained monitoring equipment, and monitoring data was
not readily available to the scientific community. There was no unique methodology toevaluate structures following the earthquake, complicating data interpretation. And therewas a lack of volunteers to assess damage.
Improvements need to be implemented in order to address these issues. The National Officeof Emergency of the Interior Ministry (ONEMI) needs to be completely restructured, provided
with sufficient budget, empowered against political power, members technically trained,
and a strong research area developed. An early warning network should be created nationwide,with data provided to civilians and to the local and international scientific community.
Communication networks should be reinforced to ensure continuous operation. A quick
inspection of structures must be implemented, with a coordinated volunteer network at thecountry level. Sufficient budget must be provided. School curriculums should incorporate
natural disaster education, and crisis management education should be provided to thegeneral population.
Mr. Alvarez concluded with some suggestions for Japan and UNESCO: to share positive
experiences in institutional issues, management and monitoring of successful countries;
to exchange technical personnel and experts in risk management, methodologies, studies ofhuman behavior in emergencies, etc; and to help create a critical mass of experts in eacharea of risk, to permeate this knowledge throughout the country.

3) Egypt
Mr.

SalahMahmoud,

HeadoftheGeodynamics

attheInstituteofDepartmentofNational

Research

AstronomyandGeophysics(NRIAG)

outlined NRIAG’s roles for international
cooperation

andearthquake

management.

NRIAG’sdisasterEarthquake

andInformation Centre (EIC) continuously
monitors and analyzes earthquake signals
in and around Egypt and is able to spring
into action immediately when it receives
a call for assistance. NRIAG also aims tomitigate disasters through awareness-raising media, education, and training for regional
colleagues.
During emergencies, NRIAG may act as a communication hub for requests and offers ofassistance, and can offer assistance to affected neighboring countries. NRIAG can also
coordinate the provision of Egyptian assistance by matching offers to needs, identifying
gaps in assistance and searching for solutions, as well as facilitating the pooling of common
resources where possible. This mechanism can be activated by any participating state seeking
prompt international assistance following a major earthquake disaster.
Currently most resource is allocated to post-disaster efforts, which can save relatively
few lives in comparison to pre-disaster preparation.

4) Peru
Mr. Carlos Zavala, Director of theJapan-Peru

Centerfor

Earthquake

Engineering and Disaster Mitigation(CISMID) talked about the problems inexecution of field surveys in Peru.
Accessing emergency funds following adisaster is difficult as bureaucracy
delays the issuing of the funds, and thefunding is limited to US$2,000 which isonly sufficient for two days.
There are also several impediments toearthquake disaster management in Peru:
the government offices are not sensible with disaster risk; there are cities where hazard,microzonification and risk analysis have been developed but city authorities do not use
this data for city planning; and the National Center for Assessment, Prevention and Disaster
Risk Reduction is not aggressive in considering alliances or teaching local authorities
about disaster management policies.
The main future challenges for implementation of disaster risk management are: achieving
a culture of disaster risk management in the population; building consensus and commitments
between public and private institutions involved in disaster prevention and relief;
developing a system to automatically disseminate information on potential risks at local,
regional and national levels; and strengthening SINAGERD in a decentralized manner toempower regional and local governments. The integrated approach to disaster management
should include the participation of the population. A risk reduction plan should bedeveloped for each government agency or ministry in order to produce a national plan.
Sustainable development demands an improvement in capacities of authorities and officers
with power of decision. The indifference of decision makers and authorities is one of theprimary issues, and their capacity needs to be improved.
Japan and UNESCO can further international cooperation on earthquake disaster management
through assistance to protect vulnerable historical buildings and schools. Peru has acooperative project with Japan under the SATREPS program, which encompasses several
research topics: strong motion and geotechnical; tsunami; damage assessment; building; anddisaster mitigation planning.5) Romania
Mr. Radu Vacareanu, Vice-Rector of theTechnical

UniversityofCivil

Engineering of Bucharest (UTCB) notedthat in Romania the source of seismic
risk is very well known, coming directlyfrom the Vrancea subcrustal source. It is
an intermediate earthquake occurring twoto three times per century, and affects
particularly

thebuilding

stockinBucharest. The most destructive event
occurred in 1977 when more than 1,600
people died, of which 1,500 died in
Bucharest. Bucharest still has many high-rise buildings that do not incorporate any seismic
design. National programs for seismic risk mitigation in Romania aim to strengthen seismic
risk class I buildings, upgrade the code for seismic design of buildings, and improve seismicinstrumentation.
In terms of international cooperation, there have been several projects in Romania. Most
important was a JICA project to reduce seismic risk for buildings and structures in Romania.
Through this project, Romania received a lot of structural and soil testing equipment andnew seismic networks were installed. However rather suddenly in 2010 the Romanianauthorities decided to dismantle the National Center for Seismic Risk Reduction (NCSRR)
and move the equipment to the BRI, while the staff remaining at the university, which has
been a significant setback. Other international collaborations include projects withGermany, with the European Union, with Earthquake Protection of Historical Buildings(PROHITECH), and with the World Bank.
Impediments in earthquake disaster management include weak political support, low publicawareness, the difficulty in retrofitting residential buildings due to social issues, andthe focus of international financing bodies of retrofitting programs on public buildings
and structures.

6) JapanMr. Kenji Okazaki, Professor at GRIPS
commentedthateven

as

more

international communities express theircommitment to disaster reduction, thenumber of disasters has been increasing.
There has been a failure to apply
technologies and knowledge to reduce theimpact of disasters. There has also been
an indifference to the loss of human life.
The economic value of human lives is notaccounted for in the calculation of theeconomic cost of disasters. Although protecting the lives of citizens should be the highest
priority of government, it does not seem that they are making every effort to achieve that.
The trend of international activity is still focused on response, which cannot recover lives
lost in disasters. If people were to survive, reconstruction would be much easier and lesscostly. Additionally, donor countries are now thinking that they can no longer afford tofund response efforts any longer. More resources must therefore be mobilized for protecting
lives before disasters hit.
The most important lesson of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of 2011 is thatthousands of people would not have been killed if they had evacuated promptly. Althoughpeople in the region knew well that a tsunami would strike after a strong earthquake, andknew how to evacuate, and there was good early warning of an impending tsunami, many people
did not evacuate promptly.
The most important lesson learned from the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji earthquake is that thousandsof people would not have been killed if they had retrofitted their vulnerable houses. Japan
has strong building codes and techniques for retrofitting are available as is financial
assistance. Despite that, people have many reasons not to retrofit their houses. The basic
reason is that people are risk takers; they do not invest in the retrofitting, gamblingon the chance that a large earthquake would not occur in the near future.
Measures to convince people to take action before a disaster hits can include education,
training, awareness raising, community-based disaster management, and policy development
and institutionalization for safer communities.
Recommendations for international cooperation to reduce the loss of life due to disasters
include: an international commitment to promoting proactive efforts; fostering more experts
who can develop appropriate policies for disaster reduction and have good skills for risk
communication with local people; financial and technical assistance to promote
community-based disaster management; more research to investigate how to motivate people
and

local

governments

to

take

actions

againstdisaster;andestablishingamulti-disciplinary academic approach for disaster risk management.

7) Question and Answer Session
Mr. Faruk Karadoğan: Mr. Okazaki, how can we ensure that our message and the outcome ofsymposiums such as this one are communicated to governments?
Mr. Paul Grundy, Australia: I was particularly impressed with Mr. Okazaki’s comments because
it raises the problem of how to get out of the bind of spending all of our money after adisaster strikes rather than on building resilience to survive further disasters. We do
not seem to have any academic institutions that have a totally multidisciplinary approachto DRR. There is a parallel between that lack and the recent burgeoning of sustainability
institutes in many places. Natural disasters are unsustainable, yet none of thesustainability arguments are being brought to bear on our need for a coherent
multidisciplinary approach to disasters.
Mr. Okazaki: In Japan the national and local governments are aware of the risk and how
to tackle the challenges. However this may not be the case in many developing countries.
That is why I propose that local governments who make DRR efforts may receive more subsidies
and advice and activities from the national government. Also, if local people are very aware

of the importance of DRR then local politicians should act on the interests of the localpeople.
Mr. Rouhban: A point that has been made very frequently is that within a country we needto have more cooperation among different disciplines, as well as better dialogue between
scientists, specialists and policymakers. The public awareness issue has also been raised,
and we need to find incentives to ensure that the anticipation and prevention of disasters
pays off in the final analysis. Also many recommendations went to UNESCO, and it is for
UNESCO to listen to these recommendations and make the best possible use of them in thefuture.
Mr. Vacereanu: Responding to Mr. Karadoğan’s question, I would like to give an example.
The US National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program launched in 1977 was in fact draftedin the 1960s by Professor Frank Press. When a new president came to the White House, FrankPress was the scientific advisor to the new president. One month later, the program wason its way. So, sometimes good things do happen.
Mr. Mahmoud: Responding to Mr. Karadoğan, we need the ministry of foreign affairs tofacilitate cooperation between international and local partners. Sometimes we face problems
cooperating on projects with different countries. In Egypt with the new regime we hope that
this problem will be addressed.
Mr. Zavala: On the comment about sustainability, in Peru the law changed last year to require
every urban development plans to include a DRR component. So politicians in local andregional governments are now required by law to produce disaster management projects, andpressure can therefore be applied to politicians to apply this law.