Mikkel Ostergaard/ International Federation, Turkey 1999

Chapter 5 - summary
Reducing earthquake risk in urban Europe

Earthquakes have proved the deadliest of all Europe’s disasters over the past decade, and cost the continent US$ 27 billion in damage alone. Collapsing buildings kill most victims, so how are European cities planning to reduce these risks?

Major tremors can be expected in Romania and Albania within five years. The last big quake to hit Bucharest, in 1977, left 1,650 dead and 10,000 injured. A repeat of the 1963 Skopje quake, in which 1,066 Macedonians died and much of the town was demolished, would be devastating.

Turks share the fear – two earthquakes in 1999 killed up to 20,000 people and cost the country 10 per cent of its gross domestic product. Scientists can predict disaster locations fairly accurately, but not specific times. They say Istanbul runs a 60-70 per cent risk of being struck by a major earthquake within the next 30 years. With a population well over 10 million, a direct hit could be catastrophic. Up to 30 per cent of Istanbul’s 900,000 buildings could collapse completely.

The number of deaths from the Turkish quakes would have been dramatically less if the country had enforced its building regulations. They’ve been law since 1939 and prescribe an impressive chain of inspections. Unfortunately these are often simply ignored. There are too few trained inspectors, and substandard building practices remain common.

In south-eastern Europe, the transition from communism and associated economic reforms have stretched capacities to the limit. Building regulations, often adhered to before transition, have since been ignored. Widespread bribery and corruption throughout the region exacerbate the situation.

Improving building practice will require both encouragement and enforcement. The insurance industry could share the risks. Authorities could provide incentives such as tax breaks and cheap loans. Since 1992, house insurance in Turkey has been mandatory – but it only applies to new owners when they buy property. A government proposal to hold contractors responsible for construction quality was reversed by the High Court.

Meanwhile, architects and engineers can practise without receiving any seismic training. This must change. There is no shortage of knowledge in south-eastern Europe. But it is insufficiently shared.

For buildings already at risk, the best mitigation option is “retrofitting” – reinforcing the structure to make it earthquake-resistant. This is very expensive. It is highly unlikely that all Istanbul’s buildings could be retrofitted. An alternative is to reinforce “lifeline” infrastructure (for example, schools and hospitals). Simply assessing the need for retrofitting costs US$ 3 per square metre.

Retrofitting private apartments is complicated. All the owners must agree. Even if they do, it’s difficult to find financing or alternative housing while the work is being done. The average Turkish building has a 50-year life span, so one option is to replace substandard housing once its design life has ended.

Mitigating earthquake risk by enforcing building codes and retrofitting lifeline infrastructure will take time, money and political will. It’s a long-term strategy. But what if catastrophe strikes tomorrow? Lives can be saved if authorities and communities take action now to prepare for the worst.

There are promising signs. New crisis management centres have been established in Turkey. New maps of Istanbul detail alternative routes for emergency vehicles, space for 1 million tents and even emergency graveyards. Disaster preparedness plans have been drawn up – but a recent simulation exercise scared everyone involved.
A key priority is defining and decentralizing roles and responsibilities of different agencies within an effective disaster response strategy. Otherwise, the chaos of disaster will create a chaotic response. According to a 2001 risk analysis commissioned by the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, “Highly centralized systems of governmental authority and allocation of resources often create delays and add layers of bureaucracy, compounding problems of an already difficult emergency response situation.” The analysis found that few national disaster plans defined clear roles for individual organizations.

Serious controversy now surrounds the practice of flying international search-and-rescue teams into disaster zones. It is rare for them to arrive in time to be really effective. The money and effort would be better spent training local people in simple emergency response. After the Turkish earthquakes, 50,000 people were found alive under collapsed buildings. Locals rescued 98 per cent of these. Outside professionals saved just 350.

Where local emergency response depends on volunteers, specialist search-and-rescue training may not make sense, if earthquakes are 25 years apart. “Training people to be multi-purpose, as indispensable in dealing with traffic accidents as they are in mountain rescue or earthquakes, makes far greater sense,” maintains Sune Follin, regional disaster preparedness delegate for central Europe.

The Romanian Red Cross, for example, prioritizes preparedness for a range of disasters. It has trained over 4,000 volunteers for 278 intervention teams which can be called upon at any time for any kind of disaster.

Factors considered vital to reduce seismic vulnerability are not new: enforcement of building codes and land-use guidelines, public awareness, dispersed populations, strong public infrastructure, and effective warning, evacuation and response procedures. But turning these ideas into action is far more challenging. “You need an earthquake every five years to keep politicians interested,” says a leading European seismologist.

Disaster mitigation and response are increasingly viewed as a government priority. Albania, for example, introduced legislation in 1998 which tightens high-rise construction – any building over eight storeys requires approval from the national seismological institute. But laws must be backed up by aggressive enforcement. Boosting public awareness can help promote a culture of prevention and prompt changes in government policy. Humanitarian organizations can play a key role through advocacy campaigns and strategic links with local and international media. But there is a thin line between building public awareness and whipping up hysteria.

Regional cooperation may help raise standards in risk reduction. Traditional tensions can be put aside during disasters. Following the Turkish earthquakes in 1999 and 2002, Greece offered immediate assistance. Where nations share risks, the foundations for sustained cooperation in disaster mitigation and preparedness can be found. This would make sense in the Balkans, where average earthquake losses top 30 million Euros (US$ 26.5 million) per year, quite apart from human casualties.

Lessons painfully learned from recent disasters should not be forgotten. It takes common sense, not technology, to remember these lessons – plus the political will to turn them into reality. More active humanitarian advocacy is needed, to achieve real changes both in people’s behaviour and in government policy. Critical changes that will reduce the risk of future earthquakes include:

• Legislation and enforcement of regional standards in construction, land-use and urban planning – plus incentives to encourage better building.
• Decentralized disaster preparedness and response planning, along with resources to train local emergency teams.
• Regional knowledge sharing, to ensure what is learnt in one place is known in another, through specialist training and public information.
• Promoting responsible public debate through national media to maintain the pressure on policy-makers to prioritize risk reduction.
• Raising public awareness of threats and how to react, through mass media and education of schoolchildren. process.