Dr. H. Kit Miyamoto is the global CEO of Miyamoto International, Inc. He is an expert in disaster resiliency, response, and reconstruction. He
is also California’s Seismic Safety Commissioner and a structural engineer.
The recent earthquake in Turkey has opened up a series of conversations on the urgency to prepare for withstanding natural hazards and saving lives. Located in one of the most seismically active zones, Turkey was always prone to earthquakes of severe intensity. Discussions have also spurred around the Indian subcontinent region, which is also seismically active and has major tectonic plates converging beneath it. The region has witnessed devastating earthquakes, including the 2001 Gujarat earthquake and the 2015 Nepal earthquake. The disasters propelled neighboring countries to improve preparedness for such extreme events, but many challenges still need to be addressed.
The Indian Context
In the last two decades, the Indian government has taken several measures to improve its earthquake preparedness. The establishment of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) in 2005, which would be responsible for coordinating and implementing disaster management policies, plans, and guidelines at the national level, was one of the most significant steps for strengthening disaster preparedness. NDMA developed National Disaster Management Guidelines (NDMGs) to provide a framework for disaster management at various levels including prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. These guidelines have helped to standardize disaster management practices across India and ensure that all stakeholders are well-prepared to respond to a disaster. Section 37 of the Disaster Management Act 2005 also mandated central ministries and departments to prepare their own disaster management plans based on a national plan. Subsequently, the government also launched several public awareness campaigns to educate people about earthquake safety, including how to minimize the risk of damage and injury. However, it was only in
2016 that the country got its national plan for disaster management. The government has also partnered with several other institutions and promoted initiatives to improve disaster preparedness. For instance, the India-led Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI) and the Government of India signed a headquarters agreement to further support the advocacy for disaster-resilient infrastructure both, in India and globally. We need more countries to support organizations like the CDRI, which aims to assist vulnerable regions in the adoption of infrastructure risk governance strategies and risk-informed infrastructure investments to strengthen the resilience of communities and states.
Challenges and Issues
Despite these measures, there are still several challenges that need to be addressed. One of the biggest challenges is the lack of awareness and preparedness among the public. Many people in the region do not have access to earthquake-resistant infrastructure or housing and are not aware of what to do during an earthquake. The lack of resources and funding is another major challenge. Countries in the global south have limited resources and are often unable to allocate sufficient funding for climate change and seismic preparedness and resilience, resulting in inappropriately built infrastructures. There is also a strong need for better seismic research and development.
Learning from the 2015 Nepal earthquake
The 2015 Nepal earthquake of a magnitude of 7.8 caused widespread damage and
destruction in Nepal and neighboring countries. The earthquake resulted in the deaths of over 8,000 people and injured more than 21,000. The Indian government was one of the first responders to the earthquake and assisted Nepal. The Indian Air Force played a key role in transporting relief materials and medical supplies to Nepal. Our field investigation highlighted several challenges and issues in earthquake preparedness in the Nepal region. One of the biggest challenges was the older stock of earthquake-resistant structures which were built prior to the times when the earthquake-resistant design was introduced in Nepal. Many older buildings without 
seismic strengthening in Nepal were unable to withstand the earthquake. Many newer high-rise buildings in Kathmandu were engineered and built by Indian engineers and contractors
with the basic building code provisions. These buildings didn’t collapse but were damaged by the impact of the earthquake. However, just following the basic minimum building code provisions may save lives, but these buildings may not even be repairable after the impact of the earthquake. So, this is the limitation of just following minimum building code provisions.
While the magnitude of the challenge is daunting, focusing on both soft and hard interventions can reduce the seismic risks. Structural innovations, such as retrofits (modifying existing structures to make them more resistant) can enhance the resilience of existing infrastructure, especially schools, and hospitals in vulnerable areas. These risk reduction investments can be complemented with measures that enhance capacities for emergency communication, information management, and response. Also, not only the critical infrastructures but all the built infrastructures should be earthquake resilient and there should be robust enforcement of building codes.
