GLOBAL BLUEPRINTS FOR CHANGE

SUMMARIES OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

 THEME B: BUILDING TO WITHSTAND THE DISASTER AGENTS OF NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

1.      Improving Hazard-Characterization Models and Maps
2.      Integrated Risk Assessment of Civil and Environmental Infrastructure 
3.      Reducing Vulnerabilities in New Low-rise Construction [with Consideration of Environmental  Factors]
4.      Improving Inspection Technology for Low-Rise Construction [with Consideration of Environmental Factors]
5.      Improving Vulnerability and Risk Assessments for Communities
6.      Improving Vulnerability and Risk Assessments for the Environment 
7.      Improving Vulnerability and Risk Assessments for Mega cities
8.      Managing Unacceptable Risk through Improved Mitigation and Preparedness Models
9.      Risk Control for Energy and Chemical Installations  
10.    Next Generation of Building Codes and Lifeline Standards  
11.    Improving Resiliency of Transportation Systems  
12.   Improving Resiliency of Large Dams  
13.  Improving Understanding of the Interaction Between the Built Environment and

Natural Systems
THEME B: BUILDING TO WITHSTAND THE DISASTER AGENTS OF NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 

Preamble: The topics, scope of work, and a summary of the recommendations of the Global Blueprints for Change for this theme are provided below.

Topic 1: Improving Hazard-Characterization Models and Maps: This Blueprint for Change will provide guidance to communities throughout the world that are seeking cost-effective ways to improve their capability to characterize and map in space and time the disaster agents generated by natural and environmental hazards. 

Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation:

·         United States: Jim Preacher and John Findley

On the basis of our national mandate to produce  a wide range of state-of-the-art, digital maps for use by many different sectors of the public and extensive experience in making them, we recommend implementation of  the actions outlined below. Out vision is to apply technology in a way that will allow any Nation   to  proceed from protection against hazards to the management of risk through the integration of risk prevention into sustainable development

1. Every Nation should improve their  hazard-characterization models, spatial data, and hazard maps so that all their  communities can move towards  become resilient to the effects of natural and environmental hazards, reducing the compound risks they pose to social and economic vulnerabilities within modern societies. 

2. Institute links between and among government and non-government organizations; volunteer organizations,; geographic regions, scientists; and the private sector. 

3. Enable communities to understand the scale and importance of natural hazards and the historical and potential losses associated with each hazard.  

4. Emphasize the importance of natural disaster reduction for sustainability of economic, social and cultural aspects of communities and the role of safe infrastructure in achieving such a goal. Facilitate the broad dissemination of current state of knowledge and advances in its application. 

5. Develop and use rational and systematic methods of hazard and risk assessment and management at local, regional, national and international levels. 

6. \Educate the stakeholders and decision makers of the community through ongoing dissemination of information to the community and continuing education.  

·         Canada/International: Tad Murty

We recommend that every nation undertake sustained, long-term actions having the goal of deepening the understanding of the occurrence and consequences of natural hazards in the broadest sense (i.e., on local to global scales) and from a process oriented approach in order to foster the development and implementation of realistic mitigation and intervention strategies.   Climate change is the most important process that affects practically almost all the geophysical hazards in a very direct manner and even some of the geological hazards in an indirect manner.  Even though nowadays, the world's “climate change” and “greenhouse warming” are almost synonymous to most people, in reality this is not the case.  Climate change occurs due to natural reasons and is continuously happening since the evolution of the earth’s atmosphere several hundred million years ago and will continue to occur as long as the earth’s biosphere (atmosphere-oceans-land) exists.

The global effort should focus on characterizing the following hazards and their physical effects

      1.        Global Weather Systems
2.        Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ)
3.        Climate Change
4.        Greenhouse Warming
5.        Extra-Tropical Cyclones (ETC’s) or Winter Storms
6.        Tropical Cyclones (TC’s)
7.        Mobile Polar High’s (MPH’S)
8.        Monsoons
9.        ENSO
10.     Meso-Scale and Local Wind Systems
11.     Hydrologic Cycle
12.     Floods
13.     Droughts
14.     Desertification
15.     Storm Surges
16.     Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
17.     Sedimentation
18.     Tides
19.     Land Subsidence/Uplift
20.     Sea Level Rise (SLR)
21.     Tsunamis due to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, land slides, and asteroid impacts

·         United States: E. V. Leyendecker

We recommend that every earthquake-prone nation develop probabilistic maps of the earthquake ground shaking hazard and engage in the long-term process of imp0lementiation in terms of urban and land-use plans and modern building codes that incorporate options for seismic zonation and performance standards.  The goal should be to close gaps in knowledge about local site- and region-specific source, path, and site effects and gaps in implementation.  The gaps in knowledge are the main barriers to going beyond intensity and peak acceleration maps to the construction of spectral response maps as a basis for siting, design, and construction.  The gaps in implementation are the main barriers to reduction of vulnerability of individual elements of the built environment, which prevent the communi8ty from becoming disaster resilient. 

·         Czech Republic: Dana Prochazkova

With respect to induced seismicity, we recommend that:

1. All possible means be used to promote sustainable development and protection of the environment in all countries, using the United Nations' platform to warn of potential threats from technological hazards as well as natural hazards and to provide guidance on ways to avoid their consequences. 
2. Site investigations are conducted before all construction to ensure adequate protection of the environment.  These investigations should consider the possibility of technological activities of humankind triggering earthquakes, which can be as large as natural earthquakes and have comparable adverse consequences,
3. Projects involving water reservoirs, mining activities, fluid injection into rock, and fluid withdrawal from rock be evaluated and monitored with regard to their potential for inducing earthquakes.  
4. Ongoing research is carried out to deepen understanding of the consequences of human interventions with the environment and to identify technologies that will minimise the impacts.

·         France and the United States: Bagher Mohammadioun and Walter Hays

On the basis of progress made during the past decade and the urgent need, we recommend:

1.  Multinational case studies to document the evolution of seismic zonation as a policy tool for reducing vulnerabilities in communities that are located in regions of the world characterized by "low-probability of occurrence--high probability of devastating consequences" earthquakes.

 A typical case history should develop the following information:

1.  Assessment of the Community's hazard environment  

·         Proximity of the causative fault
·         The potential for the causative fault to rupture the surface.
·         The potential for amplification of ground shaking in selected period bands due to the
          physical properties of the near-surface soil and rock. 
·         The potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, and landslides
·         The potential for tsunami flood wave run up.

      2.  Assessment of the "as built condition" and relative vulnerability of individual elements of the
           community's inventory of buildings and infrastructure (i.e., the built environment)

  ·         Older residential and commercial buildings and infrastructure constructed of unreinforced masonry
            or any other construction materials having inadequate resistance to the lateral forces of ground 
            shaking that are expected, or if they were constructed at one time to conform with a seismic code
            or standard, are now considered to be outdated and inadequate as a result of a risk assessment by
            engineers. 
  ·         Older, non-engineered residential and commercial buildings that have little or no lateral resistance
            to ground shaking and are vulnerable to fire following an earthquake.
  ·         New buildings and infrastructure that have not been sited, designed, and constructed with
            adequate consideration of modern, state-of-the-art building regulations, lifeline standards, and
            zoning ordinances.
  ·         Buildings and lifeline systems sited in close proximity to an active fault system. or on encased
            within poor soils that either enhance ground shaking or fail through permanent displacements (e.g.
            liquefaction, lateral spreading, falls, topples, slides, and flows of soil and rock), or in low-lying or
            coastal areas that are susceptible to tsunami flood wave run up.
  ·         Modern business and government buildings of poor design and construction quality, having
            irregularities in plan and elevation and discontinuities in mass, strength, and stiffness. 
  ·         Schools and other “safe haven” facilities that have been built of materials having low resistance to
            lateral forces. 
  ·         Hospital facilities constructed with materials having low resistance to lateral forces and with
            irregularities in plan and elevation and discontinuities in mass, strength, and stiffness. 
  ·         Communication facilities and control centers that are concentrated in one or two of the most
            hazardous areas instead of being widely distributed geographically.  
  ·         Bridges and viaducts having outdated designs and that are likely to collapse or be rendered
            unusable by ground shaking, ground failure, and surface faulting.  
  ·         Underground utilities providing the essential community services of supply and disposal for
            electricity, gas, water, and sewage that are likely to fail or be rendered unusable by ground
            failure.   
  ·         Ports and harbors that are in locations susceptible to regional tectonic deformation and ground
            failure.  

3.   Assessment of the Community's implementation of existing public policies on mitigation and intervention strategies

  ·         Seismic hazard and seismic zonation maps.
  ·         Minimum vulnerability criteria for existing buildings and lifelines.
  ·         Codes, standards, and performance standards for new buildings and lifelines.
  ·         Land-use and urban development plans. 
  ·         Legislative mandates for reconstruction of buildings and lifelines after an earthquake disaster.  

·         France: Gerard Brunot

  We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below.

      1.  A comprehensive  information system (IS) should be developed for application on various
     scales. 
2.  An IS  should  met the needs of a wide variety of users and include:

·         The temporal and spatial limits of geophysical data for each given phenomenon.
·         Past events, including spatial, temporal and physical information. 
·         Hazards, according to different scenarios (e.g. decennial and centennial discharge  for floods)
·         Risk data, including assessments of the relative vulnerability of elements of the built
          environment.

3. All existing administrative or public policy documents such as: zoning regulations,  and, depending on
    the countries,  ad hoc restrictions to development and building permits, and the existent ordinances
    that are related to natural hazard zoning on a scale of 1/25000).

           4.  IS specialists should develop realistic  modeling functions.  The users should  be provided with
                opportunities ranging  from basic statistical analysis to sophisticated models capable of producing a
                virtual event depending on initial conditions. As far as natural hazards mapping is concerned, it is
                quite easy to see what it practically involves, but quite difficult to implement this kind of function. 
                The user must be an expert of the topic if "blind use" is to be prevented.

      5. IS specialists should use  models to "precalculate" a discrete set of virtual natural events as
    outputs of models whose inputs would be the meteorological or geological parameters of natural
    hazards with consideration of different scenarios.

6. IS specialists should deal with the controversy associated with different models.  As models are open
    to controversy as all scientific activity and as, for reasons specific to earth sciences, this controversy
    might last some more decades it is often admitted that several models may possibly be used to
    describe a given phenomenon. One result of this admission is any valuable IS should ideally provide 
    access to alternative models,, which bring out different output vectors corresponding to the same
    input vector. pr

7. IS specialists should evaluate the strengths  and weaknesses of  a Decision Supporting System
   (DSS), which  might lead to significant errors in those cases where models must be oversimplified in
    comparison with reality..

   
·          Israel: Avi Shapira et al

   We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below in the Middle East. 

  ·         Mediterranean Region: Maria-Jose Jiminez, et al

We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below on the basis of results produced in the  framework of the SESAME program.  Under the aegis of SESAME,  a preliminary unified seismic source model was created for the Mediterranean region and used to construct the first suite of preliminary  probabilistic ground shaking hazard maps for the entire Mediterranean region.

        1.  The results, although  preliminary should be used in as many national and regional applications as
             possible. The final unified hazard modeling for the whole Mediterranean will contribute to the
             establishment of a regional seismic hazard framework for the region in terms of peak ground and
             spectral acceleration from which seismologists, geologists and earthquake engineers can benefit. The
             compiled data bases (e.g. source zoning, attenuation, seismic activity parameters) for the whole
             Mediterranean domain and the homogeneous hazard computation scheme constitute a unique tool
             through which relevant information for future regional research studies can be provided.  
        2.  Ongoing activities should focus on improving the final unified hazard model for the Mediterranean by
             focusing on increasing the understanding of specific complex geographic areas.  
        3.  Attention should be given to the SESAME regional hazard assessment procedure to allow for
             non-isotropic ground motion attenuation.   
        4.  The results should be used to  reevaluate  the ground shaking hazard in accordance with various 
             different criteria for sub-regions or for the Mediterranean region, especially after the occurrence of
             future damaging earthquakes

  ·         Taiwan: Ming-Hsi Hsu

We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below because Taiwan is located at the intersection of the Euro-Area continent and the Pacific Ocean, and experiences heavy storms induced by typhoons or tropical cyclones.  These often cause serious disasters during the summer and fall.  For example, Typhoons Zeb and Babs resulted in serious overbank flooding along the Keelung River in 1998. In order to have an integrated approach for natural hazards mitigation, the National Science Council (NSC) in Taiwan approved the operation of the National Science and Technology Program for Hazards Mitigation (NAPHM) in 1998. 

1. Implement the objectives of the NAPHM program.  The objectives are to combine the efforts of  various government and private agencies, to promote the upstream and downstream research, to integrate the research results for practical applications, and to develop methodologies for hazard potential analysis, risk assessment, and disaster scenario simulation.

2. Improve the capability of communities to withstand flood disasters. For example, regulation policy can be ruled to ban land development of areas with high vulnerability to hazards.  Emergency warning systems and response measures can be constructed and planned with information characterized in hazard potential maps.  Structural measures can be designed with better capacities to sustain disaster demolition by locating areas of having high disaster risks from hazard maps.  Flood insurance rate-zone maps can be generated based on regional flood vulnerability from inundation potential maps.

3. Construct inundation potential maps that will provide valuable information for precaution, regulation, management, and mitigation measures against flood disasters. 

Topic B.2: Integrated Risk Assessment of Civil and Environmental Infrastructure: This Blueprint for change will provide guidance for improving integrated risk assessments of civil and environmental infrastructure in communities throughout the world having sustainable development as a goal.    

  Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation:

·         United States: Craig Taylor and Erik Vanmarke

  We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below as a way to advance the use of evaluation
  procedures with their inherent uncertainties and ambiguities in the selection of criteria, communication of
  technical results, and implementation of loss reduction measures. 

    1. Identify issues and new approaches for defining acceptable risk for applications involving the intersection
        of natural hazards and community infrastructure (i.e., lifeline systems).  The elements for evaluation
        should include:

      ·     Uncertainties in modeling earthquake occurrences
·     Uncertainties in modeling soil amplification
·     New vulnerability model development and validation procedures
·     Vulnerability modeling in practice
·     Uncertainties in pipeline vulnerability modeling
·     New model developments for electric power systems
·     Model validation for and uncertainties in estimating higher order economic losses
·     Risk and decision procedures
·     Financial aspects of these risk and decision procedures
·     Risk communication for ports and airportsAcceptable risk procedures for a major port
·     The implementation process for a major culinary water system
·      Regulating marine oil terminals for major natural hazards threats
·      Risk-based performance criteria for components

·         Australia: Robin Chowdhury, Phil Flentje, and Chit Ko Ko

We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below.

1.  Enabling communities to understand the scale and importance of geohazards (floods, landslides, and
     earthquakes) and the historical and potential losses associated with each hazard
2.  Emphasizing the importance of natural disaster reduction for sustainability of economic, social and
     cultural aspects of communities and the role of safe infrastructure in achieving such a goal.
3.  Facilitating broad dissemination of current state of knowledge and advances in its application.
4.  Development and use of rational and systematic methods of hazard and risk assessment and management
     at local, regional, national and international levels.
5.  Education and dissemination of information to the community should be emphasized.
6.  Technical solutions should be modern and kept up-to-date as research and development helps evolve new
     tools and techniques.
7.  Policy should be revisited and thoroughly reviewed and updated at regular intervals and maps should be
     updated using the versatility of GIS-based systems.

·         Moldavia: Anton Zaicenco and  Vasile Alkaz 

  We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below to improve the seismic safety of the Republic of 
  Moldavia, which is affected most often by earthquakes generated in the Vrancea seismic zone.

      1.        A program of seismic zonation.
2.        A program for inventory, classification, and vulnerability assessment of the existing elements of the
           built environment.
3.        Localization of dwelling buildings with high risk of collapse for the magnitude of the earthquake of
           order M_w=7.0.
4.        The program of expertise and, according to necessities, development of design solutions on
           reinforcement of typified structures, when the as built condition is  below the accepted level of
           safety demands.
5.        Elaboration of the insurance policy with stimulating character of measures for reducing seismic risk
           by the efforts of the building’s owner.
6.        A program for rapid intervention in case of a strong earthquake occurrence.
7.        Establishing procedures and format for cooperation and collaboration among different local,
           regional, and international groups.
8.        Enhancing professional competencies for local, regional, national, and international activities.

·     Taiwan: Meei-Ling Lin

We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below to protect people and property in Taiwan from the consequences of debris flows. Due to the steep terrain and fragile geological conditions in Taiwan, heavy rainfalls carried by typhoons often cause severe slope failure and large volume debris flows. 

1.    It is strongly recommended that communities having sustainable development as a goal develop a hazard mitigation and management program based on integrated risk assessment models.

2.    An emphasis should be placed on understanding and mitigating debris flows.

4.        For debris flow, the following basic data should be collected and incorporated in the integrated risk assessment models:

·         The environmental data of geological factors, hydrological factors, and geomorphic factors.

·         Detailed socioeconomic data on population, land use, production rate, buildings, and traffic conditions, etc.

·         Precipitation data and statistic analysis to obtain the scale and shape of rainfall record for risk assessment.

Topic B.3: Reducing Vulnerabilities in New Low-rise Construction [with Consideration of  Environmental Factors]: This Blueprint for Change will provide guidance to communities throughout the world that are seeking cost-effective ways to reduce vulnerabilities to all future new low-rise buildings constructed in the community.

Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation:

·         United States: H. S. Lew and Walter Hays

  We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below to deal with the vulnerable inventory of  a very
  large inventory of existing dwellings and low-rise commercial buildings in the United States, a very large
  inventory of existing dwellings and low rise commercial buildings. 

where insurance is part of the solution. The consensus is that holistic solutions are the best ways to meet the challenge faced by insurers and all communities throughout the nation as they seek to reduce well-known  vulnerabilities.

1.  Start reducing the well-known vulnerabilities in the roofs, envelopes, and structural and foundation systems of existing residential and commercial structures.  

       2.   Devise "Thinking out of the box” solutions to reduce vulnerabilities in existing residential  and commercial structures that integrate research, development, and professional education with improved professional practices and public policies.

        3.   Prevent the same vulnerabilities in the roofs, envelopes, and structural and foundation systems of     new residential and commercial structures in the planning stage. 

        4.  Develop a rating system for existing housing and commercial buildings that will help to assess  their “as is” condition and provide a sound basis for decisions about retrofit.

5.        Develop educational programs and training to increase the professional capacity of building sub-contractors and building inspectors.

6.        Conduct outreach programs to promote and increase awareness in all sectors of the public of the problems posed by natural hazards and the need for sustained application over time of cost-effective, loss-reduction measures.

·         Mexico: Zobin Vyacheslav and  J. Francisco Ventura-Ramírez

We recommend the actions outlined below to deal with vulnerable low-rise buildings in  Mexico.

1.  What should we do?: We should prepare the recommendations for municipal and state  governments  with our propositions for the reconstruction of  old part of city.

2.       How we might do it?: We should  study the vulnerability of old low-quality masonry within the modern low-rise city and estimate its hazard for the new constructions and the whole city.

Topic B.4: Improving Inspection Technology for Low-Rise Construction [with Consideration of  Environmental Factors]: This Blueprint for Change will provide guidance to communities throughout the world  that are seeking cost-effective ways to improve inspection technologies for all future new low-rise buildings constructed in the community.

Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation:

Topic B.5: Improving Vulnerability and Risk Assessments for Communities: This Blueprint for Change will provide guidance for improving assessments of vulnerability and risk in communities throughout the world. 

Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation:

·         United States: Phillip Schneider

On the basis of our experience with the development, testing, and evaluation of GIS software called HAZUS^® developed for performing earthquake loss estimations in communities and geographic regions of the United States and now in other countries, we recommend implementation of the actions outlined below:  A multihazard version of HAZUS^® to include hurricane, flood and earthquake loss estimation capability are expected to be completed in December 2002.

       1.   Every Nation should take advantage of the opportunity to obtain HAZUS^® , a comprehensive loss
       estimation software model.  This model was developed through a long-term program funded by    
       the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency.  It is in the public domain.
2.   Develop the local databases  and technical capacity needed for applying HAZUS^® .
 3.   Develop experience by applying HAZUS^® before and after damaging earthquakes (and soon,
       floods, and severe windstorms).

  ·         China/ Russia, Czech Republic; Chen Yong, Chen Q.F., Frolova N., Larionov V., Nikolaev A., Pejcoch J.,
            Suchshev S., A.N. Ugarov  

On the basis of experience in China, Russia, the Czech Republic, and other countries, we recommend implementation of the actions outlined below for two new systems  that  estimate risk on regional and community levels. The two systems are:

  1.   The WEB-based decision support tool, “Extremum.”  This decision support tool allows possible
        estimations before and just after the event. The goal may be achieved by two ways. The first one is
        to provide decision makers with a tool for risk simulation. The second variant is to develop the web
         based tool, which may be accessible to all interested decision makers on regional or global level.   
   
   ·   The “Extremum” System, which is based on application of new information technologies,  operated
       for over 10 years: 1990 – 1997 as a local system, and from 1998 –2000 as a WEB-based system. In
       1999 – 2000,  the System was advanced within the framework of EUR-OPA EDRIM (“Electronic
       Discussions in Risk Management”) Program. The System may be applied for risk and loss assessments
       by registered end-users. The end-user may identify the scenario event to meet his requirements. The
       dialogue between the end-user and the System is realized by means of the INTERNET.   
   ·   The input parameters include: parameters of strong earthquakes (coordinates, origin time, magnitude,
       depth), which are available from the WEB sites organizations such as the National Earthquake
       Information Center (NEIC) of the US Geological Survey.  European Mediterranean Seismological Center
       (EMSC), and the Geophysical Survey of Russian Academy of Sciences (Obninsk, Russia). 
   ·   The outputs include calculations of the distribution and extent of damage, the range of possible
       social  and economic losses, and identification of effective crisis response measures.  It will be posted
       on the WEB site of the World Agency on Monitoring and Forecast of Emergency Situations 

3.   The WEB-based decision support tool,  “WaveLet.” At present the System is under  reconstruction  in order to become the Distributed Decision Support System (DDSS). The advanced system is called “WaveLet”. In order to increase the reliability of estimates of possible consequences from strong earthquakes, at least two different approaches are planned to demonstrate the capability to simulate possible damage and losses. It is proposed to use the detailed simulation capability inherent in the System “Extremum” and approaches based on macroeconomic indicators. 

      ·     For input, the System uses an alternative means of estimating earthquake losses based on
      several macroeconomic indices such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and population,
      including regional seismic hazard and risk maps that are produced and updated periodically
      with new and refined information.
·     For output, users are provided with quantitative products and information of seismic hazard
      and risk.  They include: a) The probability that a certain value of macro seismic intensity or of
      a ground motion parameter (i.e. particle acceleration, velocity or displacement) will not be
      exceeded at any site (oceanic or continental) in the world in various periods of time), b) The
      expected loss caused by future earthquakes at any site in the world in various periods of time,
      c) Assessment of the seismic hazard and loss impact from an earthquake scenario anywhere in
      the world (or in a specific region), d) GIS-based maps.

  ·         Iran: Moshen Ghafory-Ashtiany

     We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below. 
         Iran with a high density of quaternary faults is located in the active Alpine-Himalayan seismic belt in a region between the Arabian and Eurasia plates.  An earthquake-prone country, Iran has experienced more than 130 strong earthquakes with magnitude of 7.5 or more in the past few centuries and an earthquake of magnitude 2.5 every day. Rapid growth of urban areas and inadequate planning, population density, inappropriate design and construction, high dependency on vulnerable infrastructure and services, concentrated political, economic and other resources have made Iran's cities vulnerable. Rapid growth of urban areas and inadequate planning, population density, inappropriate design and construction, high dependency on vulnerable infrastructure and services, concentrated political, economic and other resources in a vulnerable city, etc. have caused high vulnerability and risk and consequently great human and economic and social losses in the last century.

Considering the high level of seismic hazard and unacceptable risk in Iran, in 1991 (after the Manjil earthquake, which occurred near the beginning of IDNDR,) the government decided to implement a multidisciplinary strategic research and mitigation plan entitled “Iran's Earthquake Risk Mitigation Program (IERMP)” having the following objectives:

    1.   Increasing the scientific knowledge required for earthquake hazard and risk assessment, including
     seismic zonation.  
2.  Reduction of risk for all types of buildings and elements of the infrastructure.
4.  Promote the need for safer structures and develop professional capacity through education and
     training.
5.  Increasing public awareness.
6.  Promoting a culture of prevention.
7.  Develop plans for post earthquake interventions.
 

·         Russia: Mark Klyachko

We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below as a means to overcome the barriers to implementation in Russia  and CIS countries.  The barriers include: a) no real economic incentives for hazard mitigation, b) weak stock-market, local investments and insurance system, c) insufficient understanding and low public awareness, d) except for Russia, weak legal provisions on the national and local levels, e) no executive control – many of good legal measures are not working, f) low economic capacity of population that is facing many big and small problems just to exist from day to day, and g) few  "champions" for human rights, live safety, and sustainable development.

   
Topic B.6: Improving Vulnerability and Risk Assessments for the Environment: 

This Blueprint for Change will provide guidance for the integration of scientific and economic considerations in environmental hazard assessments. Scientific analyses of environmental hazards are hindered by significant uncertainties that arise by the poor understanding of the complex interaction of physical, chemical, and biological processes that control these hazards and the limited amount of data that in most cases are not error free. Moreover, the existing technological solutions are limited in their efficiency, expensive to implement, and can generate by-products that are difficult to control. 

Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation:

·         United States: Evan Paleologos, Ian Lerche, and Theodora Avanidou

  We recommend the actions outlined below.

  1. We need to understand the uncertainty that is inherent in environmental projects. The objective of this
     Global Blueprint for Change is  to illustrate the considerable  uncertainty that governs both scientific and
     economic aspects of environmental projects. 

      ·     First there is very little difference in the framework in which both scientific and economic
      analyses are conducted.  A statistical approach appears to be the most natural way of treating
      variables (whether physical or financial) that exhibit variability and uncertainty.  Therefore, both
      technical and economic analyses share a common language that can allow technical and
      decision-making personnel communicate their concerns easier
·     Second, scientific priorities to limit uncertainty have economic impacts and economic decisions
      based on uncertain future estimates and conditions restrict or expand technical knowledge of
      the state of a project.  The optimum allocation of resources can be done when technical and
      economic aspects of a project are treated in an integrated manner.  Hence, civil or
      environmental engineers primarily equipped to address technical questions need to be formally
      educated with a broader system- oriented approach that allows them to address, at  a
      minimum, business and decision-making situations

2.   Scientific and economic analyses should be conducted in parallel, where the same group analyzes technical questions together with their financial implications.  This is in contrast to the studies in series, which is the standard practice so far, where first technical studies by engineers are conducted and then management considers financial implications.

    3.   Strive for optimum resource allocation by prioritizing technical and other needs. The aim is to 
    classify the relative importance and relative contribution to total uncertainty of both the technical and
    economic components of a project. 

Topic B.7: Improving Vulnerability and Risk Assessments for Megacities: This Blueprint for Change will provide guidance for improving assessments of vulnerability and risk in megacities throughout the world.

Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation:

·     United States/International: Fouad Bendimerad and colleagues involved in the Earthquake Megacities Initiative

     On the basis of  experience gained through the International Decade's initiative on megacities carried out by the United Kingdom's Institution of Civil Engineers on behalf of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) and the International Union of Technical Associations (UATI), and now by the ongoing  Earthquake Megacities Initiative, we recommend the actions outlined below.

     Today's cities and megacities are unlike any that existed in the past, and thus we cannot expect our experience with historical disasters to guide us in the future. Cities are larger than ever before and growing in size at an unprecedented rate. The average population of the world's 100 largest cities has swelled from 700,000 in 1900 to 5 million in 1990. Furthermore, as cities have grown, they have often expanded onto hazardous lands. For various reasons, people are choosing to live in harm's way.

     New threats have arisen as the megacities have grown. In addition to the four horsemen (famine, war, disease, and death) recognized by the ancients, our megacities now face new perils: Climate change, sea level rise, civil unrest and terrorism, and emerging and reemerging diseases. The combination of natural and technological hazards creates an enormous challenge.

1.  Partnerships are needed. Natural disasters are too large and costly to be handled by any one   sector of the
     society.
2.  Mitigation is critical. Post-event response and recovery are necessary, but alone they are not an   efficient or
     effective means to reduce cities' risk from natural and manmade disasters in the long term.
3.  Science and technology must be employed to help reduce the vulnerability of cities and megacities to 
     natural disaster.
4.  Hazard mitigation should be integrated into the general urban development process.
5.  How sustainable are cities in their current form? In many regions, cities have grown and changed
     significantly since the last major disaster. Past experience alone, therefore, is not a reliable predictor of the
     future. How have the changing size and nature of cities affected their vulnerability to natural disasters and
     their ability to manage risk?
6.  Local knowledge of populations and conditions is critical. How are different groups within  cities affected
     differently? In what ways, and to what extent, do the poor and other marginalized groups suffer
     disproportionately? What could be done to reduce the vulnerability of these groups to natural hazards?
     Potential inequities need to be addressed in mitigation and disaster relief policies.
7.  Is there a post-event window of opportunity for reducing risk? If so, does it exist everywhere,  or only in
     developed countries? How can it be exploited most effectively?
8.  Natural disaster reduction must be made a public value. Reaching out to the community and especially to
     children through the school systems is essential. Creative thinking at all levels and strong  public-private
     partnerships are needed to accomplish this goal, which has been emphasized in all forums to date.

·         Armenia: Styopa Karapetyan 

We recommend the actions outlined below as a means to carry out the basic purposes stipulated under the program of the World Congress on Disaster Reduction.

1. We need to develop general, uniform criteria for the estimation of the expected danger.  For this purpose it is necessary to have:

  ·         A broad based, knowledgeable, and experienced team of experts.   
  ·         An evaluation of all existing techniques for hazard, vulnerability, and risk assessments and risk
            management.   
  ·         A consensus on these techniques,  
  ·         Progressive evolution toward a preferred technique that is underpinned by continuing and distance
            education and training to ensure its use.

·         India: Ravi Sinha and Kapil Gupta

We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below.

      1.  The primary recommendation is to break the overall complex problem represented by the
     megacity into smaller sub-problems.
2.  Involve many different stakeholders in the vulnerability assessments and vulnerability reduction
     actions.
3.   Expand the experience of Mumbai and highlight the relative effectiveness of strategies for
     fostering interdisciplinary cooperation.  . Lessons and guidelines for application in other
     megacities in developing countries will be developed. 

·         Russia: Mark Klyachko

  We recommend implementation of the actions outlined below.

1.   Increasing the activity of governmental and non-governmental organizations through programs administered by the CIS' Intergovernmental Council for Construction, and the Association of Megacities and Large Cities of CIS countries. Common needs and cooperation help to jointly decide standing problem of cities at risk.

2.   Adopting and improving  international initiatives as  “RADIUS”  and  “Earthquakes and    Megacities."

3.   A step – by – step approach that incrementally improves the identification of vulnerabilities in buildings and infrastructure in every community. 

4.   Preparation and broad demonstration of the best available examples of risk management for disaster reduction and safe and sustainable development (and visa versa).

5.   Special education for professionals with options for continuing education and distance learning.. 

6.    Provision for financial risk analysis within every large construction design;

7.    Support for the penetration of risk experts and risk knowledge into governments;

8.    Development of strong Centers of Excellence that can provide continuous regional leadership.

   
Topic B.8: Managing Unacceptable Risk through Improved Mitigation and Preparedness Models : This Blueprint for Change provides guidance for managing unacceptable risk in communities throughout the world by improving the entire process underpinning mitigation and/or preparedness.

  Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Implementation:

·         United States: Therese McAllister

  We recommend the implementation of actions outlined below.

1. Offer education and training through local government agencies, such as Emergency Management Agencies and school districts or through professional organizations for builders, building officials, engineers, and architects.  Curriculum content, length, and detail should be tailored to the audience as well as regional issues and primary natural hazards.

2. Establish committees within and across the appropriate agencies to develop standards, codes, and construction guidance.  ASCE, NES, AIA, ICC, NAHB, BOCA, SBCCI and other appropriate agencies.  Provide guidance to manufacturer organizations for products – exterior doors, garage doors, windows, roofing, siding, etc.

3. Explore the possibility of  insurance companies offering  financial incentives in the form of reduced insurance rates for shelters and hazard-resistant construction or if low interest government loans and/or grants can be made available at either the federal and/or state level, which would be proactive rather that reactive after a hazard event.  Provide Benefit-Cost Analysis guidelines to assist in determining the relative feasibility of shelter options. 

4. Identify and rank critical areas requiring further investigation, testing, or research.  Incorporate needs around the world.  Look for multiple sponsors that could benefit from the research.
   

·         United States: Scott Edwards
  We recommend the implementation of the actions outlined below

1.   Establish Disaster Mitigation Technology Evaluation Centers (DMTEC), knowing that the following  barriers will likely hinder the successful implementation of new and innovative technologies through such a center.

·