DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 9 Preventable Losses: Saving Lives and Property through Hazard Risk Management A Comprehensive Risk Management Framework for Europe and Central Asia Christoph Pusch The World Bank The Hazard Management Unit (HMU) of the World Bank provides proactive leadership in integrating disaster prevention and mitigation measures into the range of development related activities and improving emergency response. The HMU provides technical support to World Bank operations; direction on strategy and policy development; the generation of knowledge through work with partners across Bank regions, networks, and outside the Bank; and learning and training activities for Bank staff and clients. All HMU activities are aimed at promoting disaster risk management as an integral part of sustainable development. The Disaster Risk Management Working Paper Series presents current research, policies and tools under development by the Bank on disaster management issues and practices. These papers reflect work in progress and some may appear in their final form at a later date as publications in the Bank's official Disaster Risk Management Series. Margaret Arnold, Acting Manager Hazard Management Unit The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Email: hazardmanagement@worldbank.org World Wide Web: http://www.worldbank.org/hazards Cover Photo: From the archives of the Turkish Photo Reporters Association Hazard Management Unit WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 9 Preventable Losses: Saving Lives and Property Through Hazard Risk Management A Comprehensive Risk Management Framework for Europe and Central Asia Christoph Pusch The World Bank Washington, D.C. October 2004 Table of Contents Foreword .............................................................................................................................................. v Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................. vi Executive summary ............................................................................................................................ vii Executive summary (in the Russian language) ............................................................................... xiii 1. Getting prepared: the importance of hazard risk management ..................................................1 1.1 Evolving global trends ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The World Bank perspective ..................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Objective, scope, and methodology of the regional strategy ................................................... 3 2. The threat of natural hazards to people and economies .............................................................5 2.1 Geographic concentration of natural hazards ........................................................................... 5 2.2 Hazard profiles by subregion .................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Social and economic impact of natural disasters in high-risk countries ................................. 11 2.4 Countries' capacity to manage risk ......................................................................................... 13 3. Strategic framework: proactive hazard risk management .........................................................16 3.1 First pillar: assessing risk ........................................................................................................ 16 3.2 Second pillar: emergency preparedness................................................................................. 18 3.3 Third pillar: investments in risk mitigation.............................................................................. 20 3.4 Fourth pillar: institutional capacity building ............................................................................ 23 3.5 Fifth pillar: catastrophe risk financing ..................................................................................... 26 4. The path ahead: recommendations and priorities .....................................................................29 4.1 Recommendations for countries in the region ........................................................................ 29 4.2 Recommendations for the World Bank ................................................................................... 30 Figures Figure 2.1. Main tectonic collision zones in Europe and Central Asia ........................................... 5 Figure 2.2. Population at risk of a catastrophic event, by country ............................................... 12 Figure 2.3. Potential economic losses from natural disasters, by country................................... 12 Figure 2.4. Return period of average expected annual losses from natural disasters in Europe and Central Asia ........................................................................................ 13 Figure 3.1. Framework for hazard risk management ................................................................... 17 Tables Table 2.1. Estimated exposure to landslides in the most vulnerable countries of Europe and Central Asia ........................................................................................... 8 IV Boxes Box 3.1. Emergency management in Belarus, Moldova, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine 18 Box 3.2. Mexico City's Seismic Alert System ..............................................................................21 Box 3.3. Mitigating earthquake damage by strengthening building codes..................................21 Box 3.4. Community involvement in Tajikistan: The Lake Sarez Reconstruction and Mitigation Project ................................................25 Box 3.5. The Turkish Earthquake Insurance Pool........................................................................27 Annexes Annex A Country Risk Profiles .....................................................................................................31 Annex B Risk Assessment Methodology .....................................................................................82 Annex C Overview of Countries in the Europe and Central Asia Region ....................................85 Annex D Useful Web Sites...........................................................................................................86 References ..........................................................................................................................................88 v Foreword The Europe and Central Asia Region is exposed to a wide range of natural hazards. Major events-- such as the devastating earthquake in Turkey's Marmara region that took more than 17,000 lives in 1999 or the 2002 flooding in Central Europe, which caused economic losses estimated at more than $15 billion--are only part of the spectrum. Smaller but more frequent events also warrant attention. In the Kyrgyz Republic, for example, every year landslides kill dozens of people and destroy the homes of several hundred families. These events do not find their way into the international media, but they have disastrous effects on lives and livelihoods, particularly of poor people. With this document, the Europe and Central Asian region is systematically promoting the implementation of a comprehensive framework that integrates risk assessment, emergency preparedness, disaster prevention, and catastrophe risk financing with the objective of reducing client countries' economic and social exposure to natural hazards on an ex ante basis. Special emphasis is given to the need to strengthen the institutional capacity to prevent and better manage emergencies. The strategic framework serves as the conceptional basis for the design of a new generation of hazard risk mitigation operations currently under preparation or implementation in the Kyrgyz Republic, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, and Turkey. The willingness to borrow about $1 billion for these projects demonstrates the importance the countries in the region place on protecting their populations and economies, and reflects the increased demand for hazard risk management initiatives. The comprehensive approach introduced and the specific recommendations outlined for vulnerable countries will facilitate reduction of their loss exposures to natural disasters, save lives and property, minimize the impact of disasters on national economies, and make the poverty reduction efforts of the Bank truly sustainable. Laura Tuck Director Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Europe and Central Asia Region vi Acknowledgements Preparation of this study was funded by the World Bank's Eastern Europe and Central Asia Regional Vice Presidency and the World Bank's Hazard Management Unit, through the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID) and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under the umbrella of the ProVention Consortium. The study team thanks them for their generous support to this initiative. The document will be discussed in a stakeholder workshop scheduled for October 2004 in Istanbul. The World Bank Institute is organizing the workshop in cooperation with Marmara University. The principle author and task team leader for the study was Christoph Pusch, of the Environmental and Socially Sustainable Development Department in the Europe and Central Asia Region (ECSSD). Key members of the team included George Haddow, who served as lead consultant for the institutional evaluation of the emergency management systems; Daniel Gunaratnam, who prepared the country- specific quantitative risk assessments; Alexander Danilenko, who managed the consultation and review meetings; and Koshie Michel, who handled all logistical and contractual arrangements. The strategy's pillars on risk assessment and catastrophe risk financing draw on the recent work and publications of Eugene Gurenko and Rodney Lester. Tijen Arin, Margaret Arnold, Marjory-Anne Bromhead, Amy Evans, Lucy Hancock, Rita Jalali, Jeren Kabaeva, Richard Lacroix, Eric Peterson, and Zoe Trohanis provided input at different phases of preparation. The quantitative risk assessments were performed based on data published by the OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database. Munich Re kindly shared its database on natural disaster losses. The World Bank country offices and the Europe and Central Asia Global Development Learning Network team were critical in organizing the virtual consultation meetings, which were facilitated by Elif Ayhan, Dumitru Berdos, Malgorzata Chacinska, Yuriy Chornenkiy, Olivija Cieva, Adelina Dotzinska, Eva Ernstreite, Marijan Gubic, Zoran Hadziahmetovic, Gulana Hajieva, Gabriel Ionita, Aurelija Jakaitiene, Serdar Jepbarov, Darejan Kapanadze, Dilshod Khidirov, Elena Klochan, Ainura Kupueva, Gayane Minasyan, Mirjana Popovic, Hardi Torn, Marina Smetanina, Bulat Utkelov, Zana Vokopola, and Bobojon Yatimov. The team is also indebted to more than 300 national experts who helped shape the strategy and make it operationally relevant. The team also appreciates the access it had to specific country reports and to flood studies prepared by local consultants. Special thanks go to Katalin Demeter, Irina Prussas, and Nihal Ekin Erkan, who are organizing the dissemination workshop. The team valued the guidance and advice provided by World Bank management, in particular Marjory- Anne Bromhead, Joseph Goldberg, Maryvonne Plessis-Fraissard, Nemat T. Shafik, and Laura Tuck. Peer reviewers were Donna Dowsett-Coirolo, Francis Ghesquiere, Andy Vorkink, and Sally Zeijlon. The document benefited from excellent comments by Richard Andrews, Murat Bursa, Arcadie Capcelea, Rufiz Vakhid Chirag-Zade, Vesna Francic, Ibrahim Hackaj, Gabi Ionita, Inesis Kiskis, Oddvar Kjekstaad, Ilia Kvitaishvili, Dan Lungu, Gayane Minasyan, Rodney Lester, Barbara Letachowicz, Vladimir Tsirkunov, Karin Shepardson, and Anselm Smolka, Joop Stoutjesdijk, and Jyldyz Wood. The paper was edited by Barbara Karni. vii Executive Summary The Europe and Central Asia region is vulnerable to natural disasters. In the past 30 years, economic losses of about $70 billion were reported. A major earthquake in Turkey in 1999 caused more than 17,000 deaths and economic damages estimated at 3­6 percent of GDP. Floods in Central Europe caused economic losses of $15 billion in 2002. Economic losses, human suffering, and loss of life from natural catastrophes can be reduced by a systematic approach to planning and preparing for disasters and mitigating their impact. The need to improve hazard management is now recognized worldwide and incorporated as one of the Millennium Development Goals. The Bank has supported a number of emergency recovery projects in the Europe and Central Asia region, and it is beginning to address emergency preparedness and risk mitigation. No systematic attempt has been made to assess the vulnerability of the countries in the region to natural hazards, however, or to develop a strategic approach to address and mitigate them. This strategy paper aims to raise awareness and understanding of the exposure of countries in the region to natural hazards and to provide a strategic, proactive framework for mitigation and prevention. The strategy builds on an initial quantitative risk assessment of each country based on historical data and institutional strengths and weaknesses; develops a comprehensive hazard risk management framework; shares lessons learned from OECD countries and countries in Europe and Central Asia, Latin America, and Asia; and recommends priority actions for each country. The document is based on a series of country assessments that included extensive consultations with key experts and authorities in the region through a series of five subregional distance learning seminars. A stakeholder workshop to discuss the framework is planned in Istanbul for late October 2004. The analysis addresses earthquakes, floods, and landslides. It does not address droughts, forest fires, or pest infestation, which have different characteristics and require different mitigation measures. The paper builds on a recent regional water resources strategic document, which includes an assessment of flood risk. While the preparedness and response systems developed for natural disasters are also important in dealing with man-made catastrophes, these are beyond the scope of this study. Regional vulnerability to natural hazards In a region as large and diverse as Europe and Central Asia, exposure to natural hazards varies widely. Based on historical data, this paper provides a profile for each country that estimates the likely economic losses from a catastrophic event occurring every 200 years, the losses from an event occurring every 20 years, and the average annual economic cost of disasters, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP. It also assesses institutional arrangements for disaster management. Methodologies for estimating the economic costs of natural disasters, in particular major earthquakes, are complex. For purposes of this study, we use a simplified risk assessment methodology that is sufficient to identity intervention priorities and to guide decisionmaking on risk mitigation. Countries exposed to a high level of risk require more sophisticated modeling and detailed risk assessments that determine the exposed asset base and use property or population distribution data to calculate the damage to housing and infrastructure from a given intensity event at a specific location. viii Detailed hazard profiles for each country are presented in annex A. Highlights from those profiles are presented below. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia The Caucasus are highly vulnerable to floods, earthquakes, and landslides. The region would benefit from a better coordinated planning and response system to natural disasters. Armenia's population is one of the most exposed of any in the world to earthquakes. Since the devastating 1988 Spitak earthquake, which took 50,000 lives and affected 1.4 million people, Armenia has developed a proactive seismic protection agency and engineering community, and it has introduced low-cost retrofitting technologies. Damage from other events, such as floods and landslides, is exacerbated by poor land use planning. Azerbaijan is exposed to floods and earthquakes. It lacks a permanent institutional arrangement for mitigating risk and planning for disasters. The absence of flood monitoring and alert systems in Georgia and the deterioration of infrastructure increases vulnerability to floods and landslides. The country is also at risk from earthquakes. A unified system exists but needs upgrading. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro The southeastern European countries are highly vulnerable to natural disasters. Bosnia, Macedonia, as well as Serbia and Montenegro, are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes; Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro to floods; and Albania and Serbia and Montenegro to landslides. The Mediterranean/ Transasian fault zone passes through the Balkans, and the mountainous terrain, poor land use and river basin management practices, and deteriorating infrastructure have increased vulnerability to floods and landslides. Macedonia has the best-developed system for seismic monitoring and emergency management, which served the former Yugoslavia. There is much scope for updating the system and supporting transboundary cooperation. Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania are exposed to floods, earthquakes, and landslides. Romania is one of the most flood-prone countries in the region; Bucharest is one of the world's 10 most vulnerable cities to earthquakes. Average annual economic losses from all disasters in Romania total $150 million. Flood protection infrastructure has decayed in all three countries in recent years, and many dams, hastily built to poor construction standards, are considered unsafe. The Romanian authorities are well aware of the country's exposure to natural hazards. With Bank assistance, the government is about to begin a comprehensive hazard mitigation program that addresses floods, dam safety, landslides, and earthquakes, making Romania one of the first countries in the region to take a proactive approach to hazard mitigation. Emergency management institutions are in place, but coordination between different levels of government and agencies needs to be improved. According to a recent Bulgarian study, a moderate to strong earthquake striking the Sofia region would cause losses of about $10 billion--two-thirds of the country's GDP in 2002. Whether or not the estimate is accurate, earthquakes in the Sofia region could cause severe damage to the Bulgarian economy. In Croatia floods endanger more than 15 percent of the national inland territory. Flood protection systems are extremely complex and comprise a large number of structures that regulate and protect water. The only city adequately defended from flooding is Zagreb, estimated to be safe from a 1,000-year flood event. Turkey, one of the most seismically active regions in the world, suffers from frequent and devastating earthquakes, such as the 1999 Marmara earthquake. Seventy percent of the population lives in areas highly vulnerable to earthquakes. The coastal plains are vulnerable to floods, exacerbated by deforestation and erosion in the upper watersheds, while the Black Sea region is vulnerable to landslides. Poor enforcement of building codes, linked to inadequate governance, has resulted in a large proportion of residential buildings, as well as older public buildings, being built without measures to protect them from seismic events. The population is thus highly vulnerable to loss of life as well as ix property from earthquakes. The Turkish authorities are starting to establish preparedness and response systems, especially at local levels, with the participation of local communities. Much progress remains to be made, particularly regarding enforcement of construction codes and establishment of an efficient central emergency management coordination mechanism. The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia In Central Europe floods are the major risk. In addition, some areas along the Baltic coast are increasingly vulnerable to storm surge floods and coastal erosion. Settlement in the floodplains of the Oder, Vistula, and Danube Rivers and their tributaries, combined with drainage of natural wetlands for agriculture, has increased vulnerability to flooding. These countries have improved weather and flood forecasting systems in recent years, and Poland is planning a major flood mitigation program through the restoration of wetlands. Coordinated institutional preparedness and response systems are in place in some countries, including Estonia, Hungary, and Lithuania. Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan The Central Asia region is seismically active. Especially active are the Ashkabad area of Turkmenistan, the Tien Shen mountains in the Kyrgyz Republic, and southern Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Landslides are a major problem in the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan, exacerbated by deforestation, overgrazing, and erosion on steep mountain slopes. Inadequate dam safety has also increased risks from flooding, including the risk of hazardous mine tailings entering downstream water bodies. All countries have institutions for emergency response, and progress has been made in addressing dam safety. However, modernization of preparedness, monitoring and response systems is badly needed, especially in the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan. The Russian Federation Floods and landslides cause estimated average annual economic losses of $300 million in the Russian Federation. About 700 towns are at risk from landslides. Seismic activity is mostly in the sparsely populated far east and southeast. Russia has a unified emergency response system, including training and emergency preparedness, though measures for planning and mitigation need upgrading. Comprehensive flood management measures, including improved land use planning, development of flood insurance, and flood monitoring, are priorities. Russia has an aging but long- established and globally important hydrometeorological system, which may be updated. Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine Floods are the major risk in Belarus and Ukraine. Both countries have unified response systems, but especially in Ukraine they are underfunded and flood infrastructure is not always well maintained. Flooding of abandoned mines presents an environmental risk in Ukraine. Conversion of wetlands to other uses has contributed to flood risks in Belarus, and there is a need to upgrade flood forecasting facilities and upgrade obsolete infrastructure. Moldova is vulnerable to a range of natural hazards, including landslides, floods, and earthquakes, particularly in areas of high population density. A single department handles emergencies, but financial constraints have severely limited implementation of systematic approaches to detailed risk assessment, early warning, and mitigation measures. People and economies at risk In 10 of the 28 countries in the region, 2­4 million people are exposed to natural catastrophic events, for a total exposed population of 32 million people, or 7 percent of the region's population. About 8 million people are susceptible to natural disasters that have a likelihood of occurrence of once every 20 years. The quantitative risk assessment performed for this study confirms that natural disasters can have significant consequences for the economic performance of the Europe and Central Asia countries: x · Actual, reported, cumulative damage over the past 30 years in the Europe and Central Asia region was about $70 billion. · Catastrophic events with an annual probability of occurrence of 0.5 percent (events expected to occur once in every 200 years) have a major impact on already vulnerable economies. Expected economic losses from such events exceed 20 percent of GDP in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Macedonia, and Tajikistan; 10 percent of GDP in Kyrgyzstan and Moldova; and 5 percent of GDP in Kazakhstan, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey, and South Eastern Europe. · Average expected annual losses for the Europe and Central Asia region are about $2 billion, concentrated in Armenia, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, and Turkey. · More than 90 percent of the loss potential is from earthquakes, floods, and landslides. · A quarter of all expected losses are caused by events that can be expected to return on average every 20 years. Another 38 percent originate from events that have a return period of 20­50 years. In view of the magnitude of potential losses, mitigation measures are urgently needed in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkey, and the Western Balkans. Proactive framework: strategic hazard risk management The World Bank is promoting a proactive and strategic approach to managing natural hazard risk in the region. The underlying principles of the framework are that both loss of life and the economic impact of disasters can be reduced by advance planning and investment. To develop an affordable and efficient hazard risk management strategy, the following basic questions need to be addressed: · Risk identification and assessment: What is the country's hazard exposure? What are the economic and social losses? What is the probability of loss exceedance? Where is the risk concentrated? Figure A. Framework for Hazard Risk Management Emergency Preparedness Institutional Capacity Building · Emergency Response Planning · Decentralized Emergency · Exercises Management System · Public Awareness · Community Participation · Communication and Information · Legislative Framework Management Systems · Training, Education and · Technical Emergency Knowledge Sharing Response Capacity · International Cooperation Risk Assessment Risk Mitigation Investments Catastrophe Risk Financing · Warning and Monitoring Systems · Ex-Ante Funding Arrangements · Hazard Mapping and Land Use planning · Catastrophe Insurance Pool · Code Refinement and Enforcement · Reserve Funds · Hazard Specific Risk Mitigation · Contingent Capital Facility xi · Risk mitigation: What structural and nonstructural measures are suitable and affordable to mitigate physical damage? What are the priorities for intervention, considering risk to lives, livelihoods, and the need for emergency facilities? How best can these measures be financed and sustained? · Emergency preparedness: Is the country sufficiently prepared to respond to emergency situations organizationally as well as technically? Does the existing coordination and response mechanism function under stress? How efficiently are public, nongovernmental, and bilateral and international aid institutions integrated in the emergency response system? · Catastrophe risk financing or transfer: What is the country's financial capacity to absorb catastrophic events? Is there a funding gap? What are the most suitable financial instruments with which to address the funding gap? · Institutional capacity building: What is the country's capacity to manage risk at different levels of government? Is an institutional framework and coordination mechanism in place that allows strategic planning and decisionmaking at the central, regional, and local levels? Are technical, social, and economic considerations integrated adequately in the investment decision process? The proposed hazard risk management framework is based on these five pillars. It offers countries an operational template to gradually and systematically invest in upgrading their systems. Recommendations for countries in the region I) Review hazard risk management practices in high-risk countries. Countries that face high risks of natural disasters should review their current practices of managing natural hazards and develop targeted programs for building capacity and mitigating risk. The evaluation of the hazard management system presented in the country-specific assessments can serve as initial guidance for strengthening existing systems. II) Integrate hazard risk management into the economic development process. Emergency planning and risk mitigation needs to be an integral part of the rural and urban development process, with participation by all stakeholders. Hazard information needs to be incorporated into land use plans and enforced by local governments in order to reduce the vulnerability of towns and cities. Buildings and infrastructure in high-risk areas need to be reviewed against hazard-specific performance criteria to reduce the level of damage and ensure the functioning of essential services under emergency conditions. Particular attention needs to be given to adequate construction codes and their enforcement. Consideration should be given to adopting cost-effective and sustainable flood protection measures (such as improving dikes, retrofitting dams with larger spillways and gates, enlarging floodways, and revising current operating rules of dams). Flood management should be seen within the overall framework of river basin and catchment water management plans. III) Carry out detailed risk assessments. Highly vulnerable countries, particularly the Russian Federation, the countries of Central Asia, and the Caucasus states, should conduct detailed risk assessments. These assessments should build on the initial work underway in most of these countries and include application of the hazard, exposure, vulnerability, and loss analysis modules presented under the first pillar (risk assessment) in chapter 3. The assessment provides projections of the average annual expected loss and the probable maximum loss from a single catastrophic event. This information should be the basis for developing an efficient and cost-effective risk management strategy. IV) Adopt country-specific, high-priority risk mitigation measures. Specific risk management measures need to be adopted based on a country's hazard exposure. These measures should strike a balance between upgrading emergency preparedness, investing in physical risk mitigation measures, xii strengthening the institutional capacity to manage hazard risk, and introducing a risk financing strategy. Specific measures for each country are proposed in annex A. V) Develop a catastrophe risk financing strategy. Countries need to develop and introduce targeted risk financing strategies for dealing with catastrophic events that can have a severe impact on their economies. The strategy would address the funding gap caused by the need to recover economic losses and meet social obligations and other responsibilities following a catastrophic event. Developing a risk financing strategy is particularly important for countries exposed to catastrophic earthquakes. This is of particular relevance for Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Romania, and Tajikistan. Turkey has already introduced a catastrophe risk insurance scheme for earthquakes, making it the first country in the region to do so. Recommendations for the World Bank VI) Mainstream hazard risk management into Country Assistance and Poverty Reduction Strategies. The World Bank should integrate hazard risk management measures into its assistance program for the highly vulnerable countries identified in this study. To do so, it could provide policy advice for developing comprehensive risk management strategies, finance detailed risk assessments, support client countries in implementing national and regional risk mitigation programs, initiate cost- efficient risk mitigation pilot programs with the potential for upscaling, and help design and finance country-tailored catastrophe risk financing strategies. Incorporating hazard risk management issues into the broad stakeholder consultations of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) processes would be an important step for raising awareness of and commitment to pro-active risk mitigation. The country risk profiles presented in annex A provide guidance on priorities and focus areas. VII) Promote new financial instruments as an incentive for proactive risk management. Significant delays occur in financing post-disaster reconstruction activities because of the complex approval processes used by the international donor community and development banks and the limited institutional capacity of recipient governments to implement projects in the aftermath of natural disasters. The World Bank should actively promote new instruments that establish catastrophe risk financing arrangements before disasters occur. Support of the Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool is an example of how the Bank can be effective in this regard. The guiding principles in the design of new financial instruments should aim to promote and implement high-priority risk mitigation programs; strengthen the institutional capacity for emergency management; provide strong economic incentives for countries to engage in ex ante risk management; provide countries with immediate liquidity following catastrophic events; and link donor lending for natural disasters to risk funding from reinsurance and capital markets. VIII) Expand knowledge-sharing activities between countries and practitioners. All countries in the Europe and Central Asia region, as well as international experts, would benefit from increased intraregional--and in some cases cross-regional--knowledge sharing and the establishment of networks of practitioners in hazard risk management. During virtual consultation meetings with more than 300 experts from more than 25 countries, knowledge-sharing activities were identified as a high priority area in which the World Bank and other international organizations could help increase capacity in the region to better manage natural hazards. In particular, there is high demand for exchange among practitioners on specialized topics, such as emergency management communication systems, retrofitting of lifelines and buildings, flood warning systems, landslide monitoring, and risk financing. . , 30 70 . . , 1999 17 . , 3-6% . : 2002 . 15 . . , . . . . , , , . , , , , , . . , . 2004 . , . , , . , . , xiv , . . , , 200 , 20 , . . , , , . , , . , , , . . . , . , . . . 1988 ., 50 . 1,4 . , -, . , , . . . , . . , . , , , . - . , , xv ; , , ­ ; , ­ . - , , . , . . , , . ­ ; ­ 10 . 150 . . , , , . . , , , , , . , . , 10 . ­ 2002 . - , , . 15 . . , , , , . - - , , 1999 . , . , , . , , , . . , . , xvi . , , , , , , . . , . , . , . , , . , , , . , - , . , , . , . , . , , . 300 . . 700 . - . , , . , , . , , . , . . , , . . , xvii . , , , . , , . 10 28 2 4 . , 32 . 7 . 8 . 20 . , : · 30 30 . . · 0,5 ( 200 ) . 20 , , , ; 10 ­ ; 5 ­ , , , - . · 2 . , , , . · 90 , . · , 20 . 38 , 20-50 . , , , , , , , , , , , - . : . , xviii , . : · : ? ? ? ? · : ? , , ? ? · : ? ? , ? · : ? ? ? · : ? - , , ? , ? . · · · · · · · · , · · - · · · · · · · · xix . . I) . , , . , . II) . . . , . . ( , , ). . III) . , , , . , , , ( ) 3. . . IV) . . , , xx . . V) . , . , , . , . , , , , , , . , . VI) . . , , - , , , . " " () . , . VII) . , - . , . . , , , xxi . - . VIII) . , , ­ ­ . 300 25 , . , , , , , . Chapter 1. Getting Prepared: The Importance of Hazard Risk Management 1.1 Evolving global trends More than one billion people throughout the world were affected by natural disasters during the last decade of the twentieth century, with direct economic losses of $629 billion, according the World Disaster Report 2003. Ninety-five percent of all deaths caused by disasters occur in developing countries, and losses due to natural disasters in developing countries can be 20 times greater (as a percentage of GDP) than in industrial nations. Because natural disasters have a disproportionate impact on the poor, disaster mitigation and management programs should be an integral part of poverty alleviation. Several devastating natural disasters of recent years underline the urgent need for a more proactive approach to hazard risk management. El Niño led to flooding in East Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and South and Southeast Asia. Soon afterward Hurricanes Georges and Mitch hit the Caribbean and Central America in 1997/98. These events were followed by major mudslides in Venezuela; a cyclone in Orissa, India; and earthquakes in El Salvador and Gujarat, India. A major earthquake in Turkey's Marmara region took more than 17,000 lives in 1999. Heavy flooding in eastern and southern Germany, the southwestern part of the Czech Republic, and Austria and Hungary in 2002 caused economic losses estimated at more than $15 billion. An earthquake measuring 6.3 on the Richter scale struck the historic city of Bam, Iran, and the villages surrounding it in 2003, killing more than 40,000 people. The focus of the international development community is shifting from emergency response and post- disaster reconstruction to disaster prevention and risk reduction. This focus is highlighted in the Millennium Declaration, which includes intensifying "collective efforts to reduce the number and effects of natural and man-made disasters" as a Millennium Development Goal (MDG). The inclusion of hazard risk management as part of the MDGs will further facilitate the inclusion of hazard risk management as an essential part of the economic development process. 1.2 The World Bank perspective Since the late 1960s, the World Bank has contributed significantly to emergency recovery and reconstruction. The Bank has funded emergency interventions and reconstruction projects all over the world, including a flood emergency recovery project in Mozambique, earthquake and flood recovery projects in China, disaster mitigation projects in Honduras and Nicaragua in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch, a series of flood recovery projects in Bangladesh, loans for earthquake and flood reconstruction in India, a flood recovery project in Poland, and several earthquake reconstruction programs in Turkey, to name only a few efforts in recent years. The Bank provided about $12 billion for natural disaster reconstruction and mitigation projects between 1980 and 2003. Lending for all projects that included a disaster-related activity was about $38 billion over the same period. 2 A 1999 report, "Learning from the World Bank's Experience of Natural Disaster­Related Assistance," outlines the Bank's approach to natural hazard risk management. Based on the Bank's experience in disasters, it identifies 10 key elements: · Minimizing losses from natural disaster as a goal of sustainable development · Assessments of natural disaster damage and loss potential · Costs and benefits of natural disaster management · Incorporating disaster management into development planning · The speed-coordination-participation triad of efficient reconstruction · Natural disaster mitigation within the market economy · Getting incentives for disaster mitigation right · Incorporating natural disaster mitigation in project design · Who pays? The role of cost sharing and cost recovery · Disaster risk transfer and financing In 1998 the Bank established a Disaster Management Facility, recently renamed the Hazard Management Unit (www.worldbank.org/hazards/). This unit has promoted a proactive approach to disaster management within the World Bank as well as with client governments and other international financial and development institutions. The objectives of the Hazard Management Unit are to: · Improve the management of disaster risk in member countries, and reduce vulnerability in the World Bank portfolio. · Promote sustainable projects and initiatives that incorporate effective prevention and mitigation measures. · Promote the inclusion of risk analysis in World Bank operations, analysis, and Country Assistance Strategies. · Promote training in disaster prevention, mitigation, and response. · Identify policy, institutional, and physical interventions for reducing catastrophic losses from natural disasters through structural and nonstructural measures, community involvement, and partnerships with the private sector. World Bank assistance is increasingly financing investments in hazard management and risk financing on an ex ante basis. A new generation of projects in Argentina, Barbados, China, Columbia, Honduras, India, the Kyrgyz Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey, and Vietnam provides support for modern technology, such as satellite-based weather forecasting; flood modeling and warning systems; seismic risk mitigation through retrofitting of high- priority public buildings and lifelines; innovative risk financing instruments, including catastrophic risk insurance pools and capital contingency facilities; improved land use planning and code enforcement systems; instructional capacity for emergency management on national and local levels; and other activities. Traditional emergency assistance following a disaster has limitations with regard to the timeliness of the response, the efficiency of resource allocation, and the long-term impact on hazard risk mitigation. Accordingly, the World Bank is actively promoting the implementation of a comprehensive framework that integrates hazard risk identification, risk reduction, and risk financing/transfer, with the objective of reducing client countries' economic and social exposure to disaster impacts on an ex ante basis. This strategy document aims to become an important element in further operationalizing this ambitious goal at the country level. 3 1.3 Objective, scope, and methodology of the regional strategy Objective: The objective of this study is to raise awareness and understanding of exposure to natural hazard risks by countries in the Europe and Central Asia Region and to introduce a proactive framework for mitigating and preventing those risks. Creating such a framework will help reduce loss of life and decrease the region's social, environmental, financial, and economic vulnerability to earthquakes, floods, and landslides. The operational framework is built on quantitative hazard risk assessments, based on historical loss data, that identify major risks and overall trends; identify the region's high-risk countries; evaluate the institutional capacity for risk management on a country-by- country basis; develop a comprehensive hazard risk management framework that can guide vulnerable countries in developing sustainable risk mitigation strategies; draw on lessons learned from Bank interventions in Europe and Central Asia, Latin America, and Asia; and provide recommendations for high-priority activities on a country-by-country basis. Audience: This study is intended for three principal audiences: government officials in countries in the Europe and Central Asia Region; World Bank staff involved in development planning, project design, and hazard management and reconstruction projects; and the international development community (donor governments, private sector actors, development and emergency response agencies, academics, other international financial institutions, and nongovernmental organizations [NGOs]). Scope: The study addresses the management and mitigation of human and economic losses from earthquakes, floods, and landslides in the Europe and Central Asia Region. It does not address droughts, forest fires, or pest infestation, which require different mitigation measures. Drought is being addressed in a Bank sector study that will be published in 2004. The document complements the treatment of flood risk in Europe and Central Asia in the 2003 "Europe and Central Asia Water Resources Issues and Strategic Directions" paper. While the preparedness and response systems developed for natural disasters are also of value in the event of man-made catastrophes, such disasters are beyond the scope of this study. Methodology: The study is based on the following main elements: 1. A quantitative risk assessment was performed based on data from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) (www.cred.be/emdat). Data were also examined from various other sources, including Munich Re and Swiss Re, two leading international reinsurance agencies; the UN Office of Coordination for Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA); Lloyds of London and its branches; USAID; and the U.S. National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The assessment is based on historical hazard events that were reported. It applies statistical tools to determine the probability and frequency of a hazard occurring and the level of exposure of people and property to the hazard. The data were divided into three main categories: floods and landslides, earthquake, and other events (droughts, extreme temperatures, and wind). The assessment characterizes the risk exposure for the region and for individual countries, and it identifies the population at risk as well as the economic loss potential. 2. A qualitative evaluation of the countries' institutional capacity to manage hazard risks was conducted on a country-by-country basis. The evaluation is based on 24 country reports prepared by local experts describing the institutional, legal, and financial framework for hazard management in each country and summarizing critical issues and high-priority interventions. 3. The findings of the country reports were discussed with more than 300 experts, including emergency managers, officials, academics, and sector experts from 24 countries in the region on five occasions. The consultation meetings were arranged via videoconference, with the support of the Europe and Central Asia Global Development Learning Network (GDLN). 4 4. The results of the qualitative and quantitative assessments are the foundation for the regional strategy. They were also used to prepare country risk profiles, which display all of the risk information collected for each country. The risk profiles are summarized in annex A. Chapter 2. The Threat of Natural Hazards to People and Economies 2.1 Geographic concentration of natural hazards Earthquakes. The Europe and Central Asia Region includes some of the world's most unstable as well as some of its most stable geology. The primary seismically active regions lie in the crescent that stretches from the Balkans through the Caucasus and Central Asia to the Russian Federation. These regions have high to very high seismic hazards. In contrast, vast areas--from northeastern Europe across most of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation--are very stable. The greatest hazard is found in areas of the largest earthquakes due to interactions of adjacent tectonic plates (figure 2.1). In the southern parts of the region, several major tectonic plates collide. The Indian and Arabian plates are moving north, colliding with the Eurasian plate. The compression results in thrust faulting, in which blocks of crust move vertically in relation to one another. This collision is an on-going process that has created the major mountain ranges from the Caucasus to the Himalayas. The collision zone stretches from eastern Turkey and the Caucasus to west of the Caspian Sea, resulting in a very high earthquake hazard in Armenia, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The collision causes associated lateral faulting on its western and eastern sides, as the earth's crust is extruded along regional fault zones. The collision of the northward-moving Arabian plate with the Eurasian plate puts the Caucasus region under great pressure and results in thrust faulting at the northern edge of the active collision zone. This contributes to the high hazard on the Russian Federation's southern border and from Georgia to Azerbaijan. To the south, strike-slip faulting occurs along the eastern end of the North Anatolia fault and along the East Anatolian fault, which runs near Turkey's southern border up to the border with Armenia. Other strike-slip faults in the area between the Caspian and Black Seas make this an area of high to very high hazard. Figure 2.1: Main tectonic collision zones in Europe and Central Asia 6 Three major earthquakes have occurred in Turkey since 1992. Two occurred in 1999: the Marmara, or Izmit, earthquake in August and the November earthquake in nearby Duzce. These events, measuring 7.4 and 7.1 on the Richter scale, dramatically demonstrated the vulnerability of Istanbul and the Marmara region to natural disasters. The earthquake killed more than 17,000 people, left an estimated 200,000 homeless, and caused extensive damage to Turkey's industrial and economic centers, with an estimated economic impact of $8­$12 billion. The 1999 calamities occurred only seven years after the Erzincan earthquake, which took thousands of lives. In Armenia the economy is still recovering from the 1988 Spitak earthquake, which killed more than 25,000 people. Floods. Most of the region's large rivers are regulated, but when flooding of these rivers does occur it is of the most damaging type. The series of floods in Central Europe in recent years--on the Oder, Elbe, Vltava, and Tisza Rivers, among others--represent important examples of flooding of regulated rivers. Among transboundary rivers, the Danube, the Tisza, and the Sava are particularly dangerous, especially to plains areas, such as those in Hungary. Downstream countries are better able to take mitigating action. Moldova, for example, generally has several days of warning when the transboundary Dniester and Prut Rivers flood. For upstream countries, the danger is greater: about 60 percent of Serbia's Vojvodina basin is vulnerable at the 1 percent level from overspill of transboundary waters. River flooding can be driven by snowmelt, by snowmelt in combination with intense local precipitation, and by steady widespread precipitation. Zagreb is historically vulnerable to flooding by the Sava, though a system to safely direct the river's overspill is being constructed. In some countries, flooding of smaller watercourses is more costly than that of major rivers. Mountainous watercourses can become torrents, as happens in the hilly areas of Slovenia and the Balkan peninsula, Slovakia and the Carpathian Mountains, and Georgia. Zagreb is vulnerable to mountain torrents originating in the Medvenica Mountains. Also dangerous are low-capacity watercourses in the plains. The areas of Macedonia most at risk are stretches of rivers through the plains, where river beds are shallow and have low capacity. Albania's western plain frequently experiences flooding. Even the Amur, large as it is, causes inundations every few years, when its erratic discharge reaches high levels. Throughout the region, river flooding is exacerbated by ice jams. Ice jam floods are observed not only on the Danube from Hungary to Bulgaria but also on Lithuania's Neris and Nemunas Rivers; on Poland's Vistula River; on smaller rivers in Slovakia, Georgia, and the Russian Federation's North Caucasus; and the narrow river valleys of the Czech Republic. Ice jams are not the only temporary natural barriers that block rivers. In some countries, temporary lakes are sometimes created when landslides or glacier motion blocks rivers, storing large volumes of water behind these unstable natural barriers until some disturbance loosens the blockage and releases the inundation. These temporary lakes represent a significant danger in Georgia and Central Asian countries. Coastal effects are important in some countries. In the Baltic countries, river floods are sometimes caused when the rivers are dammed by effects of the gulf and the sea, such as storm surges, ice cover in the gulf, or ice dumps on the coastline. The city of Liepaja is at risk when the water table rises, as it does when high sea levels raise the pressure. The Estonian city of Parnu was partly inundated by a wind-driven rise in sea level of 253 centimeters in 1967. Croatia's small karstic North Adriatic islands flood, as does Montenegro's littoral area. The Russian Federation's Black Sea coast flooded in 2002. Some risks, such as Pacific tsunamis, monsoons, and some flooding apparently related to the weakening permafrost, are limited to the northern and eastern areas of the Russian Federation Some anthropogenic risks are country specific. Questions have been raised about the safety of Riga should the cascade of hydropower plants on the Daugava River fail. The plain of Zadrima in Albania is inundated several times a year because its drainage system was damaged during the tumult of the 7 2004 80 70 33007 60 50 Bank. JUNE Bank any World or IBRD information The World AREAS: of other The territory, Program, Sea Unit any of any and part of 180 Design HAZARD the status boundaries. 180 TE ALS BOUNDARIES Map on such HIGH the legal of Y Assessment imply, by denominations the SEISMIC HAZARD: VER HIGH MODERA LOW not CAPIT on CITIES Bering do TIONAL colors, acceptance produced map Hazard judgment or was this on any TIONAL map boundaries, ): 0 170 170 2 SELECTED NA INTERNA This The shown Group, endorsement 4.8 4.0 3.2 2.4 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.2 Seismic TION (m/s STRATEGY GROUND Global Siberian Sea PEAK ACCELERA .seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP REGION SOURCE: www 160 Petropavlosvsk 160 East OCEAN ASIA PACIFIC 40 30 20 501 Hazards Magadan of Sea Okhotsk KILOMETERS 80 CENTRAL 300 140 250 401 MANAGEMENT 60 200 40 20 Khabarovsk AND Earthquake 150 Vladivostok 100 RISK 130 05 130 0 Yakutsk EUROPE Sea Laptev 120 HAZARD Chita 101 Irkutsk 100 FEDERATION Krasnoyarsk of 90 90 Norilsk Bay Bengal RUSSIAN 80 REP. Novosibirsk Oskemen Almaty KYRGYZ Karagandy Astana Osh TAJIKISTAN Bishkek Khojand 70 Sea Dushanbe 70 Kara Tashkent Samarkand Sea KAZAKHSTAN Bukhara UZBEKISTAN Arabian 60 60 Perm' Aral Sea TURKMENISTAN Ashgabat Turkmenbashy Aktau Baku Sea 50 Caspian 50 Tbilisi AZERBAIJAN Sea Barents Yerevan 40 Rostov Sea Moscow ARMENIA Kharkiv GEORGIA Dniepropetrovsk TURKEY Adana Red Sea Murmansk Sevastopol Petersburg Ankara St. Kyiv Odessa Black 30 UKRAINE Chisinau Constanta Istanbul Minsk MOLDOVA Bucharest Burgas Izmir LATVIA BELARUS ESTONIA BULGARIA Sofia Tallinn Riga ROMANIA LITHUANIA Vilnius Skopje Krakow Belgrade FYR 20 Budapest MACEDONIA Sarajevo FED. POLAND Bratislava HUNGARY Warsaw Sea REP. Zagreb Tirana ALBANIA RUSSIAN Kaliningrad Gdansk REP. CZECH AND AND Mediterranean Prague SLOVAK Ljubljana SERBIA BOSNIA MONTENEGRO 10 HERZEGOVINA CROATIA 80 70 SLOVENIA 8 transition period. Bosnia experiences flood waves because in recent years the reservoirs on the Sava have not been synchronized with Bosnian water resources management. In Serbia and Montenegro, removal of levee material for construction has increased the flood hazard in some areas. Reservoir collapses have caused mudflows in Armenia. In Moldova many ponds dammed in recent decades do not have owners today and are now deteriorating. Potential burst waves when the dams fail represent a hazard. In Azerbaijan the erosion of the banks of reservoirs poses a threat. That threat is most serious in Lake Mingechaur, where 16 billion cubic meters of reservoir water have eroded the lake's banks by 100 meters. The flood area is 800,000 hectares, inhabited by 3.5 million people. In Poland polders designed for storage are now used for agriculture and housing. Landslides. Many countries in the region are highly vulnerable to landslides. The geology and topography in many of the mountainous regions favor mass movements triggered by rainfall, earthquakes, or both. The typical consequences of landslides include loss of lives; the disruption of transport routes (roads, rails, and bridges); the blocking of valleys and stranding of communities; loss of income; the closing of schools; substantial property damage to private and community facilities; the disruption of the water supply; the trauma of evacuation; and damage to the social fabric of communities. The methodology underlying the predicted distribution of landslides was developed in connection with a project on identifying global natural disaster hotspots initiated by the World Bank and the ProVention Consortium. The relative landslide hazard triggered by rainfall, earthquakes, or both is rated using a six-point scale, from a low of 1 to a high of 6. The largest numbers of people exposed to landslides live in Turkey, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, Georgia, Romania, and Tajikistan (table 2.1). Table 2.1: Estimated exposure to landslides in the most vulnerable countries of Europe and Central Asia Extent of hazard area Population located (classes 4­6) in hazard area (classes 4­6) Fatalities (1980­2000) Percentage Square of country Number of Percentage of Country kilometers area people total population Turkey 194,000 25 8,100,000 11 177 Kyrgyz Republic 93,000 47 1,016,000 20 162 Russian Federation 168,000 1 1,013,000 <1 424 Georgia 40,000 58 987,000 19 46 Romania 16,000 7 952,000 4 63 Tajikistan 52,000 36 728,000 11 2,008 Bosnia and Herzegovina 12,000 25 520,000 12 6 Azerbaijan 15,000 9 500,000 6 0 Uzbekistan 11,000 3 415,000 2 51 Slovenia 500 29 230,000 12 10 Moldavia 28 0.1 1,640 <1 9 Czech Republic 104 0.1 9 200 <1 10 Source: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. Data on fatalities are from the Center for Research of Epidemiology of Disasters. 9 2.2 Hazard profiles by subregion The World Bank's Europe and Central Asia Region consists of 28 countries. At 23.9 million square kilometers, it is the largest World Bank region in terms of land area. In 2002 almost 480 million people lived in the region, generating an estimated regional GDP of $1.15 trillion. The region is highly diverse in terms of geography, climate and natural resources, languages, human development, and the socioeconomic policies of its governments. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. The Caucasus are highly vulnerable to floods, earthquakes, and landslides. The region would benefit from a better coordinated planning and response system to natural disasters. Armenia's population is one of the most exposed of any in the world to earthquakes. Since the devastating 1988 Spitak earthquake, which took 50,000 lives and affected 1.4 million people, Armenia has developed a proactive seismic protection agency and engineering community, and it has introduced low-cost retrofitting technologies. Damage from other events, such as floods and landslides, is exacerbated by poor land use planning. Azerbaijan is exposed to floods and earthquakes. It lacks a permanent institutional arrangement for mitigating risk and planning for disasters. The absence of flood monitoring and alert systems in Georgia and the deterioration of infrastructure increases vulnerability to floods and landslides. The country is also at risk from earthquakes. A unified system exists but needs upgrading. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro. The southeastern European countries are highly vulnerable to natural disasters. Bosnia and Macedonia, as well as Serbia and Montenegro are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes; Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro to floods; and Albania and Serbia and Montenegro to landslides. The Mediterranean/ Transasian fault zone passes through the Balkans, and the mountainous terrain, poor land use and river basin management practices, and deteriorating infrastructure have increased vulnerability to floods and landslides. Macedonia has the best-developed system for seismic monitoring and emergency management, which served the former Yugoslavia. There is much scope for updating the system and supporting transboundary cooperation. Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania are exposed to floods, earthquakes, and landslides. Romania is one of the most flood-prone countries in the region; Bucharest is one of the world's 10 most vulnerable cities to earthquakes. Average annual economic losses from all disasters in Romania total $150 million. Flood protection infrastructure has decayed in all three countries in recent years, and many dams, hastily built to poor construction standards, are considered unsafe. The Romanian authorities are well aware of the country's exposure to natural hazards. With Bank assistance, the government is about to begin a comprehensive hazard mitigation program that addresses floods, dam safety, landslides, and earthquakes, making Romania one of the first countries in the region to take a proactive approach to hazard mitigation. Emergency management institutions are in place, but coordination between different levels of government and agencies needs to be improved. According to a recent Bulgarian study, a moderate to strong earthquake striking the Sofia region would cause losses of about $10 billion--two- thirds of the country's GDP in 2002. Whether or not the estimate is accurate, earthquakes in the Sofia region could cause severe damage to the Bulgarian economy. In Croatia floods endanger more than 15 percent of the national inland territory. Flood protection systems are extremely complex and comprise a large number of structures that regulate and protect water. The only city adequately defended from flooding is Zagreb, estimated to be safe from a 1,000-year flood event. Turkey, one of the most seismically active regions in the world, suffers from frequent and devastating earthquakes as with the 1999 Marmara earthquake. Seventy percent of the population lives in areas highly vulnerable to earthquakes. The coastal plains are vulnerable to floods, exacerbated by deforestation and erosion in the upper watersheds, while the Black Sea region is vulnerable to 10 IBRD 33078 50 40 80 (NGI). Almaty DATA NO Institute, OR STRATEGY Karagandy KYRGYZ REP. BOUNDARIES Astana Osh Bishkek LANDSLIDE ZONATION: CITEIS CAPITALS REGION Geotechnical LOW/LOW, Khojand VERY MODERATE CONSIDERABLE HIGH ASIA TAJIKISTAN 70 RELATIVE HAZARD SELECTED NATIONAL INTERNATIONAL Dushanbe Norwegian Hazards Tashkent SOURCE: CENTRAL Samarkand MANAGEMENT AND KAZAKHSTAN Bukhara Landslide UZBEKISTAN 30 20 RISK 60 EUROPE Ashgabat Aral Sea TURKMENISTAN HAZARD Turkmenbashy Aktau Sea 50 FEDERATION Caspian Baku 50 AZERBAIJAN Tbilisi RUSSIAN ARMENIA GEORGIA Yerevan 40 Rostov 40 Moscow Kharkiv Dniepropetrovsk TURKEY Adana Sea Sevastopol Petersburg Ankara St. Kyiv Odessa Black 30 UKRAINE Chisinau 30 Constanta Istanbul Minsk MOLDOVA Bucharest Burgas Izmir BELARUS Bank. LATVIA Bank any World or ESTONIA information Tallinn BULGARIA Miles The World Riga Vilnius Sofia ROMANIA of other The territory, LITHUANIA 500 Unit any of Skopje any AND and part of Design Krakow REP. Belgrade the Kilometers on status boundaries. 20 Warsaw FED. Budapest SERBIA Map 0 such MONTENEGRO 500 the legal 2 of imply, POLAND SLOVAK ALBANIA FYR by denominations the not Kaliningrad Bratislava HUNGARY Sarajevo Tirana on RUSSIAN MACEDONIA Gdansk Sea do REP. Zagreb colors, acceptance produced map judgment or Prague was this CZECH SLOVENIA AND Mediterranean on any map boundaries, CROATIA 0 0 This The shown Group, endorsement 50 Ljubljana BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA 40 30 20 JUNE 2004 11 landslides. Poor enforcement of building codes, linked to inadequate governance, has resulted in a large proportion of residential buildings, as well as older public buildings, being built without measures to protect them from seismic events. The population is thus highly vulnerable to loss of life as well as property from earthquakes. The Turkish authorities are starting to establish preparedness and response systems, especially at local levels, with the participation of local communities. Much progress remains to be made, particularly regarding enforcement of construction codes and establishment of an efficient central emergency management coordination mechanism. The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia. In Central Europe floods are the major risk. In addition, some areas along the Baltic coast are increasingly vulnerable to storm surge floods and coastal erosion. Settlement in the floodplains of the Oder, Vistula, and Danube Rivers and their tributaries, combined with drainage of natural wetlands for agriculture, has increased vulnerability to flooding. These countries have improved weather and flood forecasting systems in recent years, and Poland is planning a major flood mitigation program through the restoration of wetlands. Coordinated institutional preparedness and response systems are in place in some countries, including Estonia, Hungary, and Lithuania. Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The Central Asia region is seismically active. Especially active are the Ashkabad area of Turkmenistan, the Tien Shen mountains in the Kyrgyz Republic, and southern Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Landslides are a major problem in the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan, exacerbated by deforestation, overgrazing, and erosion on steep mountain slopes. Inadequate dam safety has also increased risks from flooding, including the risk of hazardous mine tailings entering downstream water bodies. All countries have institutions for emergency response, and progress has been made in addressing dam safety. However, modernization of preparedness, monitoring and response systems is badly needed, especially in the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan. The Russian Federation Floods and landslides cause estimated average annual economic losses of $300 million in the Russian Federation. About 700 towns are at risk from landslides. Seismic activity is mostly in the sparsely populated far east and southeast. Russia has a unified emergency response system, including training and emergency preparedness, though measures for planning and mitigation need upgrading. Comprehensive flood management measures, including improved land use planning, development of flood insurance, and flood monitoring, are priorities. Russia has an aging but long- established and globally important hydrometeorological system, which may be updated. Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine Floods are the major risk in Belarus and Ukraine. Both countries have unified response systems, but especially in Ukraine they are underfunded and flood infrastructure is not always well maintained. Flooding of abandoned mines presents an environmental risk in Ukraine. Conversion of wetlands to other uses has contributed to flood risks in Belarus, and there is a need to upgrade flood forecasting facilities and upgrade obsolete infrastructure. Moldova is vulnerable to a range of natural hazards, including landslides, floods, and earthquakes, particularly in areas of high population density. A single department handles emergencies, but financial constraints have severely limited implementation of systematic approaches to detailed risk assessment, early warning, and mitigation measures. 2.3 Social and economic impact of natural disasters in high-risk countries In 10 of the 28 countries in the region, 2­4 million people are exposed to natural catastrophic events (events with a probability of occurrence of 0.5 percent or less), for a total exposed population of 32 million people, or 7 percent of the region's population (figure 2.2). About 8 million people are susceptible to natural disasters that have a likelihood of occurrence of once in 20 years. In Armenia, 12 Figure 2.2: Population at risk of catastrophic events, by country number of people (percentage of total population) number of people (millions) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Armenia Tajikistan Tajikistan Russia Moldova Turkey Lithuania Armenia Azerbaijan Lithuania Georgia Ukraine Romania Moldova Kazakhstan Azerbaijan Kyrgyzstan Romania Uzbekistan Uzbekistan Slovakia Kazakhstan Ukraine Georgia Turkey Poland Czech Republic Czech Republic Croatia Balkans Hungary Kyrgyzstan Balkans Hungary Russian Fed Slovakia Macedonia Belarus Belarus Croatia Poland Macedonia Bulgaria Bulgaria Catastrophic events (annual probability of occurrence of 0.5 percent) Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Moldova, and Tajikistan, more than 30 percent--in Armenia more than 80 percent--of the population is exposed to catastrophic events. Natural disasters have a major impact on living conditions and economic performance (figure 2.3). A disaster causes direct damage by affecting assets; it causes indirect damage by disrupting the production of goods and services. Together the two effects negatively affect macroeconomic aggregates. Direct losses typically include the total or partial destruction of physical infrastructure, buildings, installations, machinery, equipment, means of transportation, storage, furniture, farmland, irrigation works, and other structures. Indirect effects include losses of future harvests due to flooding, losses in industrial production due to damage to factories or reduced access to raw materials, and increased transportation costs due to the need for alternative routes. The most important macroeconomic effects are those that affect GDP growth and sectoral production; the current Figure 2.3: Economic loss potential percentage of GDP USD, millions 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 Armenia Russia Armenia Georgia Tajikistan Turkey Macedonia Poland Azerbaijan Georgia Kyrgyzstan Romania Moldova Macedonia Turkey Azerbaijan Romania Kazakhstan Russia Croatia Kazakhstan Ukraine Croatia Tajikistan Poland Hungary Belarus Czech Rep Ukraine Slovakia Uzbekistan Belarus Slovakia Kyrgyzstan Bulgaria Uzbekistan Hungary Moldova Czech Rep Bulgaria Lithuania Lithuania Catastrophic events (annual probability of occurrence of 0.5 percent) *Note: Armenia's all hazards damage is 708.5% of GDP 13 account balance (due to changes in the trade balance, tourism, and services, as well as outflows to pay for imports and foreign services); indebtedness and monetary reserves; and public finances. Natural disasters can have enormous consequences for economic performance. The quantitative risk assessment performed for this strategy confirms the following: · Reported cumulative damage in the region over the past 30 years is about $70 billion. · Catastrophic events with an annual probability of occurrence of 0.5 percent (events expected to occur once in every 200 years) have a major impact on already vulnerable economies. Expected economic losses are well over 20 percent of GDP in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Macedonia, and Tajikistan; 10 percent of GDP in the Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova; and 5 percent of GDP in Kazakhstan, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey, and South-Eastern Europe. · Average expected annual losses for the Europe and Central Asia Region are about $2 billion, concentrated in Armenia, Romania, Poland, the Russian Federation, and Turkey. · More than 90 percent of the loss potential is from earthquake, floods, and landslides. · A quarter of all expected losses are caused by events that can be expected to return every 20 years on average. Another 38 percent of expected losses are from events that have a return period of 20­50 years (figure 2.4). Figure 2.4: Return period of average expected annual losses from natural disasters in Europe and Central Asia Average Annual Loss US$ 2 Billion 15% 22% Return period in years <20 20100 38% 25% In view of the magnitude of loss potential, mitigation measures are urgently needed in the most vulnerable countries--Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkey, and the Western Balkans. 2.4 Countries' capacity to manage risk Several key findings emerge from the assessment of countries' capacity to manage the risk posed by natural disasters. 14 The concept of hazard risk management is not institutionalized. Almost every country in the region has some legislative statutes and executive orders concerning emergency management. Most of this legislative framework needs to institutionalize the comprehensive concept of hazard risk management and to introduce incentives for targeted risk mitigation activities. Statutory authority and the resulting programs are needed to clarify the responsibilities of national, provincial, and municipal emergency management entities; establish budget authority for emergency management entities; create or strengthen building codes and construction standards; clarify and enforce urban and rural land use guidelines; and provide enabling legislation for disaster mitigation programs such as for flood insurance and property acquisition. Coordination mechanisms between authorities are not fully developed. National governments play an essential role in disaster management. Their capacity is determined by the effectiveness of coordination among national agencies and between the national government and local authorities, the private sector, communities, and the individuals who make up the population at risk. Many countries in the region lack coordinating mechanisms. The Bank's experience in Central America, Poland, and Turkey has shown that the involvement of local authorities and populations in hazard mitigation is critical to reducing the impact of disaster events. Although many government structures and organizations are involved with local emergency management practices in the region, very few formal agreements exist between national and local governments concerning aid coordination and support for mitigation actions. Most countries in the region have enacted legislation establishing national government emergency management agencies. They have assigned responsibilities for emergency response and recovery, but they do not address hazard management in a proactive manner. Coordination of the several organizations involved in emergency management varies widely. Albania, for example, has no national autonomous agency solely responsible for emergency management programs. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, no national institutions focus on disaster and emergency management. In contrast, Armenia established the Emergency Management Administration, which is responsible for coordinating the activities of all national institutions working in emergency management and response. Information and communication systems are outdated. Modern methods for managing information, setting priorities, and allocating and tracking resources are needed to improve emergency response. Efficient communication systems are also needed to rapidly and continuously inform the public during a disaster about what has happened, what actions the government is taking, and what the public should do. The communications system should be designed to handle a variety of hazards, and it should be closely integrated in the day-to-day management of emergencies such as fires and accidents. Hazard warning and monitoring systems need upgrading. Monitoring and warning systems can significantly reduce damage to lives and property from some hazards. Despite advances in technology, there are no reliable warning systems for earthquakes. But monitoring systems and warning systems for floods and landslides are available. The existence and effectiveness of warning and monitoring systems varies greatly within the region. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, meteorological, hydrological, and seismological observation and monitoring systems were destroyed or damaged by war and neglect, seriously undermining the effectiveness of early warning and forecasting capabilities. In Croatia the mitigation of landslide hazards could be enhanced by developing an accurate and well-organized slope instability database and hydrological forecasting system. In Uzbekistan a national warning system is being developed that will provide rapid transmission of information and warnings to the population and local management bodies. Good engineering skill base, but application of modern approaches is constraint. While countries can always benefit from knowledge transfer from international partners, the engineering and 15 architectural professions in the region are well developed and it is not necessary to import engineering skills. The Soviet Union established seismic research and design institutes as well as construction companies that specialized in seismic-resistant construction. In some areas, however, the rigid policies and procedures of the past have constrained the application of modern approaches and innovations, in particular with regard to seismic risk mitigation. In Armenia a proactive seismic engineering community has broken new technical ground with the application of cost-efficient seismic base isolation technologies. Economic considerations are not fully integrated in investment decisions. The integration of economic assessment in the investment decision process is not common practice in the region. Economic appraisal enables decisionmakers to compare options to identify those that provide the best value for money. Cost-benefit analysis should be a significant factor in the selection of flood protection and dam safety investments; cost-efficiency calculations can be used to evaluate seismic risk mitigation investments. Civil society participation and public awareness programs are increasing. A vital element in any comprehensive strategy for hazard risk management is public awareness of natural hazards and the measures available to reduce risk. In many countries in the region, there is an increasing trend toward civil engagement in emergency preparedness. Armenian women's groups developed several programs as part of the Seismic Awareness: Glance Towards the Future Program. In 1997 about 10,000 primary grade students and 500 teachers at 48 schools in Gyumri completed training to help protect themselves and minimize property losses in the event of an earthquake. Other examples of active involvement by NGOs can be found across the region. Financial risk management is needed. A comprehensive risk management approach includes both reducing risk through mitigation and transferring or financing the residual risk. Financial risk management aims to reduce a country's financial vulnerability to catastrophic risks and to provide incentives for mitigation measures that reduce the economic impact of natural disasters. In the absence of a proactive risk management approach, disaster-prone countries are often forced to divert funds from investment and development programs to fund temporary disaster relief efforts. The Turkish Catastrophic Insurance Pool (TCIP), supported by the World Bank, is regarded as a promising model for increasing the financial preparedness of a disaster-prone country against catastrophic seismic events. The TCIP transfers part of the financial responsibility for reconstruction from the government's budget to the international capital market in the form of reinsured domestic property insurance. The more advanced economies of the region could consider adopting similar financial risk management systems. Lack of funding prevents countries from investing in risk mitigation before disasters occur. Funding for hazard risk management is an issue in every country. Many countries have designed and implemented emergency management programs only after disasters have struck. Due to extreme urgency, resource allocation after a catastrophe is partly ad hoc, which often precludes public scrutiny and leaves room for political considerations in determining postdisaster investment priorities. Countries that are prone to natural disasters should improve emergency response planning and capacity and make risk mitigation investments in order to reduce the economic and social consequences of natural hazards in the most cost-efficient way. Chapter 3. Strategic Framework: Proactive Hazard Risk Management The World Bank is promoting a proactive and strategic approach to managing hazard risk in the Europe and Central Asia Region. The approach is premised on the notion that disaster-prone countries should not be caught by surprise. Disasters happen, and technological, social, organizational, and financial remedies exist. Targeted assistance should be provided in high-risk areas before disasters occur. The institutional, technical, and financial capacity for risk mitigation and emergency preparedness should be upgraded gradually. In addition, hazard risk management needs to be mainstreamed into the national, regional, and local economic development process. The underlying principles of the strategic framework are that both the loss of life and the economic impact of disasters can be reduced by advance planning and investment, that it is cost effective to do so, and that doing so is a government responsibility. To develop an affordable and efficient hazard risk management strategy, the following basic questions need to be addressed: · Risk identification and assessment: What is the country's hazard exposure? What are the economic and social losses? What is the probability of loss exceedance? Where is the risk concentrated · Risk mitigation: What structural and nonstructural measures are suitable and affordable to mitigate physical damage? What are the priorities for intervention, considering risk to lives, livelihoods, and the need for emergency facilities? How best can these measures be financed and sustained? · Emergency preparedness: Is the country prepared to respond to emergency situations organizationally as well as technically? Does the existing coordination and response mechanism function under stress? How efficiently are public, nongovernmental, and bilateral and international aid institutions integrated in the emergency response system? · Catastrophe risk financing or transfer: What is the country's financial capacity to absorb catastrophic events? Is there a funding gap? What are the most suitable financial instruments with which to address the funding gap? · Institutional capacity building: What is the country's capacity to manage emergencies at different levels of government? Is an institutional framework and coordination mechanism in place that allows strategic planning and decisionmaking at the central, regional, and local levels? Are technical, social, and economic considerations integrated adequately in the investment decision process? The proposed hazard risk management framework is based on these five pillars (figure 3.1). It offers countries an operational template for gradually and systematically investing in upgrading their systems. 3.1 First pillar: assessing risks Risk assessment is the central pillar of the hazard risk management framework. Risk depends on the frequency and intensity of the hazard, the people and structures exposed to those hazards, and their 17 Figure 3.1: Framework for hazard risk management Emergency Preparedness Institutional Capacity Building · Emergency Response Planning · Decentralized Emergency · Exercises Management System · Public Awareness · Community Participation · Communication and Information · Legislative Framework Management Systems · Training, Education and · Technical Emergency Knowledge Sharing Response Capacity · International Cooperation Risk Assessment Risk Mitigation Investments Catastrophe Risk Financing · Warning and Monitoring Systems · Ex-Ante Funding Arrangements · Hazard Mapping and Land Use planning · Catastrophe Insurance Pool · Code Refinement and Enforcement · Reserve Funds · Hazard Specific Risk Mitigation · Contingent Capital Facility vulnerability. Risk is defined as the probability of a loss occurring. The information provided by the assessment contributes to an informed decisionmaking process, reduces the chances of surprises, and enables consequences to be managed and planned for in advance. Standard elements in a detailed risk assessment include the following (Gurenko and Lester, 2003): · Hazard module. First, the natural disasters and geographical areas to be studied are selected. The characteristics of historical events at these locations are then used as inputs into models that generate probability distributions of disasters over time. Historical events are used to predict likely future occurrences. · Exposure module. Second, the exposed asset base is estimated for each location using data on property parameters and population distribution. The exposure module calculates the value of assets exposed by multiplying the asset stock by the average replacement cost. · Vulnerability module. Third, the damage to each type of asset from a given intensity event at a specific site is calculated. Asset classifications are based on factors such as construction material and type, usage, and age. A damage ratio is calculated relating the repair cost to the replacement cost for each hazard at various intensities and locations. · Loss analysis module. Fourth, the damage ratio from the vulnerability module is multiplied by the value of the exposed risk at a location to calculate an estimated monetary loss. Countries face challenges in employing loss estimate models. The key difficulty is obtaining reliable scientific data about hazards, such as earthquake fault characteristics and flood mapping data. Data on property types and values may not be readily available or specific enough to be useful. Too little information often exists on the vulnerability of different building types to conduct seismic risk assessments. Each of these limitations introduces uncertainties into the methodology and increases dependence on expert opinion. With an in-depth understanding of the potential economic losses, countries are in a position to review the physical, human, and financial exposures and determine the level of risk that can be accepted and the level of risk that should be mitigated. The risk assessment also provides the basis for 18 updating emergency plans and procedures, as well as developing and conducting training and exercise programs for agencies and personnel to identify shortfalls and needs. The loss data should be used to develop a financial strategy with the aim of providing access to liquidity following major catastrophic events. Attention must be paid to social factors that exacerbate or help reduce risk. Disasters have to be perceived as more than just physical phenomena requiring technical fixes. They also have to be understood in the context of the social system, which determines the extent to which people are vulnerable to physical events. Natural disasters affect people's lives as a single event, but people's daily lives are structured by the social, political, and economic environment. Some people, for instance, live in hazard-prone areas, such as landslide zones or flood plains of rivers, for economic reasons. Even relief and reconstruction efforts after disasters reflect the historical relations between groups in society. Vulnerability to disasters may be greater for those with few assets and who encounter discrimination in the distribution of relief. Thus disasters are as much a social phenomenon as a physical one. Attention should be given to the social aspects of disaster situations. 3.2 Second pillar: emergency preparedness Emergency preparedness increases people's ability to respond to a disaster effectively and get through it safely. Governments need to adopt systems that are simple to operate and can be applied to all hazards. Citizens and government agencies need to be prepared for breakdowns in essential services, to develop plans for contingencies, and to practice implementing the plans. It is important that all levels of the emergency management system be involved. National and local governments should be encouraged to make resources available for facilities and equipment. They also need to provide emergency personnel the training they need, sponsor exercises, and get information out to the public. Box 3.1: Emergency management in Belarus, Moldova, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine In Belarus statutory authority is in place for emergency management, land use, and rural and urban planning. The Ministry on Emergency Situations is the national agency responsible for emergency management. A national disaster response plan exists, a national disaster mitigation plan is part of the national emergency operations plan, and mutual aid agreements exist with the Russian Federation and Ukraine. In Moldova the State Department for Exceptional Situations is the designated national emergency authority. Civil protection plans at the national, provincial, and municipal levels are initiated once a disaster occurs or is predicted. Many disaster mitigation programs and plans have been prepared in recent years, but implementation has been limited by budget constraints. The State Department for Exceptional Situations sponsors training and exercises. In the Russian Federation the State Disaster Management System regulates all relations between government, nongovernmental, and civil and military organizations. The Ministry of Extraordinary Situations is the main coordinating body for emergency management activities. A federal hazard mitigation program exists. The government maintains an emergency management training and exercise program, and radar and early warning systems serve 90 percent of the population. In Ukraine the Unified State System to Prevent and Respond to Emergency Situations of Man-Made and Natural Origin, located in the Ministry of Emergency Situations, manages emergency management and prevention activities of the central government and local governments. Ukraine has a national emergency response plan, a hazard mitigation plan, and a unified system of training civil defense managers and staff. 19 Planning and Exercises. The development of emergency plans should follow a multi-hazard approach, but it should consider various hazard scenarios. The plans should be complemented by training programs and exercises to enhance the operational effectiveness of the public safety agencies. The programs should be conducted at the national, regional, and local levels to test coordination, response, and readiness and identify corrective measures. At a minimum, these exercises should involve selected regional and local leadership and all of the specialized regional teams, emergency medical personnel, and senior civil protection personnel. Emergency Communication Systems. Bringing the right information to the people who need it in a timely fashion is key to saving lives and property. Modern emergency communication systems enhance the functionality, interoperability, and coverage of the voice and data communications capability of emergency management agencies, such as civil protection, fire corps, and emergency medical organizations. VSAT equipment, global positioning systems, docking terminals, and the latest technologies for Tetra radio systems are the most common types of equipment used today in emergency management. Information technology­based systems allow emergency management agencies and key public officials at the national, regional, and local levels to collect, analyze, and share real-time data. The systems provide decisionmakers and operational agencies with timely, accurate, and coordinated information during natural and man-made crises. Such information systems should be responsive to the needs of users and provide a communication network for emergency services at the national and local levels. They should allow for two-way processing of information and communications; support the daily operations of the organization, not just emergency situations; and integrate existing systems. Public Awareness. A vital element in any comprehensive strategy for hazard risk management is increasing public awareness about natural hazards and the measures available to reduce risk. The objective is not only to inform the public about the risks but also to encourage public involvement in prevention and mitigation. The involvement of all sectors of society--including authorities at the national and local levels, professional and civic groups, the private sector, and the media--is essential for a successful program of public awareness. Religious institutions may also prove effective channels for such purposes. Six basic principles should govern public awareness programs: 1. Target all sections of society, including the most vulnerable groups. 2. Identify the types of delivery systems (radio, television, newspapers, public address systems from mosques); the messages; and the locations that would be most effective in reaching the target. 3. Include a constructive role for commercial mass media. 4. Set up guidelines for establishing public information centers and media relations officers. 5. Ensure that the messages conveyed have local relevance. 6. Use appropriate communication mechanisms, so that people who cannot read or are located in remote areas have access to information. Technical Emergency Response Capacity. The effective operation of the search and rescue force requires well-trained personnel and appropriate tools, equipment, and support components. Task force equipment can be divided into five categories: rescue, medical, technical, communications, and logistics. Each task force must receive the same equipment, which must meet nationally recognized safety standards. The equipment must be rugged and subject to use under adverse environmental and operational conditions. The equipment cache must be located close enough to the designated point of departure to meet the six-hour mobilization requirement. It should be easily accessible but stored safely and out of harm from the expected disaster. 20 Photograph 3.1: Satellite antennae of Turkey's Weather Forecasting and Flood Warning System 3.3 Third pillar: investments in risk mitigation Relatively inexpensive investments in "soft infrastructure"--programs that increase institutional capacity, strengthen enforcement of building codes, provide training, involve communities, and so forth--should be given the highest priority, as they provide very great benefits at modest cost. Mapping and monitoring and warning systems entail larger investments but should nevertheless be considered priorities for particularly vulnerable regions. Investments in physical infrastructure--such as flood protection and retrofitting of housing and public structures (bridges, hospitals, schools) for seismic resistance--are very expensive. Selection of the most suitable investments should be carried out by applying cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis. Monitoring and Warning Systems. Monitoring and early warning systems should be introduced where the cause of the natural hazard is clearly understood, emergency response measures can be taken close to the hazard area, and the response time is sufficient for emergency rescue operations to save lives. Warning systems for floods are already in place in several countries in the region. Flood warning systems combine meteorological data (rainfall, snowmelt, storms) with water-level measurements on rivers and reservoirs to provide data for public warnings of approaching riverine floods. Over the past decade, interest in various kinds of landslide warning systems has grown. Some of these systems could have potential use in the most risk-exposed countries in the region. Landslides triggered by earthquakes generally allow very little lead time for warning and evacuating the population. Landslides triggered by heavy rainfall are easier to predict. One approach would be to build a regional warning system based on precipitation monitoring or to add such a system to existing weather monitoring and forecasting. Rainfall needs to be monitored and area-specific rainfall threshold values established. Researchers have sought ways to predict earthquakes for centuries, without success. Various indicators have been researched and tested, from the monitoring of disruptions of very low-frequency radio signal propagation to the level fish choose in aquariums. Most promising is the monitoring of primary waves, or p-waves, which may precede an earthquake. Currently, however, p-waves are detectable only seconds before an earthquake strikes, making them ineffective as early warnings. 21 Box 3.2: Mexico City's Seismic Alert System Between 1981 and June 2000, Mexico's Seismic Alert System successfully detected more than 755 earthquakes with magnitudes of M4­M7.3. Thirty-seven of these events generated "restricted alert" warnings because they were forecast as minor earthquakes, with magnitudes of less than M6. Another 12 events were forecast as major earthquakes, with magnitudes greater than M6. These events generated general alert warnings over the Mexico and Toluca Valleys, with about 60 seconds warning. On September 14, 1995, the system generated a general alert warning 72 seconds before the effects of an M7.3 earthquake that originated in Copala, Guerrero, and was felt in Mexico's valley. Three earthquake early warning systems are now in operation, in Japan, Mexico, and Taiwan (China). These systems identify large earthquakes before they begin, in most cases providing warning of less than a minute. With recent emphasis on real-time seismology, operators of many regional and local seismic networks are working hard to reduce the time it takes to issue an earthquake notice from several minutes to under a minute. In rare cases a warning period of about a minute can be achieved if there is a high likelihood that an earthquake will originate in an area some distance from a major point of vulnerability (see box 3.2). Such is the case in Mexico City, where a high likelihood exists of earthquakes with epicenters in the Guerrero Gap, between the Acapulco and Zihuatanejo ports, on Mexico's Pacific coast, about 200 miles from Mexico City. Since 1984 the Engineering Institute of the National University of Mexico has operated the Accelerographic Guerrero Array, a system of seismic monitors that may give 60 seconds of warning to Mexico City, since earthquake shock waves travel much more slowly than radio signals. A real-time alert from the Guerrero Gap will trigger Mexico City's Seismic Alert System, a well-rehearsed and periodically tested city-wide system of evacuations and shut-down of systems, all within one minute. Hazard Mapping, Land Use Planning and Building Code Enforcement. Many countries in the region face land use management problems. Large numbers of people and many industrial and commercial operations are located in high hazard risk areas. Hazard risk mapping can provide data on the likelihood and consequences of risks, information that is critical for setting hazard mitigation priorities. It can also raise awareness about natural hazards among planners, policymakers, and the general public. Integrating hazard information into land use planning is an efficient way of managing hazard risks. Land use planning and enforcement are efficient ways for local authorities to improve the safety of settlements and infrastructure. Box 3.3: Mitigating earthquake damage by strengthening building codes Adopting and enforcing modern building codes with standards designed to mitigate the effects of natural hazards is key to reducing damage from such events. Building codes require buildings to be strengthened at the time when it is most cost-effective to do so--when they are built Using HAZUS--a standardized methodology for estimating earthquake losses--three different simulations of the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake were conducted, based on the type of building code used in construction of buildings in the Los Angeles area. The results suggest that had the Los Angeles area been built to high seismic design standards, the 1994 quake would have caused $11.3 billion less damage than it did. Source: FEMA 22 The safety of future construction can be efficiently addressed through land use planning and design that is sensitive to seismic risk, appropriate construction regulations, and enforcement of building codes. The potential savings from such planning can be significant (box 3.3). Enforcement of sound planning and construction regulations is particularly important for mitigating seismic risk for housing and other structures in urban areas. Countries and cities in the region vary widely in this regard. In many of the former Soviet republics, central controls were rejected but not replaced with realistic and appropriate regulatory systems. As a result, development plans and building codes go unenforced. In Turkey codes and planning regulations are strong, but enforcement is lax, particularly in rapidly developing areas, such as the Istanbul region. Construction design can include seismic isolation measures to reduce the seismic forces on a structure by absorbing them before their full force is transmitted to the structure or by dampening the forces that have been transmitted by using flexible elements. The most common such elements are flexible bearings or isolators between the ground and the building, which permit the ground movement to displace the bearing, but not the building, as a shock absorber. Another mitigation approach is to reduce the degree of a building's displacement during an earthquake by creating a counterweight in the form of a frequency-tuned heavy load at the top of the building (an additional isolated upper floor), which counteracts the displacement of the main structure by moving counter to its direction, in a whip-like manner. Investments in Risk Mitigation Measures. ECA countries need to improve the safety of flood protection infrastructure and expand it as necessary to reduce vulnerability to floods. Consideration should be given to cost-effective and sustainable flood protection measures, such as improving dikes, retrofitting dams for safety with larger spillways and gates, enlarging floodways, and revising operating rules for dams. Flood management should be viewed within the overall framework of river basin and catchment water management plans. Investments are also needed to strengthen flood monitoring, forecasting, and warning systems in order to support more effective flood management operations at the local and regional levels during floods. Landslides do not have to become natural disasters. With proper planning, including proper environmental management, much of the risk can be reduced, especially in highly exposed countries, such as Armenia, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Romania, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Uzbekistan. Before Stoutjesdijk. Joop of courtesy Photo Photograph 3.2: Construction of flood protection infrastructure in the Kyrgyz Republic 23 Melkumyan. Mikayel of courtesy Photo Photograph 3.3: Testing a seismic isolation bearing in Armenia possible and necessary mitigation measures are evaluated, it is important to establish a landslide inventory and landslide hazard maps in the most hazard-prone regions. A crucial element in reducing vulnerability is the analysis of human settlements and infrastructure located in high-risk areas. Geographic Information Systems, in which layers of digital data can be combined to create useful maps and data sources, provides a very effective tool for such assessment. Fundamental public sector actions include defining the institutional network for land use zoning, strengthening environmental legislation, requiring risk analysis for all infrastructure plans and building projects, setting guidelines to reduce risk for existing critical structures and building areas by mitigation work, and securing funding so that responsible institutions are able to act and respond. Making buildings safer means protecting occupants from being struck or crushed by building elements displaced by a tremor. Unless one is standing on an opening fault, an earthquake by itself is not particularly dangerous to humans. It is the effect of the quake on the environment--particularly the built environment--that causes injury. To prevent injury, it is necessary either to prevent the built environment from being displaced and collapsing or to remove people from a dangerous environment before the tremor strikes. Given the lack of seismic risk warning systems that permit occupant escape, the only technically feasible investment at present is retrofitting to alter building structures so that they can resist or absorb seismic forces. 3.4 Fourth pillar: institutional capacity building The efficiency and effectiveness of a comprehensive hazard risk management system depends on the knowledge, awareness, and capacity of the stakeholders involved. Guiding principles should include the following: · Designate a single agency to coordinate all national government emergency management activities. · Elevate this agency to ministerial status, with the minister reporting directly to the chief executive of the national government. · Include an annual allocation for institutional capacity building in the national government budget. 24 · Focus on hazard risk management and mitigation programs, not only emergency response. · Build the capacities of local institutions (such as funding and technical support programs) so that they coordinate effectively with the national government. · Develop and implement training and public education programs. · Develop and implement mutual aid agreements with other countries in the region. Decentralized Emergency Management Systems. Emergencies occur in vulnerable communities. Experience has shown that the effectiveness of any emergency management system depends on the ability, organization, skills, and commitment of a community--its government officials, private sector, NGOs, and residents--to prepare for emergency situations. These efforts must be community based and managed but consistent with national and provincial systems, standards, and programs. The design and implementation of risk mitigation measures occur primarily at the provincial and municipal levels. National governments should provide the overall strategic framework for hazard risk management and assistance to local communities in case of catastrophic events that go beyond their capacity to manage. In addition, the national government should provide cofunding and technical support to communities to identify their hazard risks, determine what they can do to mitigate these risks, and develop emergency management strategies that prioritize and implement mitigation actions. Community partnerships with the national government, NGOs, and businesses should be formed to guide such efforts. Some of the key elements of a decentralized response system include the following: · Identify the location of the municipal crisis center to be used to coordinate municipal response during an emergency. · Define the roles and functions of each municipal government agency during an emergency. · Develop plans and procedures for schools and community facilities. · Develop mechanisms for using the resources of the private sector, NGOs, and community organizations in an emergency. · Develop policies, procedures, and protocols for accessing and coordinating outside resources during a disaster, including arrangements with neighboring municipalities for mutual support. Community Participation. Communities should be an integral part of any hazard risk management program (see box 3.4). One of the key lessons of the Bank's disaster-related projects is that successful reconstruction projects involve the affected communities very closely (Gilbert and Kreimer 1999). Other international agencies involved in disaster mitigation, such as the United Nations, the International Red Cross, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, have also recognized the critical role of community mobilization and participation in effective emergency management. The participation and involvement of the community is essential for the following reasons: · The effects of a disaster are first felt at the level of the community, and the community is the first to respond to a disaster. The greatest numbers of lives are saved during the first few hours after a disaster occurs, before outsiders arrive. Communities that are prepared are better able to provide an effective response and to reduce the impact of a disaster. · Failure to understand the behavior and culture of the community can lead to badly designed early warning systems. · Involvement of local people promotes self-reliance and ensures that emergency management plans meet local needs and circumstances. · As World Bank experience shows, reconstruction efforts are more effective if the community is actively involved. Many communities are in remote areas that are not well connected by roads or other modes of transportation. Such communities may not receive any emergency 25 Box 3.4: Community involvement in Tajikistan: The Lake Sarez Reconstruction and Mitigation Project The Bank-sponsored Lake Sarez Reconstruction and Mitigation Project, in Tajikistan, has developed disaster management plans that outline the responsibilities and procedures to be followed during a disaster, train people in appropriate skills, and identify safe havens and access routes. All of these efforts involve community leaders and villages. The project set up the first all-women volunteer search and rescue team in Central Asia. Their work was instrumental in delivering assistance following the landslide in Roshkala. Village-based first response teams have been created and trained in search and rescue as well as first-aid. aid and have to rely on their own resources to cope with the disaster. For this reason, they need to receive disaster-preparedness training. · Local communities are important channels for public awareness campaigns, valuable resources for vulnerability assessment and monitoring enforcement, and essential sources of indigenous knowledge regarding hazards and mitigation. · Preparation at the community level improves a nation's capabilities in responding to and coping with disasters, as local communities form the building blocks of a country. · Involving communities creates a pressure group to ensure that authorities at both the local and central levels remain responsive to community concerns. · A community-level focus facilitates identification of vulnerable groups, such as women, the elderly, and ethnic groups. The concerns of these groups should be voiced in any participatory effort. Development of Legislative Framework. Almost every country in the ECA region has legislative statutes and executive orders concerning emergency response. Most of this legislative framework needs to be reviewed and upgraded, with new statutes and executive orders established in order to provide the statutory authority to design and implement proactive community-based disaster mitigation programs and the emergency management systems needed to support these activities. Statutory authority is needed to: · Establish national, provincial, and municipal emergency management entities or clarify responsibilities among them. · Establish budget authority for emergency management entities. · Strengthen building codes and construction standards. · Improve urban and rural land use. · Pass enabling legislation for financial risk management programs, such as a flood or earthquake insurance and property acquisition. The process for developing and introducing such legislative actions will vary in each country, but the basic principles will apply everywhere. Training, Education, and Knowledge Sharing. Training and exercise programs are needed to maintain a well-functioning emergency response system. Such programs should involve national, provincial, and municipal emergency management staff, including first responders; operational, logistical, and planning personnel; and relevant NGOs, volunteer organizations, and the public. Education programs for national and local authorities are needed to help them understand risk assessment, emergency preparedness, risk mitigation investments, and risk financing. Also important is an increased international exchange of know-how on best practices among practitioners in hazard risk management who face similar challenges. 26 3.5 Fifth pillar: catastrophe risk financing Catastrophe risk financing is an integral part of comprehensive catastrophe risk management at the country level. Ideally, a well-designed catastrophe risk financing program would enable a disaster-prone country to avoid major economic disruptions following natural disasters by meeting in full its post- disaster funding needs without resorting to major budget reallocations, additional taxation, or external borrowing. Designing a risk financing program involves calculating the resource gap--the difference between probable maximum losses for a given disaster return period and ex post resources available to the government--and then determining the most cost-effective way of funding it. To meet its post- disaster funding needs, the government can resort to a combination of ex post sources of funding and ex ante funding arrangements. Ex post sources of funding include redirected budget, direct aid, tax increases, diverted loans (usually involving development banks), and increased borrowing, including borrowing from the central bank. In choosing among these sources of funds, the government will have to assess the costs and benefits of shifting resources and changing priorities from long-planned expenditures to disaster response, as well as calculating the fiscal impact of incurring additional debt. Ex ante funding arrangements include insurance reserve funds (backed by hedging instruments, such as reinsurance); intertemporal smoothing (finite reinsurance); risk transfer (usually specialized catastrophe insurance and reinsurance); and contingent capital facilities. Catastrophe Insurance Pools. To reduce their fiscal exposure to natural disasters and secure extra funding for contingencies, several countries and states have developed special state-mandated catastrophe insurance programs, usually in the form of private-public partnerships that supplement the private insurance market. These programs provide coverage to homeowners (and in some cases small businesses) for specific catastrophic risks. Industrial countries and states with such arrangements include California, Florida, France, New Zealand, Norway, and Taiwan (China). The Turkish Earthquake Insurance Pool (TCIP), initially targeted at earthquake risk, is the first government-mandated catastrophe insurance pool established in a developing country (box 3.5). Since its inception in 2000, the TCIP's penetration ratio has averaged about 17 percent, the highest penetration in the world among known national catastrophe insurance programs for homeowners. As with the U.S. flood and French Cat Nat experiences, refinements will be required to provide incentives to induce more homeowners to sign up. The goal of these programs is to increase the domestic capacity to pay for disaster-related claims and to provide affordable catastrophe insurance coverage for homeowners. The emergence of the insurance model for ex ante funding of catastrophe risk provides an opportunity to develop more effective risk management strategies for rapid-onset natural disasters in developing countries. Through use of a risk management framework, governments can work together with market participants to shift the balance of catastrophe financing away from ex post, ad hoc responses toward predetermined risk management strategies that place greater reliance on ex ante funding techniques and active risk mitigation. Developing countries with substantial exposures to rapid-onset natural disasters have much to gain from explicit hazard risk management and financing strategies. While the conditions for establishing a catastrophe insurance pool will not be right in all disaster-prone countries, all would benefit from a more coherent risk management strategy that explicitly addresses the need for advance planning, mitigation measures, development of response capabilities, and alternative market-based funding strategies. 27 Box 3.5. The Turkish Earthquake Insurance Pool In the aftermath of the Marmara earthquake in 1999, the Turkish government, with technical and financial support from the World Bank, created the Turkish Earthquake Insurance Pool (TCIP). The program operates as a catastrophic risk transfer and risk financing mechanism that effectively limits the government's financial exposure to natural disasters by absorbing up to $1 billion in losses from Turkish homeowners. Under the program, compulsory earthquake coverage is introduced for all property tax­paying dwellings. The TCIP provides up to $50,000 of coverage for structural damage to a dwelling. The program draws on the experiences of successful government efforts, such as those of California, Florida, France, Spain, and New Zealand in increasing financial preparedness for major catastrophic events through state-sponsored catastrophe insurance pools. It reflects the Turkish government's recognition that catastrophe risks can be funded only by requiring some mandatory insurance coverage. The government aimed to create a pool that would, over time, accumulate sufficient reserves to reduce Turkey's financial vulnerability to earthquakes. It defined the key objectives of the TCIP as follows: · Ensure that all property tax­paying domestic dwellings have earthquake insurance coverage. · Reduce government fiscal exposure to recurrent earthquakes. · Transfer catastrophic risk to the international reinsurance markets. · Encourage risk mitigation and safer construction practices through the insurance mechanism. The TCIP is supported through a $100 million contingent loan facility, funded by the World Bank. TCIP's much higher risk capital requirements are funded through commercial reinsurance and the build-up of surpluses. Disbursement of the Bank facility is triggered by the occurrence of a loss, as evidenced by insurance claims from a major earthquake. So far the line of credit has remained undisbursed, effectively supporting the TCIP's total risk financing program, jointly with reinsurance, in the amount of $1 billion. Source: Gurenko and Lester 2003. Reserve Funds. Government reserve funds and other intertemporal smoothing devices, such as calamity relief funds, can play a role in funding liabilities related to critical infrastructure loss and obligations to the poor after a disaster. Reserve funds can be an important budgetary vehicle to finance losses from small and possibly even moderate-size events. The funds can also finance reinsurance premia, thus securing the right to use reinsurers' capital in case of catastrophic losses. It is often unrealistic, however, to expect governments to be able to set aside reserves over a long period without these funds being subject to other, more immediate public finance claims. Moreover, accumulating too high a level of catastrophe reserves diverts funds from socially and economically important investments, which slows economic growth. For similar reasons, absent tax and accounting incentives, it is unrealistic to expect private insurance companies to build up catastrophic reserves for severe but unlikely events. Thus reinsurance and other capital market instruments often prove to be the most efficient risk funding mechanism. Contingent Capital Facilities. Contingent capital provided on concessional terms by development banks and donors can be an effective way to meet countries' risk financing needs immediately after disasters without resorting to disruptive fiscal practices (such as budgetary reallocations or borrowing) 28 or forgoing investments by accumulating large internal reserves. Contingent capital facilities can be viewed as an intertemporal risk funding mechanism in support of countries' own risk retention but without the above- mentioned negative effects on economic development. Contingent capital can supplement market risk transfer instruments. Contingent debt facilities can also be a useful tool for financing catastrophe pool loss exposures, particularly in the first years of operation, when a rapid build-up of capital surplus is required. Contingent capital can help ride out the volatile reinsurance pricing cycle. If combined with a sound planning framework and appropriate incentives for risk management, this type of ex ante appropriation of funds by the World Bank and other multinational institutions can result in faster, better-targeted disaster assistance than ad hoc assistance provided after disasters occur. Reinsurance. Reinsurance, a form of insurance or risk transfer undertaken by insurance companies, is one of the oldest ex ante risk funding arrangements available today. Operating on a global basis, international reinsurers can achieve far greater portfolio risk diversification than is possible at the country or regional level. The law of large numbers enables reinsurers to offer reinsurance coverage to individual insurance companies, national insurance pools, and clients with large risk exposures. With more than $200 billion in capital, the global reinsurance market is the main taker of catastrophe risk around the world, collecting premiums of almost $10 billion a year. Transferring risk to the reinsurance market allows countries to limit their exposure to catastrophic events and to introduce the risk pricing discipline needed to reveal the true cost of their loss exposure and the progress made in reducing it. More than 50 global reinsurers provide catastrophe insurance coverage to the TCIP program. Chapter 4. The Path Ahead: Recommendations and Priorities Reducing the impact of natural disasters on vulnerable populations, communities, and critical infrastructure must be regarded as an economic and social necessity as fundamental to maintaining economic stability and promoting economic growth as transportation systems, communications networks, and industrial and business development. Investing in hazard risk management will not only reduce future disaster losses and the costs of reconstruction, it will also provide everyday benefits by promoting safe and secure development practices, creating incentives for new industrial and commercial development, and enhancing lifeline security to vulnerable populations. In a region in which significant numbers of poor and disadvantaged people live in high hazard risk areas, reducing vulnerability should be recognized as a prerequisite for economic development. Several recommendations emerge from this study. They are intended to guide government policymakers in applying the strategy, to suggest ways in which Bank staff and managers can better address hazard risk management in their dialogue with clients, and to provide information and ideas that may be of value to other stakeholders, such as international donor organizations, NGOs, academics, and the general public. 4.1 Recommendations for countries in the region i) Review hazard risk management practices in high-risk countries. Countries that face high risks of natural disasters should review their current practices of managing natural hazards and develop targeted programs for building capacity and mitigating risk. The evaluation of the hazard management system presented in the country-specific assessments can serve as initial guidance for strengthening existing systems. ii) Integrate hazard risk management into the economic development process. Emergency planning and risk mitigation needs to be an integral part of the rural and urban development process, with participation by all stakeholders. Hazard information needs to be incorporated into land use plans and enforced by local governments in order to reduce the vulnerability of towns and cities. Buildings and infrastructure in high-risk areas need to be reviewed against hazard-specific performance criteria to reduce the level of damage and ensure the functioning of essential services under emergency conditions. Particular attention needs to be given to adequate construction codes and their enforcement. Consideration should be given to adopting cost-effective and sustainable flood protection measures (such as improving dikes, retrofitting dams with larger spillways and gates, enlarging floodways, and revising current operating rules of dams). Flood management should be seen within the overall framework of river basin and catchment water management plans. iii) Carry out detailed risk assessments. Highly vulnerable countries, particularly the Russian Federation, the countries of Central Asia, and the Caucasus states should conduct detailed risk assessments. These assessments should build on the initial work underway in most of these countries and include application of the hazard, exposure, vulnerability, and loss analysis modules presented under the first pillar (risk assessment) in chapter 3. The assessment provides projections of the average annual expected loss and the probable maximum loss from a single catastrophic event. This information should be the basis for developing an efficient and cost-effective risk management strategy. 30 iv) Adopt country-specific, high-priority risk mitigation measures. Specific risk management measures need to be adopted based on a country's hazard exposure. These measures should strike a balance between upgrading emergency preparedness, investing in physical risk mitigation measure, strengthening the institutional capacity to manage hazards, and introducing a risk financing strategy. Specific measures for each country are proposed in annex A. v) Develop a catastrophe risk financing strategy. Countries need to develop and introduce targeted risk financing strategies for dealing with catastrophic events that can have a severe impact on their economies. The strategy would address the funding gap caused by the need to recover economic losses and meet social obligations and other responsibilities following a catastrophic event. Developing a risk financing strategy is particularly important for countries exposed to catastrophic earthquakes. This is of particular relevance for Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Romania, and Tajikistan. Turkey has already introduced a catastrophe risk insurance scheme for earthquakes, making it the first country in the region to do so. 4.2 Recommendations for the World Bank vi) Mainstream hazard risk management into Country Assistance and Poverty Reduction Strategies. The World Bank should integrate hazard risk management measures into its assistance program for the highly vulnerable countries identified in this study. To do so, it could provide policy advice for developing comprehensive risk management strategies, finance detailed risk assessments, support client countries in implementing national and regional risk mitigation programs, initiate innovate cost-efficient risk mitigation pilot programs with the potential for upscaling, and help design and finance country-tailored catastrophe risk financing strategies. Incorporating hazard risk management issues into the broad stakeholder consultations of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) processes would be an important step for raising awareness of and commitment to proactive risk mitigation. The country risk profiles presented in annex A provide guidance on priorities and focus areas. vii) Promote new financial instruments as an incentive for proactive risk management. Significant delays occur in financing postdisaster reconstruction activities because of the complex approval processes used by the international donor community and development banks and the limited institutional capacity of recipient governments to implement projects in the aftermath of natural disasters. The World Bank should actively promote new instruments that establish catastrophe risk financing arrangements before disasters occur. Support of the Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool is an example of how the Bank can be effective in this regard. The guiding principles in the design of new financial instruments should include their ability to promote and implement high-priority risk mitigation programs, strengthen the institutional capacity for emergency management, provide strong economic incentives for countries to engage in ex ante risk management, provide countries with immediate liquidity following catastrophic events, and link donor lending for natural disasters to risk funding from reinsurance and capital markets. viii) Expand knowledge-sharing activities between countries and practitioners. All countries in the Europe and Central Asia region, as well as international experts, would benefit from increased intraregional--and in some cases cross-regional--knowledge sharing and the establishment of networks of practitioneras in hazard risk management. During virtual consultation meetings with more than 300 experts from more than 25 countries, knowledge-sharing activities were identified as a high priority area in which the World Bank and other international organizations could help increase capacity in the region to better manage natural hazards. In particular, there is high demand for exchange among practitioners on specialized topics, such as emergency management communication systems, retrofitting of lifelines and buildings, flood warning systems, landslide monitoring, and risk financing. 31 Annex A Country Risk Profiles1 1Unless otherwise indicated, all socioeconomic indicators are from the World Bank SIMA dataset for 2002. All Gross National Income (GNI) figures are based on the Atlas method. An event with a 0.5 percent probability of occurrence in one year occurs every 200 years on average. An event with a 5 percent probability of occurrence occurs every 20 years on average. 32 ALBANIA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 3.20 million Urban: 44% Rural: 56% GNI per capita: $1,380 GDP: $4,695 million Agriculture: 32% Industry: 23% Services 45% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss No data available No data available Overview Albania is located in a seismically active zone and last experienced a major quake in 1979. It is also vulnerable to landslides. Because of the enormous economic consequences and loss of lives associated with landslides, the mapping of landslide areas is a national priority. Albania has a history of severe flooding. In 2002 floods inundated large areas in 11 of the country's 12 regions, submerging more than 21,000 hectares. Flood control activities suffer from a shortage of funds and expertise. Water users associations, which maintain part of the flood control system, have their own modest budgets. Six river basin councils were recently established, but they need strong technical and financial support. The probability of annual economic losses in the Western Balkans exceeding $1.8 billion is about 0.5 percent. (For the purposes of this study, the Western Balkans includes Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro.) The probability of annual losses in the Western Balkans exceeding $600 million is about 5 percent. Data for Albania alone are not available. Numerous government agencies are involved in emergency management, but no single national autonomous agency is solely responsible for emergency management programs. Albania lacks a land use law, a building code, legislation to enforce construction standards, and hazard-specific statutes. There is no national emergency operations plan, disaster mitigation plan or program, or disaster relief budget. 33 As part of the Disaster Management and Emergency Preparedness Program, the United Nations Development Programme, in cooperation with several national institutions and the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID), prepared a detailed risk assessment for earthquakes, landslides, floods, snowfall, dam safety, and forest fires. The assessment provides a good baseline for emergency planning and risk mitigation of natural hazards. Recommendations · Establish an emergency management and disaster mitigation capability within the national government, and improve the legislative framework for hazard risk management. · Designate a single permanent government agency to coordinate emergency planning and risk mitigation programs. · Upgrade the existing communication system for emergency personnel. · Strengthen the legal framework, in particular the enforcement aspect, for land use and building code regulations. · Design and implement an emergency management awareness campaign for the public and for all government and nongovernmental partners. · Secure regular funding for implementing the national mitigation strategy and program currently under development. · Upgrade flood protection infrastructure, and fund the entities responsible for its operation and maintenance. · Upgrade the information management system, the radar system, and the early warning system. Population at Risk* Economic Loss Potential* *Data are for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro. Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.40 3.0% 20% 0.35 2.5% 0.30 15% 2.0% 0.25 0.20 1.5% 10% 0.15 1.0% 0.10 5% 0.5% 0.05 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 145.1 493.1 736.1 1,111.4 1,791.5 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 34 ARMENIA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 3.07 million Urban: 67% Rural: 33% GNI per capita: $790 GDP: $2,367 million Agriculture: 26% Industry: 33% Services: 41% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Other Floods, Mudslides, & Landslides Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 1.9% 0.4% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 16,800 708.5% 5% 3,600 153.6% Earthquake 20% 400 16.4% 97.7% Overview Armenia is one of the most disaster-prone counties in the world, subject to earthquakes, landslides, hailstorms, droughts, strong winds, floods, and mudslides. Earthquakes are the principal risk. The last major quake, which occurred in 1988, caused more than 25,000 deaths, affected 1.4 million people (almost half the population), left more than 50,000 people homeless, and caused economic damage estimated at $15­$20 billion, about seven times annual GDP. More than 30 percent of the population is exposed to frequent disasters (disasters with a 5 percent probability of occurrence), which are estimated to cause damage equivalent to more than 1.5 times Armenia's annual GDP. More than 80 percent of the population is exposed to catastrophic disasters (disasters with a probability of occurrence of 0.5 percent), such as the 1988 Spitak quake. One-third of Armenia is exposed to landslides. During a recent five-year period, landslides left more than 2,000 families homeless--an average of 400 families a year. In response to the devastating Spitak earthquake, a proactive seismic engineering community in Armenia has broken new technical ground and gained an international reputation for innovative thinking and progressive applications. Armenian experts have become leaders in the region in applying modern, low-cost retrofitting techniques, mainly through technologies that insulate building foundations from subsoil movements. Currently, 14 buildings, including schools, health centers, and apartment buildings, are retrofitted with this technology. 35 Armenia's National Survey for Seismic Protection is an internationally recognized disaster management agency, used as a model for seismic risk reduction initiatives in other countries in the region. The country's Emergency Management Administration coordinates all national emergency management activities. It has a staff of 5,000, who work at its headquarters in Yerevan, in 12 suboffices in Yerevan, and in 11 regional offices around the country. The government makes annual appropriations to a disaster relief fund. Armenia has no national urban or rural planning or land use statutes, it lacks a national mitigation plan, and its training and exercise programs are weak. Unauthorized construction, often on damage-prone land, is a significant problem. Hazard monitoring, communications, and early warning capabilities and capacities all need to be developed. Recommendations · Upgrade and enhance the technological requirements for emergency management and disaster mitigation in hazard monitoring and mapping, early warning systems, training and exercise programs, disaster communications, and information management. · Review and consolidate legislative acts and government decrees concerning disaster and emergency management at all levels of government, and upgrade these statutes where necessary to provide the legislative authority to enforce disaster management and building code regulations and standards. Ensure that building code regulations and standards are enforced for all new construction. · Create a national plan for mitigation that identifies and assesses hazard areas, identifies potential hazard mitigation strategies for existing critical infrastructure and facilities in high-risk areas, and provides guidance on public awareness campaigns designed to build public and private sector support for actions to reduce identified risks. · Increase the level of funding for implementing retrofitting programs of essential public facilities and critical lifelines to mitigate the social and economic losses of future seismic events. · Conduct a detailed financial risk assessment to determine the loss potential, risk allocation, and burden on the central budget, and develop a risk funding strategy for catastrophic events in order to better manage the financial burden of the enormous earthquake risk. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 3.5 90% 20% 80% 3.0 70% 15% 2.5 60% 2.0 50% 10% 1.5 40% 30% 1.0 5% 20% 0.5 10% 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 800.0 2,596.8 4,909.6 8,863.2 16,770.5 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 36 AZERBAIJAN Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 8.18 million Urban: 52% Rural: 48% GNI per capita: $710 GDP: $6,090 million Agriculture: 17% Industry: 45% Services: 38% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Other Floods, Mudslides, & Landslides Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 12% 24% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 1,460 24% 5% 92 1.5% Earthquake 64% 20% 4 0.1% Overview Azerbaijan is located in an area of high seismic activity. The country is also susceptible to heavy flooding because of its topography and the water-level fluctuation of the Caspian Sea. Landslides are a high risk during periods of increased precipitation, causing significant damage to human settlements, industry, farms, and roads. The probability of annual economic losses exceeding $1.4 billion is about 0.5 percent. The probability of annual losses exceeding $90 million is about 5 percent. Azerbaijan's State Commission on Emergencies is responsible for emergency response on an ad hoc basis. According to country emergency management officials, civil defense staff involved in emergencies are well qualified. Issues confronting the emergency management capabilities include the lack of permanent institutional arrangements for risk mitigation and disaster planning; the lack of a single national institution coordinating government response and rehabilitation programs; the need to upgrade and refocus the legal framework for emergency and disaster management; the need to re-equip, restructure, and update hazard monitoring and prediction networks, which do not meet modern standards; and the need to increase funding for operation and maintenance of the flood protection infrastructure. 37 Recommendations · Conduct a detailed financial risk assessment to determine the loss potential, risk allocation, and burden on the central budget, and develop a risk funding strategy for catastrophic events in order to better manage the financial burden of catastrophic risks. · Make the current government agency in charge of emergencies--the State Commission on Emergencies--a permanent functioning entity with full legal authority to conduct disaster response and mitigation activities. · Upgrade the regulatory and legislative framework for emergency management in compliance with international norms. · Develop plans and programs for response and recovery operations that clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of government agencies at the national, provincial, and municipal levels. · Develop a national mitigation plan designed to identify mitigation projects and actions. · Include NGOs and the business community in emergency and mitigation plans and programs. · Establish a science center in an existing scientific institute or in a newly formed entity responsible for conducting hazard monitoring, mapping, and flood forecasting. · Acquire and maintain modern monitoring, mapping, and flood forecasting technologies in order to produce adequate hazard assessments and provide early warning and forecast data for decisionmakers. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 2.5 35% 20% 30% 2.0 15% 25% 1.5 20% 10% 15% 1.0 10% 5% 0.5 5% 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 30.6 71.1 136.1 443.7 1,462.2 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 38 BELARUS Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 9.93 million Urban: 70% Rural: 30% GNI per capita: $1,360 GDP: $14,304 million Agriculture: 11% Industry: 38% Services: 51% (Breakdown by sector is for 2001). Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Floods, Mudslides, Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage & Landslides 38% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 381 2.7% Other 5% 110 0.8% 62% 20% 17 0.1% Overview The main hazard risk in Belarus is flooding, which results from the high variability of runoff from year to year. Flooding has also been an unforeseen consequence of construction works, including wetland reclamation. Landslides, usually confined to large river valleys, have caused repeated problems at the local and regional levels. Earthquake risk is minimal. The probability of economic losses exceeding $381 million in one year is about 0.5 percent. The probability of annual losses exceeding $17 million is about 5 percent. Statutory authority is in place for emergency management functions, land use, building standards, and rural and urban planning. The Ministry on Emergency Situations is the national agency responsible for emergency management. There is a national disaster response plan, and the national emergency operations plan includes a national disaster mitigation plan. The legal basis for flood protection needs to be strengthened to allow the government to regulate the use of flooded and potentially flooded territories. Flood monitoring and prediction equipment and capabilities needed to be upgraded, and the early warning system needs to be improved. Obsolete flood protection infrastructure needs to be repaired and upgraded, and institutional arrangements need to be improved to promote proactive disaster management and mitigation. 39 Recommendations · Develop a national flood mitigation strategy designed to implement structural and nonstructural flood reduction measures. · Strengthen the regulatory framework for managing wetland reclamation, farming practices, construction, and other human development activities in designated flood risk areas. · Upgrade flood monitoring and prediction capabilities and equipment. · Establish a flood mapping and risk assessment capability that identifies and assesses flood risks throughout Belarus. · Develop a landslide mapping and assessment capability. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.14 1.4% 20% 0.12 1.2% 15% 0.10 1.0% 0.08 0.8% 10% 0.06 0.6% 0.04 0.4% 5% 0.02 0.2% 0.00 0.0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 34.7 90.0 134.0 209.1 381.4 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 40 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 4.12 million Urban: 44% Rural: 56% GNI per capita: $1,270 GDP: $5,249 million Agriculture: 14% Industry: 30% Services: 56% (Breakdown by sector is for 2001.) Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss No data available No data available Overview Bosnia and Herzegovina lies within the Mediterranean-Trans-Asian fault zone, one of the most active seismic areas of the Balkan peninsula. The steeply sloping terrain has a propensity to generate flooding, a risk exacerbated by the growing number of settlements, industrial facilities, and critical infrastructure located in high-hazard river valleys, plains, and large karst valleys. The probability of annual economic losses in the Western Balkans exceeding $1.8 billion is about 0.5 percent. (For the purposes of this study, the Western Balkans includes Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro.) The probability of annual losses exceeding $600 million is about 5 percent. Data for Bosnia and Herzegovina alone are not available. Bosnia and Herzegovina has no unified national policy for disaster mitigation and response, no national level institutions that focus on disaster and emergency prevention or response. Plans are underway, and funding has been requested, for reconstruction and revitalization of the public warning system and acquisition of equipment for seismological monitoring, flood observation, information systems, and weather forecasting programs. During the war, a great deal of flood protection infrastructure and seismological stations and equipment was damaged or destroyed. Unplanned and unregulated construction occurs on a small concentration of land (such as river valleys) that is easiest to develop but highly vulnerable to the consequences of floods and landslides. There is a need to upgrade the legal framework for land use planning, regulation, and enforcement. 41 Recommendations · Upgrade the legal framework in order to regulate and restrict unplanned development and construction in high-risk areas. · Dedicate staff and resources to enforcing land use and construction regulations. · Conduct public awareness campaigns designed to inform the public of the risks of building in high hazard areas and of the alternatives for development and settlement. · Upgrade and repair the seismic monitoring system, which along with other hazard monitoring and protection infrastructure was damaged or destroyed during the war. · Increase funding for warning systems, radio networks, flood protection infrastructure rehabilitation, and weather forecasting. Population at Risk* Economic Loss Potential* *Data are for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro. Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.40 3.0% 20% 0.35 2.5% 0.30 15% 2.0% 0.25 0.20 1.5% 10% 0.15 1.0% 0.10 5% 0.5% 0.05 0.00 0.0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 145.1 493.1 736.1 1,111.4 1,791.5 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 42 BULGARIA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 7.87 million Urban: 68% Rural: 32% GNI per capita: $1,790 GDP: $15,608 Agriculture: 13% Industry: 29% Services: 58% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Other Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 15% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 184 1.2% 5% 30 0.2% Earthquake 20% 0 0% 85% Overview Bulgaria is located in a highly active seismic area. The most recent large quakes occurred in 1977 and in 1986. The country has had several serious floods. Some serious flooding occurs from May to August, as a result of intense summer storms; other floods occur between January and March, as a result of snowmelt, especially when accompanied by precipitation. Of more than 900 registered landslides, 550 are active and 350 are conditionally stabilized and could become active at any time. The Civil Protection Directorate functions as headquarters of the governmental Permanent Commission for Population Protection in Hazards and Accidents, which directs, coordinates, and monitors the full spectrum of mitigation, rescue, and recovery operations. Civil Protection Departments, located in each of the country's nine countries, are part of regional administrations. The Ministry of Defense coordinates civil-military cooperation. The Kozlodui nuclear plant, located in an earthquake risk area, has been designated as one of the most dangerous nuclear plants in Europe. Bulgaria's flood protection infrastructure and observation systems are decaying. In the past decade, water observations have been suspended at a number of the flood protection system's hydrometeorological observation stations, even in areas of high risk. Microdams, built between 1950 and 1965 to unreliable safety standards, are poorly managed or abandoned and pose a growing risk of failure. 43 The most damaging recent earthquake was the 1986 Strazhitsa earthquake (M = 5.7), which destroyed 1,300 houses in the small town, killed 3, and injured about 60 people. Total losses from this relatively small quake exceeded $50 million. According to a recent Bulgarian study, a stronger earthquake striking the Sofia region would cause losses of about $10 billion -- two-thirds of Bulgaria's 2002 GDP. Whether or not this estimate is accurate, an earthquakes in the Sofia would cause severe damage to the Bulgarian economy. Recommendations · Conduct a detailed risk assessment to determine the loss potential, risk distribution, and burden on the central budget of natural disasters, and develop a risk funding strategy for catastrophic events. · Based on the findings of the risk assessment, develop an emergency preparedness and risk mitigation program, in particular for the Sofia region. · Enhance the mitigation planning and programming capability. · Conduct a full assessment of the risks at the Kozlodui nuclear plant, and identify and implement risk mitigation measures. · Conduct a national assessment of the landslide risk, and develop a national mitigation strategy for landslides and other hazards. · Improve water observation activities and reporting. · Upgrade river regulation and flood protection infrastructure. · Conduct a dam safety assessment, and make repairs where needed. · Invest in modern monitoring and early warning technologies where appropriate. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.012 0.12% 20% 0.010 0.10% 15% 0.008 0.08% 0.006 0.06% 10% 0.004 0.04% 5% 0.002 0.02% 0.000 0.00% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 0.0 21.6 40.0 84.3 183.8 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 44 CROATIA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 4.38 million Urban: 59% Rural: 41% GNI per capita: $4,640 GDP: $22,421 million Agriculture: 10% Industry: 34% Services: 56% (Breakdown by sector is for 2001.) Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Earthquake Floods, Mudslides, Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 17% & Landslides Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 49% 0.5% 945 4.2% 5% 270 1.2% Other 20% 0 0% 34% Overview Croatia experiences high seismic activities, which cause frequent and destructive effects. Flash floods, overspill of water channels in river valleys, and flooding of poljes endanger more than 15 percent of the country's inland territory. The only city adequately defended from flooding of the Sava is Zagreb, which remains vulnerable to flash floods. The probability of economic losses exceeding $945 million in one year is about 0.5 percent. The probability of annual losses exceeding $270 million is about 5 percent. A disaster management statute is in place, giving numerous ministries and state directorates statutory authority for disaster management. The Civil Protection Service is nominally the lead emergency management agency. The Seismological Service manages eight permanent seismological stations around the country. Earthquake issues include the need to use earthquake-resistant building materials and better enforce existing building codes to reduce seismic risks. Critical flood issues include the need to repair the flood protection system, sections of which remain damaged from the war; provide flood insurance, which is virtually nonexistent; develop hydrological forecasting systems, which are inadequate; educate the public about flood risk; and improve interagency coordination. 45 Recommendations · Enhance emergency management programs and actions by designating a single permanent government agency responsible for coordinating disaster management. · Enhance hazard mitigation by upgrading enforcement of established building codes and using stronger building materials. · Increase public perception and awareness of flood hazard risks and mitigation actions by conducting a national public awareness campaign on flood risks. · Invest in the tools needed to properly assess and evaluate landslide and flood risks by establishing a slope instability database to measure and monitor the landslide risk. · Upgrade the hydrological forecasting systems. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.14 3.0% 20% 0.12 2.5% 15% 0.10 2.0% 0.08 1.5% 10% 0.06 1.0% 0.04 5% 0.5% 0.02 0.00 0.0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 0.0 63.9 522.7 890.6 944.9 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 46 ESTONIA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 1.36 million Urban: 69% Rural: 31% GNI per capita: $4,130 GDP: $6,413 million Agriculture: 6% Industry: 29% Services: 65%% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss No data available No data available Overview Floods and coastal erosion caused by rainfalls, storms, and rapid melting of large amounts of snow are the main natural hazards in Estonia. Landslides are localized on riverbanks, with the most active area at Pärnu, along the banks of the Pärnu and Sauga Rivers. Severe landslides are rare; in most cases the sliding process is not dangerous to humans. Spring floods are common in the Soomaa area, where 50 square kilometers are covered by floods every spring. Serious floods, in which the water level increases more than five meters, are reported once every 10 years and usually last 2­4 weeks. Although large areas are regularly flooded, the flood zones are fairly well known and economic use of them is limited. Estonia is located in the northwestern part of the East-European (Russian) tectonic plate, where seismic activity is very low. According to local sources, annual economic losses caused by natural hazards average less than 1 percent of GDP. The worst natural disasters--floods, storms, and waterspouts--have caused economic and environmental damage but no human losses. The government provides compensation for losses from a special budget. Legislation is in place concerning the disaster declaration process and the organization of emergency preparedness and crisis management by the government. All monitoring activity is concentrated under the National Environmental Monitoring Program, which is implemented by numerous government agencies responsible for rescue, response coordination, emergency center operation, and rescue training and education. Environmental, inland water body, and seismic monitoring is conducted. 47 Hazard risk management capabilities could be strengthened in flood assessment and forecasting. Institutional arrangements and the legal framework--in particular the framework for land use management as part of flood management practice--should be improved. Recommendations · Strengthen the regulatory framework for land use in flood risk areas. · Develop a national flood mitigation strategy. · Establish a flood mapping and risk assessment capability. · Upgrade flood monitoring systems and flood warning and forecasting capabilities. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 20% 15% No Data Available 10% No Data Available 5% 0.00 0.0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 48 GEORGIA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 5.18 million Urban: 57% Rural: 43% GNI per capita: $650 GDP: $3,324 million Agriculture: 21% Industry: 23% Services: 56% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Floods, Mudslides, Other Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage & Landslides 3% 13% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 3,290 99.0% 5% 465 14.0% Earthquake 84% 20% 1 0.03% Overview Georgia experiences intense seismic activities due to its location on two active fault lines. The plains and mountain valleys face a significant flood risk throughout the year, arising from spring snowmelt, summer and autumn rainfall, and winter ice jams. Georgia also has a serious landslide problem, with 10,000 potential landslide centers identified, of which 3,000 are active. Landslide and glacier motion across river valleys occasionally create temporary lakes, an additional flood hazard. The probability of economic losses exceeding $3.3 billion in one year is about 0.5 percent, equivalent to about 99 percent of the country's GDP. The probability of annual losses exceeding $465 million is about 5 percent. The Department of Emergency Situations and Civil Defense (DESCD), located within the Ministry of Interior, and the special Standing Interinstitutional Commission on Civil Defense and Emergency Situations are responsible for emergency planning and crisis management. The commission is chaired by the minister of interior. A number of scientific institutions are involved in disaster management activities and represented on the special Scientific Consultative Council at the DESCD. They are responsible primarily for generating recommendations for disaster preparedness, prevention, and mitigation. The Parliamentary Committee on Defense and Security is the main legislative body responsible for defining or redefining national disaster management capacity. 49 The United Nations and other international organizations are assisting in the development of a sustainable national disaster management capacity. The national Academy of Sciences has a program for the study of earthquakes, floods, and landslides. Effective flood monitoring and alert systems are not in place, hazard mitigation planning is nearly nonexistent, and the capability to conduct thorough risk assessments for earthquake, flood, and landslide risks is not fully developed. There is a need to upgrade the legal framework for emergency management at the national level. Flood protection infrastructure is poorly maintained and does not adequately address the current flood risks. Recommendations · Conduct a detailed risk assessment to determine the loss potential, risk distribution, and burden on the central budget of natural disasters, and develop a risk funding strategy for catastrophic events. · Use the results of the risk assessment to formulate a national mitigation strategy that identifies efficient emergency preparedness arrangements and appropriate and affordable mitigation actions and strategies for seismic retrofitting of existing critical facilities and infrastructure, and upgrade and expand flood and landslide protective measures. · Upgrade the legal framework in order to strengthen and better enforce land use laws and building codes and standards. · Upgrade the legal authority of national government agencies involved in hazard risk management, and clearly designate their relationship with their counterparts at the provincial and municipal levels of government. · Provide sufficient resources for emergency management staff, training, and exercises, and continue efforts to build capacity in emergency operations at the national, provincial, and municipal levels. · Upgrade emergency management systems on the national level in order to create a single, lean entity for emergency management with clear responsibilities and authority. · Increase public awareness activities and education campaigns, with the assistance of local NGOs. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.9 18% 20% 0.8 16% 0.7 14% 15% 0.6 12% 0.5 10% 10% 0.4 8% 0.3 6% 5% 0.2 4% 0.1 2% 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 33.5 313.4 689.6 1,300.6 3,289.5 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 50 HUNGARY Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 10.17 million Urban: 65% Rural: 35% GNI per capita: $5,280 GDP: $65,843 million Agriculture: 5% Industry: 34% Services: 61% (Breakdown by sector is for 1998.) Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Floods, Mudslides, Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage & Landslides 49% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 733 1.1% 5% 263 0.4% Other 20% 9 0.01% 51% Overview Located in the middle of the Carpathian basin, Hungary is a naturally flood-prone country. Flooding is of three types: floods of external waters (the Danube and Tisza), which inundate the Hungarian plain; floods in the plains caused by in-country precipitation; and floods in the smaller watercourses of hilly and mountainous areas. Of the three types of floods, the flooding of the Danube and Tisza is by far the most damaging. Because of the recurring flood problem, Hungary has a well-developed preparedness, response, and mitigation system for floods. Reducing the flood risk through education, land use, mitigation, and other means is the highest priority in the country. Hungary is not very prone to earthquakes, and the landslide risk is considered low. The probability of economic losses exceeding $733 million in one year is about 0.5 percent. The probability of annual losses exceeding $263 million is about 5 percent. The National Directorate General for Disaster Management, located within the Ministry of the Interior, is responsible for disaster programs. It has 210 full-time staff, 73 branch offices, 82 local offices, and an office in Budapest with 180 people. There is a need for a national risk mitigation plan and program, mutual aid agreements between the national and provincial and municipal governments, and a radar system. 51 Recommendations · Upgrade the legal framework for regulating and enforcing land use in flood risk areas in order to restrict and regulate building and settlement in high-risk flood areas. · Develop a national mitigation plan and program that identifies and prioritizes flood mitigation measures and the means to implement them. · Design and implement a flood mitigation education campaign to inform the public of the flood risks and the mitigation actions they can take to reduce and mitigate them. · Enhance the flood gauge system currently under development and acquire a radar system. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.30 3.0% 20% 0.25 2.5% 15% 0.20 2.0% 0.15 1.5% 10% 0.10 1.0% 5% 0.05 0.5% 0.00 0.0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 84.2 209.4 330.3 521.0 733.2 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 52 KAZAKHSTAN Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 14.80 million Urban: 56% Rural: 44% GNI per capita: $1,510 GDP: $24,205 million Agriculture: 9% Industry: 43% Services: 48% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Other Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 1.4% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 1,296 5.4% Floods, Mudslides, 5% 10 0.04% & Landslides 98.6% 20% 0.5 0.002% Overview Flooding is a significant risk in Kazakhstan. In plains areas, spring floods fed by rain and snowmelt are important; in the mountains, mudflows occur. Mudflows are usually initiated by rainfall or breach of glacial lakes; however, the largest mudflows are those initiated by seismic activity. Earthquake risk is severe in the Tien Shan and Altai Mountains area, home to 6 million people and more than 40 percent of the nation's industrial capacity. Earthquake damage is generally underreported, due to the remoteness of the country and poor damage assessment practices. It is estimated that 255,000 apartment buildings, hundreds of schools and hospitals, more than 50 hydraulic engineering structures, and more than 400 kilometers of primary pipelines require seismic retrofitting. The probability of economic losses exceeding $1.3 billion in one year is about 0.5 percent. The probability of annual losses exceeding $10 million is about 5 percent. The Agency of Emergency Situations, supervised by the prime minister, is the national emergency management agency. It has a full-time staff of more than 22,000 and a $100 million annual budget. The agency maintains both regional and local extensions that respond to disasters, a communications system, an information management system, a seismic monitoring system, and early warning systems for weather, floods, mudflows, and earthquakes. An Emergency Preparedness Plan has been developed that determines priorities for mitigation, protection of at-risk territories, training in emergency response, and preparedness. 53 There is a need to retrofit critical facilities and apartment buildings in high-risk earthquake areas: as much as 65 percent of the building stock in major cities, including Almaty, is thought to be inadequately prepared for a major earthquake. There has been an increase in man-made earthquakes associated with mining practices in the country's western regions and the development of housing complexes in high-risk earthquake areas. Recommendations · Conduct a detailed risk assessment to determine the loss potential, risk distribution, and burden on the central budget of natural disasters, and develop a risk funding strategy for catastrophic events. Invest in the technology and staffing requirements needed to upgrade risk assessment capabilities, particularly for floods and earthquakes. · Use the results of the risk assessment to formulate a national mitigation strategy that identifies efficient emergency preparedness arrangements and appropriate and affordable mitigation actions and strategies for seismic retrofitting of existing critical facilities and infrastructure and upgrade and expand flood and landslide protective measures. · Increase mitigation efforts for flood protection, and assess the safety of existing dams and other engineering structures for the flood and landslide risk mitigation. · Strengthen the legal framework for regulating land use and development in high-risk earthquake and flood areas. · Improve enforcement of seismic building and construction codes. · Develop a retrofitting program for high-priority buildings and lifelines in earthquake risk areas, such as Almaty. · Review mining practices in high-risk earthquake areas. · Continue to provide training and exercise programs for emergency management staff Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 1.6 9% 20% 1.4 8% 7% 1.2 15% 6% 1.0 5% 0.8 10% 4% 0.6 3% 0.4 5% 2% 0.2 1% 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 2.2 6.5 15.4 67.5 1,296.4 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 54 KYRGYZ REPUBLIC Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 5.00 million Urban: 34% Rural: 66% GNI per capita: $290 GDP: $1,632 million Agriculture: 39% Industry 26% Services 35% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Earthquake Floods, Mudslides, Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 75% & Landslides 25% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 320 19.6% 5% 72 4.4% 20% 0.5 0.03% Overview The Kyrgyz Republic is a highly disaster-prone country affected by more than 20 different types of natural hazards. Between 1992 and 2004 more than 2,000 natural disasters were registered, with landslides, floods, earthquakes, avalanches, spring frosts, and glacier lake outbursts considered the most prevalent, recurrent and damaging. Earthquakes are a serious hazard. The entire country is located in a zone of high tectonic activity, with the potential for earthquakes registering 8­9 points on the Richter scale. An estimated 40 percent of the population lives in the 40,000 square kilometers of the country with potential for a point 9 Richter scale earthquake; another 15,000 square kilometers of land has the potential for a point 8 Richter scale earthquake. An estimated 40 percent of the population lives in the point 9 Richter scale zone. Up to 5,000 earthquakes are registered in the Kyrgyz Republic annually. On average, 10 of these are strong (felt but causing no major damage Some 15,000 square kilometers of the country are vulnerable to very large landslides. Approximately 5,000 potential active landslide sites have been identified, about 3,500 of which are in the southern part of the country. Every year dozens of people are killed by landslides, and about 700 houses are damaged or destroyed. Public infrastructure is also affected. During the past 10 years, an increase in landslide activity has been observed, possibly due to a cycle of wet weather and a large number of minor seismic activities. The Kyrgyz Republic has 5 locations with old mine tailings and waste rock dumps that include 35 tailings and 25 waste dumps. Due to lack of routine maintenance, there is seepage and drainage of radionuclides from the tailings and waste dumps. Landslides near unsecured dumps and tailings pose a particularly grave danger, as they threaten the integrity of a number of these tailing impoundments 55 Mudflows and floods cause significant damage. Floods initiated by heavy rains, snowmelt, or both are the most common type, but breaching of natural dams that restrain natural lakes causes the most severe and damaging floods. There are more than 8,500 glaciers, with a total area of 8,100 square kilometers. Of more than 1,000 high mountain lakes, 199 have been identified as dangerous. Numerous international aid organizations and financial institutions are interested in providing disaster management support. The World Bank is starting a project to rehabilitate old mine tailings and waste dumps to minimize exposure to radionuclides, improve the effectiveness of disaster management and response, and reduce the potential loss of life in key landslide areas of the country. The Kyrgyz Republic is working closely with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan on transboundary issues related to uranium mine tailings and water quality. Recommendations · Conduct a detailed risk assessment to determine the loss potential, risk distribution, and burden on the central budget, and develop a risk funding strategy for catastrophic events. Invest in the technology and staffing requirements needed to upgrade risk assessment capabilities, particularly for floods and earthquakes. · Use the results of the risk assessment to formulate a national mitigation strategy that identifies efficient emergency preparedness arrangements and appropriate and affordable risk mitigation actions, including structural and nonstructural mitigation methods. Establish a dedicated funding source for mitigation projects and programs. · Improve the legal framework to regulate land use and human development in areas at risk for landslides and groundwater and lake overflow. · Develop regulations for existing legislation that clearly define roles, responsibilities, and coordination among government and nongovernmental organizations responding to major disaster events. · Develop a hazard risk assessment and mapping capability for earthquake, landslide, and groundwater and lake overflow risks. · Rehabilitate and upgrade monitoring systems, observation systems, and telemetric stations for forecasting earthquakes, and create a research center for the region to manage these systems · Conduct risk mitigation actions for high-priority tailings and storage areas for radioactive wastes located in landslide, earthquake, and flood risk areas. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.40 8% 20% 0.35 7% 0.30 6% 15% 0.25 5% 0.20 4% 10% 0.15 3% 0.10 2% 5% 0.05 1% 0.00 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 13.9 52.1 100.8 195.1 320.3 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 56 LATVIA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 2.34 million Urban: 60% Rural: 40% GNI per capita: $3,480 GDP: $8,406 million Agriculture: 5% Industry: 26% Services: 69% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss No data available No data available Overview The leading hazard facing Latvia is flooding. The most common floods in the past hundred years have been river and lakeside floods caused by spring snowmelt. Lake Lubans in southeast Latvia has flooded the surrounding area annually for centuries, because the outgoing river does not have the capacity to handle annual high water. The risk is known, however, and little economic damage is done. Cities near Latvia's coast face an elevated risk, because storm surges in the gulf and sea, ice cover in the gulf, and ice dumps on the coastline sometimes dam the rivers. The possibility of failure in the cascade of hydropower plants on the Daugava River, which could threaten Riga, is widely believed to be Latvia's most severe flood risk. Seismic activity in Latvia is low, and landslides are small-scale. Laws concerning disaster management are currently under review to clarify responsibilities, rights, and tasks of state and local authorities and populations. The 2000 Act on Dam safety addressed risk management related to floods provoked by dam failure. Latvia's Civil Defense is responsible for emergency response, while the Ministry of Environment is responsible for monitoring and data processing for emergency planning and warning. State and local government responsibilities include planning, information gathering, and inspection of preparedness of special services units. Latvia is participating in regional cooperation efforts for disaster management with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union, and it is complying with both entities' regulatory and legal frameworks. 57 Natural disasters have not been adequately studied in Latvia, and the risks have not been adequately assessed. Historically, the focus has been on environmental and technological disasters. There is no legal basis for risk management of hazards except environmental pollution. Local government institutions have no financial basis for developing or implementing the civil defense system. There is a need for risk maps and zoning regulations to properly assess risk and regulate land use in flood risk areas. Recommendations · Establish the legal framework for emergency management that the roles and responsibilities of all levels of government and defines coordination and cooperation protocols for government and nongovernmental organizations. · Develop a flood mapping and risk assessment capability. · Develop and implement zoning and other flood reduction actions. · Establish the capability to prepare, develop, and implement risk management strategies for natural hazards. · Install monitoring, forecasting, and early warning systems for floods. · Educate the population about emergency events, evacuation plans, and flood risks. · Increase dam safety procedures and activities, especially in large dams. Increase structural safety, improve emergency planning, and provide additional spillway capacities, where necessary. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 20% 15% No Data Available 10% No Data Available 5% 0.00 0.0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 58 LITHUANIA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 3.48 million Urban: 69% Rural: 31% GNI per capita: $3,660 GDP: $13,796 Agriculture: 7% Industry: 35% Services: 58% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Floods, Mudslides, Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage & Landslides 100% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 94 0.7% 5% 26 0.2% 20% 0 0% Overview Flooding is major natural hazard facing Lithuania. Major floods are usually the result of snowmelt enhanced by ice jams on the major rivers, the Neris and Nemunas. In recent decades, the Neris has been effectively controlled; the Nemunas continues to pose a risk to settlements along its banks. Some areas continue to flood regularly, although economic use of regularly inundated areas is generally limited to meadows, forests, and wetlands. There is growing concern over the threat of failure at inadequately maintained dams. Lithuania manifests little seismic activity. Landslides are small-scale and occur as a result of erosion along rivers. However, the frequency of landslides, which are a cross-border issue with Lithuania's neighbors, has increased as a result of climate change. Recent landslides have been sudden and rapid and have caused significant economic losses. Catastrophic storms and coastal erosion are the most dangerous natural hazard threat to the population and the economy. These losses are rarely reported in international databases. The civil protection law includes an executive order establishing an emergency management system. Laws on land, construction, a long-term development strategy, the basics of national security, and environmental protection and environmental impact assessment have also been enacted. An Emergency Commission organizes emergency prevention and directs emergency relief actions. A regulatory framework exists for evacuating and training the population, as well as for conducting exercises and training emergency officials. 59 There is a critical need for monitoring and assessment capabilities to accurately measure earthquake, landslide, and flood hazards and to forecast and provide early warning to the population. Maps need to be updated and investment made in hazard information collection and management systems. Recommendations · Establish a risk assessment capability, including a mapping capability and the appropriate analysis capacity, that can accurately portray the flood and landslide risk. · Develop a national flood mitigation strategy based an accurate assessment of the flood risk. · Conduct public education activities on flood and landslide risks and response actions. · Invest in modern flood and landslide monitoring equipment and systems. · Update all floodplain maps. · Install flood and landslide warning systems. · Establish a joint monitoring and information sharing capability for landslides with neighboring countries. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 3.5 60% 20% 3.0 50% 15% 2.5 40% 2.0 30% 10% 1.5 20% 1.0 5% 10% 0.5 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 0 11.4 41.3 71.3 93.7 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 60 MACEDONIA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 2.04 million Urban: 60% Rural: 40% GNI per capita: $1,700 GDP: $3,712 million Agriculture: 12% Industry: 30% Services: 58% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Floods, Mudslides, Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage & Landslides Other 21% 2% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 1,594 42.9% 5% 455 12.3% Earthquake 20% 0 0% 77% Overview Macedonia is prone to earthquakes, floods, wildfires, landslides, and epidemics. The seismic risk is significant. The 1963 Skopje earthquake killed more than 1,000 people and damaged about 80 percent of the city's building stock. Nearly the entire city was reconstructed, at an estimated cost in current dollars of about $2.5­$3 billion. The economic losses were estimated to be 15 percent of Yugoslavia's GNP for 1963. Even moderate earthquakes (M < 6.0) in Macedonia can cause serious problems, since traditional houses (particularly in rural areas) are generally too weak to sustain them without substantial damage. The probability of economic losses exceeding $1.6 billion in one year is about 0.5 percent. These losses equal about 43 percent of the country's GDP. The probability of annual losses exceeding $455 million is about 5 percent. Macedonia's geography tends to concentrate and discharge surface water rapidly. As a result, flash flooding from intense summer rainfall is more frequent than flooding that follows the extensive rainfall of other seasons. Prolonged rainfall occasionally causes catastrophic floods, usually in November­ December and May­June. Given Macedonia's rugged terrain, the river valleys are where economic activity and high-value investments are found. The trend over the past several decades of building on low ground has increased flood risk. Emergency management legislation, seismic codes, and other construction standards are in place, but they require updating and modernizing. The National Civil Protection Headquarters, together with 30 61 local civil protection headquarters, are responsible for operational management activities when disaster occurs; they do not handle disaster risk mitigation and management. Macedonia has the most developed system of earthquake monitoring system in the region--a system that once served the entire former Yugoslavia--but the system needs to be modernized. Most civil protection staff have undergone basic training, and periodic exercises are used to test unit preparedness. Critical issues include outdated equipment and the lack of flood hazard maps that identify the severity, frequency, and duration of floods. A disaster information management system is urgently needed, as are radar and early warning systems. A full risk assessment that measures the true impacts of potential hazard events on society should be conducted. Recommendations · Based on existing analysis, carry out a comprehensive risk assessment to determine the economic and social loss potential, risk distribution, and burden on the central budget of natural disasters, and develop a risk funding strategy for catastrophic events. · Upgrade the legal framework for risk mitigation, and introduce new regulations and standards for reinforced concrete and masonry structures in seismic risk areas. · Review the vulnerable building stock and lifelines, and identify high-priority structures for retrofitting and structural strengthening · Upgrade the capacity to manage and mitigate flood risk, and incorporate hazard information into the land use management process · Strengthen the emergency response capacity by upgrading the emergency management information system and improving the flood warning systems Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.035 1.8% 20% 1.6% 0.030 1.4% 15% 0.025 1.2% 0.020 1.0% 10% 0.015 0.8% 0.6% 0.010 5% 0.4% 0.005 0.2% 0.000 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 109.6 364.9 565.5 908.4 1,594.1 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 62 MOLDOVA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 4.30 million Urban: 42% Rural: 58% GNI per capita: $460 GDP: $1,621 million Agriculture: 25% Industry: 24% Services: 51% (Breakdown by sector is for 2001.) Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Other Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 5% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 204 12.6% Floods, Mudslides, 5% 76 4.7% & Landslides 20% 2 0.1% 95% Overview About 20 percent of Moldova's territory is prone to landslides, which affected almost half of all settlements in Moldova in the past. Exposure to landslides has risen dramatically in recent years, and it is predicted that landslides will affect 20,000­25,000 hectares of agricultural land by 2005. Every year landslides damage critical lifelines, such as transportation and communication infrastructure and water and electricity networks. Despite Moldova's dryness, it faces significant flood risks. Flooding on the Dniester and Prut was a significant threat in the past, before flood protection infrastructure was constructed. Because these floods usually begin in the Carpathian Mountains, Moldova usually has two to five days of warning before the flood wave reaches its border. During that time, flood protection measure can be implemented. The effectiveness of flood protection depends on the state of the dams and dikes, which need substantial repair. On Moldova's smaller, internal watercourses, floods are caused by rain that falls locally, so warning times are short. Thus flood risk is associated mostly with Moldova's smaller internal rivers. Moldova lies very close to the Vrancea seismic zone (see Romania), which is subject to frequent and powerful earthquakes. Four major earthquakes have occurred since 1960, affecting hundreds of people and causing moderate damage to buildings and infrastructure. The probability of economic losses exceeding $200 million in one year is about 0.5 percent. Such an event would affect nearly 64 percent of Moldova's population. 63 The State Department for Exceptional Situations is the designated national emergency authority. It sponsors training and exercises. Civil protection plans are maintained at the national, provincial, and municipal levels. Their enactment is triggered by the occurrence or prediction of a disaster. The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources is responsible for analyzing and predicting geological risks, including landslides, and for forecasting the weather. The State Water Company (Apele Moldovei) is responsible for flood management. Many disaster mitigation programs and plans, such as the flood mitigation and dams safety plans, have been prepared in recent years, but implementation has been limited by budget constraints. A database on natural hazards, including risk maps, exists but requires updating using the GIS approach. It is also necessary to build up an automatic early warning system for national emergency management. Little funding is available for implementing landslide mitigation measures. Flood prediction capabilities are modest and information flow slow, limiting the ability of local authorities to evacuate at-risk populations. Due to the lack of funding, investigations of seismic risks are very limited, and there is no updated information on the stability of buildings, even in large cities. Recommendations · Designate a national authority responsible for coordinating natural disaster risk mitigation programs and projects. · Improve construction and land use enforcement. · Increase dam safety, and repair or upgrade flood protection infrastructure. · Improve the existing risk assessment methodology and capability for landslide, flood, and earthquake risks using GIS technologies. · Upgrade flood monitoring capacity and information management capabilities to ensure timely collection and analysis of flood data. · Invest in the acquisition of modern equipment and technology needed to prepare or update hazard maps for earthquake, landslide, and flood areas to test and implement hazard mitigation measures at the municipal level. · Conduct seismic risk assessments for larger cities. · Acquire modern radar equipment, and build up an early warning systems for national emergency management. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 3.0 70% 20% 60% 2.5 15% 50% 2.0 40% 1.5 10% 30% 1.0 20% 5% 0.5 10% 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 38.7 65.9 87.6 125.3 203.7 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 64 POLAND Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 38.6 million Urban: 63% Rural: 37% GNI per capita: $4,570 GDP: $187,680 million Agriculture: 3% Industry: 34% Services: 63% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Other Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 2% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 5,330 2.8% Floods, Mudslides, 5% 625 0.3% & Landslides 20% 1.8 0,001% 98% Overview Floods are the most important type of natural disaster in Poland in terms of material losses and danger to life and health. Poland's largest rivers, the Vistula and the Oder, are subject to seasonal flooding when spring and summer rains coincide with snowmelt; January­July is the period of elevated risk. Ice jam flooding is occasionally very important, as when in 1840 the Vistula broke through a natural dike and formed a new estuary to the Baltic Sea. Transboundary flows are not as important in Poland as they are in some other countries in the region, because Poland's rivers form largely on Polish territory and flow into the Baltic. The probability of economic losses exceeding $5.3 billion in one year is about 0.5 percent. The probability of annual losses exceeding $625 million is about 5 percent. Emergency management in Poland is based on the Act on Emergency. Caused by Natural Disasters, which covers all types of emergencies. At the national level, the Crisis Affairs Team and the Government Crisis Coordination Team handle emergencies, which are dealt with operationally by the national Center for Coordination of Rescue and Protection of the Population. Seismic and hydrological and meteorological monitoring networks are in place. Since 1998 earmarked funds in the state budget have been allocated for emergency management but not for prevention. There is no national mitigation plan or program, and there is a serious lack of training programs addressing prevention issues. Instead, there is almost exclusive reliance on structural solutions in the existing flood mitigation system. 65 Recommendations · Assess the current flood mitigation programs and actions to determine overall effectiveness. Consider nonstructural actions to reduce flood damage in the flood mitigation program. · Establish agreements between the national government and provincial and municipal authorities in order to coordinate disaster mitigation and response efforts. · Increase funding for disaster management programs and activities at all levels of government. · Develop a national plan that includes training courses for government and NGO officials in hazard mitigation. · Upgrade flood mapping, forecasting, and warning capabilities in order to establish a credible risk assessment capability. · Explore establishing a national flood insurance program designed to restrict future development in flood risk areas and reduce future losses to the government from floods. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.50 1.4% 20% 0.45 1.2% 0.40 15% 1.0% 0.35 0.30 0.8% 0.25 10% 0.6% 0.20 0.15 0.4% 5% 0.10 0.2% 0.05 0.00 0.0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 50.4 368.4 1,066.8 3,138.5 5,329.5 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 66 ROMANIA Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 22.36 million Urban: 55% Rural: 45% GNI per capita: $1,850 GDP: $44,428 million Agriculture: 15% Industry: 36% Services:49% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Earthquake Other Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 30% 13% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 2,600 5.9% 5% 1,018 2.3% Floods, Mudslides, & Landslides 20% 281 1% 57% Overview Romania is one of the most seismically active countries in Europe. Proximity to the Vrancea seismogenic zone at the juncture of the European plate, the Intra-Alpine subplate, and the Moesian subplate combined with poor soil make Bucharest one of the 10 most vulnerable cities in the world in terms of earthquakes. Romania is also considered one of the most flood-prone countries in the region, with estimated losses between 1991 and 2002 of more than $1 billion and 200 deaths. High-frequency floods are only rarely reported in international databases. Poor maintenance of riverbanks, inadequate pollution and debris disposal, destruction of wetlands, deforestation, and reduced river flow have increased the incidence of floods and the area in which they occur. Deforestation and overloading of slopes have lead to an increase in landslides. The probability of economic losses exceeding $2.6 billion in one year is about 0.5 percent. This equals about 6 percent of the Romania's GDP. The probability of annual losses exceeding $1.0 billion is about 5 percent. Civil protection is coordinated through the Commission for Defense against Disasters. The prime minister is in charge of the system, with the minister of administration and interior the lead subordinate. At the local level, prefects of the 41 counties and mayors of cities and towns manage disasters. The National Institute for Meteorology, Hydrology and Water Management monitors areas of major flood risk. In the past 30 years, flood protection has increased. Currently, about 23,000 square kilometers, including 1,000 rural villages and 80 cities, benefit from one or more flood mitigation measures. 67 The Romanian authorities as well as the academic and engineering community are fully aware of the country's high risk exposure. With assistance from the World Bank, the government is launching a proactive Hazard Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness project, which aims to reduce the environmental, social, and economic vulnerability to natural disasters. The project addresses several of the recommendations presented below. Recommendations · Upgrade the legal framework for hazard risk management, and strengthen coordination by upgrading the emergency communication and management information infrastructure. · Review the existing building code and introduce performance-based design criteria for retrofitting vulnerable buildings. · Conduct a comprehensive public awareness campaign to increase awareness of earthquake risk. · Provide incentives and financial assistance to provincial and local governments to implement hazard risk mitigation and emergency preparedness programs. · Invest in hazard mitigation activities in order to reduce the risks caused by earthquakes, floods, and landslides. · Carry out a detailed risk assessment, and develop a comprehensive risk financing strategy for catastrophic events. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 2.5 10% 20% 9% 2.0 8% 15% 7% 1.5 6% 5% 10% 1.0 4% 3% 5% 0.5 2% 1% 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 662.4 933.9 1,109.01 1,316.9 2,600.0 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 68 RUSSIAN FEDERATION Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 144.07 million Urban: 73% Rural: 27% GNI per capita: $2,140 GDP: $346,520 million Agriculture: 7% Industry: 36% Services: 57% (Breakdown by sector is for 2001.) Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Earthquake Other Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 6.6% 11.9% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 19,428 5.6% 5% 2,552 0.7% Floods, Mudslides, & Landslides 20% 668 0.2% 81.5% Overview More than 40 percent of Russian territory is exposed to the risk of landslides or mass movement of land. Landslides are a problem for all of the mountainous territory in the Russian Federation, leaving more than 700 cities and towns in danger. Mud floods, which occur on average every 5­10 years, are a threat in 20 percent of the country, including five large cities. Flood damage has been growing steadily in the past few decades, with property damage from floods estimated by local sources at $1 billion a year (the figure needs to be confirmed, as it differs from the estimated economic losses presented in the figure below). Given the magnitude of the loss potential, a comprehensive and detailed risk assessment should be carried out that could serve as the basis for further planning. About 25 percent of Russia's territory experiences seismic activity: all of the south and parts of the far east lie on tectonic faults, and 5 percent of the territory may experience earthquakes of 9­10 on the Richter scale. Russia's earthquake risk is only moderate, however, because the population is widely dispersed. The federal Unified Disaster Management System regulates all relations between government, nongovernmental, and civil and military organizations. The federal Ministry for Civil Defense, Extraordinary Situations and Elimination of Natural Disaster Results is the main coordinating body for emergency management activities. The federal government has funded a federal hazard mitigation program--the Risk and Consequences Mitigation from Natural and Technological Disasters in the Russian Federation to 2005--and other programs. The government maintains an emergency management training and exercise program. 69 Russia's institutional framework does not incorporate a comprehensive and modern approach to hazard risk management. Programs focus mainly on emergency preparedness, and the potential for risk mitigation and planning is not fully developed. There is limited coordination between the Ministry for Civil Defense, Extraordinary Situations and Elimination of Natural Disaster Results and other state bodies involved in risk mitigation, such as the national construction agency (Gosstroi) or the Ministry of Health. Response to emergencies is reportedly slow and inefficient. Illegal and substandard construction can be found throughout the country due to insufficient enforcement of land use plans and construction standards. There is a need to strengthen legislative and normative support for response at all levels and to develop a full package of flood-related measures. Such measures include strengthening the regulatory authority for land use, developing a flood insurance program, and increasing funding for flood monitoring locations, forecasting systems, and mitigation measures. The World Bank is preparing a project to improve the national weather forecasting system (Hydromet) that will help the Russian Federation mitigate the risks of floods and flood-related events. Recommendations · Conduct a comprehensive and detailed risk assessment that serves as a basis for developing a targeted risk mitigation strategy. Give special attention to the social and economic costs of floods. Consider developing a comprehensive risk financing strategy for catastrophic events. · Upgrade the institutional capacity for hazard risk management, in particular the risk planning and mitigation aspect, and establish a mechanism for coordinating the institutions involved. · Strengthen the capacity for flood modeling and forecasting, and integrate these efforts into an efficient decentralized emergency management system · Rehabilitate and, if necessary, upgrade the existing flood protection infrastructure, and evaluate the safety of the existing dam infrastructure. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 4.0 3.0% 20% 3.5 2.5% 3.0 15% 2.0% 2.5 2.0 1.5% 10% 1.5 1.0% 1.0 5% 0.5% 0.5 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 1,457.0 2,170.9 3,588.1 9,455.8 19,427.7 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 70 SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic indicators Population: 10.66 million Urban: 52% Rural: 48% GNI per capita: $1,400 GDP: $15,555 million Agriculture: 15% Industry: 32% Services: 53% (Breakdown by sector is for 2000.) Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss No data available No data available Overview Seismic activity is more intense in Montenegro than in Serbia. Severe earthquakes occurred in Montenegro in 1979, 1980, and 1998. The 1998 quake caused more than $400 million in damage. Floods endanger a significant part of Serbia, particularly the valleys of larger watercourses, in which the largest settlements and the best farmland, infrastructure, and industry are located. In mountainous Montenegro, flood hazards and economic activity are concentrated in the small area of plains. The best and most fertile land in Montenegro is regularly flooded. Flooding also occurs irregularly in other areas. The karstic structure of Montenegro can rapidly transport flood waters away from inundated areas and cause them to re-emerge later in other locations. The littoral region is occasionally subject to flooding. Human activity has accelerated erosion, increasing the landslide risk in both republics. The probability of economic losses exceeding $1.8 billion in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro in one year is about 0.5 percent. The probability of annual losses exceeding $600 million is about 5 percent. Data for Serbia and Montenegro alone are not available. Numerous ministries and government agencies are responsible for disaster and emergency management activities, but their activities are uncoordinated. Municipalities have significant responsibilities for emergency management and preparedness. Seismic, meteorological, and hydrological monitoring systems and stations left over from the Soviet era are in place and function well. NGOs are not well developed. 71 Critical issues include the need to streamline current government emergency management activities and designate a coordinating agency. Funding is required for equipment, training, and public awareness programs. More disaster-resistant construction materials are required, and enforcement of building codes should be strengthened. The risks of existing and potential landslides should be assessed. Flood protection and mitigation must be strengthened, in cooperation with other countries located in the river basins in which floods occur. Recommendations · Upgrade the legal framework for emergency management and mitigation to consolidate roles and responsibilities, and designate a coordinating government agency. · Strengthen building codes and construction standards. · Establish a permanent funding source for emergency management equipment and preparedness programs. · Assess the risks of landslides. · Work with neighboring countries to develop a flood mitigation and protection strategy for the river basins in the region. Population at Risk* Economic Loss Potential* *Data are for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro. Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 0.40 3.0% 20% 0.35 2.5% 0.30 15% 2.0% 0.25 0.20 1.5% 10% 0.15 1.0% 0.10 5% 0.5% 0.05 0.00 0.0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 145.1 493.1 736.1 1,111.4 1,791.5 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 72 TAJIKISTAN Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 6.32 million Urban: 28% Rural: 72% GNI per capita: $180 GDP: $1,208 million Agriculture: 30% Industry: 29% Services: 41 (Breakdown by sector is for 2001.) Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Earthquake Other Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 11% 12% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 0.5% 860 71.2% 5% 380 31.4% Floods, Mudslides, & Landslides 20% 91 7.6% 77% Overview More than half of Tajikistan lies above 3,000 meters, and several of the country's mountain ranges contain glaciers and peaks exceeding 7,000 meters. Every year landslides, mudslides, and avalanches cause significant damage to irrigation systems and transportation and communication infrastructure, and they cover valuable lands with alluvial deposits. The most active zones of landslide activity are those between 700 and 2,000 meters above sea level, where about 70 percent of landslides in Tajikistan occur. About 50,000 landslides sites have been registered, of which 1,200 threaten human settlements or facilities. Tajikistan's principal flood risk is from mudslides and mountain lake outbreaks. Mudslides usually originate in rain showers; very large floods and mudslides can originate in the outbreak of mountain lakes, which store large volumes of water behind unstable natural barriers. Tajikistan's Lake Sarez is one of the most potentially dangerous such lakes in the world. Tajikistan lies in an active seismic belt. The Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program classifies the country's seismic hazard as very high. Reporting of social and economic losses is limited and incomplete. The Ministry for Emergencies and Civil Defense is responsible for assisting the civilian population and protecting economic entities and territory against various emergencies and their consequences. 73 The probability of economic losses exceeding $860 million in one year is about 0.5 percent. This equals about 71 percent of the country's GDP. The probability of annual losses exceeding $380 million is about 5 percent. Building codes are left over from the Soviet regime. National land use and water resources laws exist, but there are no urban or rural planning laws or laws addressing earthquake, flood, or landslide risks. The government has a disaster relief fund, and the Ministry for Emergencies and Civil Defense maintains a standard communications system, an information management system, a radar system, and an early warning system built only for critical facilities and locations. There are no emergency operations, mitigation plans, or training and exercise programs. The budget for emergency and disaster management is modest. No earthquake monitoring or river gauge systems are in place. Recommendations · Conduct a detailed risk assessment to determine the loss potential, risk distribution, and burden on the central budget of natural disasters, and develop a risk funding strategy for catastrophic events. · Use the results of the risk assessment to formulate a national mitigation strategy that identifies efficient emergency preparedness arrangements and appropriate and affordable risk mitigation actions, including structural and nonstructural mitigation methods. · Upgrade building codes and enforcement capabilities in high hazard areas. · Strengthen monitoring and warning systems, particularly for landslides and mudslides, and prepare hazard maps. · Accelerate the development and implementation of urban and rural planning laws, and design and implement a national hazard mitigation program. · Develop and implement an emergency management training and exercise program. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 4.5 80% 20% 4.0 70% 3.5 60% 15% 3.0 50% 2.5 40% 10% 2.0 30% 1.5 20% 5% 1.0 10% 0.5 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 233.0 340.5 426.8 572.3 859.8 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 74 TURKEY Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 69.6 million Urban: 67% Rural: 36% GNI per capita: $2,500 GDP: $182,850 million Agriculture: 14% Industry: 26% Services: 60% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Floods, Mudslides, Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage & Landslides Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 9% 0.5% 11,406 6.2% 5% 3,476 1.9% Earthquake 20% 24.5 0.01% 91% Overview Turkey lies in one of the most active earthquake and volcano regions in the world. More than 95 percent of the country's land area is at risk from earthquakes. Large-scale earthquakes can occur at anytime in areas in which 70 percent of the country's population live and 75 percent of industrial facilities are located. The greatest landslide risk is within the Black Sea region. Coastal regions are at greatest risk from floods. The probability of economic losses exceeding $11.4 billion in one year is about 0.5 percent. This is about 6 percent of the country's GDP. The probability of annual losses exceeding $3.5 billion is about 5 percent. After the 1999 Marmara earthquake, Turkey began establishing a modern decentralized emergency management system. Progress toward restructuring has been slow and incomplete, however. There is a serious concern in the international community that Turkey would not be prepared for a similar catastrophic event. Currently, the country has no national strategy for managing and reducing the risks of earthquakes and other natural hazards. Proper enforcement of building codes and standards remains the most critical challenge for Turkey to reduce the vulnerability of the building stock. On the positive side, many municipalities have taken the initiative to upgrade the local emergency response system, to conduct microzonation studies, and to initiate important planning tasks. The Istanbul municipality prepared a comprehensive master plan, modeled on international best practice, that incorporates risk mitigation activities in the urban planning and development process. The 75 government, in cooperation with the World Bank and other international organizations, is preparing a comprehensive emergency preparedness and risk mitigation program for the greater Istanbul region. In 2003 a state-of-the art flood modeling and forecasting system covering the western part of Turkey was launched. The system will allow the authorities to issue timely warnings to people in the region and significantly improve the country's preparedness for floods. The establishment of the Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool (TCIP) is a remarkable achievement. TCIP opened for business in September 2000, in the aftermath of the 1999 Marmara earthquake. Since the program began, insurance penetration for catastrophic coverage has more than tripled. Today, the TCIP is by far the largest government insurance program in the world, providing coverage to about 2 million Turkish homeowners (about 16 percent of the eligible housing stock). The program also produced a massive shift in awareness of earthquake risk by the public, due to an ongoing public information campaign supported by the TCIP. The concept of earthquake risk management and insurance has recently been introduced in school textbooks as well. Inspired by the TCIP's example, more than a dozen earthquake-prone countries have shown interest in establishing similar programs. Recommendations · Finalize the institutional reorganization of emergency management, and promote a decentralized system. · Establish a mechanism for coordinating the activities of central, regional, and local authorities. · Strengthen the institutional capacity for emergency response planning and risk mitigation planning at the national and regional levels. · Provide assistance and incentives for municipalities to upgrade their emergency preparedness and implement risk mitigation programs. · Establish a rigorous system for enforcing construction codes, and develop standards and procedures for seismic strengthening of buildings · Develop emergency operations plans that outline coordination and identify the roles and responsibilities of the various national government agencies as well as the roles of national agencies and provincial and municipal governments. · Upgrade training and exercise programs and public awareness and education programs. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 3.5 5.0% 20% 4.5% 3.0 4.0% 15% 2.5 3.5% 3.0% 2.0 2.5% 10% 1.5 2.0% 1.0 1.5% 5% 1.0% 0.5 0.5% 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 262.4 1,739.3 8,173.69 10,336.7 11,405.8 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 76 TURKMENISTAN Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 5.55 million Urban: 45% Rural: 55% GNI per capita: $1,200 GDP: $7,672 million Agriculture:29% Industry: 51% Services 20% (Breakdown by sector is for 2001.) Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss No data available No data available Overview Almost the entire population of Turkmenistan lives in high seismic risk zones. Two primary seismic zones lie under the Krasnovodsk and Ashkhabad areas. Floods are common in the watersheds of the Atrek and Siraks Rivers, notably where the Siraks borders Iran. Landslides occur in mountainous and sparsely populated areas and do not represent a significant risk. The Cabinet of Ministers is in charge of natural disaster management; the State Emergency Commission controls responses to emergencies. The National Research Institute of Seismology is responsible for research and earthquake monitoring. Water management monitoring systems have been in place for many years. Turkmenistan is involved in international activities in disaster management and maintains a joint committee on flood monitoring with Iran. Mitigation of hazards is not a priority in Turkmenistan. There is a need to improve mitigation measures to reduce earthquake risks by strengthening enforcement of building codes, formally assessing landslide risk, developing management plans for response and recovery activities, improving communications, and improving warning systems for flood hazards. 77 Recommendations · Strengthen the enforcement of building codes in high-risk areas. · Enhance existing emergency response and disaster mitigation capabilities by developing a national mitigation strategy. · Develop flood and landslide mapping and assessment capabilities and programs. · Develop a national emergency operations and disaster management plan, and assist provincial and municipal governments in developing and implementing similar plans. · Establish a disaster communications and hazard warning system that is connected to the existing earthquake and flood monitoring systems and research programs. · Develop and implement mitigation measures to address groundwater issues. · Enhance the monitoring of early warning signs (such as anomalies in seismic monitoring) in high earthquake hazard zones. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 20% 15% No Data Available 10% No Data Available 5% 0.00 0.0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 78 UKRAINE Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 48.72 million Urban: 68% Rural: 32% GNI per capita: $770 GDP: $41,380 million Agriculture: 17% Industry: 9% Services: 44% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Floods, Mudslides, Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage Other & Landslides 15% Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 85% 0.5% 942 2.3% 5% 284 0.7% 20% 75 0.2% Overview Landslides are a significant problem in Ukraine. More than 21,000 landslides occurred in 2002 alone, a 40 percent increase from the 1980s. Annual socioeconomic losses resulting from floods average more than $40 million, and ecological losses average more than $14 million. Since a catastrophic flood in 1931, the Dnieper has been regulated. The Desna is less regulated, and settlements along it remain vulnerable. The Pripyat floodplain has historically been a wetland area. The wetlands were progressively drained, beginning in the 1970s. In recent years, however, the drainage system has operated erratically and the groundwater level has risen. Partly as a result, populated areas were flooded in 1998. The government aims to increase environmental protection of the floodplain in the future. In recent decades, the Dniester and the Tisza River basins have been the most flood-prone basins. The Tisza has flooded Transcarpathia several times in the past five years, killing dozens of people and causing widespread damage. Ukraine has a moderate earthquake risk. The probability of economic losses exceeding $942 million in one year is about 0.5 percent. The probability of annual losses exceeding $284 million is about 5 percent. The Unified State System to Prevent and Respond to Emergency Situations of Man-Made and Natural Origin, located within the Ministry of Emergency Situations, manages central and local government emergency management and prevention activities. Ukraine does not have a building code, but it does have building construction standards and rules. The country has a national and urban planning law, but no laws directly address earthquakes, floods, or landslides. There is a national emergency response plan, a hazard mitigation plan, and a unified system of training civil defense managers and staff. 79 Critical issues include lack of sufficient regional financial reserve funds and scant material resources, which slows emergency remedial efforts and the response to disasters. Most equipment for monitoring and forecasting floods and landslides is outdated. The focus of central and local authorities is on emergency response rather than prevention or damage reduction. Regional and local authorities are insufficiently prepared to deal with large-scale catastrophes, and public preparedness to act in emergency situations remains low. Recommendations · Develop a national risk preparedness education and public awareness program. · Upgrade hazard mapping, monitoring, and risk assessment capabilities, and establish a single center for monitoring and forecasting natural disasters. · Make resources available for hazard mitigation, including structural and nonstructural measures, notably for floods and landslides. · Develop a national flood mitigation plan. · Increase resources for building regional and local response capabilities. · Repair and upgrade flood mitigation infrastructure. · Participate in the establishment of a regional hazard insurance program. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 3.0 6.0% 20% 2.5 5.0% 15% 2.0 4.0% 1.5 3.0% 10% 1.0 2.0% 5% 0.5 1.0% 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 151.9 247.8 348.1 545.9 941.6 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 80 UZBEKISTAN Country Risk Profile Socioeconomic Indicators Population: 25.39 million Urban: 37% Rural: 63% GNI per capita: $450 GDP: $9,713 million Agriculture: 33% Industry: 21% Services: 46% Economic Loss Potential Average Annual Economic Loss Earthquake Annual Exceedance Economic Percentage 49% Other Probability Loss (US$, mln) of GDP 51% 0.5% 220 2.3% 5% 58 0.6% 20% 0 0% Overview Earthquakes are the dominant natural hazard in Uzbekistan. The capital city, Tashkent, was destroyed by a major earthquake in 1966. The country is located on the tectonically active lithospheric structure of the western Tian Shen, characterized by a deep fault system and high seismicity. Landslides are also a constant threat in the mountain and foothill areas of the country. Floods and mudflows are also very dangerous. Some are caused by snowmelt runoff or severe storms; very large floods and mudslides are generally caused by the outbreak of mountain lakes. Uzbekistan is at risk not only from the few dozen such mountain lakes within its borders but also from the hundreds of lakes in the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan, upstream of Uzbekistan in the Aral Sea basin. A breakthrough on the Shakhimardan River in 1998, originating in the Kyrgyz Republic, killed 100 Uzbeks and caused damage estimated at $700 million. Lake Sarez in Tajikistan threatens Uzbekistan as well as Tajikistan. A breakthrough at Lake Ikhnach in the Pskem basin would flood the Pskem valley and endanger Charvak dam. Landslides are a constant threat in the mountain and foothills areas of the country. The frequency of mudflows ranges from once a year to once every 10­15 years. The number of extreme mudflows registered during the past 80 years exceeds 2,600. The probability of economic losses exceeding $220 million in one year is about 0.5 percent. The probability of annual losses exceeding $58 million is about 5 percent. The Ministry of Emergency Situations was established in 1996, charged with creating effective protection systems, providing relief, and coordinating regional and local activities. The Institute of Civil Protection was established to train staff working on emergency planning and on using civilian services 81 in emergencies. Seismic monitoring is in place. The Institute of Seismology of the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan conducts research on seismic zoning and earthquake prediction. It produced the 2002 seismic zoning map of the country, which includes microzonation maps for 26 cities. A national warning system is being developed. Recommendations · Conduct a full seismic risk assessment of existing buildings, map high-risk seismic zones, broaden the network of seismic stations, and create maps of urban areas in which seismic risk is high. · Prepare a national mitigation plan for flood and mudflow risks that identifies effective structural and nonstructural mitigation measures. · Upgrade capabilities to enforce building codes. · Invest in retrofitting critical facilities, such as schools, hospitals, and infrastructure such as bridges and roads, and develop a hazard insurance program. · Modernize and broaden seismic monitoring and forecast stations. · Create a more extensive early warning system for man-made and natural disasters. · Monitor nuclear tailings entering water systems because of flooding. Population at Risk Economic Loss Potential Millions of People % of total population Annual Exceedance Probability 1.6 6% 20% 1.4 5% 1.2 15% 4% 1.0 0.8 3% 10% 0.6 2% 0.4 5% 1% 0.2 0.0 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 20% 9.1 45.0 73.6 122.4 220.0 Annual Exceedance Probability Losses (US$, Millions) 82 Annex B Risk Assessment Methodology An objective basis for decisionmaking about hazard risk management should include a quantitative assessment of the size and likelihood of occurrence of the different hazards present in a country-- based on historical evidence, for example. Without such a basis, it is difficult to plan risk mitigation or convince governments and the public of the need to invest in risk mitigation measures. This annex develops a standard methodology for assessing risks that is applicable to countries in the Europe and Central Asia Region. The method reveals the level of risk in each country and the probability of loss exceedance as a function of the level of loss. Data sources The principal data source is the OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database (http://www.cred.be/ emdat/), maintained by the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) of the School of Public Health, Université Catholique de Louvain (http://www.cred.be/). This is the most comprehensive data source in common format. It is a reasonably complete compilation of all major disasters since 1975. Base data are obtained from many sources, including, among others, Munich Re and Swiss Re, two leading international reinsurance agencies; the UN Office of Coordination for Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA); Lloyds of London and its branches; USAID; and the U.S. National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Data for 30 years were used for each country. The principal natural hazards covered in the OFDA/CRED database are avalanches, droughts, earthquakes, extreme temperatures, floods, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions, wild fires, and wind storms. For each type of hazard, the number of people affected and estimates of material damage are given. Natural hazards are divided into three categories, which reflect the risks that are most important in the Europe and Central Asia Region: floods, landslides, and mudslides; earthquakes; and other (droughts, extreme temperatures, wind storms, and other disasters). Determining risk The methodology used to determine the level of risk makes use of the historical record of hazardous events. Use of an historical record has some shortcomings. First, experience has shown that damage estimates of large, catastrophic events tend to be overestimated, while those of more frequent, less severe events are often underestimated. Second, smaller events--notably those that individually cause relatively little damage--are often not reported at all. When two sources of data were available, the choice between them reflected an effort to correct for this bias by selecting the more conservative estimate. Third, the severity of reported damage depends in part on the national economy involved, even where physical damage is similar. For example, floods in Germany tend to cause higher losses per unit area flooded than floods in most parts of Central Asia. Thus similar levels of natural hazard may be associated with different levels of damage. 83 The method of quantitative risk assessment employed here is presented schematically in figure B-1 below. The objective of the risk assessment is to determine the probability that aggregate losses over a one- year period exceed a given amount. This probability is presented as a function of the level of loss. This function is called the loss exceedance curve. Several methods can be used to obtain the curve. The method used here is as follows. If each year is associated with a rank i (where i = 1 signifies the year of most severe losses, i = 2 the second most severe, and so on), then the year of lowest losses will receive a rank i equal to the number of years over which there is a record, n. The Weibull equation (see Linsley and others 1988), generally accepted to provide the best "fit" for natural hazard events, is then used to calculated the recurrence interval r (and its inverse, the probability of occurrence p) as a function of i: r = (n+1)/i p = i/(n+1) Figure B.1: Quantitative risk assessment methodology Assemble the Hazard/Damage Data by categories Sort the data in descending order Determine by non-parametric methods the probabilty of each event Fit a probability curve using a LN, or EXP or power fit to determine probability density curve Determine the annual damage by integrating under the curve 84 Figure B.2: Sample distribution of the probability of damage levels Flood Damage versus Probability of Occurrence 40,000 -1.3018 35,000 y = 250.79x R = 0.9434 2 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 20,000 5,000 0 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Probability Series 1 Power (Series 1) Next the level of damage for each year in the database is plotted against the recurrence interval r (or probability of occurrence p) (figure B.2). A best-fit relationship for these data points is obtained using standard analytical methods, ensuring that the regression coefficient, R2, is greater than 90 percent. Limitations of the methodology The quantitative risk assessment conducted for this study is based on historical events reported in the databases believed to be sufficient for the purpose of this report. They illustrate the magnitude of the problems and the broad strategic direction. The results are adequate to identify high-priority countries and to broadly estimate the impact of natural hazards on society and the economy. They are limited by the 30-year reporting period used, as well as by the accuracy and completeness of the data for those years. The accuracy and completeness of the data issue are a particular challenge in the Europe and Central Asia Region because of reporting issues, particularly in the former Soviet republics since the transition began. Indeed, in most countries in the region, loss data have not been systematically recorded; if they have been recorded, they are not easy to access. For high-priority countries, additional modeling and detailed risk assessment are required to determine the exposed asset base. Such modeling and assessment could use property or population distribution data to calculate the damage to housing and infrastructure that would result from an event of a given intensity at a specific location. The loss probability estimates presented in this strategy are not sufficient to guide disaster-prone countries in developing financial risk mitigation strategies and are not intended for designing catastrophe insurance schemes, which require a more precise approach. Such instruments should be prepared on the basis of more detailed loss risk assessments that model hazards, asset exposure, and vulnerability of assets, as outlined in the first pillar of the hazard risk management strategy. 85 Annex C Overview of Countries in the Europe and Central Asia Region Table C1. Area, population, and GDP of countries in the Europe and Central Asia region Area Population GDP Square Percent Million Percent $ Percent $ per Country kilometers of region (billions) capita Albania 27,400 0.1 3.2 0.7 4.7 0.4 1,469 Armenia 28,200 0.1 3.1 0.6 2.4 0.2 774 Azerbaijan 86,600 0.4 8.2 1.7 6.1 0.5 744 Belarus 207,480 0.9 9.9 2.1 14.3 1.2 1,444 Bosnia and Herzegovina 51,000 0.2 4.1 0.9 5.2 0.5 1,268 Bulgaria 110,550 0.5 7.9 1.7 15.6 1.4 1,975 Croatia 55,920 0.2 4.4 0.9 22.4 1.9 5,091 Czech Republic 77,280 0.3 10.2 2.1 69.6 6.0 6,824 Estonia 42,270 0.2 1.4 0.3 6.4 0.6 4,571 Georgia 69,490 0.3 5.2 1.1 3.3 0.3 635 Hungary 92,340 0.4 10.2 2.1 65.8 5.7 6,451 Kazakhstan 2,699,700 11.3 14.8 3.1 24.2 2.1 1,635 Kyrgyz Republic 191,800 0.8 5.0 1.0 1.6 0.1 320 Latvia 62,050 0.3 2.3 0.5 8.4 0.7 3,652 Lithuania 64,800 0.3 3.5 0.7 13.8 1.2 3,943 Macedonia, FYR 25,430 0.1 2.0 0.4 3.7 0.3 1,850 Moldova 32,910 0.1 4.3 0.9 1.6 0.1 372 Poland 304,420 1.3 38.6 8.1 187.7 16.3 4,859 Romania 230,340 1.0 22.4 4.7 44.4 3.9 1,986 Russian Federation 16,889,000 70.7 144.1 30.1 346.5 30.1 2,405 Serbia and Montenegro 98,676 0.4 10.7 2.2 15.6 1.4 1,463 Slovak Republic 48,080 0.2 5.4 1.1 23.7 2.1 4,389 Slovenia 20,120 0.1 2.0 0.4 21.1 1.8 10,550 Tajikistan 140,600 0.6 6.3 1.3 1.2 0.1 190 Turkey 769,630 3.2 69.6 14.6 182.8 15.9 2,626 Turkmenistan 469,930 2.0 5.5 1.1 7.7 0.7 1,400 Ukraine 579,350 2.4 48.7 10.2 41.4 3.6 850 Uzbekistan 414,240 1.7 25.4 5.3 9.7 0.8 382 Total 23,889,606 478.4 1,150.9 86 Annex D Useful Web Sites World Bank World Bank: www.worldbank.org World Bank, Data and Statistics: www.worldbank.org/data World Bank, Hazard Risk Management: www.worldbank.org/hazards United Nations Institutions Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Emergency Relief and Rehabilitation: www.fao.org/reliefoperations/index_en.html International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): www.iaea.org International Labour Organization (ILO): www.ilo.org International Maritime Organization (IMO) : www.imo.org International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: www.unisdr.org/ Joint Environmental Unit of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the United Nations Environment Programme: www.reliefweb.int/ochaunep/ Reliefweb (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs): www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf UN-Habitat: United Nations Human Settlements Programme/Risk and Disaster Management Unit: www.unchs.org/programmes/rdmu/ United Nations Development Programme, Natural Disaster Reduction and Recovery: www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/index.htm United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: www.unece.org/ United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC): New Handbook for Estimating the Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects of Disasters: www.eclac.cl/default.asp?idioma=IN United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): portal.unesco.org/ United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): www.unep.org United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): www.unhcr.org/ United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO): www.unido.org United Nations Millennium Development Goals: www.un.org/millenniumgoals United Nations World Food Programme: www.wfp.org World Health Organization/Emergency and Humanitarian Action: www.who.int/disasters/ World Meteorological Organization: www.wmo.ch/index-en.html 87 Other International Agencies Center for Research of Epidemiology of Disasters: www.cred.be Council of Europe's EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement: www.coe.int/europarisks European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO): europa.eu.int/comm/echo/index European Union: europa.eu.int/ Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program: http://seismo.ethz.ch/gshap International Institute for Sustainable Development: www.iisd.org/natres/security/envsec Joint Research Centre: www.jrc.cec.eu.int Lloyds of London: www.lloyds.com/index.asp Munich Re Group: www.munichre.com/default_e.asp Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environment Directorate: www.oecd.org/department/0,2688,en_2649_33713_1_1_1_1_1,00.html Swiss Re: www.swissre.com USAID Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance: www.usaid.gov/our_work/ humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance World Institute for Disaster Risk Management: www.drmonline.net 88 References Capka, Brivoj. Croatia Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Coppola, Damon. Romania Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Coppola, Damon. Slovenia Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Danilenko, Alexander. Turkmenistan Country Profile, 2003 Elif Ayhan, Turkey Country Profile, 2003 Enin, Alexander. Kazakhstan Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Enin, Alexander. Kyrgyz Republic Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Enin, Alexander. Tajikistan Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Enin, Alexander. Uzbekistan Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). "Cost and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation." Washington, DC. Gilbert Roy, and Kreimer, Alcira, 1999, "Learning from the World Bank's Experience of Natural Disaster Related Assistance, World Bank Disaster Management Facility Gurenko, Eugene, and Rodney Lester, 2003, "Rapid Onset Natural Disasters ­ The Role of Risk Financing in Effective Risk Management"; The World Bank, Policy Research Working paper 3278. Gurenko, Eugene, and Rodney Lester. 2003. "Financing the Risk of Natural Disasters in India." World Bank Report No. 26844-IN, Washington, DC. Kengarli, Talet. Azerbaijan Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Kokochiavissli, George. Georgia Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Koniczy, Roman. Poland Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Krajic, Wolfgang. Hungary Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Melian, Ruslan. Moldova Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Milutinovic, Zoran. Macedonia Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Pozhidaev, Dmitry. Kosovo Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Pozhidaev, Dmitry. Serbia & Montenegro Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Romanyuk, Olga. Ukraine Country Profile. 2003 Stepanyan, Magda. Armenia Country Report on Emergency Managemen, 2003 Taratunin, Alexander. Belarus Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Taratunin, Alexander. Russian Federation Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Torn, Hardi. Estonia Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Torn, Hardi. Latvia Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Torn, Hardi. Lithuana Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 Vokopola, Zana. Albania Country Report on Emergency Management, 2003 THE WORLD BANK Hazard Management Unit 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 USA World Wide Web: http://www.worldbank.org/hazards