Potential Earthquake Risk Reduction Opportunities for GEM Caribbean Programme

Lloyd L. Lynch

Instrumentation Eng.

Seismic Research Centre

The University of the West Indies

THREE-DAY REGIONAL WORKSHOP TO LAUNCH

GEM CARIBBEAN REGIONAL PROGRAMME

KAPOK HOTEL, PORT OF SPAIN, TRINIDAD

2ND TO 4TH MAY 2011

The Global Earthquake Model - Caribbean Perspectives

GEM is NOT intended to be a vehicle to promote EPA in the Caribbean a vehicle to carry out the work of the large

insurance/reinsurance companies

Opportunities for GEM GEM can extend the achievements of previous projects GEM can piggyback on ongoing programs and Projects

GEM as a Opportunity To establish regional Earthquake Risk Reduction (ERR)

fraternity To unite ERR professionals across borders and disciplines To provide much needed tools to realize Disaster Risk

Management for the earthquake phenomena.

Long ago Earthquakes were perceived as acts of God that humans could do nothing about

Earthquake Safety

With improved understanding of the natural processes that trigger hazardous events a more technocratic approach emerged which saw public policy application of geophysical and engineering knowledge as the most appropriate way to deal with disasters.

Building & Construction

Public

Science & Engineering

Next to emerge was the approach which placed emphasis on preparedness measures , such as stockpiling of relief goods, preparedness plans, and a growing role for emergency management organizations.

In recent years it was realized that disasters are closely linked to unresolved development problems and requires input from several sectors to solve.

Strong Link Between Development and Disasters

The advantage of economic growth is not that wealth increases happiness, but that it increases the range of human choice.

- Lewis, Arthur (1955) Theory of Economic Growth

Disasters are closely linked to the development

choices that we make.- Clinton, Bill (2006) Early Warning Conference, Bonn Germany

RISK MANAGEMENT

RISK REDUCTION ACTIVITIES

PREPAREDNESS

* MONITORING

* FORECASTING

* PEO & DRILLS

* CONTINGENCY

PLANNING

* EVACUATION

PLANNING

* NETWORK OF

RESPONDERS

* EWS

RISK IDENTIFICATION

* HAZARD

ASSESSMENT

* VULNREABILITY

ASSESSMENT

MITIGATION

* VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION

* BUILDING

CODE

* REGULATION

* LAND USE

PLANNING

* POLICIES

RISK COPING ACTIVITIES

* REMITTANCES

* FINANCIAL

MARKET

* SAVINGS

* AID/GRANTS

* INSURANCE

Caribbean Earthquake Statistics

INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION 1530 - 1900

Region Intensity

X IX VIII VII VI

Cuba - 2 10 5 4

Jamaica 1 - 1 1 11

Haiti 2 2 2 7 2

Dom. Rep - 3 3 - 4

Puerto Rico - - 2 4 2

Virgin Is. - - 2 - 2

Lesser Ant.,

North

1 - 3 3 2

Lesser Ant.,

Central

- 2 1 2 3

Lesser Ant.,

South

- - - 4 5

Barbados - - - - 4

Trinidad 2 1 2 2 4

Mag.

(Mw)

Carib.

Only

Carib &

Atlantic

≥6.0 1/yr 2/yr

≥ 6.5 1/3 yrs 1/yr

≥7.0 1/5

yrs ?

1/3

Yrs ?

≥ 7.5 1/8

yrs ??

1/6

Yrs ??

≥8.0 1/50

yrs ???

1/15

Yrs ???

*Taken from C. McCreery, ICG-C, 2006

Expected Frequency of Earthquakes (last 100 yrs)

Eastern Caribbean Earthquake Statistics

Mag.

(Mw)

Freq.

(Year)

Since (# of

Evts.)

≥5.3 4 1950 (250)

≥ 5.8 1 - 2 1950 (77)

≥6.3 1/2 1910 (58)

≥ 6.8 1/8 1810 (25)

≥7.3 1/15 1810 (13)

≥7.8 1/80 1690 (4)

≥8.0 1/270 ? 1530 (2)

Expected Frequency based on 2009 study of boxed area

(12-14 N)

Caribbean Fatalities from Earthquakes and Tsunamis (1500 – 1999)

1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

1

10

100

1000

10000

No

. K

ille

d

0

10

20

30

40

Po

p.(

Mil)

Earthquake Fatalities (1600-1999)

Total Deaths – ~16,500

TRINIDAD and TOBAGO Damaging Earthquakes

7.8 (IX) 1766

6.6 (VIII) 1825

7 (VII) 1888

7.3 (VIII) 1918

6.3 (VIII) 1954

6.7 (VIII)1997

7.4 (VI)2007

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

10

100

1000

10000

1715 1765 1815 1865 1915 1965 2015

Po

pu

lati

on

in

Th

ou

sa

nd

s

Felt at/above MMI VIChronology, Population Size and Intensity

Seismic

Energy

Dynamics of Earthquake Risk in the Caribbean – E.g. Trinidad and Tobago: 1750-2010

Earthquake Hazard: M7.5-8.0 (MMI:VIII-X), <250 Km Range, Ret. Period 200-250 yrs. M6.0-7.5 (MMI:VII- IX), < 50 Km Range, Ret. Period 50-200 yrs*.Exposure: People, property or assets that are within range of the hazard.Vulnerability: Conditions that leads to greater susceptibility to the hazard.

A

C

B

D

Milestones in the DRR in the Caribbean Caribbean Dev. Bank funded the development of CUBiC (1980 – 1985) CDB Funded CROSQ to develop Regional Building Standard IDRC/PAIGH (1988- 1993) Seismic Hazard Project GSHARP IDNDR (1990-1999) -> OAS/PAHO – Safe Schools &Hospitals CCEO/CROSQ requested support to revise and update CUBiC (1999/2004) CDERA/CDEMA Projects Caribbean Hazard Assessment Project (CHAMP) Risk Benchmarking Tool Regional DRM Strategy for the Tourism Sector in the Caribbean

Promotion of CDM (Post IDNDR), “Adoption” of Hyogo Framework of Act. F.W.I. Led Natural Risk Reduction Strategy SEISCARE Conference Establishment of Key institutions e.g. CCRIF, DRRC, CCCCC DRR support International Funding Institutions (CDB, IDB, World Bank) Projects/Programs that have precipitated from misfortunes of others Papua New Guinea Tsunami Puerto Rico Tsunami Program Regional Hurricanes Enhancement in capacity of DMO Indian Ocean Tsunami (2004) CTWS Initiated in 2005 Haitian Earthquake -> COCONet (2011 - ....)

Partnerships: UWI/CCEO/EUCENTRE, UWI/NGI, UWI/ISTRUCTE

Key product of the PAIGH Project PSHA Map

An invaluable output from the IDRC/PAIGH project was a list of recommendations to improve earthquake hazard programmes in the project region. These comprise a list of actions that were deemed necessary :

• to improve and extend data collection,

• maintain and improve the catalogue and software used to produce the maps,

• conduct investigations to help determine the socio-economic impact of earthquakes and

• to promote the use of the seismic hazard products.

Key outcome of the IDRC/PAIGH Project -Recommendations

The recommendations also pointed out specific research that needed to be carried out to address certain shortcomings of the catalogue.

2009 Revision of East. Caribbean Hazard Maps depicting Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 and 1.0sec for Return Period of 2475 years

< BUILT ENVIRONMENT > Vulnerable Sectors

Health

Housing

Infrastructure

Energy and Mines

Trade and Agriculture

Hospitality

Education and Religion

Utilities and Lifelines

Security Facilities

< PROBLEM CONTEXT > Primary Challenges

Technological Constraints

Environmental Constraints

Fragmentation

Development Pressure

SIDS Related Constraints

Demographic Changes

Uncertainty

Ignorance and Indifference

< SOLUTION DOMAIN > Disciplines Involved

Government/ Policy Makers

Insurers

Architect/ Struct. Eng.

Geotechnical Engineer

Social Scientist

Disaster Managers

Physical Planners

Geo-Scientists

Private Sector and NGOs

CHALLENGES, VULNERABLE SECTORS AND DISCIPLINES INVOLVED

Causes for the unsatisfactory seismic performance of RC frame buildings lie in:

the poor choice of a building site,

the inappropriate choice of building architectural forms that offer poor seismic performance,

the absence of structural design for expected earthquake behaviour,

the lack of special seismic detailing of key structural elements,

inadequately skilled construction labour,

poor quality building materials, and

absence of construction supervision.

Regional Challenges: Scarcity and Limitations of Vulnerability Information

Caribbean Geodynamics Setting

[after, e.g., Jordan, 1975; Adamek et al., 1988; Holcombe et al., 1990; Mascle and Letouzey, 1990; Pindell and Barrett, 1990; Heubeck and Mann, 1991; Mann et al., 1995; Flinch et al., 1999; Weber et al., 2001]. Bathymetry from Smith and Sandwell [1997]. Subduction rates from DeMets et al. [2000] and Weber et al. [2001].

Closing Statements

We have a lot of work to do ahead Microzonation, land use, planning Code compliance mechanisms Structural Vulnerability Pre-disaster Financing

We cannot continue to do business as usual We need to mobilize all hands on deck We need to put more shoulders to the wheel Governments must commit to taking concrete and

urgent action to reduce future disaster risks We cannot rely on governments to do it alone

Volunteers Partnerships Innovation

Thanks for your attention…

Q & A