Sikkim Visit- Post 18th Sept. 2011 earthquake

My second trip to Sikkim this time was well restricted within the state capital, Gangtok. The priority task was to start rehabilitation activities in a damaged school identified during the last trip. It has been a part of our long term agenda of school safety, where through reconstruction of schools we are looking at Sikkim for:

• Strengthening of existing school building stock
• Introduce and integrating the concepts of safety and accessibility in school buildings
• Conducting dissemination programmes on safe construction to various user groups including the local government

To begin with, we started our work in Lumsey Junior School, which is within Gangtok city limits and has two classrooms damaged. The idea is not only to repair the damage and strengthen the school building, but also utilize this opportunity for hands-on training of masons on retrofitting activities. Me and Rehman (from SEEDS) started with interviews and discussions, and taking necessary information from the site including pictures and measurements.

Rapid visual surveys during my first visit and also by the SEEDS team members on their respective visits had helped us finalize Lumsey then. Lumsey seemed to be the best accessible school as we would want various groups such as engineers from various agencies and government departments, schools, and other groups to visit the school and interact. Currently, we are undergoing the process of finalising on a small team and also look forward to conduct our activities in the Junior High until the end of March 2012. Rakhi has joined us on SEEDS payrolls, and two masons from D.A. soon to join us.

Pictures of Lumsey school can be accessed here .

Lumsey Junior High School (Link to Picasa album)

Other than this, I also tried making a note on post earthquake activities undertaken by other agencies. It appeared from the news reports and discussions with peers that a clearer picture on larger funding from the Prime Minister’s and Chief Minister’s and other grants is still awaited by the administration and the civil society. It is interesting to see the debate at all levels on the mode of earthquake response the State should adopt in the future. Talks about meetings and conferences aiming for improvement in bye laws and infrastructure provisioning can be heard.

With a population of 6,00,000, Sikkim is a closely knit society. One and all are aware of the post earthquake consequences in the state, and have empathy for each other. House owners in towns such as Chungthang had to bear heavy losses. The rehabilitation style of an ex-gratia compensation by the government –as in this case, Rs.50,000 does not seem logical enough for a place like Sikkim.

It is unfortunate that one of the most prosperous States of India has no ready technical help available to its people in terms of safer building awareness and construction technology, and/or and/or counseling that would help them cope with this huge disruption in their lives and livelihoods- it being the need of the hour.

***

Written: Chandra Bhakuni

Checks and Reviews: Pratul Ahuja, Shruti Nair, Smriti Saraswat

Engineering Lessons for Sikkim, India Earthquake (Magnitude-6.9)

I recently visited Sikkim, India after the 18th Sept. earthquake. The trip had a few-fold objectives, them being:

1. To understand the damage to buildings and infrastructure in the region

2. Visit the ‘School buildings’ and other institutional setups to understand the impact of this event

3. Observe the Disaster Response mechanism in place

Based on my field experiences and discussions with various people on this trip, I would like to make a few recommendations; as following:

1. Large engineering companies, universities in Gangtok, and individuals have studied Sikkim to a great extent, and their expertise should be utilized for safety and improvement of infrastructure.

2. The earthquake appears an opportunity for overall developmental improvements (access and amenities) in settlements that are urbanizing, such as worst hit Chungthang.

3. Traditional Wattle and Daub (Collq. Ekra) construction has performed well against the earthquake, and has low damage. This construction should be encouraged, and innovation in this area could yield comfortable and safer houses.

4. The damages in Chungthang have caused mental health issues to houseowners (especially who had made large investments) and counseling is an immediate need.

5. Damages in various school buildings have instilled fear/caution in children. Instead of listening to that fear, perhaps it is more prudent that opportunities are created for learning about earthquakes.

6. Sikkim is an opportunity, and can be shown as an example of collective governance, not only from the safety point of view but also development needs of the North East of Indian subcontinent.

For the detailed report refer www.quakeschool.org/files/110922SikkimEarthquake.html

By [With Acknowledgements]

Mr. Chandra Bhakuni, Structural Engineer, Quakeschool Consulting

[With sincere thanks to Manu and his SEEDS Delhi team, Mrs. Rinkoo Wadhera from local DOU unit, Mr. Prashant Pradhan and his team at Architects of Sikkim , Tshering (School Teacher), Sohel da (Faculty, Sikkim University), Col. Wadhera, Col. Vishal, and Quakeschool team and many others I could meet during this trip.]



***

Owner’s responsibility and School Safety Audits in India

In the India of today, we notice that a perseverant and systematic approach towards school safety or for that matter safety in educational habitats is required. Today, one can argue and probably agree at the same time that even the best of the nations struggle to come up with a strategy to effectively deal with this issue, and probably there is no end. The suggestions which come to us range from easy sounding ones such as creating law and legislative mechanisms to perhaps the most complex such as creating opportunities for the educational spaces owners to take responsibility; thus, as a collective towards achieving ‘Zero Life Loss’. Then one recalls the figures overwhelming in India, one can add other educational spaces, approximately 1.2 Million reported Secondary Schools* (figure source: DISE’s http://www.schoolreportcards.in/).

The following five form important components of conducting safety audits at individual schools, placed in order of priority, we think at this moment:

1. The robustness of building structure
2. The school assumes responsible stance during an emergency
3. There exists an Emergency Management Plan within the school
4. Help from external resource agencies such as firefighting, life saving and health, and rescue teams is available
5. Awareness and training programmes, and school habitat improvement is a continual activity

A detailed audit as above is important, but for schools a simple checklist like this (link) can be useful to its owners. While, many known agencies have been doing this important work at higher/top/policy levels, there is a dire need for a harder push and implementation at the ground level as well. There is a significant cost at the field implementation/grassroots level, which needs to be put in to operational and management plans. When risk and benefits are compared, this cost becomes trivial compared to its usefulness.

One can also argue, that it is actually the school’s own responsible stance which is helping to date, and to an extent sporadic and periodic work by responsible individuals which has helped this process. If one collects recent statistics, it may come out that perhaps schools in India are one of the safest in the world, but there still remains a lot to do as one cannot afford to get complacent in the light of rapid development and changes being seen in this part of the world, or for that matter any part of the world.

---

*Formal schooling system in India: Kindergarten for three years, then twelve years of school, thereafter college and higher education.

Approaches in Risk Reduction (The ALARP approach)

Activities at work or play can be hazardous, with it being in our nature to take precautions to protect ourselves from the unexpected accidents or disasters. There always exists a risk, but then a question can be asked- does one need to put efforts so as to reduce this risk, which may result in life, injuries or monetary losses to a minimal, if not zero? If yes, then what kind of effort and how much of it is needed?

In view of these, one can talk of approaches, or one can say frameworks which can be used in defining approaches towards risk reduction. Some of these well known approaches used are –

1. As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP),
2. As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA),
3. So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable (SFAIRP), and
4. There can be more.

Let us discuss ALARP in this post. ALARP, “As Low As Reasonably Practicable”, can be defined as an approach to reduce the risk to as low as possible using best available practices and standards. Here, “best Practice” can be referred to the best available technology in the best practicable environmental conditions. See Knol for a good explanation. Also see the figure below.

It is interesting to look at the HSE, UK for the definition of ALARP, and see how it came into existence. The case law of Edwards V. National Coal Board in 1949 became an act in 1974. The blog by Safety Health Environment Ltd, is useful to look at where Edward’s fatal accident, when a section of the road on which he was traveling subsided. The section of road concerned had no timber support although other sections were properly supported. Lord Asquith (the judge in National Coal Board) decided that it was not all of the roadways that needed shoring up; just the ones that required it. The Court of Appeal then decided that if the ‘consequences’ and the ‘degree of the risk’ are small and the ‘cost of the measures’ to reduce the risk is very expensive, it would be unreasonable to incur that cost. The UK legislation (Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974) then defined ALARP where they ensured that all plants/equipments and systems at work are safe and without risks to health, or life.

In monetary terms, ALARP is subject to cost-benefit based risk reduction; where the benefit should outweigh the cost.

Figure: A typical Risk Reduction Approach Diagram

Therefore, it is more a best common practice of judgement to balance risk and benefit. ALARP is not used in the same way by other countries as in the UK, for it may be interpreted according to the local culture. There are similar other approaches like ALARA and SFAIRP which will need mentioning.

Other Reference Sources and Links:

1. Health and Safety Executive (http://www.hse.gov.uk)
2. Knol (http://knol.google.com/k/alarp-as-low-as-reasonably-practicable-risk#)
3. Risk Portal.com (http://www.riskportal.com/images/stories/new-insights/ALARP.jpg)
4. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP)
5. A blog by Safety Health Environmental Services (http://safety-health-environment-law.blogspot.com/2010/01/edwards-v-national-coal-board.html)
6. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (http://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm)