Shweta Tyagi*
Hazards always come as a surprise but are also inevitable. The tragic events in Syria and Turkey are virtually identical. They were caused by a fault system, which has been well-documented through years of laborious fieldwork, historical records, and geophysical observations. Several cities were tragically destroyed by the earthquake on February 6 and its powerful aftershock, which occurred in southeast Turkey and Syria and was approximately equally strong. In a matter of seconds, nearly every building in the area was leveled, killing about more than 33000 people. Thousands are feared injured, and several remain trapped under rubble.
Turkey had announced a Level 4 alert calling for international aid; U.S, European Union, Russia, India and Azerbaijan have reportedly dispatched aid. The extent of the destruction is still playing out: rescue workers are searching under the wreckage, with haunting visuals of children and adults being pulled out from under the debris being shared online. Rescue efforts are complicated by Turkey’s rainy and freezing weather, and Syria’s decade-long civil war that has displaced millions of people. The World Bank estimates that every dollar invested in disaster prevention saves $4 in disaster damage. A single large disaster can cost between three to six percent of a developing country’s economic output. This can wipe out years of development progress that a country has worked hard to achieve.
Two strike-slip faults are formed when two plates slide past one other as they move horizontally and are caused by the relative northward migration of the Arabian plate pushing the Anatolian plate west. The earthquake’s shallow focus which occurred when a strike-slip fault moved more abruptly than typical; and the fault’s proximity to populated areas were to blame for the damage. Satellite observations make it simple to detect small-scale plate movements, but the earthquakes they cause are notoriously unpredictable. For over a thousand years, some flaws go undetected. People are frequently unaware of the risk and unprepared when there are extended stretches between huge earthquakes, as is the case with many of Earth’s most dangerous faults.
Earthquakes a recurrence
This is not the first time a significant earthquake has struck this area. Not far from the location of the recent earthquake that claimed more than 14,000 lives, in the Southwest region in Turkey was the source of a terrible series of aftershocks in 1999. Because of this, many parts of Turkey have regional building regulations to ensure construction projects can withstand these types of events. Given this background, the local government ought to have constructed earthquake-resistant structures. Uncertainty surrounds why this didn’t even occur in the earthquake-affected region of Turkey, which has been more politically and administratively stable. The fragile structures are to blame for the destruction, which occurred despite the earthquake that occurred near the border of Turkey and Syria. The incident should encourage us to carefully examine India’s own earthquake preparedness, given that the country generally has inadequate zoning and construction law enforcement.
How safe is India or South Asia?
The Himalayan belt in the South Asian region comprising the nations of India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar is at great risk of a magnitude 8 earthquake, geologists warn. An earthquake of 7.8 magnitude that hit Nepal in 2015 had resulted in losses of catastrophic proportions for the landlocked country and so another one of similar magnitude could turn the densely-populated region into a major disaster. The Indian terrain is prone to great earthquakes. One of our major concerns now should be the 2,500-km-long Himalayan plate boundary, which extends from the northwest to the northeast, in a zone with the potential for large quakes (magnitude 7 and above). Scientists are aware of identifiable gaps as the Indian plate is driving into Asia at a rate of approximately 47 mm/year, sustaining the elevation of the Tibetan Plateau.
How well-equipped are we to deal with the effects in these areas in the future? New dam construction has also received the support of the Indian government at the nation’s northern border, at the foothills of the Himalaya. Are we also prepared for dams that landslides impounded and the ensuing downstream flooding? The highly populated Gangetic plain is very close to the Himalayan seismic gap with many Indian cities in very close proximity.
Soft soil along the Gangetic plain will amplify the seismic waves which will further increase the ground shaking effects. In India, the entire Northern stretch comes under mostly seismic zones four and five India’s capital New Delhi experiences even moderate earthquakes that occur around 1,500 km away because it comes under zone four, considered a high-damage risk zone. To add to this, the construction practices in these regions are not earthquake resistant with around 90% of building stock falling in the category of masonry structures. These factors clearly indicate that the impact of a high magnitude earthquake in Himalayan region will be catastrophic with huge social and economic consequences. With the low insurance penetration rate in this region, only a very small portion of the losses will be covered by insurance and in the event of an earthquake happening, it will make the disaster recovery process longer for the region.
Way Forward
As a preliminary step, we need to conduct a thorough analysis of the susceptibility of buildings and structures in various locations to various earthquake intensities. Making sure that every new construction (especially in areas with the highest earthquake risk) can withstand shaking and that all existing buildings are safeguarded by retrofitting is one of the biggest challenges in this situation. In other words, we need to find ways to make these activities more affordable. Such an endeavour calls for methodical, sustained efforts. Also take note of the various building practices used in India. In the majority of the nation, one’s income affects both the type of construction and the calibre of the materials used. We need to strengthen conventional earthquake resistant techniques in locations where traditional constructions are more prevalent. Governments and disaster management experts can also use catastrophe models to identify regions, infrastructure, and property that are potentially at risk and can use this information to craft policy that would help a community become more resilient to a disaster. For example, seismic building codes can be strictly enforced in highly vulnerable regions and earthquake-resistant construction can be implemented by adequate education or awareness programmes.
The trend in annual disaster losses has been sharply increasing and appears to be tied to the increased risk that comes with increased vulnerability of more people and infrastructure to natural disasters. An increase in the aerial extent of occupancy in sensitive places is one of the underlying causes. In order to incorporate hazard-safety measures using the current, relevant building regulations created in collaboration with the Bureau of Indian Standards, town and municipal planning bylaws must be updated. Equally importantly, we need to develop an environmental land zonation scheme for both urban and rural areas and strictly adhere to its recommendations during planning and construction.
Finally, how can we move from the level of implementation to our precise scientific knowledge on earthquake safety? It is crucial to convert this knowledge into a form that is readily available, understandable, and usable.
Conclusion
In reality, the transmission of data in real-time ought to be standard across all industries. The foundation of every knowledge-based society is open data exchange. A gag order, such as the one that was recently put in place by the National Disaster Management Authority in reaction to the Joshimath disaster, will invariably be unsustainable. The spirit and pace of science-policy engagement as well as the open flow of information to the public may be dampened by such cumbersome processes. Now is the time to invest in disaster resilience across all sectors including transport, energy, agriculture, education, health, gender, housing and livelihoods. To integrate development with grassroots, community-based catastrophe mitigation techniques, we still have a long way to go. The incident in Turkey serves as a reminder that, more than anything, we should be prepared for the next large earthquake. With the lives of millions at stake, governments in South Asia must recognise this impending danger, and figure out a way to act in cooperation. Even if it is only out of sheer self interest, they must be able to cooperate, despite the hostilities between them.
*Chief Functionary, India Water Foundation
