ADDRESSING SAFETY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURES IN HAZARD-PRONE COUNTRIES*

By Andres Winston C. Oreta, D.Eng.

Professor Department of Civil Engineering De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines andres.oreta@dlsu.edu.ph

Abstract
Civil Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their duties. This is one of the fundamental canons of the Code of Ethics of Civil Engineers. The task of a civil engineer includes provision of safe, reliable and comfortable infrastructures for housing, transport, communication, water supply and sanitation, energy, commercial and industrial activities to meet the needs of a growing population. Today, there is an increasing demand for civil engineers to focus their efforts on the protection and preservation of the environment. With the increase in severity and frequency of natural disasters that devastated both developing and advanced countries, planning, design and construction of infrastructures that are safe for people and at the same time reduce their impact on further deterioration of the environment becomes a major challenge. Civil engineers who are experts in the various fields of specialization in structural engineering, transportation engineering, water resources engineering, geotechnical engineering and construction engineering must embed in their tasks disaster risk reduction especially in hazard-prone regions for when they do this, they not only address safety but also sustainability two important issues for maintaining the balance and harmony between the built and natural environment. Keywords: Safety, Sustainability, Infrastructure Development, Hazard, Disaster, Disaster Mitigation, Civil Engineering

1. INTRODUCTION
Civil Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their duties. This is one of the fundamental canons of the Code of Ethics of Civil Engineers. Two keywords in this canon are safety and sustainable development.

Designing for safety. In every endeavour, civil engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. Protection of properties and other assets are only secondary. Houses and buildings are designed and built by structural and construction engineers against environmental loads due to gravity, earthquakes, wind, temperature and other external forces to safeguard life or limb, property and public welfare. Bridges are designed and constructed to resist loads due to traffic and external forces to assure safe and comfortable travel of people and vehicles. Geotechnical engineers analyze the soil and foundation to make sure that the structures built on them or against them will remain sound and stable. A safe transportation is planned and managed by transportation engineers to move people and goods safely without accidents and efficiently from one location to another by land, water or air. Water resources engineers design innovative ways of providing safe potable drinking water. Infrastructures are designed and constructed to utilize water for irrigation and for producing safe energy. Flood control structures are put in place to protect people and property from the harmful effects of flooding.
*

Keynote paper, International Forum on Civil Engineering Infrastructure Technology Transfer Nagoya University, Japan, 31 August 2013

Addressing Sustainability. Civil engineers shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their duties. Sustainable development was first defined in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission as development that meets the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. In the 1992, Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, sustainable development was defined as an economic process that can be maintained long-term in line with the earths carrying capacity. Today sustainability is seen in three-dimensions, namely ecological, economic and socio-cultural (Maydl 2004). Ecological sustainability is focused on three goals: 1) protection of human health deals with human toxicity of building materials, reduction of pollutants, sick building syndrome among others 2) protection of the ecosystem includes waste avoidance, reduction of emissions and pollutants and proper and efficient land use, and 3) Protection of natural resources deals with resource efficiency, energy use and recycling. Ecological sustainability is related to infrastructure development. Civil engineers, being major stakeholders in infrastructure development and the construction industry, must practice activities in construction that contribute to ecological sustainability. Aside from increasing the structure's serviceability, durability and reliability throughout its entire life, construction must also address the following goals (Hajek 2002): Decrease exhausting of primary raw materials and energy, Regulate consumption of renewable resources, and Decrease the amount of harmful emissions and wastes. These goals do not only apply in construction but also in the various projects and activities of civil engineers. Living in hazard-prone regions. HAZARD-PRONE REGIONS Achieving safety and sustainability is a NATURAL HAZARDS major challenge in regions or countries that are vulnerable to adverse natural hazards like earthquakes, typhoons, Frequency & Intensity of Disaster floods, volcanic eruptions, drought and tsunamis (Figure 1). Infrastructures, if VULNERABILITIES vulnerable to these hazards, become inoperable making them useless. Many buildings and bridges have collapsed DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY SAFETY in the past due to strong earthquakes FEATURES PROVIDED and tsunamis. Traffic leads to a standstill when roads and highways become flooded. Water infrastructures PEOPLE HUMAN HEALTH become ineffective during water ASSETS RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURES ECOSYSTEM shortages due to drought. When these disasters occur, the quality of life and ELEMENTS AT RISK safety of the people are affected. Figure 1. The problem of safety and sustainability Safety from harm due to collapsed in hazard-prone regions buildings, safety from accidents during travel from office to homes and lack of safe drinking water are examples of the impact of disasters on safety in hazard-prone regions. Disasters lead to wastage of resources and energy and produces debris which contributes to environmental deterioration. Sustainability is also at stake in hazard-prone regions.
IMPACTS IMPACTS

Figure 1 present the problem in hazard-prone regions. The vulnerabilities of the built environment to a hazard depend on the safety provided and sustainability features. The disaster will have impacts on both the built and natural environment. 2. UNDERSTANDING HAZARDS AND DISASTERS. 2.1 Terminologies We live in an environment where nature and infrastructures interact as shown in Figure 2. Our built environment is a product of societys utilization of resources and energy obtained from nature. Infrastructure development, however, produces negative outputs like air pollution and waste that have severe impact on human systems and the natural environment including climate change. Nature, on the other hand, provides us with useful resources but at the same time produces natural hazards that threaten the built environment. Disasters occur at the interface between the natural and human systems. The interaction between the natural and built environment may trigger a disaster that has impacts to the safety of man and sustainability of our environment. A natural hazard is a natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage (UNISDR 2008). Natural hazards are classified as follows: (a) Geophysical: earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, (b) Meteorological: tropical storm, winter storm, severe weather, hail, tornado, local storm, (c) Hydrological: river flood, flash flood, storm surge, mass movement (wet landslide), and (d) Climatological: heatwave, cold wave, wildfire, drought.
Natural Environment
Climate Change Natural Hazards Outputs of Development SUSTAINABILITY: Wasted Energy Depleted Resources Debris

Extreme Hazards

Risk

DISASTER

Disaster Impact
SAFETY: Human losses Material Damage

Built Environment

Vulnerabilities

Figure 2. Interaction of the Built and Natural Environment

Geophysical Hazards. Strong earthquakes are not as frequent as a rainfall or a typhoon but when they occur especially when followed by a large tsunami can cause great losses of life and infrastructures especially when the earthquakes epicenter occurs is in close proximity to a densely populated area with poorly constructed structures. Earthquake occurrence is also difficult to predict in spite of the advancement in research in seismology. Earthquakes are a major threat worldwide not only to developing countries like the Philippines, Haiti and Indonesia but even to advanced economies like Japan, US and New Zealand. Hydro-meteorological Events and Climate Change. Hydro-meteorological events consist of floods, tropical cyclones and landslides triggered by rain or floods. Climate change is related to these hazards. Human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and deforestation have been linked to the changes in climate variables (such as temperature and precipitation) and resulted to climate-related hazards such as greater precipitation linked to floods and storms, and especially higher temperature linked to droughts and heat waves. Increased concentrations of

GHGs in the atmosphere trap more heat on Earth and lead to a gradual increase in global average temperatures 0.8 oC above its level in 1750s, the pre-industrial age (UNF-Sigma XI 2007). As average temperatures rise, average rainfall would be expected to increase. There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy or extreme precipitation events in many regions (Vinod et al 2013). Because of the effects of climate change, more hazards are expected to hit the country, which in turn will affect the most vulnerable communities, exposing their lives and livelihoods to more risks. Extreme hydro-meteorological events have become more frequent in many countries even in regions (like Mindanao in the Philippines) where these hazards are extremely rare because of climate change. In most cases, these regions have a high degree of vulnerability to hydro-meteorological and climate-related hazards. ESCAP/UNISDR (2012) reported that in Asia and the Pacific, over the past four decades, the average number of people exposed to annual flooding has increased from 29.5 to 63.8 million, while populations in cyclone-prone areas have grown from 71.8 million to 120.7 million. The region also represents more than 85 per cent of global economic exposure to tropical cyclones - pointing to a pattern of economic growth in typhoon prone coastlines and flood plains. Natural events are not hazards per se but when these events exceed some threshold (magnitude and/or duration) beyond the normal range that a community usually experiences or can bear, the extreme event becomes a hazard. Rainfall is beneficial to man but a magnitude which is very high or very low may create a flood or a drought, respectively. Normal rainfall that occurs in a very long duration also becomes a hazard. Large magnitude earthquakes with amplified acceleration at a site or tsunamis with large waves reaches the coastal areas usually cause destruction to a community. A disaster, however, will only happen if societys assets people and properties - are exposed and are vulnerable to the hazard. Vulnerability refers to the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard (UNISDR 2008). The potential disaster losses, in lives, health status, livelihoods, assets and services, which could occur to a particular community or a society over some specified future time period is referred to as disaster risk. The risk is the likely consequence of a hazard and depends on the vulnerability of a community to the hazard. Hence, Hazard + Vulnerability = Disaster. A disaster is the realization of hazard, hence the actual consequence of a hazard (Smith and Petley 2009). A disaster is a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources (UNISDR 2008). Disasters affect people (death, injury), property (damage, economic loss) and the environment (loss of flora and fauna, pollution). Disasters are often classified according to their speed of onset (sudden or slow), or according to their cause (natural or man-made). In this paper, the term disasters refer to those caused by natural hazards only. The linked between a disaster and development and their Red strand: Social System numerous interactions can be compared to that of a DNA Figure 3. DNA Model (Smith and Petley 2009). In a DNA (Figure 3), two strands are joined and intertwined. In a DNA disaster model, one strand represents the social system and the other the natural system. Disasters arise not from one strand or the other, but
Blue strand: Natural system

from the complex interactions between them. The link between hazards and disasters is vulnerability. Vulnerability is a function of physical, social, economic, environmental and political factors. A disaster is triggered by natural hazards but is aggravated by how we build and design our way of living. Rapid urbanization, uncontrolled infrastructure development, urban migration, a growing population, poverty, pollution, misallocation of resources, poor governance and lack of political will all of these human actions and decisions contribute to the vulnerability of a community and severity of the impact of a disaster. In most of the past disasters, the most vulnerable people that have suffered immensely are the poor especially the informal settlers in cities, women, children and the elderly. 2.2 Statistics on Trends and Impact of Disasters Based on the trend of natural disasters between 1900-2011 of EM-DAT in Figure 4 (a), the number of natural disasters reported has increased drastically reaching more than 500 in year 2000. A positive observation from Figure (b) is that the number of people killed have decreased from millions (during the 1900s) to less than 500,000 deaths after 2000.The most recent disasters with large fatalities are the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami

(a) Number of Disasters Reported

(b) Number of People Killed

(c) Number of People Affected

(d) Estimated Damage

Figure 4. Natural Disaster Trends in the World (1900 2011)

Source: http://www.emdat.be/natural-disasters-trends

(227898 deaths) and the 2010 Haiti earthquake (316000 deaths). Figures 4(c) and (d), however, shows a gloomy trend. The number of affected people and the economic costs due to the reported disasters are increasing. The reported economic damages from the 2011 Great East Japan or Tohoku earthquake was US$ 214 billion followed by damages due to Hurricane Katrina of US$ 182 billion. The increase in the number of affected people and damage costs may be attributed to the larger exposure and high vulnerability of the community, infrastructures and investments to the hazards. Figure 5 presents a comparison of the average occurrence of natural disasters (2002-2011) and the occurrence in 2012. The top 2 natural hazards that caused the most number of disasters are hydro-meteorological events - flood and storm. Earthquakes, a geophysical hazard and extreme temperature (related to climate change) follows.

Figure 5. Natural Disaster Occurrence by Type

(Source: EM-DAT/UNISDR - 2012 Disasters in Numbers)

3. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN A HAZARD-PRONE ENVIRONMENT Balancing safety and sustainability of infrastructures in a hazard-prone environment is a challenge to civil engineers. Infrastructure development may create vulnerabilities to the detrimental effects of hazards or develop capacities to minimize the effect of hazards. Infrastructure development also requires energy and natural resources which may be depleted if not used wisely. It can also produce outputs that contribute to the deterioration of the environment and affect the climate. 3.1 Public Safety and Protection of Assets Natural hazards which includes climate change has impacts on crucial social systems and urban sectors within cities specifically on (a) urban infrastructure, (b) human health and safety, (c) vulnerable communities/urban poor, (d) economic activity, and (e) agriculture and ecosystem services. Shown in the Table 1 are the impacts to (a), (b) and (c) which are related to the safety of people and sustainability of infrastructures.

Table 1. Impact of Hazards

GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS
Hazards Earthquakes Landslides Tsunamis Volcanic eruptions Urban infrastructure & Built Environment Damage & collapse of buildings, bridges & lifelines Damage of infrastructures near cliffs & slopes Losses to coastal infrastructures, ports and piers Damage to infrastructures near volcanoes Human Health & Safety Death & injuries Death & injuries Flood, debris and drowning deaths Death & injuries Air quality: skin & respiratory illnesses Vulnerable Communities Displacement of seismicprone communities Displacement of landslideprone communities Displacement of coastal communities Displacement of communities near volcanoes

HYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL & CLIMATE-RELATED HAZARDS

( Based on a Table in Otto-Zimmermann, K. Ed., 2011)
Hazards Urban infrastructure & Built Environment Human Health & Safety Vulnerable Communities

Temperature change; heat/cold waves

Pavement & track damage from extreme heat Intensified urban heat island effect

Drought

Extreme precipitation patterns & flooding

Storm surge

Sea-level rise & coastal erosion

Difficulties for inland waterway transportation Ground water subsidence Overflowing drainage systems and waste water treatment plants Disruption of transportation system / Traffic Flooding of airports, roads, rails, tunnels Damage to roads, bridges, ports, marine infrastructure Losses to coastal and water infrastructures

Air quality: skin & respiratory illnesses Thermal comfort Heat stroke & dehydration Water contamination Malnutrition & dehydration Reduced water supply for drinking & sanitation Spread of water borne and airborne diseases Drowning deaths

Heat fatalities in congested slums due to poor air circulation

Rural migration to cities Scarce water in slums/informal settlements Flooding of urban poor settlements in hazardous flood plains

Flood, debris and wind casualties Saline intrusion: effects on drinking water

Displacement of informal settlers Forced migration Relocation Displacement of communities in low lying coastal areas and near rivers

The safety of people and properties are at stake when a disaster occurs. The effect of disasters on people is shown in Figure 6. For the year 2002-2011, earthquakes (includes tsunamis) topped the list with most number of fatalities despite its low number of occurrence compared to storms and extreme temperature which are second and third, respectively. However, in 2012, more deaths were due to floods, storms and extreme temperature (all climate related hazards). As far as number of affected people, floods, droughts and storms are the main culprits.

Figure 6. Human Impact by Disaster Types

(Source: EM-DAT/UNISDR - 2012 Disasters in Numbers)

Figure 7 shows the comparison of percentage of people killed by natural disasters by region between 2012 and 2002-2011. In both cases, Asia has the largest number of deaths which registers more that 60%. Figure 8, on the other hand shows the average annual damage per region based on the hazard. Asia, again

Figure 7. Percentage of people killed

(Source: EM-DAT/UNISDR - 2012 Disasters in Numbers)

Figure 8. Average annual damages (1990-2011)

(http://www.emdat.be/natural-disasters-trends)

has the largest economic damage with earthquakes (e.g. 2011 Great East Japan earthquake) contributing the most damage while storms (e.g. Hurricane Katrina in the US) contributed the most damage in the Americas. In these disasters, its the people that usually bears most of the

cost. The poor farmers (2009 Floods in Lao PDR and Pakistan), urban people (2009 Typhoon in the Phils.), manufacturers and insurance companies (2011 Floods in Thailand) were the most affected in the recent disasters in Asia (ESCAP/UNISDR 2012). 3.2 Sustainability Concerns Impact of Construction. The environmental impact of infrastructure development with respect to the depletion of our natural resources and production of waste is staggering. Richardson (2002) provides a summary on the impact of infrastructure impact to the environment. It is said that 50% of the world population lives in cities today and this may grow to 75% by 2030. Cities are said to cause 75% of the worlds pollution and consume 75% of the worlds energy. Buildings are reported to produce 40% of the worlds CO2, consume 50% of the energy derived from fossil fuels, consume 3 billion tonnes of raw materials in construction each year and consume 75% of all energy used through artificial lighting, heating and cooling every day. Twenty five percent (25%) of all wood harvested is used in building construction. Maydl (2004) emphasized that the construction sector is the most important contributor in resource consumption and waste production. According to him, within the European Union (EU), half of all materials that are taken from the earths surface are used in the construction sector and more than one fourth of the amount of the total waste is construction waste. In Austria, the share of the total waste from building sites including excavation material amounts to 57% of the total waste per year (Maydl 2004). The structural system can account for more than one-third of the material use and waste generation and more than 10% of the energy use and green-house production over a building lifespan of 50 years. In absolute terms, the greenhouse emissions caused by building structural systems in the US for example is equivalent to the greenhouse emissions caused by 22 million new cars driven 19,000 km per year (Webster 2004). Disaster Debris. The large amount of disaster-caused waste and debris poses another environmental problem. Debris removal is a major component of every disaster recovery operation. Soil, building material, and green waste, such as trees and shrubs, make up most of the volume of disaster debris. Disposal of hazardous materials complicates the problem. The most severe natural disasters generate debris in quantities that can overwhelm existing solid waste management facilities or force communities to use disposal options that otherwise would not be acceptable. The volume of debris from past earthquakes are 15 million tonnes from the Great Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) earthquake, 20 million tonnes from the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, and 10 million m3 found in Indonesia alone following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (Brown et al 2011). The debris of 20 to 25 million tonnes from the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake is said to be15 times the annual waste production of the three most affected prefectures Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi. In the port town of Ishinomachi, the tsunami waste was equivalent to 100 years of collection (Des Bois 2011). Managing the disaster debris following disasters in a post disaster recovery effort takes times and is costly. For example, management of the tsunami debris of 1.35 million tonnes at Sendai city costs 92.5 Billion Yen or US$ 1.15 Billion (UNEO 2012). Impact of Traffic. Road motor vehicles cause urban air pollution, congest our cities with traffic and produce noise and stress to our lives. Traffic congestion has grown in alarming rate in developing countries and yet vehicle ownership is growing geometrically in many cities in the world without corresponding land use planning and sustainable transportation planning strategies (Tugbobo 2009).

In a study (Regidor 2012) conducted by the National Center for Transportation Studies in the Philippines, the economic impact of traffic congestion in Metro Manila was estimated based on the value of time of travellers or commuters. The study indicated that the cumulative cost of congestion from 2000 to 2011 (a total of 11 years) is about 1.513 Trillion PhP or 35.179 Billion USD. Also, the average annual cost of congestion is 137,519 Billion PhP/year or 3.198 Billion USD/year. The amount of money if not lost could have been used for investment in more infrastructures. For example, projects for Metro Manila like extension of the LRT lines, construction of elevated highways and skyways total 188.734 Billion PhP, which is roughly 12.5% of the 1.513 Trillion PhP lost over the last 11 years! The estimate of congestion costs considered only work trips and did not include fuel and other operating expenses, external costs (e.g. excess air and noise pollution). In the same study by Regidor (2012), considering only 12 of the busiest roads in Metro Manila which includes C-4 (EDSA) and C-5( C. P. Garcia to Katipunan Ave.) and R-1 (Roxas Blvd.), a rough estimate of fuel savings for one year was computed assuming that 1 liter per day is saved due to the reduction of congestion and weekdays travel only as equal to 4.212 Billion PhP. or 182 Million USD. This is equivalent to about 6,000 public school buildings. In the US, traffic congestion costs drivers more than $100 billion annually in wasted fuel and lost time, according to a Treasury Department report (USA Today 3/25/2012). Climate Change. Zusman et al (2012) reported that according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) data, the transportation sector accounts for 23 percent of the Worlds CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion where 75 percent is contributed by road transport. Between 1970 and 2006, CO2 emissions coming from the transport sector doubled from about 3 billion tons to nearly 6.5 billion tons per year. In Asia, between 1980 and 2008, CO2 emissions increased fivefold from 200 million tons to close to 1 billion tons per year. Asias future CO2 emissions are predicted to climb to 3.5 billion tons annually between 2010 and 2050 according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (Zusman et al 2012). CO2 emissions contribute mainly to global warming effects which is associated to climate change. Climate change has altered precipitation patterns wherein extreme events like heavy and intense rainfall have become more frequent. And when there are more frequent intense rainfall and typhoons, traffic and transportation is affected. When traffic is at a standstill, air pollution is aggravated. Impact to Business. The major disasters that struck Japan and Thailand in 2011 revealed how such catastrophes can impact businesses. Businesses suffer direct losses when they have invested in locating factories, offices, plants, warehouses and other facilities in locations exposed to hazards such as floods, cyclones, earthquakes or tsunamis and without adequate investments to reduce risks. And they experience indirect losses, as production, distribution and supply chains are interrupted; consequently, production, output and throughput are reduced. GAR 2013 reports that following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, automobile and electrical component production in Japan declined by 48 percent and 8 percent, respectively. But automobile production also fell by 20 percent in Thailand, 18 percent in the Philippines and 6 percent in Indonesia. The 2011 floods in Thailand, inundated more than 1,000 factories of 804 companies were flooded for up to two months. Of these companies, 451 were Japanese. 4. DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND MANAGEMENT Disasters occur in both advanced and less developed countries. However, the impact is more pronounced in the less developed and poor countries because of their lack of resilience. If we want to prevent or mitigate the impact of disasters, we must reduce the risk and build the resilience of the community. Resilience refers to the capacity of an individual, household,

population group or system to anticipate, absorb, and recover from hazards and/or effects of climate change and other shocks and stresses without compromising (and potentially enhancing) long-term prospects (UNISDR 2009). Disaster risk reduction (DRR) which includes resilience building is the key towards sustainable development. 4.1 Global Lessons from Past Disasters on Development and Sustainability. Infrastructure development which includes human-induced activities - physical, economic, political and social - contributes to vulnerability and resilience of a community to hazards. The magnitude of a disaster, measured in deaths, number of injuries, number of affected or displaced people, property damage, or economic costs for a given region or country increases when an expanding population, blooming infrastructure development and growing investment are largely exposed and highly vulnerable to the hazards. The past disasters showed that infrastructure development has positive and negative effects on sustainability especially in hazard-prone regions. If we are to improve our infrastructures and social systems so that we can reduce the impact of unpredictable and damaging hazards, we must learn lessons from them. Living with hazards should not be a cycle of repeated losses and damages due to a disaster but should follow a spiral where losses and damages are reduced as new disasters occur. Box 1 shows some lessons from global disasters. Box 1. Lessons from Past Disasters
Poor design and construction practices and are repeatedly applied in some earthquakeprone countries like China and Haiti even if researches have already proven the seismic deficiencies of URM and non-ductile RC buildings. (Sichuan 2008, Haiti 2010). Strict implementation of design codes must be properly observed to avoid similar failures. Structural retrofitting and codes updating. Seismic retrofitting of structures and updated seismic design codes had shown the effectiveness of the measures in mitigating damage. In the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake, bridges retrofitted and designed following the post-1990 Seismic Design codes did not suffer any damage (Kawashima 2012). Business case for DRR. Investments in disaster risk management should be seen less as a cost and more of an opportunity to strengthen resilience, competitiveness and sustainability. Disaster risk management is a business opportunity: The development of new crop-insurance products or more disaster resilient infrastructure expands existing and opens up new markets, particularly in emerging economies. (GAR 2013)

4.2 Role of DRR on Safety and Sustainability Safety and sustainability issues are intertwined in the interaction between disaster and development. Models to address risk reduction have been formulated relating hazard, vulnerability and the elements at risk. Risk is defined as: Risk = Hazard x Elements at Risk x Vulnerability This model simply says disaster risk increases with hazard and vulnerability. Hence, if we want to reduce the risk of the elements at risk to a hazard and prevent a disaster, then we must reduce hazards and vulnerabilities. Elements at risk includes people, property and investments. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events (UNISDR 2008). If DRR is embedded to infrastructure development, disaster risk is reduced and both safety and sustainability are increased. Therefore, the key to safe and sustainable infrastructure development is disaster risk reduction as shown in Figure 9. The framework means that Adressing safety and sustainability in hazard-prone regions through DRR means

planning, designing, constructing and managing civil engineering systems to increase system resilience and reduce vulnerabilities to hazards so that social, economic and environmental impacts and losses are minimize in times of disasters. There are three important phases in DRR that must be considered if we are to mainstream DRR in infrastructure development: 1. Hazard Assessment. Know the DISASTER RISK REDUCTION hazards that threaten the assets REDUCE/AVOID REDUCE (people, structures and + HAZARDS VULNERABILITIES investment) of a community. 2. Vulnerability Assessment. Identify the elements at risk or SAFETY REDUCED SUSTAINABILITY DISASTER IMPROVED INCREASED asset and their vulnerabilities to RISKS the hazard that may trigger a potential disaster. 3. Risk Assessment and Risk PEOPLE HUMAN HEALTH ASSETS RESOURCES Reduction. Assess the risk to the INFRASTRUCTURES ECOSYSTEM hazard and identify how the risk PROTECTED ELEMENTS can be reduced by implementing risk reduction strategies. The title Figure 9. Role of DRR on Safety & Sustainability of the United Nations Foundation report on climate change (UNF-Sigma XI (2007), avoiding the unmanageable and managing the unavoidable is an appropriate guide in DRR. Risk reduction involves decisions and actions addressing the following strategies: a. Prevention Reduce or Avoid the hazard b. Mitigation Reduce the vulnerabilities to the hazard c. Adaptation Build capacity and resilience to the hazard Depending on the hazard, various risk reduction measures structural, non-structural, socialcan be implemented to mitigate the impact of a potential disaster. There are various DRR strategies where civil engineers will be the key players. Here are some examples: Flood risk reduction hazard maps, land use management, flood forecasting, early warning systems, flood control structures, evacuations from lowlands, expanded flood plain areas, emergency flood reservoirs, preserved areas for flash flood water, improved construction techniques, upgrading and rehabilitation of waterways, declogging of sewerage canals, proper disposal of garbage and waste Seismic risk reduction hazard maps, land use planning, resistant designs and construction, building regulations and permitting systems, enforcement of urban plans and building codes, seismic assessment and retrofitting of existing structures, relocation from hazard-prone areas (fault-zones, coastal areas, unstable slopes, cliffs, soft soil), early warning from tsunami, awareness and preparedness education Landslide monitoring and mitigation risk mapping, environmental management, GIS mapping on morphology, hydrogeology, land use and soil type; and development of alternative land-use plans, soil stabilization, awareness programs Mainstreaming DRR in infrastructure development is the first step towards addressing safety and sustainability in hazard-prone regions. Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) is a more comprehensive process consisting of pro-active disaster preparedness and risk reduction strategies against hazards (pre-disaster phase) and re-active disaster response and rehabilitation for managing disasters (post-disaster phase). Lessons from past disasters must be use to improve the DRR strategies. The ultimate objective is the reduction of the impact of future hazards so that similar disasters would not occur or their impacts reduced.

Infrastructure development (ID) when infused with disaster risk reduction management (DRRM) and when the ultimate goal is to preserve the environment leads to a safe and sustainable infrastructure development (SSID) and can be represented by a simple relationship DRRM + ID = SSID as shown in Figure 10. When DRRM is embedded in the planning, design, construction and management of infrastructures, we will have ideally safe and sustainable infrastructures with the following characteristics:

DRRM
Hazard assessment Vulnerability assessment Risk reduction strategies Disaster Management & Rehabilitation

Safe & Sustainable Infrastructure Development

(a) Sustainable Transport System: A safe, efficient and sustainable mass transport and traffic management system that assures the safe and comfortable travel of people and goods during normal and emergency conditions will save peoples lives, travel time and INFRASTRUCTURE reduce fuel consumption resulting to more income, DEVELOPMENT Safety features reduction of use of fossil fuel, less CO2 emission and Sustainable Designs reduction of green house gases. (b) Integrated Flood Risk Management: An integrated flood risk reduction and management program that Figure 10. DRRM + ID = SSID incorporates land use planning and hazard assessment and involves improved weather forecasting, installation of early-warning strategies on flooding, upgrading and cleaning of sewerage canals, relocation of flood-prone communities and education of the community on proper disposal of garbage and waste will reduce the losses of lives and property and will upgrade the quality of living. (c) Green and Robust Structures: Structures designed using updated codes that can withstand severe loads due to earthquakes, wind and tsunami suffer minor damage and will protect property and people, while strengthening and retrofitting of existing structures will prolong their lifespan and contribute to the reduction of depletion and wastage of materials and energy. (d) Safe and Clean Water Supply System: Water infrastructures for safe drinking water, industrial production and irrigation that utilizes river and rain water efficiently will enhance the health of the people and increase the economic productivity of a region. 4.3 Framework for Action for Civil Engineers Civil engineers have an enormous Box 2. Goals of the Hyogo Framework for Action task towards realizing safe and sustainable infrastructure development. The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 20052015 which focuses on disaster risk reduction (DRR) is an appropriate guide for civil engineers to attain this goal. The HFA was formulated and adopted by 168 governments at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction held in Kobe, Japan and aims to promote a strategic and systematic approach to reducing

vulnerabilities and risks to hazards. It underscored the need for, and identified ways of, building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters through the five priorities for action (Box 2, ISDR 2005). The HFA approach to disaster risk reduction encourages all stakeholders to take into consideration the key activities listed under each of these five priorities and should implement them, as appropriate, to their own circumstances and capacities (ISDR 2005). If you could actually tackle these five things, you will be a safer nation and a safer world, Margareta Wahlstrm, Special Representative of the UN SecretaryGeneral for Disaster Risk Reduction stated in one of her keynote speeches. Following the HFA, engineers can contribute substantially in the implementation of the key activities especially on those related to HFA2, HFA3 and HFA4. Among the key activities that civil engineers can engage in are listed in Box 3.
Box 3. Key Activities of the Hyogo Framework for Action related to Civil Engineering
(a) Developing and maintaining people-centered early warning systems (HFA2). (b) Developing infrastructure, capacities and methods for risk assessment, forecasting hazards, vulnerabilities, disaster impacts (HFA2). (c) Strengthening networks among disaster experts, managers and planners across sectors and between regions and promoting and improving dialogue and cooperation among scientific communities and practitioners working on disaster risk reduction (HFA3). (d) Promoting disaster risk reduction knowledge, local risk assessment and training programmes in schools and in the community (HFA3). (e) Promoting the sustainable use and management of ecosystems such as better land-use planning and development activities to reduce risk and vulnerabilities (HFA4). (f) Implementing integrated environmental and natural resource management approaches that incorporate disaster risk reduction, including structural and non-structural measures, such as integrated flood management and appropriate management of fragile ecosystems (HFA4). (g) Protecting and strengthening critical public facilities and physical infrastructure, particularly schools, clinics, hospitals, water and power plants, communications and transport lifelines, disaster warning and management centres, and culturally important lands and structures through proper design, retrofitting and re-building, in order to render them adequately resilient to hazards. (HFA4). (h) Incorporating disaster risk assessments into the urban planning and management of disaster-prone human settlements, in particular highly populated areas and quickly urbanizing settlements (HFA4).
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters

A global campaign on Making Cities Resilient-My City is Getting Ready! was founded by UNISDR in May 2010 to take steps to improve cities resilience to disasters (UNISDR 2012). The campaign identified 29 role model cities that as exemplars in disaster risk management and reduction. These cities share their knowledge of best practices on a wide range of challenges, including flood management, early warning, earthquake reconstruction and legislation. Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient were developed by the Campaign as a framework which has similar activities in the HFA. Although the main actors in the campaign the city mayors and local government administrators, many items in the checklist of ten essentials would require the services of the civil engineering community. Another key activity in DRR is related to addressing the safety and upgrading of schools and hospitals. The UNISDR also launched a campaign (http://safe-school-hospitals.net), dubbed as One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals, where various stakeholders pledge online to raise public awareness and to create a demand for safe schools and hospitals. There are three types of pledges to choose from as shown in Figure 11 Civil engineers can play a major role in promoting safe schools and hospitals. Figure 11. Pledges: One Million Safe They can pledge as risk reduction champions
School & Hospitals Campaign

and perform tasks (e.g. building inspection, assessment and retrofitting) that can reduce the risk of school and hospital buildings against various types of hazards. They can also pledge as campaign advocates by acting as resource speakers or trainers on how to improve the safety of schools and hospitals. They can also pledge as emergency preparedness leaders by taking part in emergency drills and becoming members of disaster preparedness committees. 5. A SITUATIONER ABOUT THE PHILIPPINES 5.1 Risk and Disaster Profile The Philippines is one of the most hazard-prone countries in the world. It is regularly subjected to various hazards because of its geologic and geographic conditions. The Philippines is an earthquake country where at least five earthquakes occur per day. The 1990 Luzon earthquake which affected Baguio and Dagupan was one of the destructive earthquakes that hit the country so far. The most recent earthquake in 2012 was the 6.9-magnitude Negros Oriental Earthquake. The high seismicity of the Philippines is due to the plate interactions, displacements along the Philippine Fault Zone which decouples the north westward motion of the Pacific with the south eastward motion of the Eurasian, and movements along other active faults such as the Lubang, Casiguran and Mindanao faults. The Philippines, having 22 active volcanoes including Pinatubo which erupted in 1991, Mayon and Bulusan which showed unrest in 2006, is also prone to volcanic hazards related to eruptions such as lava flows, pyroclastic flows, lahar flows, ash or tephra falls and poisonous volcanic gases. Tropical depressions, tropical cyclones and typhoons are weather disturbances characterized by strong winds and voluminous rains. Typhoons have wind speeds from 120 kph. They move generally in a west-northwest direction at 15 kph on the average, intensifying as they approach the Philippine Sea. Winds of 200 kph or more can be observed in typhoons approaching the shores. On the average, 20 typhoons Box 4. Disaster Statistics Philippines (1980-2010) occur in the Philippines within the No of events: 363 period from July to November. Within No of people killed: 32,956 Asia and the Pacific, the Philippines Average killed per year: 1,063 No of people affected: 116,212,416 experienced the fourth highest Average affected per year: 3,748,788 frequency (98) of intense hydrological Economic Damage (US$ X 1,000): 7,417,145 disasters from 1971 to 2010. The Economic Damage per year (US$ X 1,000): 239,263 Philippines experienced the highest No. of Occurrences of Disasters by Hazard Type frequency (218) of intense meteorological disasters in the region during the same time (Thomas, V. et al. 2013). In 2006, super typhoons Milenyo and Reming and typhoon Ondoy in 2009 cost billions of pesos of damages in infrastructures. Associated with typhoons and rains are flood hazards. In an ADB report (Thomas, V. et al. 2013) about climate change-related disasters in Asia, it was stated that as in many parts of the world, temperatures have risen in the Philippines with annual means rising by 0.65 C during 1951 2010, or an average of 0.0108 C per

Source: www.preventionweb,net

year increase. When temperature increases, the capacity of air to hold water increases by about 7% per 1C warming. This leads to increased moisture in the atmosphere for storms, whether individual thunderstorms, extra tropical rain, snow storms, or tropical cyclones, to produce more intense precipitation events. Between January to September 2011, more than 50 incidents of flash flooding and more than 30 landslides occurred, mostly caused by increased rainfall (NDRRMP 2011). In the Philippines, it was observed that from 2001 to 2008, the 24-hour rainfall intensity appeared to increase in most parts of the country relative to the 19712000 baseline values. And the frequency of extreme daily rainfall in most parts of the country is also, generally, trending higher. The typical paths of tropical cyclones per decade have been changing too. A 30-year running average of the frequency of tropical cyclones passing over the Philippines according to PAGASA indicates that there was a slight increase in the Visayas during 1971 2000 compared with 19511980 and 19601990. The typical path of cyclones has also shifted southward towards the central Philippines. Typhoon Pablo in 2012 devastated parts of Mindanao an island historically typhoon-free. Tropical cyclones of weaker intensity now have very intense associated rains, while the frequency of hot days and warm nights is increasing (Thomas, V. et al. 2013). The country recently has experienced rainfall in 2012 with higher intensities compared to the normal. Flooding is one of more common occurrences that bring disaster to the country. A map of major flood-prone areas in the Philippines (Balce et al 1994) reveals that half of the capital towns and cities in the Philippines are actually situated in flood plains, which are obviously
Box 5. Impact of Disasters -Philippines by Hazard Type (1980-2010)

(a) Estimated economic damages reported (US$ X 1,000) (b) Percentage of reported people killed Top 10 Disasters 1980-2010

(c) Economic damages reported (US$ X 1,000)

(d) Number of people killed

Source: www.preventionweb.net , EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, Data version: v11.08

flood-prone areas. Floods affect a big segment of the populace since floodplains are densely inhabited. Metro Manila has experienced more frequent and intense rainfall in the past years which has great impact on traffic. For example, on a rainy day on June 17, 2013, Metro Manila experienced rainfall volume between 61 mm to 105 mm for only three hours which coincided with rush hours trapping commuters and motorists on the road (Ortiz 2013). Other hazards that have brought disasters to the country are landslides and mudflows (2006 Southern Leyte landslide). Landslides are usually triggered by earthquakes, while mudflows are caused by heavy rainfall. The coastal areas are also exposed to adverse impacts of storm surges, tsunami (1976 Moro Gulf Earthquake) and sea level changes. Box 4 presents the impact of natural disasters in the Philippines and number of occurrences of disasters by hazard type from 1980-2010. The top 3 disasters are related to the climate - storm, flood and mass movement (wet). Geophysical hazards volcano and earthquake follow with the most number of occurrences. Box 5 presents the impact of disasters in the Philippines from 1980-2010. Storms had the greatest impact on number of fatalities and economic costs for the 30 year period. For the top 10 disasters for the same period, flood and storms are the top 3 for economic damages with earthquake as the fourth damaging disaster. The 1990 Luzon earthquake is second to storm for the number of people killed. 5.2 Disaster Risk Reduction and Management 5.2.1 National Policies on DRRM For the past several years, DRR in the country has focused more on efforts around disaster preparedness and response. There is a need for paradigm shift from disasters as an immediate product of hazards to disasters as a function of peoples vulnerability. Hence, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) or otherwise known as the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 was formulated to be implemented in 2011.The framework of the NDRRMP envisions a country which has safer, adaptive and disaster-resilient Filipino communities toward sustainable development. The NDRRMP in Table 3 has 4 priority areas with 4 long term goals; 13 objectives; 24 outcomes; 56 outputs; and 93 activities (NDRRMP 2011). The first two priority areas which is
Table 3. National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan

4 Priority Areas
1. 1. Prevention and Mitigation 2. 2. Disaster Preparedness

4 Long term Goals

Avoid hazards and mitigate their potential impacts by reducing vulnerabilities and exposure and enhancing capacities of communities Establish and strengthen capacities of communities to anticipate, cope and recover from the negative impacts of emergency occurrences and disasters Provide life preservation and meet the basic subsistence needs of affected population based on acceptable standards during or immediately after a disaster Restore and improve facilities, livelihood and living conditions and organizational capacities of affected communities, and reduced disaster risks in accordance with the building back better 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

13 Objectives
Reduce vulnerability and exposure of communities to all hazards Enhance capacities of communities to reduce their own risks and cope with the impacts of all hazards Increase the level of awareness of the community to the threats and impacts of all hazards, risks and vulnerabilities Equip the community with the necessary skills to cope with the negative impacts of a disaster Increase the capacity of institutions Develop and implement comprehensive national and local disaster preparedness policies, plans and systems To decrease the number of preventable deaths and injuries To provide basic subsistence needs of affected population To immediately restore basic social services

3. 3. Disaster Response

4. 4. Rehabilitation and Recovery

10. 11. 12. 13.

To restore peoples means of livelihood and continuity of economic activities and business To restore shelter and other buildings/installation To reconstruct infrastructure and other public utilities; To assist in the physical and psychological rehabilitation of persons who suffered from the

done before a disaster prevention and mitigation and disaster preparedness - should be emphasized so that disaster impact may be reduced. Under the priority area on prevention and mitigation, civil engineers can contribute on the following intended outcomes: Increased disaster resiliency of infrastructure systems Community based and scientific disaster risk and climate change assessment, mapping, analysis and monitoring End-to-End monitoring, forecasting and early warning systems are established and/or improved The Philippines also formulated the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) which outlines the agenda for climate change adaptation and mitigation for 2011 to 2028. Consistent with the Climate Change Adaptation Framework, the NCCAPs ultimate goal is to build the adaptive capacities of women and men in their communities, increase the resilience of vulnerable sectors and natural ecosystems to climate change and optimize mitigation opportunities towards gender-responsive and rights-based sustainable development. 5.2.2 Examples of Disaster Risk Reduction Initiatives (a) Earthquake Mitigation Plans in Metro Manila. Metro Manila is composed of 16 cities and one municipality and about 10 million people. The Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) oversees the development of disaster management programs for all Metro Manila cities. Metro Manilas disaster management policy is more focused on preparedness and emergency response rather than mitigation and recovery. However, the concern over disaster mitigation is rising, hence MMDA identified priority projects related to DRR (Banba et al 2004): Mapping and paleoseismology of active faults; Seismic microzonation of Metro Manila; Relocation of informal settlers from risk areas; Reformulation of land use and zoning; and Amendment of building code and other laws or regulations. MMDA in cooperation with JICA and PHIVOLCS conducted a study, Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction Study (MMEIRS). In the study, an impact scenario showed that a 7.2-magnitude quake from the West Valley fault could damage approximately 38% of the residential buildings, 38% of the 10-30 story buildings, 14% of the 30-60 story buildings, 3035% of public buildings about 175,000 of the 1.3 million-plus buildings.. Estimates on deaths and injuries: 33,500 deaths and 114,000 injuries. Nine bridges might be affected; 4000 water pipes or joint breaks, 30 km electrical cables cut, 95 km communication cables cut. Based on the scenario, MMEIRS (2004) proposed frameworks and action plans to ultimately achieve A Safer Metropolitan Manila from Earthquake Impact. To achieve this vision, the Earthquake Impact Reduction Study for Metropolitan Manila presents six basic goals: Develop National System Resistant to Earthquake Impact Improve Metropolitan Manilas Urban Structure Resistant to Earthquakes Enhance Effective Risk Management System Enhance Community Disaster Management Capacity Formulate Reconstruction Systems Promote Research and Technology Development on Earthquakes (b) Flood Risk Mitigation in Metro Manila. In response to the frequent flooding in Metro Manila, an interagency collaboration among the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) on the clearing of waterways in the metropolis was initiated. According to reports

more than 104,000 families were occupying areas identified by the government as danger zones, such as railroad tracks, dumps, canals, rivers and creeks. Of these, some 60,000 families are occupying the eight waterways. The plan is to move 20,000 families in 12 months from the 3-meter easement abutting the waterways. The government allotted P10 billion for the relocation sites. (http://www.newsflash.org) (c) Seismic bridge retrofitting. Seismic retrofitting on bridges has been an on-going project of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) since the 1990 Luzon earthquake. After the Haiti earthquake in 2010, DPWH has conducted seismic retrofitting or repairs on nearly 600 bridges in various parts of the country. Of some 5,030 bridges inspected by DPWH teams, 179 bridges were prioritized for replacement. A total of 4,253 were found structurally safe and only require minor repairs or routine maintenance and 598, would have to be made resilient to earthquakes. The DPWH alotted more than P1 billion on the rehabilitation of damaged bridges along national roads in various parts of the country (Esplanada 2010). (d) Reduction of CO2 Emission. In the Philippines, a report (Calunsod 2013) indicated that the air quality in Metro Manila for the 1st three quarters in 2012 due to heavy road traffic measured 119 ug/Ncm (TSP) and 74 ug/Ncm (PM10). Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) refers to the amount of solid pollutants such as dust and soot in the air, while PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or smaller) refers to much finer particles that pose more danger to human health, since they can penetrate the lungs when inhaled and cause severe pulmonary or respiratory illnesses. The measured pollutant concentrations in Manila air exceed the annual guideline value for TSP of 90 ug/Ncm (micrograms per normal cubic meter) and the Particulate Matter 10 (PM10) standard of 60 ug/Ncm per year. The Philippines passed a law called the Clean Air Act of 1999. Among the provisions include emission tests for all vehicles before renewal of permits and the banning of the incineration of all wastes. (e) Project NOAH (Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards). Project NOAH is the Department of Science and Technologys (DOST) response for a more accurate, integrated, and responsive disaster prevention and mitigation system, especially in high-risk areas throughout the Philippines. The Project will harness technologies and management services for disaster risk reduction activities offered by the DOST and its cooperating agencies which includes PAGASA, PHIVOLCS and universities. Project NOAH has the following components: Hydromet: Distribution of Hydrometeorological Devices in hard-hit areas in the Philippines DREAM-LIDAR: Disaster Risk Exposure Assessment for Mitigation Light Detection and Ranging Project Enhancing Geohazards Mapping through LIDAR CHASSAM: Coastal Hazards and Storm Surge Assessment and Mitigation FloodNET: Flood Information Network Project LaDDeRS :Local Development of Doppler Radar Landslide Sensors Development Project WHIP: Weather Hazard Information Project (f) Role of Professional Civil Engineers in DRR. The Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) is responsible with the updating of the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP. The NSCP has been continuously updated in 1992 (after the 1990 Luzon earthquake), in 2001 (after the 1994 and 1995 earthquakes in the US and Japan) and most recently in 2010 using the latest provisions of the UBC. ASEP is also the founding organization of the Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering (ACEE) which provides an excellent forum to bring together researchers,

professionals, engineers, scientists and academicians to promote and exchange new ideas and experiences in the broad fields of seismology, earthquake engineering, seismic risk and disaster mitigation. ASEP hosted the first and second editions of the ACEE in 2004 and 2006 in Manila. The network for ACEEE has grown and the succeeding conferences were hosted by Asian Institute of Technology (3ACEE in 2008) and Tokyo Institute of Technology (4ACEE in 2012). The 5ACEE will be hosted by the National Center for Research in Earthquake Engineering (NCREE) in Taiwan in 2014. The Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) is accredited professional organization of civil engineers in the Philippines. PICE supports the government efforts on disaster risk reduction and response especially those related to infrastructures. The Earthquake Quick Response Program (EQRP) is an undertaking of the PICE and ASEP with OCD-NDCC-DND for the rapid assessment of structures during calamities. This program highlights the members spirit of volunteerism and concern for the community. PICE wants to involve all members who will become DQRP volunteers in the rapid inspection of affected structures during earthquakes. (http://www.pice.org.ph) (g) Japans ODA to the Philippines

Figure 12. Yen Loan Projects in Metro Manila

Japan assistance through the Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) is spread over various fields and benefits a large number of Filipinos. It accounts for 33% of all ODA received by the Philippines in 2008. Japan provides assistance in three forms: loans, grants, and technical assistance. The breakdown of Japanese ODA in 2008 is as follows: US $7050.81 million in loans, US $4780.69 million in grants, US $3057.82 million technical assistance). Figure 12

shows a mapping of the Yen loan projects in Metro Manila. Many of the projects address the DRR needs of the Philippines. (http://www.ph.emb-japan.go.jp/bilateral/oda/qa.htm) 5.2.3 Lessons on past disasters in the Philippines To effectively implement the DRRMP in the Philippines, all stakeholders must look back on the past disasters and learn lesson from them. Box 6 presents lessons from past disasters in the Philippines.
Box 6. Lessons for DRR in the Philippines
Land use management/planning and hazard mapping. During the onslaught of Typhoon Reming (International code name: Durian), entire villages were buried by mudslides leaving 709 people dead, 2,190 injured, and 23,000 families homeless in Bicol. However, in all the 3000 Gawad Kalinga (GK) homes, no resident was killed or harmed. GK neighborhoods stood on safe, scientifically chosen terrain based on hazard maps despite the structures themselves being built at low cost and in part by volunteer labor (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net) Continuous updating of hazard maps. Hazard maps of geological and meteorological phenomena such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and typhoons have warned time and again communities to avoid settling in these hazard-prone areas. A map that does not indicate the presence of an active fault is no guarantee that the place is safe from earthquakes Negros Earthquake 2012). Hazard maps must be continuously updated to incorporate trends and locations of new hazards. Local governance and community participation in decision making will build the capacity of the community in mitigating the impact of hazards. One example is in Malabon City in Metro Manila. The city is a flood-prone area. Even without rain, it gets flooded due to high tide. And yet the city government used only 10.2 percent or P5.525 million of its P54.301-million appropriation for disaster relief in 2012 and zero percent of its P25.734-million allocation in 2011. Funds were not optimally utilized for reducing disaster risk and enhancing disaster preparedness and response capabilities of the city to achieve desirable results, according to the Commission on Audit report. Among the projects that were affected were the purchase of radio equipment for the command center, rescue and emergency operations equipment, rescue vehicles, flood warning and geographical information systems, construction of pump stations on top of floodgates and drainage, water waste collection equipment, meals for victims, and the repair of the collapsed river wall and pump station (Cabacungan 2013).

6. CONCLUSION Civil engineers must address the following safety and sustainability issues and concerns in hazard-prone countries to realize safe and sustainable infrastructure development. Disaster risk increases when a growing population and increasing investments are exposed or located in hazard-prone regions. Disaster risk reduction must be embedded in the planning, design, construction and management of infrastructures to reduce the impact of disasters to people, property and investments. The characteristics of hazards with respect to intensity, duration and frequency especially those related to climate change have become more unpredictable and non-normal such that these may require higher performance levels in design of infrastructures and systems to make them more robust and resilient to unexpected events. Civil engineers play a major role in disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) which is a key to achieve a safe and sustainable infrastructure development. DRRM is an action that must be done today before the next occurrence of an extreme hazard. The statement of the head of the UNISDR, Ms Margareta Wahlstrm during the 2013 Joint Meeting of the Pacific Platform for Disaster Risk Management and Pacific Climate Change Roundtable in Fiji is very timely. She said: Neither disaster nor climate change is an issue for the future; its an issue for today. Acknowledgement
The author expresses his appreciation to Dr. Renan Tanhueco (De La Salle University) and Dr. Jerry Velasquez (UNIDSR) for their comments and inputs during the drafting of this paper.

References:
Banba et al. (2004). Analysis of Land Use Management for Earthquake Disaster Reduction in the Asia Pacific Region, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004, Paper No. 1337 Brown, C et al. (2011). Disaster Waste Management: A Review Article. Waste Management 31: 108598. Cabacungan, Gil (2013). 90% of Malabon disaster funds unused, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Sunday, July 7th, 2013, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net Calunsod, R. (2013). Manila air quality getting worse, Kyodo News, 04/24/2013, http://www.abs-cbnnews.com Dimartino, C. (1999) Picking-up the pieces II, http://sept11.wasteage.com/ar/waste_picking_pieces_part DOST Project NOAH, http://www.gov.ph/about-project-noah/ EM-DAT/UNISDR - 2012 Disasters in Numbers, http://www.preventionweb.net/files/31685_factsheet2012.pdf ESCAP/UNISDR (2012). Reducing Vulnerability and Exposure to Disasters: The Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2012 Esplanada, J. (2010). 600 bridges to be retrofitted for earthquakes, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 03/02/2010 GAR (2013), Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013, United Nations Guillermo Balce, et al. (1994). An Overview of Flood Hazards in the Philippines. Proc. Natural Disaster Mitigation in the Philippines, pp. 19-30. DOST-PHIVOLCS, QC, Philippines, 1994. Hajek Petr (2002). Sustainable Construction through Environment-Based Optimisation, Proc. IABSE Symposium Melbourne 2002 towards a Better Built Environment ISDR (2005). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters Japan ODA. http://www.ph.emb-japan.go.jp/bilateral/oda/qa.htm MMEIRS Report (2004). Earthquake Impact Reduction Study for Metropolitan Manila, JICA, MMDA, PHIVOLCS. Kawashima, K. (2012). Damage Bridges due to the 2011Great East Japan Earthquake, Joint Conference Proc. 9CUEE/4ACEE, March 6-8, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan Maydl, Peter (2004). Sustainable Engineering: State-of-the-Art and Prospects, Structural Engineering International, J. of the IABSE, Vol. 14, No. 13, pp. 176-180. Maydl, Peter (2002). Planning Resource Efficient Office and Residential Buildings, Proc. IABSE Symposium Melbourne 2002 towards a Better Built Environment Miyamoto, et al. (2009). The 2008 Sichuan Earthquake, Structure, Jan, http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=831 NDRRMP (2011). The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan 2011-2028, Final Version, December 2011, http://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/resources/DILG-Resources-2012116-ab6ce90b0d.pdf One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals Campaign, http://safe-schools-hospitals.net Ortiz M. et al (2013). Traffic nightmare: New Normal, Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 7, 2013 Otto-Zimmermann, K. Ed. (2011). Resilient Cities. Proceedings of the Global Forum 2010, Springer Preventionweb.net , Disaster Data and Statistics, http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/statistics/ Prevetionweb.net, 2012 Disasters in Numbers: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/31685_factsheet2012.pdf Reed, Sheila (1997). Introduction to Hazards. UNDP Disaster Management Training Programme, 3rd Ed. Regidor, Jose Regin (2012). Revisiting the Costs of Traffic Congestion in Metro Manila and Their Implications, Prof. Lecture Paper, National Center for Transportation Studies, Institute of Civil Engineering, University of the Philippines Richardson, John (2004). The Realities of Sustainability, Proc. IABSE Symposium, Melbourne Robin des Bois (2011). The waste from the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, Progress Report, www.robindesbois.org Smith, K. and Petley, D. (2009). Environmental Hazards Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster, 5th Ed., Routledge Tugbobo, B (2009). The Traffic Congestion Problem in Developing Countries Study of Lagos State, Nigeria: Causes, Consequences, Costs, and What Can Be Done,? Transportation Research Forum, 2009 Annual Proceeding, NYS DOT Thomas, V. et al. (2013) Climate-Related Disasters in Asia and the Pacific. Working Paper, Asian Development Bank. UNECE. Climate Change and Sustainable Transport, http://www.unece.org/trans/theme_global_warm.html UNEP (2012). Managing post-disaster debris: the Japan experience, United Nations Environment Programme US EPA, Planning for disaster debris http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disaster/dstrpdf.pdf#search='disaster%20debris UNISDR (2012). Making Cities Resilient Report 2012 - My City is Getting Ready! www.unisdr.org/campaign UNISDR (2008). Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. UNF-Sigma XI (2007). Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable, United Nations Foundation Sigma XI, February 2007 Webster, Mark D. (2004). Relevance of Structural Engineers to Sustainable Design of Buildings, , Structural Engineering International, J. of the IABSE, Vol. 14, No. 13, pp. 181-185. Zusman, E. et al. (2012). Low Carbon Transport in Asia: Strategies for Optimizing C0-Benefits, Earthscan, NY