Risk-related variables for infrastructure recovery a practical guide

RISK-RELATED VARIABLES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE RECOVERY A PRACTICAL GUIDE

B C P R

1

Risk-Related Variables for Infrastructure Recovery A practical guide

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND NATURAL EVENTS IN ECUADOR

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

3

This publication is based on the Spanish version of the document “Incorporation of Risk Related Variables in the Integrated Management of New Infrastructure Projects” prepared for the National Secretariat for Risk Management of the country of Ecuador and it has been enriched by the discussions undertaken in Ecuador and the Dominican Republic in the pre-disaster recovery planning (PRE-DRP) workshops carried out in April and May 2010 with the support of the European Commission. Further, elements from the 28 April version of the planning tool for Community Infrastructure developed for PDNA purposes, have been incorporated in this English version with the purse of contributing to the efforts for both, assessing damage of community infrastructure and raising the necessary awareness for a sound reconstruction process that reduces the physical risk of this type of structures.

Methodology developed by: Fabricio Yépez, Civil Engineer, PHD, UNDP Consultant, Professor, San Francisco de Quito University

Edition to the English Version: Fabricio Yépez, Civil Engineer, PHD, UNDP Consultant, Professor, San Francisco de Quito University Jeannette Fernández - UNDP (United Nations Development Program)

Translation into English: Consuelo Nunez Moreno

Layout and Print: Publiasesores Cía. Ltda.

Francisco Pizarro N 26-104 y Marieta de Veintimilla Phone: 255-5140 / 250-5425 E-mail: ventas@publiasesores.com

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

CONTENTS FOREWORD.................................................................................................................................................... 8 1

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND NATURAL EVENTS IN ECUADOR........................... 9

2

NEW RISK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IN ECUADOR...................................................... 11

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE............................................................................................................... 13 3.1.

General Background............................................................................................................. 13

3.2.

Project Cycle 1 – Initial Survey .......................................................................................... 14

3.2.2. Hazards and Vulnerabilities Assessment during the Final Studies or Design Phase..........................................................................................................................................18 3.2.3. Importance of Survey Audits and Institutional Operational Procedures Manuals.....................................................................................................................................20 3.3.

Risk Management during Project Cycle 2: Contracts, Technical, Legal and Financial Aspects................................................................................................................... 22 3.3.1. Risk-related Legal Issues: Terms of Reference and Contracts for Consultants, Constructors and Auditors...................................................................................................22 3.3.2. Risk-related Financial Issues: Budget and Contingencies ...........................................27 3.3.3. Institutional Procedures Manual for Contracts................................................................28

3.4.

Risk Management during Project Cycle 3: Implementation........................................... 30 3.4.1. Early Identification of Hazards and Vulnerabilities During the Construction Phase..........................................................................................................................................30 3.4.2. Standards Compliance, Quality of Materials and Verification of Specifications......31 3.4.3. Importance of Audits and Role of the Contracting Party in Risk- Management and Decision-Making.....................................................................................................................32 3.4.4. Control Agencies Audits and Risk Management............................................................33 3.4.5. Institutional Operational Procedures Manual for the Construction Phase...............34

3.5.

CONTENTS

3.2.1. Hazards and Vulnerabilities Identification during the Initial Studies Phase (Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Studies).............................................................................14

Risk Management during Project Cycle 4: On-site Operation and Maintenance . ..... 35 3.5.1. Plans for Operation, Maintenance and Budgeting..........................................................35 3.5.2. Early Identification of Hazards and Vulnerabilities During Operational Phases........................................................................................................................................37

5

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

3.5.3. Community Participation.....................................................................................................38 3.5.4. Institutional Operational Procedures Manual..................................................................39 4

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY................................................. 41

CONTENTS

4.1.

6

Creating and/or Strengthening Technical Units to Develop and Implement the Institutional Operational Procedures Manual.................................................................. 41

5

INSTITUTIONAL AND EXTERNAL CAPACITY BUILDING................................................. 43

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS . ...................................................................................................................................... 45 6.1.

SCHOOL FAC ILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (1/3) ..................................................... 46

6.2.

HEALTH FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (1/3) ...................................................... 55

6.3.

BRIDGES AND ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS – FLOODS HAZARDS (1/3) . ............... 64

6.4.

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPLY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (1/4) ................................................................................................. 71

6.5.

MINOR HIDRAULIC FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (1/2)................................. 81

6.6.

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDINGS – FLOODS HAZARDS ............... 87

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Despite the despair that disasters bring to countries and its populations, they should be seen as an opportunity to evaluate with a critical eye what can be done differently so that vulnerabilities associated with different hazards can be reduced. A technically sound recovery process can certainly help to reduce the physical vulnerability of these assets in the future, if risk reduction criteria are incorporated in the project life cycle of infrastructure which encompasses at least 4 phases: design, construction, operation and maintenance. Recovery of infrastructure should seize that opportunity and seek for durable solutions avoiding simple replacement of damaged infrastructure.

Vulnerabilities are directly related to the type of hazard and, therefore, their identification entails a rather complex process. Certain measures intended to reduce the impact of floods on a structure, for example, might not necessarily meet seismic requirements. A multi-hazards perspective ensures safer structural performances and, by the same token, imposes the need for interdisciplinary coordination.

Most of the time countries are subject to different external phenomena, i.a. floods, earthquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions, which impose the need for tools that could contribute to the identification of options that could improve the structural security in order to avoid significant human and material losses which hamper human and economic development.

Further, experience indicate that, with technical support and proactive measures, infrastructure recovery can turn into an important mechanism for job creation and has strong proven multiplier effects on the local economies in the aftermath of a disaster, which can significantly contribute to livelihoods recovery.

The purpose of this publication is to put forward a methodology for early identification of hazards and vulnerabilities to which different structures could be subjected to, in order to lay the groundwork for a risk reduction strategy applied to future construction projects or post disaster recovery processes, based on recent experiences undertaken in the country of Ecuador.

1 FOREWORD

FOREWORD

7

FOREWORD

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND NATURAL EVENTS IN ECUADOR

The workshops organized by the Technical Secretariat for Risk Management in July 2008, with the support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), enabled the identification of a number of deficiencies in the life cycle of public investment projects, mainly related to disaster risk reduction practices. Some of the main weaknesses are summarized as follows:

• Risk-related considerations are not traditionally incorporated in project management cycles, neither in the private nor in the public sector.

• There is no clear understanding of the type of information which is required, or available, to enable the incorporation of riskreduction parameters in public investment projects.

• There is a lack of knowledge regarding technical tools that could facilitate the incorporation of concrete risk-reduction measures.

• There is no inter-agency coordination and cooperation among public sector institutions to optimize their capacities and resources.

• Limited interest in risk management mainstreaming is observed at institutional level, with the ensuing lack of resources, such as trained staff, and the absence of risk variables considered at different phases of investment projects.

• Local institutions, such as municipalities and local governments, lack technical, economic and financial capacities to ensure the construction of safe infrastructure facilities resilient to natural hazards.

• There is a systematic emulation of inadequate practices in design and/or construction work of infrastructure facilities at national level. Structural problems have been identified in some of them even in the absence of natural hazards (bridges, streets, roads, hydroelectric projects, refineries, etc.). This has highlighted the fact that deficiencies exist both in the public and –significantly so, in the private sector at national and international level (since the latter has also been involved in major projects).

1

1 1

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND NATURAL EVENTS IN ECUADOR

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

9

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

1

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND NATURAL EVENTS IN ECUADOR

The National Development Plan, submitted in 2007 by the National Development Planning Secretariat (SENPLADES), summarizes its findings as follows: (SENPLADES, 2007a):

10

1. There are no risk management policies despite extremely frequent natural events.

2. There is no National Risk Management System with properly identified and coordinated actions for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, rehabilitation and reconstruction.

3. Institutions lack capacity to promote and implement risk management in the planning phases and have no resources to carry them forward.

4. There is little coordination among technical and scientific institutions that generate information on hazards and vulnerabilities, including agencies that promote projects.

5. There are no mechanisms to disseminate available technical information. Information is disperse, incomplete, decentralised and even outdated.

6. Land use is inadequate and there is no national law on land use and development.

7. Human settlements and poverty are often found in risk areas.

8. No risk transfer mechanisms are currently applied.

9. Risk assessments are not incorporated in investment and development projects.

10. Natural resources and protected areas suffer degradation.

NEW RISK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IN ECUADOR

Since its inception in January 2007, the current Administration has stressed the vital importance of aspects related to development planning. It has been acknowledged that natural disasters have a significant and adverse impact on development and delay development processes and thus, disaster risk reduction has been introduced in national agendas. Historical landmark achievements have been registered at domestic, regional and global level:

1. The new Ecuadorian Constitution, approved in October 2008, incorporates an explicit vision of risk management under Articles 389-390. This sets the legal framework for the development of a National Decentralised Risk Management System.

2. The National Development Planning Secretariat (SENPLADES) set disaster risk reduction incorporation in the national development policy as one of the main policies to be applied in order to meet Goal 9, under Objective 7 of the Millennium Development Goals for Ecuador.

3. Under this reform, the Coordination Ministry of Internal and External Security is created. It initially encompassed a risk management unit which was later transformed into a Deputy Minister’s Office as the Technical Secretariat for Risk Management1. This agency incorporates the former Civil Defence and is entrusted with the promotion of actions in the areas of emergency management, together with a comprehensive approach to risk management and disaster risk reduction.

1

Executive Decree No. 1046-A, April 2008, created the Technical Secretariat for Risk Management.

2

22

NEW RISK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IN ECUADOR

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

11

4. While in-depth structural changes were taking place, emergency response actions undertaken in the aftermath of floods occurred in the coastal region in January and February 2008, brought about significant changes in disaster response and past events were examined with closer attention. The first regional ministry created in July 2007 for the Coastal Region proved that adequate coordination of interagency and multi-sectoral efforts was possible. It enabled immediate and significant disaster response which has been acknowledged at international level (Portaluppi, 2008). This resulted in the creation of a response coordination mechanism that has already proven its efficiency and which will be a positive input in the lessons learned for the development of a National Decentralised Risk Management System.

5. The SNGR established its priority action lines in November 2008. One of them was to find mechanisms for the incorporation of work line 4.2 as a cross- cutting issue in all development planning activities, in order to set a regulatory framework that would require the incorporation of risk assessment and risk reduction components in all public investment projects, from the prefeasibility phase to the operational stage.

2

NEW RISK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IN ECUADOR

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

12 This methodological guide is to be considered within this context. It is intended to help institutions and agencies achieve the above-mentioned goals, mandates, policies and lines of action. Basic recommendations for an early identification of hazards and vulnerabilities for both, recovery stages and new developments, will be provided in order to lay the groundwork for a risk reduction strategy applied to future construction projects in Ecuador.

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

3.1. General Background A public infrastructure project is an investment made after a decision has been taken on the use of resources in order to increase, preserve or improve the production of goods or the delivery of services to society as a whole or to a specific group of people. It is also an investment made to repair or to replace damaged infrastructure after a destructive event happens. Each project follows its own rationale, according to its location and the way in which it will be built and operate. A project life cycle encompasses all these stages, from its original design to its final operation. It usually includes the following phases:

Project Status

Project Phase under its Life Cycle Idea

Pre-investment

Profile Pre-feasibility Feasibility

Investment Operation

Design Implementation (Construction) Operation and Maintenance

3

3 3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

13

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

The decision to invest in an infrastructure facility marks the departure of the project’s life cycle with the exploration of potential engineering solutions to identified problems, the assessment of their scope and, particularly, of the social and economic impacts associated to the non-implementation of the project (project’s idea and profile). The pre-feasibility phase encompasses the preliminary design –or pre-design, process which will include the selection of different technical alternatives that could solve identified needs, together with the identification of technical requirements for each alternative. At the pre-feasibility phase, information is generated on the project’s characteristics, limitations, capital and operational costs, as well as on any economic, social, political, cultural, environmental and legal restrictions. Finally, the feasibility phase entails a comprehensive analysis of the potential investment’s technical, financial, economic and social results (taking into account a specific technical alternative and its requirements identified under the pre-feasibility phase).

The feasibility report is the final product of a project’s design phase and is the basis for decisionmaking regarding its implementation.

The feasibility report is the final product of a project’s development design phase and is the basis for decision-making regarding its implementation.

If there is a favourable decision, the following phase includes final design, also called engineering studies, that will materialize in a set of working drawings concerning i.a. structural designs, furnishings, equipment and services, required to obtain a construction licence and that must include the technical specifications according to which the project should be built.

This methodological guide describes the first cycle of a project and covers the idea, profile, prefeasibility, feasibility and final design phases, this is, all activities that precede the actual implementation phase. Cycle 2 includes contracting and hiring as well as the definition of technical, legal and financial aspects.

Cycle 3 concerns the implementation phase and Cycle 4 is related to the project’s operation and maintenance.

14 3.2. Project Cycle 1 – Initial Survey 3.2.1. Hazards and Vulnerabilities Identification during the Initial Studies Phase (PreFeasibility and Feasibility Studies) To mitigate potential risk exposure of a future infrastructure project to natural hazards, such risk and its components must be quantified in order to design strategies to overcome it. This implies that risk assessment must be a separate and important component of all initial studies phases. Several countries (such as Perú2 and Colombia) have already acknowledged this fact and funding institutions, such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB3) have established these assessments as a requirement.

Other international organizations, such as those within the United Nations System, are furthering

2 3

Pautas Metodológicas para la Incorporación del Análisis del Riesgo de Desastres en los Proyectos de Inversión Pública, Volume 3, Sistema Nacional de Inversión Pública y la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastre series, Ministry of Finance and Economics of Peru.

Since 1998, IDB has been implementing its OP-704 policy for the incorporation of risk reduction in projects financed by the Bank.

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

awareness and capacity-building processes to promote effective disaster risk reduction. A case in point is the support provided by the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) to governmental agencies in the Philippines in order to incorporate disaster risk reduction components in the planning phases of road projects4. The current document is produced with UNDP support.

However, public and private institutions or corporations that promote construction projects have the lead responsibility in demanding the incorporation of risk reduction criteria already at the initial studies stage.

Therefore, adequate methodological tools and training procedures must be made available to enhance these institutional processes.

However, public and private institutions or corporations that promote construction projects have the lead responsibility in demanding the incorporation of risk reduction criteria already at the initial studies stage.

Even if during the initial studies phase –when the general idea and project profile are shaped, a potential location might have been identified and certain information on pre-existing natural hazards might be available, it will be actually during the pre-feasibility phase when proper identification and quantification of natural hazards will take place and a preliminary assessment of the project’s vulnerability to those hazards will be carried out.

The hazards assessment describes their type, nature, characteristics and potential impact; it quantifies different levels of hazards and their probable occurrence. The project’s vulnerabilities assessment will identify the draft project’s weaknesses vis-a-vis different levels of hazards, as well as potential mitigation measures to overcome those threats according to acceptable risks criteria. The identification of protection or mitigation actions will be useful to establish costs estimates during the pre-feasibility and feasibility phases of the project. These assessments and studies usually require the participation of a multidisciplinary team with sufficient knowledge on the different aspects that have been previously described here. In particular, if the existing infrastructure was damaged or even destroyed by a disaster, in the conception of the new project, the main idea is not to re-build the previous existing vulnerability. In this case, the lesson learned after the disaster should not be forgotten, as it has happened in some cases in Ecuador.

4 5

National Disaster Coordinating Council, NDCC, Philippines, 2006 SENPLADES, 2008

3

incorporation of risk assessments from the outset, at the initial studies phase of investment and non-refundable external cooperation projects in order to facilitate their prioritization. Other requirements include hazards and vulnerability assessments in the area of influence, together with measures to reduce those vulnerabilities and the necessary resources for the implementation of prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response measures5.

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

In Ecuador, SENPLADES has decided to demand the

15

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

The initial basic question to be posed by any project developer or promoter from the very outset of the studies phase should be:

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

Could this area be affected by one or several natural hazards?

16

The preliminary answer to this question - should be based on all the available information that could be gathered on:

i.

History of risky events in the area.

ii.

Reports on the frequency and occurrence of disasters in the past, reported infrastructural damages, reconstruction or repair work.

iii.

Hazards and vulnerabilities assessments of the selected project area.

iv.

Available risk assessment s and risk and hazards maps.

v.

Survey maps, aerial or satellite images, both historic and recent.

vi.

Socio-economic impact assessments of past disasters in the area.

vii.

Compilation of past experiences and lessons learned.

To answer this question, available information from different technical, scientific and emergency response agencies, even community experience, will have to be examined. Annex 1 contains a reference list of existing information in Ecuador to guide this research. Even though the level of detail in such information might not be suitable for the project needs, it could provide a general overview of the implementation area. Given Ecuador’s geographical conditions, in any given project area, at least one of the afore-mentioned natural hazards will be present and, therefore, they should always be taken into account. If no natural hazards were to be identified in the potential project’s area on the basis of the information gathered, in theory, there would be a zero risk level. This should be further explained in the technical report in order to support decision-making processes. However, careful attention should be given to the fact that the lack of information should not be construed as a hazards-free environment.

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

The second basic question that the project developer should ask during the initial studies phase and after the identification of natural hazards is:

i.

Individual hazards impacts on the project.

ii.

Is the project resistant enough to withstand the impact of all hazards?

iii.

What type of hazard and to which level of intensity should the project resist with no damages? Which internal and external protection measures should be implemented? Examine the technical and economic viability of such measures.

iv.

What type of hazard and to which level of intensity should the project resist with technically and economically repairable damages? Which internal and external protection measures should be implemented? Examine the technical and economic viability of such measures.

v.

What type of hazard and to which level of intensity should the project resist without total failure, despite technically or economically repairable damages? Which internal and external protection measures should be implemented? Review the technical and economic viability of such measures.

vi.

Cost-benefit analysis of mitigation measures from the economic perspective and regarding quality of life.

If there is adequate hazard information available, the project planner can establish a preliminary assessment of the project’s vulnerability to those hazards. If information leaves to be desired, the project developer or planner should commission hazards identification and quantification surveys in order to carry out a preliminary vulnerabilities assessment.

Usually, available information on hazards associated to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions provide a good basis for such preliminary assessments.

For floods and landslides, it is often necessary to undertake detailed hazards assessments.

3

A preliminary answer could be provided by assessing natural hazards’ impact on the project and the resources it has or should have to reduce such impact. The following aspects could then be analysed:

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

Which are the project weaknesses or vulnerabilities to identified hazards?

17

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

Once the technical and economic viability of the project has been established under the prefeasibility study, the cost of hazard mitigation measures must be determined. The final economic assessment must include risk factors and the final technical design should incorporate optimum structural and non structural hazard mitigation measures. The result of the pre-feasibility or feasibility phases could determine that the construction project is not viable either due to technical or economic reasons linked to the results of hazards and vulnerabilities assessments. Thus, the assessment of natural hazards could play a decisive role in a construction project.

18

3.2.2. Hazards and Vulnerabilities Assessment during the Final Studies or Design Phase Once the project has been assessed during the pre-feasibility and feasibility phases and after a decision has been made to carry it forward since benefits exceed costs (including mitigation costs), final studies have to be developed. These surveys must encompass a number of specialized areas and all of them should contemplate structural mitigation measures. If required, non structural measures should be included as a subproject. The content of final designs is summarized as follows: −

Engineering design studies: These should include designs for all project components and reach a level of detail that enables fluid construction work.

Topographic, geometric, structural, wiring and sanitary installations working drawings should be included, as well as detailed plans for vital components or components demanding precise implementation, that clarify general working drawings. Additional designs and working drawings for risk reduction structural measures should be included for all natural hazards identified and assessed within the project implementation and catchment area.

Studies must be thorough and complete in order to reduce risks. Upon reception of final studies, the project manager and the project’s owner must ask themselves: Are surveys and studies complete and thorough?

When studies or detailed drawings are not complete, the constructor and the auditor might be forced to adopt technical decisions that should have been taken by the designer during the design phase. Problems arise when work is underway and the constructor makes technical decisions that are not based on prior adequate studies or surveys, either due to lack of time or knowledge and/or to reduce or increase costs by taking advantage of loopholes regarding different aspects of the project. Sometimes this happens with the direct or tacit approval of auditors. These problems tend to increase the project’s vulnerability.

Technical reports on calculus, design and supplementary studies: All the information generated during the final survey which enabled the final design and engineering drawings should be included. Calculus reports are essential to know the working basis and hypothesis for engineering calculus and designs that were adopted by the professional entrusted with final design. They also facilitate the surveys audit. These reports should include all findings of assessments on natural hazards identified in the project area as well as on their potential (or past) impact and the mitigation measures adopted to reduce them. The project manager or the project’s owner should be provided with all supplementary studies carried out prior to the design phase, such as geological and soil analysis, hazard and vulnerabilities assessment, etc. On a separate document, the project designer should be asked to submit detailed information on the structural and non structural measures to be adopted in order to mitigate natural hazards and their potential impact.

−

−

Amount of work and Project Budget: Final designs include construction costs required for the implementation of work, with unit prices for each type of work. This information, together with quantification of the amount of work, enable the preparation of a final reference budget, which should clearly reflect the project’s total reference budget, including structural and non structural measures as per the design report. This aspect has often been a source of vulnerabilities in construction projects. When designs are implemented inadequately, or with significant deficiencies, they can have an impact on the project’s safety and its real costs can exceed the budget. In the absence of financing or legal tools (limited supplementary contracts) to ensure the project’s completion and avoid political and legal problems, this can lead to a standstill in construction work or to technical voids in construction (despite the acknowledgement that it is unethical and irresponsible).

Technical specifications: It has already been mentioned that lack of clarity or lack of information about construction details can generate vulnerabilities. Decisions adopted during the construction phase which are not based on adequate technical criteria nor supported by proper studies will increase the intrinsic vulnerability of the project. Therefore, sufficient and adequate descriptions of technical specifications for different construction works play a vital role.

3

−

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

19

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

20

Construction Methodology and Timeframe: Working hypothesis and assumptions used in the design process must be directly correlated to the designer’s proposal for implementation. Therefore, the designer must provide a detailed description of the construction methodology to be applied at different stages in order to ensure a successful implementation and reduce vulnerabilities both during the construction phase and once it has concluded. Similarly, time management during the construction phase must be clearly described in a timeframe which should also include activities related to non structural mitigation measures to be implemented in the construction stage.

3.2.3. Importance of Survey Audits and Institutional Operational Procedures Manuals

Public and private agents in Ecuador often use their own technical staff to audit work carried out during the studies phase. They must examine the work, verify if surveys and studies are complete and have been adequately implemented and request clarification if need be. They are also entrusted as authorized signature for the reception of consultants’ reports and studies to be submitted.

Institutional technical staff is usually responsible for initial activities (project’s idea and profile) and could occasionally be entrusted with pre-feasibility and feasibility work though they do not usually assume the final design work, particularly when the project exceeds certain dimensions, importance or magnitude. Institutional technical staff often prepare the terms of reference that will serve as a basis for contractual documents for the commission of project studies.

Therefore, capacity-building of institutional technical staff is crucial to the reduction of the vulnerabilities of infrastructure projects since they will play an essential role in the survey and studies processes and will act as focal points while monitoring the adequate incorporation of risk-reduction criteria during the survey and studies phase of an infrastructure project.

The development of an internal procedures manual or institutional guidelines offer an adequate way to effectively control the implementation of these criteria and will serve as reference to verify the implementation of such criteria during the design phases. A checklist could be included in the manual. A model checklist with the main activities to be carried out during the final survey and studies phase is included below:

Activities Checklist to be carried out during the Final Surveys and Studies Phase:

i.

Are the final surveys and studies submitted detailed enough and complete?

ii.

Have all natural hazards in the project area been identified?

iii. Has the project’s vulnerability to the type and levels of natural hazards it would be exposed to been asessed? iv.

Are the project’s risk levels acceptable?

v.

Are structural and non-structural mitigation measures clearly described for the project?

vi. Do project design plans include the necessary hazard mitigation measures?

viii. Do technical specifications, as submitted, include those required for the implementation of structural hazard mitigation measures?

3

vii. Are the proposed non-structural hazard mitigation measures acceptable for the institution or agency? Do they fall within its scope of work or competence? Is their implementation socially feasible?

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ix. Does construction methodology incorporate risk mitigation measures during and after the construction phase?

21

x.

Are costs of mitigation measures included in the budget?

The procedures manual needs to be discussed at institutional level in order to reflect general internal rules and procedures. Compliance must be mandatory and measures to verify strict observance should be contemplated. The manual should be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect lessons learned.

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

3.3. Risk Management during Project Cycle 2: Contracts, Technical, Legal and Financial Aspects

22

Several changes and improvements have been introduced in the public contracting legal framework in Ecuador in order to modernize and speed-up contracting processes while increasing their transparency. The new Organic Law of the National Public Contracts System, passed by the National Assembly has been in force since it was published on August 4, 2008. The publication of the corresponding General By-Laws through Presidential Decree N° 1248 on August 8, 2008 and the subsequent reforms enacted through Presidential Decree N° 1331, have completed the new legal framework which governs all contracts of infrastructure projects.

In addition to this legal framework, public institutions in Ecuador often use as contractual tools either the technical standards and specifications of other institutions or the international standards and construction codes that would be applicable to the type of project to be implemented. The MOP-001-F-2002 General Specifications for Roads and Bridges are widely used. This is a compilation of the specifications used by the Ministry of Public Works (MOP) during the 1993-2002 period, together with a study carried out by Corpecuador in 2002 (MOP, 2002).

This publication contains general and detailed specifications for infrastructure projects to be constructed with different types of materials and calls for supplementary information to be obtained from international standards set by i.a. the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the American Welding Society (AWS), among others, that describe specifications and good practices in construction. These documents are usually used as contractual rules to ensure the use of good quality material and adequate project implementation.

Finally, the creation of the National Decentralised Risk Management System should be mentioned within this general legal framework. The System’s mandate is to ensure that “public and private institutions incorporate risk management as a mandatory and cross-cutting issue in their overall planning and management”.

These provisions are included under Art. 389 of Ecuador’s new Constitution, which was enacted on October 2008. Appropriate legislation is now under development in order to facilitate its future application to all contracting processes related to surveys, studies and implementation of infrastructure construction projects.

3.3.1. Risk-related Legal Issues: Terms of Reference and Contracts for Consultants, Constructors and Auditors Though the Ecuadorian Constitution requires all agents to incorporate risk management in their ordinary construction plans and management, the legal framework has yet to be completed to enable compliance with this mandate. Nevertheless, the current public contracts legal framework offers already several tools that can help incorporate risk awareness criteria in infrastructure project management.

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

The new Organic Law on National Public Contracts states, under Art. 23 that, prior to any contractual procedure, the contracting party must have final, updated and complete surveys and studies, working drawings and engineering calculus reports and technical specifications dully approved by relevant authorities. The same Article provides that the highest authority of the contracting agency, together with the engineers who carried out the surveys and studies, when they were commissioned and approved, will be jointly responsible with external contractors or consultants for the validity of results, and for potential damages that could emerge due to the implementation of those results. Institutional staff members involved in the design phase are also usually the main contributors at the initial phase (idea & profile) as well as the auditors of consultants and designers. They all share responsibility for the project with the lead authority (project owner) and, therefore, should strive to have technically sound and effective surveys and studies.

First and foremost, the law seeks to enforce compliance with one of the main mitigation strategies, i.e. the obligation to have a comprehensive set of surveys and studies prior to any contractual procedure. It also establishes the principle of shared responsibility. If a project is vulnerable, due to inadequate hazards and risks assessments, and it fails causing a disaster that could have been prevented, civil and criminal actions can be undertaken to determine liabilities among consultants and contractors alike.

Designs must be complete. Final surveys and studies must incorporate several aspects –listed in the previous section, including the requirement of hazards and vulnerabilities assessments, risk assessments and mitigation measures. All these requirements must be included in the contractual terms of reference for final surveys and studies. Both contractors and contracting parties should be increasingly aware that the adoption of adequate measures will measures to reduminimize

3

• Design Consultants and Auditors.-

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

The principles of “Prevention is better than cure” or “prevention costs are considerably lower than reconstruction costs” are valid when all necessary measures are adopted at the survey and studies phase to minimize the project’s vulnerabilities. The promoter can stipulate the mandatory nature of these measures through the relevant contracts and terms of reference established for the project design consultants, constructors and auditors.

23

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

a project´s vulnerability to natural hazards impact and thus minimize potential damages that could give rise to legal claims from either party.

24

However, contracting parties –who are often studies auditors, have a limited margin for action when they have to examine the merits of studies submitted by the contractor. Even if they have sufficient technical capacity, they would have to perform the numeric verification of certain results in order to verify their accuracy. This defeats the purpose of the consultancy contract itself. Therefore, it is extremely important that calculus and design reports, as well as technical specifications and construction methodologies should be as clear, complete and detailed as possible. If public officials entrusted with these responsibilities lack technical capacity, or if their training in other disciplines does not enable them to make adequate technical decisions, incomplete or inadequate designs could be accepted. Therefore capacity-building on these issues emerges as a must in order to ensure adequate control and supervision in this type of investment projects.

The contractors responsibility in the early detection of hazards or vulnerabilities not considered in the design should also be specifically stated in the contract.

By the same token, Art. 100 of the ¨Public Contracts ByLaw establishes that consultants are legally and financially liable for the scientific and technical accuracy of contracted services and their applicability within the boundaries of the contractual terms and the available basic knowledge as well as the scientific and technical information available when those services were rendered. This liability prescribes after 5 years from the date of submission of the final design package. The same article states that if economic or technical prejudice (determined by a judicial or arbitral court) is caused during the implementation of contracts due to surveys or studies prepared by the consultants, the highest ranking authority of the contracting party shall decide the suspension of the service provider from the Single Registry of Services Providers (RUP) for a period of five (5) years, notwithstanding other applicable sanctions. These tools help clarify the contracting party’s liability in the preparation of final studies and surveys.

Art. 100 of these By-Laws also stipulates that if a project is implemented and its price varies significantly from the initial amounts due to causes that can be directly imputable to the surveys and studies and once such prejudice has been determined by a judicial or arbitral court, the consultants who prepared the final and updated studies shall be barred from the Single Registry of Services Providers for a period of five (5) years, besides other sanctions linked to their civil liability. All these measures seek to encourage the submission of complete and accurate final studies that would contribute to prevent engineering mal praxis and potential acts of corruption.

In audit contracts, either the TOR or the contract itself should specifically state the constructor’s responsibility during the construction phase regarding the early detection of hazards or vulnerabilities not contemplated in the design. This should include the constructors’ obligation to coordinate actions and find solutions –together with the contracting party, to fill any gaps in the studies or surveys, or to clarify aspects that could prevent the incorporation of construction vulnerabilities, as well as hazards and vulnerabilities linked to assessments carried out during the construction phase. The audit contract should also give the auditor authority to stop partially or totally any

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

construction work until such aspects are clarified and solved in order to reduce risks and ensure the operational success of the project.

Construction contracts terms of reference usually require the contractor to describe the construction methodology to be applied and to include a time schedule. Under this requirement, the constructor could be asked to include in the methodology a description of the continuous monitoring process to be implemented and which would enable the early detection of hazards or vulnerabilities not previously identified in the design or pre-building phases. It could also facilitate the adoption of structural and non-structural measures that could be analysed, commonly agreed and adopted in coordination with the contracting party and the auditor. The constructor’s proposed methodology could also provide a basis to determine his or her experience, technical capacity and proactive attitude regarding risk management in infrastructure projects.

In contracts where the contractor implements the project and provides maintenance during the operational phase for a specific period of time – such as the roads and highways contracts entered into by the Ministry of Transport and Public Works of Ecuador, TORs should include hazards and vulnerabilities management requirements during the operational phase.

3

Natural disasters risk reduction strategies in building contracts will differ according to the type of contract. Most contracts in Ecuador are entered into on the basis of unit prices, i.e. they are based on a reference budget, work items, work amounts and prices per work item. In this kind of contract, designs would have already been prepared and, thus, a reference budget would have been established. If final project studies have already been prepared and if they are comprehensive enough, as well as technically and ethically sound and if the risk management criteria described there have been incorporated, the project will be well advanced in natural hazards risk mitigation before any construction work even starts. Adequate supervision will then be required during the implementation phase to ensure that all designs, working drawings, details, specifications and adequate building practices are observed and duly implemented in order to achieve effective risk mitigation. Compliance with all these aspects should be stipulated in the TOR or in the construction contract terms, and contractual documents should provide for the need of the constructor to actively participate in the detection of hazards and vulnerabilities not foreseen during the survey and studies phase. These should be taken into account, together with the contracting party and the auditor, in order to mitigate previously undetected risks.

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

• Construction Contracts

25

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

The contractor should clearly understand from the TORs that his or her diligence and responsible attitude to reduce vulnerabilities during the construction phase will ultimately reduce the maintenance costs of the project.

26

The contractor should clearly understand from the TORs that his or her diligent and responsible attitude during the construction phase will ultimately reduce the project’s maintenance costs.

When other types of contracts are used, such as BOT (Build, Operate, Transfer), the contractor could retain custody over the built structure for several years or decades. Therefore, hazards detection and vulnerabilities reduction are extremely important for both parties. BOT contracts are based on the premise that contractor and contracting party assume an accepted risk level.

This implied a change from the previous model under which the contracting party would pay less for a contract and faced the risk of assuming increased costs if unusual risk events occurred. Under the BOT model, the contracting party pays higher upfront prices but the contractor assumes all risks that are difficult to estimate, particularly if no proper hazards and vulnerabilities assessments have been undertaken. This basic principle might not be applicable when, despite the existence of a BOT contract, provisions have been included to stipulate that the contracting party will assume all risks, as unfortunately it has been the case in certain roads and highways concessions in Ecuador.

Other contract model recently used in Ecuador is the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Contract), or turn-key contract. In this case, the contracting party is willing to pay more for a project – sometimes significantly higher prices, to obtain greater assurance that a specific final contract amount would not be exceeded and that deadlines will be respected. Under this scheme, the contractor is required to assume greater responsibility and higher risks than in traditional contracts in exchange for higher prices. The contracting party obtains a fixed price despite potential risks which will be assumed by the contractor. In order to estimate the final price with greater certainty, the contractor is often required to cover risks such as the identification of unexpected soil conditions and to ensure the achievement of targets as per the requirements of the contracting party. The contracting party understand that in order to assume such risks, the contractor must estimate related costs which will in turn increase construction cost. From the outset, contracting parties usually have only pre-feasibility and feasibility studies. The contractor is required to verify all relevant data and information to carry out the necessary research and to prepare the final engineering designs where technical solutions could be proposed for the project, based on the contactors experience and capacity. During the construction phase, the contracting party would have limited control over the project but must be able to control the quality of work and their specifications in order to ensure that project objectives are achieved.

Under EPC contracts, the contracting party must make sure that engineering designs prepared by the contractor take into account risk management and mitigation strategies –such as the ones described in this document. Otherwise, the contractor could try to do away with certain measures aimed at reducing vulnerabilities in order to reduce internal costs, to the detriment of the project.

Furthermore, during the construction phase, the contracting party should oversee the quality of implementation and ensure the implementation of measures to reduce vulnerabilities.

This type of contracts require, therefore, extremely good technical capacity and improved staff

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

It should be noted that the National Institute for Public Contracts was created under the new Public Contracts By-Law. Among other responsibilities, it has to issue model formats of pre-contractual and contractual documents of compulsory use and application for different types of contracts and contracting procedures.

In this function, the Institute shall receive advice from the Attorney General and the General Comptroller Offices. These models should include clauses for the implementation of risk reduction criteria as described there.

3.3.2. Risk-related Financial Issues: Budget and Contingencies

A good decision-making practice in infrastructure projects assessment is to simultaneously consider three crucial components: technical, political and economic. Significant importance has been given to political aspects and, particularly, economic issues. The incorporation of risk reduction criteria in the design, construction and operation of new infrastructure projects could require greater investment in human and financial resources with the ensuing increased project costs and a certain reluctance to effectively implement these measures.

If frequent disasters associated to natural events and the losses endured by the country’s economy, infrastructure and society are not enough to bring home the message that prevention is far less costly than reconstruction, a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the project should be established including and excluding mitigation measures in order to appreciate the real impact of vulnerabilities reduction.

Nevertheless, it is not easy to estimate the economic impact of potential disasters since damages can be quite diverse: direct damages, i.e. physical damages suffered by infrastructure, facilities, services, productive capital, the environment, disaster response, repairs and reconstruction; indirect damages, defined as secondary disruptions to the supply of goods and services, such as losses due to scarce or ineffective production and general disruption of the productive economy due to a general decreased capacity to generate income, guarantee future indebtness, decreased value gains, social impacts, etc.

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

Problems associated to institutional weaknesses in EPC contracts, among others, were evident in the contracting and implementation procedures applied in the San Francisco hydroelectric project in Ecuador. This project suffers from significant vulnerabilities linked to even normal operations. All such difficulties must be examined and solved in order to avoid problems in future EPC contracts for hydro-

electric projects.

3

training at the level of the contracting institution to establish an adequate system of checks and balances with the contractor in order to achieve the highest quality and safety standards in the construction project.

27

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

28

Despite the difficulty in estimating the abovementioned costs, it is even more complicated to try to estimate the costs associated to human loses and environmental impacts, health expenses, short and medium term assistance to victims and refugees, economic costs linked to migration flux, increased insecurity and other social impacts. The final aggregate amount could be overwhelming.

Thus, the reasonable and viable alternative is that the implementation of disaster risk reduction criteria offer a low cost solution compared to the costs of inaction. Costs associated to risk management measures should be incorporated in the project´s reference budget. Additionally, a contingency budget should also be prepared to address latent hazards or vulnerabilities that might have not been detected in the design phase.

This budget will be used to minimize the

effects of these undetected threats and vulnerabilities.

Institutions entrusted with project assessment responsibilities should be aware that the implementation of risk management criteria demand increased resources which are, nevertheless, totally justified.

Risk management criteria must be shared and disseminated among all public sector lead authorities, officials, organizations and institutions that are involved in any of phases linked to infrastructure projects management: technical, legal, administrative, financial, audit, and supervision departments. This information should also be shared with financing institutions, such as multilateral cooperation and financing agencies; state, private, national and international banks, special funds, trust funds, etc.

3.3.3. Institutional Procedures Manual for Contracts It has already been mentioned that an internal procedures manual, or internal institutional rules, are effective means to control the implementation of risk management criteria. These documents could provide guidance to verify the implementation of such criteria during the terms of reference development and contracting phases. A checklist of the most important activities to be carried out in each phase could be included in the manual. An example of this checklist is provided herewith:

Drafting and Contracting Phase

i.

Are the Finance and Legal Departments of the institution aware of natural disasters risk management criteria?

ii. Does the final survey and studies contract describe the need to carry out comprehensive and detail studies that include hazards and vulnerabilities assessment inherent to the project? iii. Does the survey and studies contract stipulate the consultant’s obligation to submit a risk mitigation plan for natural hazards which describes structural and non structural measures as well as related costs?

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

iv. Are mitigation plans costs incorporated in the projects reference budget?

Are the project’s technical specifications drafted clearly and detailed enough as to ensure high quality implementation and prevent the construction of inherent vulnerabilities?

vi. Do design, construction and audit contracts include the obligation to comply with the technical specifications of the project and to use technical documents relevant to project’s scope, which are widely used and recommended, such as specifications MOP-2002 and other national and international construction standards? vii. Do terms of reference include a comprehensive description of the project and the respective parties obligations with no room for potential doubts that could generate vulnerabilities?

ix. Does the contracting institution have a reserve fund or a contingency budget to address previously undetected hazards and vulnerabilities which should be mitigated?

3

viii. Do contracts established for the final design contractor, the constructor and the auditor establish their respective obligation to assess hazards and vulnerabilities which might have been overlooked in previous phases, or which are detected during the construction phase?

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

v.

x. If a type of contract different to the model based on unit prices and work amounts is chosen, is the contracting institution technically prepared to manage this kind of contracts in order to ensure the incorporation of risk reduction criteria?

29

xi. Under special contract models, is there an effective and real risk transfer from the contracting institution to the contractor?

The internal procedures manual must be examined at institutional level in order to ensure consistency with general internal rules and procedures. Compliance with its provisions must be strict and compulsory and verification procedures must be established to monitor its application.

The manual could be updated from time to time to incorporate new experiences and lessons learned during its implementation.

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

3.4. Risk Management during Project Cycle 3: Implementation

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

During the survey and studies phase, different structural and non-structural measures were examined and adopted to reduce the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure project to natural hazards detected in that phase. However, risks and vulnerabilities mitigation measures designed and budgeted will remain ineffective if they are not implemented during the construction phase. This section will examine the constructor´s input to increase or reduce vulnerabilities in a project and the importance of audits in this type of endeavour.

30

3.4.1. Early Identification of Hazards and Vulnerabilities During the Construction Phase The contractor´s obligations are defined through clear and specific clauses included in contracts. His responsibilities are related to the final designs as submitted and which should include risk mitigation measures. However, new threats could be detected in this phase or there might be indications that previously identified hazards have been underestimated.

Typical examples are foundation excavations or earth movements in road construction that reveal soil and subsoil conditions that are significantly less favourable than the ones described in surveys and studies and which could increase potential risks of landslides or foundation failures. Other typical examples include underestimated water increase levels related to flood hazards. Bridge stirrups could be destroyed or destabilised, or the road table could remain under water causing ensuing damage to the structure.

A responsible constructor must be able to identify with technical arguments if certain design details have partially or totally underestimated aspects of the project that could increase risks which should be avoided.

Good construction practices indicate that a project must be implemented in such a way that inherent construction risks are minimized. Implementation supervisors must ensure that correct and adequate methodologies are applied in each case and for each type of construction work in order to avoid problems and delays, reduce costs and prevent risks. Furthermore, a responsible constructor must be able to identify with technical arguments if certain design details have partially or totally underestimated aspects of the project that could increase risks which should be avoided.

These arguments could be based on either new or different information gathered in the project area which might differ from design data. The contractor must notify such findings as soon as possible to the project auditor and to the contracting party in order to adopt the necessary measures to solve such problems.

An example of construction mal praxis in this phase would be to implement the project as fast as possible, leaving no time for the assessment of any anomalies detected, in order to finish the project soon and at minimum cost. Some important infrastructure projects in Ecuador are cases in point: after suffering damages under normal operation, design and/or implementation problems that were overlooked or not duly addressed were identified. These problems dramatically increased the projects vulnerability (e.g. San Francisco Hydro-electric Project). The refore, it is extremely important that under EPC, turn-key or other similar project contracts, a written clause should stipulate the constructor’s obligation to identify, notify

The early identification of hazards or vulnerabilities that might have remained undetected during the design phase is crucial for the overall integrated risk management process.

A proactive approach in this sense can determine the project´s success and its survival under the impact of a natural event.

Hazards and vulnerabilities can always be detected since designs are based on the quantity and quality of available information at different stages of the project and the designers’ capacity to address them and establish mitigation plans.

With technically sound arguments, constructors can also request supplementary studies to the projects auditors and contracting party and, if necessary, demand the partial or total suspension of the project in order to guarantee its adequate implementation.

3.4.2. Standards Compliance, Quality of Materials and Verification of Specifications

Vulnerabilities often derive from non-compliance with technical specifications that require a certain level of quality materials and implementation work, as well as the application of construction standards which should be annexed to the contract. Increased vulnerabilities exacerbate the risk exposure of projects even if potential hazards remain steady.

This assertion has repeatedly proven accurate in the implementation of public and private infrastructure projects in Ecuador. It is not rare to see roads where the asphalt cover has been completely destroyed a few weeks or months after construction has been completed, landslides or earth-falls of improperly stabilized areas that destroy roads and bridges, tunnels that present structural failures after a few months of operation, schools and hospitals destroyed by the slightest winds or floods, public services buildings or bus terminals that were never operational due to structural problems detected right before conclusion of the construction work, etc. Nonetheless, they all had model contracts that stipulate the contractor’s obligation to guarantee the use of quality materials and adequate implementation. They even call for financial guarantees ensuring the correct use of materials and quality implementation which can be executed by the contracting party in case of non compliance.

Unfortunately, liabilities have never been established in some of these cases and legal mechanisms have not been applied, with ensuing losses of private and public resources. The principle of disaster-related expenses attributable to whoever generates the risk is not applied.

3

and solve, together with the project’s owner, any detected anomalies that might increase the project´s vulnerability.

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

31

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

32

In certain cases, the high risks generated by the infrastructure project have turned into disasters even without a specific triggering natural event.

If this kind of projects become operational and a natural hazard materializes, the ensuing disaster could have significant magnitude. When disasters occur, there is a normal tendency to blame nature and call it a “natural disaster”. Hazards and not disasters are natural. Vulnerabilities are social constructions and, therefore, risks are a shared responsibility of all actors involved. The same applies to disasters.

During the contracting phase, the contracting party can clearly specify the contractors’ responsibilities regarding the adequate implementation of a project. By law, contractors are required to submit financial guarantees to ensure strict compliance with the contract,

as well as technical guarantees for certain assets considered as part of the project, such as equipment, machines, etc. and an additional guarantee for the advance payment made to a contractor. The contract compliance guarantee ensures adequate implementation of the work and the use of good quality materials. It is not reimbursed until after the provisional and final reception of the finished project. In Ecuador, six months can go by between the provisional and final reception of the work and the contractor shall remain responsible for it during this period.

The contractor´s obligation is to carry out his work adequately and the contracting party’s responsibility is to ensure that everything runs as per the contract and to sanction any contractor who might not comply with his obligations. This aspect is addressed in the following section.

3.4.3. Importance of Audits and Role of the Contracting Party in Risk- Management and Decision-Making The contracting party makes sure that the constructor adequately implements the project through internal and external audits or supervision. The auditor must oversee the project’s implementation from beginning to end in order to safeguard the interests of the contracting party and the project. And auditor is the project’s administrator who assesses the adequate or inadequate quality of materials, procedures and construction workers; he or she authorizes i.a. invoice payments, accruals or additional work. It is one of the most important functions during the project’s implementation.

Sometimes technical experts of the contracting institution act as auditors.

However, public and private institutions usually have few technical experts and often times they lack adequate training, particularly if they have to act as counterparts of international contractors’ staff. This explains why certain institutions prefer to hire external auditors. In such cases, consultants must be either a professional expert, or a group of professionals, with specific expertise related to the project. Above all, they must be impartial and honest and they must clearly understand that they must represent and safeguard the interests of the contracting party, the project and society as a whole.

Construction auditors play an essential role in projects’ risk management in two main areas: 1) ensure adequate quality implementation and thereby eliminating the risk of potential vulnerabilities to be constructed; and 2)

problems that might have emerged during the project’s implementation.

It has already been mentioned that constructors are required to actively participate in the early detection of hazards and vulnerabilities which might have not been included in project designs.

However, depending on the type of contract, they might not put particular effort in this since time and money would be required to adopt the necessary measures to mitigate previously undetected risks.

This is when a proactive approach is required from auditors. They have the power to partially or totally suspend the project’s implementation due to problems detected during the construction phase and which can be attributed to design deficiencies or to the lack of risk mitigation measures that should have been adopted after the detection of hazards in the construction phase. Auditors, after consultation with the contracting party, can also authorise additional studies required to solve

When problems detected during the construction phase must be solved, auditors must technically prove to the contracting party that measures must be adopted to mitigate these risks. The contracting party must also be willing to acknowledge the importance of these mitigation measures even if time and money have to be invested in this effort. The contracting party must be aware that in the eyes of the public it is responsible for any project damages that might occur due to a disaster, even if all parties involved in the studies, contracting, construction and auditing phases could share a legal liability.

Contracting parties must, therefore, always adopt a proactive and technical approach when adopting decisions that have an impact on infrastructure projects security.

3.4.4. Control Agencies Audits and Risk Management In public construction projects, State control agencies can contribute to the incorporation of risk management in all the phases and throughout the life cycle of the project, particularly during the construction phase.

The Office of the State Comptroller General is responsible for monitoring the implementation of public construction projects according to the provisions of the relevant contracts. This Office usually carries out special post completion assessments to verify the correct use of public funds. On several occasions, the Comptroller General can undertake, and has undertaken, controls at different stages during the construction of a project and even from its inception to the final delivery. These can be used as opportunities to enlarge the scope of the technical and financial audit of the contract to include the verification of the effective implementation of risk management criteria. When audits have taken place throughout the project implementation, particular attention has been given to comprehensive designs, adequate quality of construction materials and methodologies, adequate technical justification for work accruals, additional work, supplementary contracts and other contract management related issues that contribute to mitigate risks by avoiding the incorporation of vulnerabilities during the construction phase.

3

participate in the early detection of vulnerabilities and hazards not identified in the design phase.

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

33

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

The role played by such control agencies should be enlarged and incorporated in the near future in the National Risk Management System since they could be a significant asset in the promotion

of the application of risk management criteria in public infrastructure construction. Until then, their role will remain far too limited for practical purposes.

If the contracting agency is really serious about the application of risk management criteria in infrastructure construction projects and seeks an effective way to verify such implantation, it could develop an internal procedures manual, or institutional rules and regulations, as a tool to guide its monitoring activities. The manual could include an activities checklist. An example of a checklist with the main activities to be verified at this stage is included below.

Activities Checklist for the Implementation Phase

i.

Does the institution have sufficient trained technical staff to adequately audit infrastructure projects incorporating risk management criteria?

ii.

Do hired external auditors have the required technical expertise to implement risk management criteria during the project´s construction phase?

iii.

Besides hired external auditors, does the institution have competent technical staff to supervise audit activities, adopt measures when and if required to mitigate previously undetected risks and to technically support this measures before public control agencies?

iv.

Does the contracting agency have economic and human resources to implement the necessary mitigation measures to reduce vulnerabilities detected during the construction phase?

v.

If special contract formats are used, such as BOT or EPC, is the contracting agency technically prepared to control and demand compliance with risk management criteria from national and international contractors even if this implies difficulties in special contractual relationships?

vi.

In the case of external audits during and after the construction phase, does the contracting agency have internal procedures to process requests from audit and control agencies?

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

3.4.5. Institutional Operational Procedures Manual for the Construction Phase

34

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

3.5. Risk Management during Project Cycle 4: On-site Operation and Maintenance 3.5.1. Plans for Operation, Maintenance and Budgeting The phase that follows the implementation of an infrastructure project is often slightly disregarded. It concerns the Operation and Maintenance of the facility and involves all preventive actions and work that should be understood as the action and work to be performed continuously or periodically in systematic fashion, to protect physical works, machinery, equipment and other assets from the effects of time and wear and tear under normal use and operation. These activities are aimed at maximizing the useful life cycle of the infrastructure while serving the purposes for which it was built.

An example is IDB Operational Policy on “Maintenance and Conservation of Physical Works and Equipment” which contemplates two types of required maintenance of infrastructure projects (IDB, 2009):

1) Routine Maintenance: related to the conservation, cleaning and efficient functioning of the physical work, equipment or machinery, which should be performed at regular predetermined intervals (e.g. painting, filling of potholes, cutting grass adjoining the roads, oil change, etc.). The cost of this type of maintenance is usually not high and is often included in ordinary operational budgets.

2) Periodic Maintenance: entails partial changes or adjustments which must be performed at different intervals in order to remedy potential breakdowns or to prevent additional damage from the effects of use, climate and/or intensity of operation (e.g. replacement of important parts when worn out, adjustment of structures or machinery, resurfacing with asphalt, retrofitting of structures, etc.). This type of maintenance –also called corrective maintenance, must be performed before the structure fails to operate efficiently and is usually more expensive than routine maintenance.

When this kind of maintenance has been established, the necessary resources allocations are usually made under the institutional investment budgets.

3

viii. Are contractors (hired for implementation and audit) committed to the implementation of risk management during the construction phase of the project? Have indicators been established to verify compliance with this commitment?

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

vii. Is feedback provided to the contracting agency and its technical staff regarding information and experiences acquired during the construction phase in the mitigation of risks undetected in previous stages of the project?

35

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Lack of maintenance brings about the early deterioration of infrastructure projects with the ensuing reduced resilience to withstand hazards and an increased exposure to risks. In order to avoid this, the reasonable risk management criterion is to create and promote a maintenance culture through different activities such as: • Include in the annual budget, resources for routine and periodic maintenance.

• Create or improve maintenance teams and provide training for maintenance staff.

• Develop operation and maintenance standards specific to the type of structure that should receive maintenance.

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

Public and private institutions in Ecuador, including those directly involved in public works, often do not include periodic maintenance among their priorities and in their annual budgets. At best, they allocate budgets for routine maintenance. In other cases, certain agencies will create the infrastructure and, once it is built, they will transfer or donate it to smaller institutions that have reduced human, physical and economic resources. Though in theory the latter should perform maintenance work, they don’t have the necessary resources to assume such responsibility. In extreme cases, infrastructure projects have been abandoned after they deteriorated to the point they ceased to be operational due to a persistent lack of maintenance.

• Programme and establish maintenance plans, including the development of procedures manuals.

36

• Programme and plan periodic inspections of infrastructure projects.

The Government of Ecuador has decided to use a new type of construction contract for roads and road infrastructure whereby the paid obligation of the contractor to ensure the operational status of the road for a specific compulsory period of time is included. This promotes the adequate implementation of construction projects since contractors will be interested in minimizing their maintenance costs by ensuring optimum quality in construction. Contractors’ interest in the implementation of a project with high quality and security will increase under BOT schemes and might be reduced under EPC contracts, which must furthermore be adequately regulated.

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Such hazards and vulnerabilities must be detected as early as possible during the operation and maintenance phase. The problem could then be examined to find adequate solutions and implement them before any hazard materializes and causes a disaster. The high cost of direct and indirect mitigation measures is, indeed, a matter of concern due to the cost of implementation and other expenses linked to the disruption of services provided by the infrastructure work.

The early detection of hazards and vulnerabilities during the operational phase, depending on the type of infrastructure, is crucial for the survival of the project itself. In the case of dams associated to hydroelectric power plants, for instance, constant monitoring and measurement of internal stresses, structural movements, bearings, water flows, water infiltration pressures, stability of embankments, amounts of sediments, erosion levels, etc. enable the detection of problems that could endanger the project and facilitate the immediate adoption of corrective measures. In the case of bridges, adequate inspection and maintenance work contribute to increase the useful life cycle of structural elements, bearings, stirrups, and their performance regarding potential river flooding, erosion of stirrups or other resistant structural elements.

The early detection of hazards and vulnerabilities during the operational phase, depending on the type of infrastructure, is crucial for the survival of the project itself.

Despite the implementation of mitigation measures during the operation and maintenance phases, sometimes they will just marginally contribute to reduce hazards and vulnerabilities detected in post construction stages. There might be technical, economic and even political difficulties. These hazards and vulnerabilities might be overlooked and, in an unacceptable position, project promoters might just acknowledge that risks exist. Disasters would then just be a matter of time. Such premises are unsustainable and a responsible society cannot afford to create them.

3

Sometimes, hazards and vulnerabilities remain latent since they were not detected neither in the survey and studies phase, nor during construction.

In other cases, the construction project itself has generated new hazards and vulnerabilities. For example, certain streets and roads required excavation and refill work which was performed below standards and generated unstable slopes which, ultimately created new hazards during the operational phase and made this structures extremely vulnerable. Another common example is found in the construction of infrastructure projects where the free flow of waters has been interrupted or blocked without taking adequate and timely measures to control and redirect water courses. This, in turn, has generated unstable slopes and soil.

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

3.5.2. Early Identification of Hazards and Vulnerabilities During Operational Phases

37

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

3.5.3. Community Participation

38

An interesting resource in the early detection of hazards and vulnerabilities on infrastructure projects during the operation and maintenance phases is promote community participation in these processes. Community members should not only benefit from the project but also participate in its construction and maintenance. Any community will be interested in keeping the road leading to their village unobstructed or uninterrupted by earth slides, landslides or floods. Community members could, therefore, organize their participation in maintenance work, alert competent authorities if problems are detected and implement preventive measures.

In order to optimize this mechanism, community members must receive training on procedures and the importance of maintenance activities, as well as on the detection of potential hazards or problems that might endanger the project and the measures to be adopted when such problems are identified.

Community members should not only benefit from the project, but also participate in its construction and maintenance.

Community participation in infrastructure projects maintenance work requires a formal agreement between the community and the agency that runs the project.

The agreement should include details regarding budget allocations for supervision staff, work teams, materials and equipment, communication channels, time schedules, etc. The budget could be shared or not, depending on the case, though it is usually the public agency that funds the entire budget. The links established between the community and the public agency results in other collateral benefits such as local capacity building, optimized use of local resources, promotion of a sustainable maintenance culture, enhancement of local economies, local training, mainstreaming gender issues in labour initiatives, improved environmental protection, etc.

In Ecuador, there are several examples of maintenance contracts entered into by communities and public agencies. Small community businesses have thus emerged to provide these services. Several Provincial Councils and, particularly, the Ministry of Transport and Public works has established a participatory system for road maintenance under which it has already signed over a hundred contracts with small community businesses or road associations, composed of neighbouring community members, to provide maintenance and preserve roads and highways. Communities select the members of these micro businesses who must make monthly contributions to the community from the income they receive for their work. These community participation programmes contribute to enhance local economies, promote job creation and help communities in solving other problems such as migration to other cities, provinces or countries.

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

3.5.4. Institutional Operational Procedures Manual

Procedures manuals such as this, together with the effective application of their provisions, are extremely useful risk management tools that can contribute to mitigate the impact of disasters before, during and after such events. These manuals can include activities checklists. An example of a checklist with the main activities to be verified at this stage is included below.

Activities Checklist for the Operations and Maintenance Phase

i.

Does the institution have sufficient human and economic resources to perform adequate routine and periodic maintenance work of its infrastructure projects?

ii. Does it have operation and maintenance standards consistent with the type of project? iii. Does it have adequately planned maintenance plans and programmes? iv. Does it have periodic project inspection programmes?

3

An interesting example of internal procedures manual is provided by the regulations developed by the Natural Disasters Committee of the Studies Commission for the Development of the Guayas River Basin (CEDEGÉ). This document, approved in March 2000, stipulates the creation of a Standing Committee with functional structures at executive and local level (for each project under construction or operation). The Standing Committee is responsible for surveys and studies in disasterprone areas, particularly those within the areas of influence of CEDEGE projects. It is also responsible for the implementation of natural disaster and emergency response plans and programmes for its infrastructure projects. It should be noted that CEDEGE has established operation and maintenance manuals for all projects that include clear and precise instructions regarding project operations during dangerous natural events. Different alert levels have been established with a specific description of actions to be taken in order to mitigate risks for the project and the communities within its area of influence (CEDEGÉ, 2000).

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

Hazards and vulnerabilities identification in the maintenance and operational phase of a project can become an institutional policy and can be incorporated in internal procedures manuals or guidelines to enable follow-up and audit functions.

39

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

v.

Do periodic inspection plans include measures to identify previously undetected hazards and vulnerabilities?

3

INCORATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THEIR LIFE CYCLE

vi. Does it have trained staff capable of detecting hazards and vulnerabilities in infrastructure projects?

40

vii. Does the agency have community participation and training programmes for project maintenance activities? viii.Does the agency have contingency plans to mitigate risks linked to hazards detected during the operation and maintenance phase? ix. Does the institution have contingency response plans for intervention before, during and after a hazard has materialized or a disaster has occurred?

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

4.1. Creating and/or Strengthening Technical Units to Develop and Implement the Institutional Operational Procedures Manual It is extremely important that public and private institutions that contemplate the implementation of infrastructure projects with a risk reduction approach should have competent technical staff who can ensure the incorporation of risk management criteria in the integrated management of projects in all their phases. However, it has already been discussed in this document that many project decisions are not taken by technical experts and, therefore, all staff members involved in any aspect of the integrated management of infrastructure projects must have training on disaster hazards, vulnerabilities and risks.

Agencies usually have technical departments entrusted with overall responsibilities regarding project design, construction and audit. Other departments deal with the contractual aspects, required budgets and decide if a project should be implemented or not. Often, adequate coordination between departments is lacking and the coordinated incorporation of risk variables in all procedures becomes an extremely elusive task. In this sense, institutional procedures manuals can be very useful in describing specific activities required for project risk management.

An option is to create or strengthen institutional technical department so that they can ensure that risk management criteria are incorporated at all stages of a project and, furthermore, develop internal procedures manuals to provide guidance to other departments regarding risk management.

In Ecuador, certain agencies have National Development Planning Directorates (created under the National Security Law). An alternative could be the technical reorganization of such units with the responsibility to prepare internal procedures manuals taking into account the risk variable in the integrated management of projects.

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

4

44

41

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Another alternative is to organize institutional capacity building and training processes where all decision-making bodies will be able to participate in the joint development of principles to be included in the internal procedures manual and training could be provided to users.

4

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

It should be recalled that the objective of procedures manuals is to facilitate processes in such a way that the results of their application can be examined, audited and improved.

42

INSTITUTIONAL AND EXTERNAL CAPACITY BUILDING Infrastructure project promoters bear the main responsibility for mainstreaming risk variables in the integrated management of projects. Nevertheless, external agents who collaborate with them in project design, audit and construction (and occasionally also in the operation and maintenance phase) also participate in and share this responsibility. These external agents are consultants and contractors who have a role to play, together with control and audit authorities, the media and the community in general.

Ideally, all external agents and staff members of contracting agencies should be trained in all aspects related to hazards, vulnerabilities and risks related to potential natural disasters. However, the application of all risk management criteria described here requires that at least consultants and contractors are aware of these criteria and their importance as well as of their responsibilities.

Contracting agencies could promote seminars, courses and workshops for internal and external actors in order to carry out their new constitutional function.

Training programmes contents could follow the order of issues addressed in this practical guide and could be documented with real life experiences to raise awareness of participants regarding the importance and need to examine these matters. It could be interesting to establish a certification programme on risk issues for consultants and contractors who would have participated or successfully concluded risk training courses. It could even become a compulsory requirement to participate in new infrastructure projects design and/or implementation.

Finally, the role played by the community in general should not be underestimated, particularly the role played by universities and research centres. They can act as multiplying agents by offering risk management training to the overall population or a part of it. A properly trained society can contribute to significantly reduce the impact of future disasters.

5

5 5

INSTITUTIONAL AND EXTERNAL CAPACITY BUILDING

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

43

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

This section includes a selection of some of the main source situations of infrastructure vulnerabilities. The presence of these and other conditions should be verified in new construction projects and, if detected, should lead to the adoption of adequate measures to eliminate or mitigate them and achieve effective risk reduction. Vulnerabilities vary depending on the type of infrastructure and specific hazard and have thus been classified in this section.

Different aspects have been tabulated to set this assessment as a basis for institutions willing to generate their own checklists with issues and changes relevant to their projects. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all possible vulnerabilities. Simplified graphic representations have been included to illustrate the vulnerability aspect that should be verified.

The main vulnerabilities of new infrastructures derived from hazards presented by floods, earthquakes, landslides and volcanic activity are described for school, health and road facilities, as well as for bridge constructions, sanitation works, sewage, potable water, irrigation structures, minor hydraulic works and general buildings. The following questions could be posed to determine if the assessed structure is exposed to these natural phenomena:

•

Is the physical work/infrastructure located in a canton or province exposed to floods or prone to heavy rains?

•

Is the physical work/infrastructure located in a canton or province exposed to high or very high seismic risk?

•

Are slopes or soil unstable around the physical work/ infrastructure and susceptible to landslides or earth slides?

•

Is the physical work/infrastructure located nearby an active volcano or in an area highly exposed to lava, mud or pyroclastic flows, landslides or heavy ash flows?

6

6 6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

45

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

6.1. SCHOOL FAC ILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (1/3) QUESTION

Is the school base or ground floor elevation below the level of neighbouring streets?

NF

NF

Food level

Is the groundwater table below the foundation level?

Normal level

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

Water

Historic food evidence

Is the school base or ground floor elevation below the expected or historic flooding level?

46

land fill

Old river basin

Is the construction located over a landfill on previously flooded flatlands or on/ nearby earth-filled ravines or old river channels?

Are classrooms on the ground floor located at higher elevations than playgrounds and green areas?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

SCHOOL FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (2/3)

Do playgrounds and green areas have adequate drainage towards the outside of the school compound?

Are floors of sanitary batteries and septic tanks as well as cistern covers located at higher elevations than playgrounds and green areas?

Does the facility have an asbestos cement or fibre cement type of roofing that could easily crack leaving classrooms exposed to rainwater?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

6

ICON

47 Is there a perimeter rain gutter, counterdrain or ditch to enable adequate rainwater drainage?

River

Dam

Soil

Should a levee or embankment be built to protect the construction?

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

SCHOOL FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (3/3)

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

48

QUESTION

Does the facility have a pumping system to be used in case of floods?

Are the facility´s access doors protected with plinths or small walls?

Is there a maintenance plan to keep drains, roofs, access points and cisterns clean and unencumbered?

Are shelves, electric systems, equipment and other furnishings elevated and not at floor level?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

(Based 2007).

on

PAHO,

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

SCHOOLS FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (1/3)

Is the construction located over a landfill or on ground with low mechanical properties?

Soft soil land fill

Intermedium soil Rigid soil

Rocks

Have the facility foundations been designed to withstand seismic forces?

Quake

Columns

Is the construction’s structure symmetrical and regular on plane and elevation?

Plant

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

6

ICON

Symetric A-symetric elevation elevation

49

Quake

Has the structure been designed applying antiseismic criteria and taking into account the importance it has for society?

Have adequate quality materials been used in the structure?

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

SCHOOLS FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (2/3) ICON

QUESTION

Are there any mass concentrations on the structure’s roof, as elevated water tanks?

Column

Wall

Are the construction walls properly fixed to the structure?

Fixation

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Water tank

Wall isolation

If the upper section of walls is not continuous and has high windows, is there any isolation between these walls and the rest of the structure?

50

Slab

Beams

Column

Is the construction’s floor system adequately fixed and attached to the structural columns?

Are the dimensions of the floor system’s projectures or in cantilever so large that they seem unsafe?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

SCHOOLS FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (3/3) ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

non-aligned column

Is the structure built onto another structure and share a wall?

SCHOOL FACILITIES – LANSLIDES HAZARDS (1/2) ICON

QUESTION

Are the construction foundations placed on a slope and thus at different elevations?

Is the slope prone to landslides? Is there an assessment of the slope’s stability?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

6

Are columns in the structure aligned horizontally and vertically?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Aligned column lineBroken column

51

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

Does the slope indications of landslides or movements?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

YES

QUESTION

NO

OBSERVATIONS

present historic active

Do nearby constructions present cracks or damages due to underground movements?

6

Is there the possibility of heavy rains on the slope area?

SCHOOL FACILITIES – LANSLIDES HAZARDS (2/2)

52

ICON

QUESTION

Has any runoff control work, such as intercepting or branching ditches, been performed on the crest of the slope?

Are there any slope contention or stabilization works?

Anchor Wall

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

SCHOOL FACILITIES – VOLCANIC ACTIVITY HAZARDS (1/2)

Is the construction located within the high volcanic activity hazard perimeter according to risk maps of the area?

Is the construction located near areas where pyroclastic material, lava or lahars fall or flow?

Obstruction

Is the construction located nearby rivers or water courses that could carry different types of materials or could be obstructed by the accumulation of eruption materials or the sedimentation of mudflows (lahars)?

If the construction is located beyond the high volcanic activity hazard perimeter, has the roof been built to withstand the weight of accumulated volcanic ashes?

Can doors and windows be completely sealed off to avoid the presence of ashes inside?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

6

ICON

53

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

SCHOOL FACILITIES – VOLCANIC ACTIVITY HAZARDS (2/2)

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

54

QUESTION

Does the construction have adequately sealed water tanks/containers to avoid the presence of ashes inside?

Water deposit

If the construction is on a high volcanic risk area, can it be relocated?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

6.2. HEALTH FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (1/3) QUESTION

Is the health facility base or ground floor elevation below the level of neighbouring streets?

NF

Is the groundwater table below the foundation level?

Food level

Normal level

Water

Historic food evidence

Is the health facility base or ground floor elevation below the expected or historic flooding level?

NO

OBSERVATIONS

6

NF

YES

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

land fill

Old river basin

Is the construction located over a landfill on previously flooded flatlands or on/ nearby earth-filled ravines or old river channels?

Is the ground floor located at higher elevation than playgrounds and green areas?

55

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

HEALTH FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (2/3) ICON

QUESTION

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Do playgrounds and green areas have adequate drainage towards the outside of the health centre compound?

Are floors of sanitary batteries and septic tanks as well as cistern covers located at higher elevations than playgrounds and green areas?

6

Does the facility have an asbestos cement or fibre cement type of roofing that could easily crack leaving the health centre exposed to rainwater?

56

Is there a perimeter rain gutter, counterdrain or ditch to enable adequate rainwater drainage?

River

Should a levee or embankment be built to protect the construction?

Dam

Soil

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

HEALTH FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (3/3)

Does the facility have a pumping system to be used in case of floods?

Are the facility´s access doors protected with plinths or small walls?

Is there a maintenance plan to keep drains, roofs, access points and cisterns clean and unencumbered?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

(Based on PAHO, 2007) HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

6

ICON

57

Are shelves, medical equipment, electric systems, and other furnishings elevated and not at floor level?

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

HEALTH FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (1/3) ICON

QUESTION

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Soft soil land fill

Intermedium soil Rigid soil

Is the construction located over a landfill or on ground with low mechanical properties?

Rocks

Have the facility foundations been designed to withstand seismic forces?

Quake

Columns

Is the construction’s structure symmetrical and regular on plane and elevation?

Plant

Symetric A-symetric elevation elevation

Has the structure been designed applying antiseismic criteria and taking into account the importance it has for society?

58

Quake

Have adequate quality materials been used in the structure?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

HEALTH FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (2/3) ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Are there any mass concentrations on the structure’s roof, such as elevated water tanks?

Column

Wall

Are the construction walls properly fixed to the structure?

Fixation

6

Wall isolation

If the upper section of walls is not continuous and has high windows, is there any isolation between these walls and the rest of the structure?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Water tank

Slab

Beams

Column

Is the construction’s floor system adequately fixed and attached to the structural columns?

Are the dimensions of the floor system’s projectures or in cantilever so large that they seem unsafe?

59

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

HEALTH FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (3/3) ICON

QUESTION

If the health facility structure has a very irregular plane, are construction joints adequately placed?

Shear wall

Column

Column starting in higher floor Non-aligned column

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Construction joint

If the structure has wind shear walls, are they symmetrically placed on the periphery of the structure?

Are all columns in the structure aligned horizontally and vertically?

Does any column originate on a top floor?

60 Short column

Long column

Does the structure have short columns (sorter than the floor to ceiling height)?

Are there any long columns (longer than the floor to ceiling height)?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

CONSTRUCCIONES DEL SECTOR SALUD ANTE AMENAZA POR DESLIZAMIENTOS (1/2)

Are the construction foundations placed on a slope and thus at different elevations?

Is the slope prone to landslides? Is there an assessment of the slope’s stability?

Does the slope indications of landslides or movements?

present historic active

NO

OBSERVATIONS

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

YES

QUESTION

6

ICON

61 Do nearby constructions present cracks or damages due to underground movements?

Is there the possibility of heavy rains on the slope area?

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

HEALTH FACILITIES – LANDSLIDES HAZARDS (2/2) QUESTION

YES NO

OBSERVATIONS

Has any runoff control work, such as intercepting or branching ditches, been performed on the crest of the slope?

Are there any slope contention or stabilization works?

Anchor Wall

HEALTH FACILITIES – VOLCANIC ACTIVITY HAZARDS (1/2) ICON

QUESTION

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

Is the construction located within the high volcanic activity hazard perimeter according to risk maps of the area?

62

Is the construction located near areas where pyroclastic material, lava or lahars fall or flow?

Obstruction

Is the construction located nearby rivers or water courses that could carry different types of materials or which could be obstructed by the accumulation of eruption materials or the sedimentation of mudflows (lahars)?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

ICON

QUESTION

Does the construction have adequately sealed water tanks/containers to avoid the presence of ashes inside?

Water deposit

If the construction is on a high volcanic risk area, can it be relocated?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

6

Can doors and windows be completely sealed off to avoid the presence of ashes inside?

CONSTRUCCIONES DEL SECTOR SALUD ANTE AMENAZA POR VOLCANISMO (2/2)

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

If the construction is located beyond the high volcanic activity hazard perimeter, has the roof been built to withstand the weight of accumulated volcanic ashes?

63

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

6.3. BRIDGES AND ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS – FLOODS HAZARDS (1/3) ICON

Maximum flood level

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Bridge deck

QUESTION Is the road project elevation higher than the maximum expected flood level? Is the bridge table located over the maximum expected flood level of the water mirror?

Is the groundwater table level below the road grade line or is it lower than the bridge foundations level?

Is the road or the bridge altering the natural drainage patterns of the area where it is located?

6

Are the natural landscape and vegetation respected to the maximum extent possible in the project design?

64 Longitudinal drainage

Superficial drainage

Does the road or bridge have adequate surface drainage both lengthwise and across?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

BRIDGES AND ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS – FLOODS HAZARDS (2/3) ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Obstructed drainage

Have the road or bridge generated slopes with more than 60 degrees of inclination?

Do these slopes have adequate stability conditions? Is there a slope stability assessment?

65

Slope cover Anchors Different footing level

6

Is rainwater channelled towards existing water courses located beyond the road or bridge platform?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Is the road or bridge exposed to drainage obstruction?

Have slope stabilization, control, drainage or protection work been designed for those areas where they are necessary?

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

BRIDGES AND ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS – FLOODS HAZARDS (3/3)

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

66

Drainage

QUESTION

YES

NO

Is the structure distant enough from water courses or water flows? Have contact and crossing points with water flows been optimized?

OBSERVATIONS

Have the necessary main and secondary drainage works been adequately designed? Have active spots during rainy seasons been identified?

Have road-banks been designed with adequate support?

Stirrups protection

Are bridge foundations and stirrups protected from water erosion or are foundations exposed to undermining?

BRIDGES AND ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS – SEISMIC HAZARDS (1/2) ICON

QUESTION

Do the slopes created for the physical work present adequate stability conditions even under seismic loads?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

Drainage

Have secondary drainage systems for slopes been adequately designed where required in order to release hydraulic dynamic pressures?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

Slope cover Anchors Different footing level

Have slope stabilization, control, drainage or protection work been designed for those areas where they are necessary?

Are natural landscape and vegetation respected to the maximum extent possible in the project design?

land fill

Old river basin

6

Is the construction located over a landfill or on ground with low mechanical properties?

BRIDGES AND ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS – SEISMIC HAZARDS (2/2) ICON

Rigid soil

QUESTION

Soft soil

Do foundation soil characteristics render it capable of withstanding the bridge’s loads?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

67

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Have the structure’s foundations been designed to endure seismic forces?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Quake

Has the bridge superstructure been designed according to anti-seismic criteria?

Quake

6

Have adequate quality materials been used to build the structure?

68 Bridge deck

Seismic beam

Pila

s

am

be

Does the bridge design contemplate anti-seismic joints on stirrups?

Flexible support

BRIDGES AND ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS – LANDSLIDES HAZARDS (1/2) ICON

QUESTION

Slope cover Anchors Different footing level

Are the bridge´s foundations placed on a slope and thus at different elevations?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

YES

QUESTION

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Does the slope indications of landslides or movements?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Is the slope prone to landslides? Is there an assessment of the slope’s stability?

present historic active

Do nearby constructions present cracks or damages due to underground movements?

6

Is there the possibility of heavy rains on the slope area?

BRIDGES AND ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS – LANDSLIDES HAZARDS (2/2) ICON

QUESTION Has any runoff control work, such as intercepting or branching ditches, been performed on the crest of the slope?

Slope cover Anchors Different footing level

Are there any slope contention or stabilization works?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

69

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

BRIDGES AND ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS – VOLCANIC ACTIVITY HAZARDS (1/1) ICON

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Is the road or bridge located within the high volcanic activity hazard perimeter according to risk maps of the area?

6

Is the construction located near areas where pyroclastic material, lava or lahars fall or flow?

Obstruction

70

QUESTION

Is the construction located nearby rivers or water courses that could carry different types of materials or which could be obstructed by the accumulation of eruption materials or the sedimentation of mudflows (lahars)?

Does the project design include any physical work to protect the construction from volcanic material flows?

If the construction is on a high volcanic risk area, can it be relocated?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

YES

NO

IRRIGATION OBSERVATIONS

Is the groundwater table level located below the projected elevation of physical works?

Could the physical work collapse under water during a flood?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Could water source wells bepotentially polluted?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

AND

6

6.4. SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (1/4)

71

Rigid soil

soft soil

Could catchment works suffer damages due to subsidence during floods?

Could water distribution pipelines and open-sky canals suffer from physical works failures during floods?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (2/4)

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

72

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

If distribution pipelines have been elevated to run over a river or ravine, have support elements been placed far from the edge in order to avoid erosion and undermining by floods or high water levels?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

If pipelines run underground below a ravine or shallow river bed, have they been laid deep enough to avoid impact from waterborne material that might have eroded the river bed?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Are pumps and other electromechanic equipment located at a higher elevation than the maximum expected flood level?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Obstructed drainage

Could drainage mains be obstructed by rubble and other material borne by floods?

Have water collection and drainage systems been designed to carry the amount of water volumes that could be generated during floods?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (3/4) YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Could latrines, septic tanks, percolation ponds, ditches or wells suffer damages during floods?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Are water treatment plants located below maximum expected flood levels?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Does the physical work design enable regular and smooth cleaning activities to eliminate mud, sediments and other material accumulated during floods?

Is the physical work altering the natural drainage patterns of the area where it is located?

Are natural landscape and vegetation respected to the maximum extent possible in the project design?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

6

ICON

73

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (4/4)

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

Do materials used to build the physical work eliminate the possibility of water filtrations that could contaminate, undermine, weaken or alter it or the foundation soil?

OBSERVATIONS

Is the physical work located near rivers or water courses whose flow volume could increase and carry materials that could accumulate in such a way that they could undermine or weaken its foundations?

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (1/4) ICON

QUESTION

Is the groundwater table level located below the projected elevation of physical works?

74 Is the construction located over a landfill or on ground with low mechanical properties?

Do foundation soil characteristics render it capable of withstanding the physical work’s loads?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (2/4) ICON

Rigid soil

QUESTION

soft soil

Could water collection works suffer damages due to subsidence during seismic activity?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

6

Are the physical work’s foundations resistant enough to ensure the verticality of walls?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Have the physical work foundations been designed to withstand seismic forces?

75 Could water distribution pipelines and open-sky canals suffer from physical works failures during seismic activity? Do these pipelines or canals run over active geological faults?

If distribution pipelines have been elevated to run over a river or ravine, have support elements been placed far from the edge in order to avoid their collapse if generated slopes slide during seismic activity?

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

If distribution pipelines have been elevated to run over a river or ravine, are they located over the maximum expected water level during floods?

76

OBSERVATIONS

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

If pipelines run underground below a ravine or shallow river bed, do they cross over an active geological fault?

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (3/4) ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Have water collection and drainage systems been designed to carry additional water volumes that could be generated by water level changes due to seismic activity?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Have water treatment plants, water collection works, reservoirs, etc., been designed to withstand seismic dynamic actions?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Does the physical work design enable periodic and smooth cleaning activities to eliminate mud, sediments and other material accumulated during the earthquake?

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Rigid soil

Drainage

QUESTION

soft soil

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Could well walls, drain ducts and galleries walls crumble down due to low soil quality affected by seismic vibrations?

Have secondary drainage systems for slopes been adequately designed where required in order to release hydraulic dynamic pressures?

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (4/4) QUESTION

YES

NO

Do materials used to build the physical work eliminate the possibility of cracks and water filtrations that could contaminate, undermine, weaken or alter it or the foundation soil?

OBSERVATIONS

6

ICON

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – LANSLIDES HAZARDS (1/2) ICON

QUESTION

Are the physical work´s foundations placed on a slope and thus at different elevations?

Is the slope prone to landslides? Is there an assessment of the slope’s stability?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

77

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

Does the slope indications of landslides or movements?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

YES

QUESTION

NO

OBSERVATIONS

present historic active

Do nearby constructions present cracks or damages due to underground movements?

6

Is there the possibility of heavy rains on the slope areas?

78

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – LANSLIDES HAZARDS (2/2) ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Has any runoff control work, such as intercepting or branching ditches, been performed on the crest of the slope?

If distribution pipelines have been elevated to run over a river or ravine, have support elements been placed far from the edge in order to avoid their destruction due to the instability of generated slopes?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

If distribution pipelines run underground below a ravine or shallow river bed, do they cross over instable slopes that could lead to the failure of pipeline sections?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Do materials used to build the physical work eliminate the possibility of water filtrations that could contaminate, undermine, weaken or alter it, the foundation soil or nearby hillsides?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – VOLCANIC ACTIVITY HAZARDS (1/2) ICON

QUESTION

Is the construction located within the high volcanic activity hazard perimeter according to risk maps of the area?

Is the construction located near areas where pyroclastic material, lava or lahars fall or flow?

YES NO

OBSERVATIONS

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

6

ICON

79

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Obstruction

YES NO

OBSERVATIONS

Is the construction located nearby rivers or water courses that could carry different types of materials or which could be obstructed by the accumulation of eruption materials or the sedimentation of mudflows (lahars)?

Do water collection units have hermetic sanitary lids that prevent the presence of volcanic dust and ashes inside?

Water deposit

Are materials used in the physical work exposed to chemical reactions to water acidity provoked by the presence of volcanic ashes and which could cause pollution and oxidation?

SANITATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPY AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES – VOLCANIC ACTIVITY HAZARDS (2/2) ICON

80

QUESTION

QUESTION

Does the physical work design enable regular and smooth cleaning activities to eliminate mud, accumulated sediments and other material generated by volcanic activity?

Does the project design include any physical work to protect the construction from volcanic material flows?

Do materials used to build the physical work eliminate the possibility of cracks and water filtrations that could contaminate, undermine, weaken or alter it, the foundation soil or nearby hillsides?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

6.5. MINOR HIDRAULIC FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (1/2)

Dynamic Action

Quake

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Are the dam and its crest designed at adequate elevation on the basis of relevant hydrologic studies?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Is the mud evacuation system adequate to enable their correct outflow while preserving the dam’s storage capacity?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Has the dam been adequately designed and built to avoid cracks and filtrations due to the impact of rocks and rubble carried by the river during flash floods? Have additional side channels been built?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Are overflow weirs efficient enough to evacuate excess water volumes during flash floods?

(Based on PAHO, 2007)

Have the dam’s foundations been designed and built to avoid erosion and undermining effects that could compromise its stability?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

6

ICON

81

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

MINOR HYDRAULIC FACILITIES – FLOODS HAZARDS (2/2) QUESTION

YES

NO

Has the construction been designed in such a way that it enables easy access for periodic cleaning and maintenance work?

Dynamic Action

Quake

OBSERVATIONS

Are the construction surfaces exposed to direct water fall and protected to avoid erosion?

Are distribution tunnels designed to cope with significant water volumes with no wall erosion or have they been built with erosionresistant materials?

Tunnel cover

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

Supplementary civil works (e.g. power plants, machine rooms, distribution and drainage pipelines, water collection systems, etc.) could be assessed with the relevant checklists under their general classification.

82

MINOR HYDRAULIC FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (1/2) ICON

QUESTION

Dynamic Action

Quake

Has the design of the physical work and its foundations taken into account anti-seismic criteria, including the dynamic effect of the reservoir?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

Dynamic Action

Quake

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Do the dam counterforts ensure its adequate performance under seismic conditions?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

Have seismic acceleration magnitudes expected in the specific area been considered in the design and construction of the physical work?

Dynamic Action

6

Quake

Even if the site has low or moderate seismic risk exposure, have anti-seismic criteria been taken into account for seismic actions induced by dams and reservoirs?

Could physical works suffer damages due to subsidence during seismic activity?

83

soft soil

Rigid soil

MINOR HYDRAULIC FACILITIES – SEISMIC HAZARDS (2/2) ICON

QUESTION

Does the physical work design enable regular and smooth cleaning activities to eliminate mud, sediments and other material accumulated during the earthquake?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

6

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Tunnel cover

84

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Could well walls, drain ducts and galleries walls crumble down due to low soil or rock quality affected by seismic vibrations?

Have secondary drainage systems for slopes been adequately designed where required in order to release hydraulic dynamic pressures?

Do materials used to build the physical work eliminate the possibility of water filtrations that could contaminate, undermine, weaken or alter it or the foundation soil?

MINOR HYDRAULIC FACILITIES – LANDSLIDES HAZARDS (1/2) ICON

QUESTION

Are all or some of the physical works foundations placed on a slope and thus at different elevations?

Are the basin slopes prone to landslides? Is there an assessment of hillsides and slopes stability?

Does the hill slope present indications of erosion, historic landslides or active movements?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

ICON

QUESTION

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

MINOR HYDRAULIC FACILITIES – LANDSLIDES HAZARDS (2/2) ICON

QUESTION

Has any runoff control work, such as intercepting or branching ditches, been performed on the crest of the slope?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

6

Is there the possibility of heavy rains on the hill slope areas?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Do nearby constructions present cracks or damages due to underground movements?

85

Anchor Wall

Is there a general management plan for hill sides and slopes located nearby the dam that contemplates all hydrometeorological and seismic conditions?

Do materials used to build the physical work eliminate the possibility of water filtrations that could contaminate, undermine, weaken or alter it, the foundation soil or nearby hillsides?

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

MINOR HYDRAULIC FACILITIES – VOLCANIC ACTIVITY HAZARDS (1/2) ICON

QUESTION

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Is the construction located within the high volcanic activity hazard perimeter according to risk maps of the area?

Is the construction located near areas where pyroclastic material, lava or lahars fall or flow?

6

Obstruction

86

Water deposit

Is the construction located nearby rivers or water courses that could carry different types of materials or which could be obstructed by the accumulation of eruption materials or the sedimentation of mudflows (lahars)?

Do water collection units have hermetic sanitary lids that prevent the presence of volcanic dust and ashes inside?

Are materials used in the physical work exposed to chemical reactions to water acidity provoked by the presence of volcanic ashes and which could cause pollution and oxidation?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

INCORPARATING A RISK REDUCTION APPROACH TO INFRAESTRUCTURE PROJECTS

MINOR HYDRAULIC FACILITIES – VOLCANIC ACTIVITY HAZARDS (2/2)

Does the physical work design enable regular and smooth cleaning activities to eliminate mud, accumulated sediments and other material generated by volcanic activity?

YES

NO

OBSERVATIONS

Does the project design include any physical work to protect the construction from volcanic material flows?

Do materials used to build the physical work eliminate the possibility of water filtrations that could contaminate, undermine, weaken or alter it, the foundation soil or nearby hillsides?

If the construction is on a high volcanic risk area, can it be relocated?

HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

QUESTION

6

ICON

87

6.6. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDINGS – FLOODS HAZARDS In general, criteria included in the checklist for schools and health facilities are applicable to this type of constructions.

B C P R