1. 2005 Kashmir Earthquake
Wes Hellman, Victoria Knaupp, Phillip
Ledbetter, Sarah McCracken, Jennifer
Rovezzi

2. the cause of the quake

3. magnitude
• “A magnitude-7.6 earthquake shook the Kashmir
region, which is shared by India and Pakistan, on
Saturday morning, Oct. 8. In the hours and days
that followed, more than a dozen major
aftershocks continued to shake the region,
including a magnitude-6.2 event two hours after
the main temblor.”
http://www.geotimes.org/oct05/WebExtra10100
5.html

4. Warning
• No Warning
• Little to No preparation

5. Degree of Preparation
• Most of the buildings in the affected area are of
nonengineered unreinforced masonry (URM) wall
construction.
• The smaller villages also contain adobe structures that,
as expected, performed poorly in the earthquake.
• Preparedness and strict Seismic Building Codes could
have mitigated the extent of the damage and could
have reduced significantly the death toll - perhaps by
as much as 80%.
• Future Objective: To build institutions, structures,
policies and enhance capacities for disaster risk
management for communities and societies.

6. Death and Damage

7. Local Response
• Due to the vast extent of the earthquake, the Pakistan military
forces were put in charge of coordinating the emergency response
for the government. Since the basic infrastructure was severely
damaged allowing limited access by road, the government used a
fleet of donated helicopters to transport emergency supplies and
evacuate the wounded.
• The impact on the government was staggering. Most government
officials were unavailable, some were dead, some were attending
to their deceased and injured relatives and some were in shock and
confused. Therefore, there was a total dependency on the military
to organise relief efforts and to create a response structure. As a
result, there was no truly functioning civil administration in the
region; and, the Army generals were placed in charge of the
operation.

8. International Response
• No disaster management organisation existed to handle a relief
operation on such a large scale, and the existing infrastructure was
either very poor or totally destroyed.”
• The scale of the disaster, the harsh weather conditions and the
collapse of civil order in the affected areas called for a response
mechanism which could provide quick decision-making, coupled
with the efficient execution of directives on ground.
• 'We were overwhelmed by the generosity of the world community
and voluntary organisations, and the work of volunteers, men and
women, aid workers, international organisations, NGOs and global
civil society deserves the highest praise. Donors in particular need
special mention for their generous support and assistance in
providing relief to the earthquake victims.'”

9. Contributors
• Tunisia, Afghanistan, Cambodia, People's Republic of China, Hong Kong,
India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nepal,
Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey, United Arab
Emirates, Norway, Poland, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland,
United Kingdom, Canada, Cuba, United States, Australia, New Zealand,
United Nations, Children's Fund, United Nations World Food Programme,
United Nations Population Fund and the International Nongovernmental
Organizations Forum, The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs, World Health Organization, European Union, Organisation of the
Islamic Conference, World Bank Group, Humanity First, Direct Relief
International, Oxfam, The International Rescue Corps, Red Crescent, The
Salvation Army, SOS Children's Villages, The Minhaj Welfare, Foundation,
The Edhi Foundation, The World Islamic Mission Welfare Trust, SPO,
DEMIRA Deutsche Minenraeumer e.V., and JEN Japan Emergency NGOs

10. Aftermath
• “After 5 years, earthquake affected population
of Pakistan is still waiting for rehabilitation.
The government, as usual, stopped short of its
commitments, leaving its people without
homes and basic necessities of life.”
• Why? Because the rough terrain is making it
challenging for repairs.

11. Situation Today
“It was an absolutely massive landslide and the landscape has been scarred.
Parts of the district still look like a disaster zone. People are living in refugee camps
around the city. Many houses are still rubble. A number of aid organisations have
pulled back and these people are still living in camps with serious water and
sanitation problems.
The earthquake had a severe psychological impact on the people here. Morbid
depression is common. I met a 60-year-old man in Balakot who had attempted
suicide. He told me his wife, son and grandchildren had died. Only he was left alive
and he had no idea what to do. He felt he had no purpose in life. […]
I was amazed by the generosity of the people of Pakistan. I have seen some
reconstruction and rebuilding by the government and some of the agencies.
People have been given money to make their homes but not everyone got their
share.”
- Dr. Ifran Noor

12. Continued Vulnerability

13. How does the overall degree of development of
a country affect ability to respond to a disaster?