Hi everyone,

Many thanks for your responses to this?.very helpful.  Just to clarify a
few points regarding this.
o	As many of you know, Tonga ranks third on the World Risk Index (WRI), based
on the 2014 UNU-EHS/BEH World Risk Report.  The main natural hazards we face
are Tropical Cyclones (TCS); earthquakes/tsunamis; drought; climate change;
volcanic eruptions
o	With regards geological disasters we are sitting close to the Tonga trench,
and there is ongoing seismic activity occurring along, and in parallel to
this ? witness the new volcanic island ?born? 65 kms to the NW of Nuku?alofa
last month
o	The government here recently worked with SOPAC/SPC in carrying out some
tsunami-based models, based on two earthquake scenarios, the larger being
a magnitude 9 off-shore earthquake.  This work included mapping of both the
island of Tongatapu itself, as well as the capital, Nuku?alofa, being struck
by a series of tsunami waves triggered by such an event.  The potential devastation
to the capital is similar in extent to that which affected Banda Aceh in
Dec 2014.
o	There are two major constraints in such an event -  the first being the
lack of warning (the first waves could strike the east of the island within
10-15 mins), and the fact that there is no obvious high ground for people
to head towards
o	Thanks for the various comments you sent, in particular;
-	The work being done in Tauiyuan (China) on multi-purpose cyclone shelters.
 This question of multi-purpose tsunami shelters has been mooted here already
-	Other comments regarding the Bangladesh (cyclone shelters) and Maldives
(use of ?safer? rather than ?safe??)

In reality, there?s no easy ?silver bullet? here, but your input has been
most helpful.  Other issues we need to address here are;
o	Mapping of existing larger, more robust, buildings, such as certain office
blocks, churches, sports stadiums, which could allow numbers of people to
seek relatively safety 10 metres or so above ground level.  
o	Possible introduction of a few (even 1 or 2 ) new multi-purpose buildings,
built back maybe a km from the sea-shore, which could offer some protection
.  These would serve the same function as the Banda Aceh single-purpose tsunami
shelters   

We are of course also looking at particular vulnerable groups of people..whilst
the main hospital is built some way inland (although relatively close to
the main estuary), there are major schools within 500-600 metres of the main
shoreline.

Has anyone been tracking the development of the purpose-built tsunami shelters
in Banda Aceh (my understanding is that there are at least half a dozen);
or what the Indonesians are doing in Padang, should they be faced by a major
earthquake/tsunami ?

Cheers         

Chris Piper
NEMO Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Adviser
Kingdom of Tonga 
Tel:  + 676 8700180
Email:  [log in to unmask]  

Response 5:

Dear Chris, James and Malui
A planning exercise for 'looking at the particular challenges of a magnitude
9 tsunami striking Nuku'alofa, the capital.' Do you mean with an epicentre
under the capital? if so, can anything be done? 

If the risk you are concerned with is only tsunami, you would also have to
hope that the populated area was on a segment of crust that rose rather than
subsided. The subsidence in north Japan in the 2011 Tohoku was between half
and one and a half  metres. 

A quick look at Google Earth suggests that there is no land more than 12
metres above MSL within 2.5 Km of the centre of the capital. Evacuation to
anything like safe locations at ground level for many tsunamis might therefore
be impossible, even if the people are Olympic runners. So you are referring
to the use of a sufficient number of designed buildings. Which must survive
the 9 EQ... And be within walking distance for the population, elevated enough
to exceed a tsunami produced by the EQ and with sufficient warning time to
get there. 

Shelters like those for cyclones in Bangladesh are designed for storm surges
not tsunami. They are typically three stories. The first floor above level
is typically 3 metres above ground level, so the surge must not exceed that
to be safe. There is usually another storey above that. They can be used
as schools during normal times. Their latrines are often appalling and insufficient
(I have seem one designed for 800 people that had 4 latrines, and nothing
separate for women). In Tonga they would have to store food and water for
a significant time since with a 9 EQ there is not likely to be much left
for people to use, water supplies will be non-existant and access to food
would have to wait for relief.

Fortunately not all EQ produce a tsunami (in Tonga it seems that the 2006
 event did not).

One benefit of multi purpose shelters is that people treat them as normal
buildings in everyday life and are therefore more aware that these are familiar
places that should provide safety in a tsunami (and EQ?!). In Taiyuan (east
China) i have seem municipal-level cyclone shelters that are also designed
as the neighbourhood government offices, providing creche and other facilities.
this would also mean that children would already be in the shelter as normal
during day time (but of course that happy coincidence is less likely for
a tsunami/EQ coming out of school hours...).

My prediction is that if you come up with a plan for structures that could
work, when you go back in 10 years time they will still not have been built...
See if you can find a way to destroy my cynicism... (It took Bangladesh 40
years to construct around 2000 cyclone shelters - many in any case done by
the Red Cross/ Crescent - and around 30% of which are apparently unusable.

cheers
Terry

Response 4:  

Hi Chris,

how about "muster point". This term does represent a meeting point for people
to meet at during an emergency. Good luck with your project!

Best regards,

Gerald Smith

Response 3:  

Hi Chris and James and all of my other ?island vulnerability?-interested
compatriots (are you out there, Ilan?) ? 

As risks are modified but not eliminated (and sometimes exacerbated) at evacuation
sites, I?d hope we could steer clear of using the word ?safe? (as if it?s
an absolute term) on any such signs or designations altogether.  One idea
is just changing from the use of ?safe? to ?safer? (e.g., in the ?safe islands?
[cringe?] concept that became part of the ?Safer Island Development Program?
in the Maldives [including construction of such elevated areas and buildings
for evacuation]). I think James?s suggestions are better than that - but
also wonder if a change in the use of messages in the overall warning and
evacuation system might be better still. 

And I like James?s question about transference. I think this topic is important
for SIDS (e.g., 1998 PNG [Sissano], 2004 Maldives, 2009 Samoa/Tonga events)
but also for all coastal (e.g., Bangladesh as James said) or riverine settlements
(e.g., safe hill construction for evacuation in flat areas of Cambodia prone
to seasonal floods) with no significant higher ground nearby during high
intensity flooding &/or waves. And such discussion might also be extended
for inclusion in broader discussions of ?acceptable risk? & ?how safe is
safe? for the level of event for which preparedness & mitigation should cover.
 

Though I can?t provide input on what to do from a legal standpoint, I?ll
attempt from a logical standpoint. 

The words that you used in your message are those normally on evacuation
?safe? zone signs (?Tsunami safe location. wait for official all clear?).
So it seems that you?re asking how to better communicate on such signs that
a designated site is ?safer? but that people still need to pay attention
to indicators/warnings that they may be unsafe at that site and/or may need
to evacuate again elsewhere.  Different types of signs that can be used for
tsunami evacuation include those for evacuation zones, information boards,
evacuation routes, and ?safe? [?safer?] zones (e.g., those here - http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/publications/Tsunami-workshop/Stuart-Fraser-Tsunami-Evacuation-Mapping-Planning.pdf).
In areas with sites higher than any conceivable flood/wave levels that can
be accessed by all people in designed evacuation plans, these signs can be
as straightforward as those in the website. But when flood/wave height/intensity
might conceivably be such that those designated sites themselves become unsafe
for some or all people to get to or stay at them, it gets a bit more confusing.
Your question seems to pose two problems: (1) some people can?t ?get to them?
because there are limited high areas to which people can evacuate & (2) everyone
may not be safe to ?stay at them? in such a high intensity event.  But since
I think that you said that the main concern was about the language on the
sign once people reached the site where they could see it, I?ll focus on
#2.

Many places have different evacuation procedures depending on the magnitude/intensity
of the forecast event (e.g., a quick search gave me the Plan A and Plan B
in http://www.wiltonmanors.com/DocumentCenter/View/93). Though I didn?t find
any in another quick search, such disaster preparedness evacuation procedures
can also include a built-in contingency ?plan B evacuation plan? of not just
who should go but also where to go, how to go (e.g., by boat if walking may
not be an option, especially on atoll or outlying small islands), & how the
message will be communicated about this where and how if the designated ?plan
A? site is determined to be unsafe for whatever reasons (e.g., the evacuation
sites that were flooded by the 2011 Tohoku tsunami).

In areas in which the designated evacuation site might be ?safer? only up
to a limit of wave/flood height & intensity, an end-to-end EWS (through preparedness,
drills, warning messages, and signs) would need to clearly articulate this
alternative evacuation plan. Then when the warning is issued, it would tell
people according to location-specific EWS protocol whether evacuation was
to follow plan A or plan B. People could then proceed according to signs
(contrasting below in each case what?s on the signs on the aforementioned
website with what might be articulated instead) saying something like: 
1)      Evacuation zone signs: instead of ?TSUNAMI EVACUATION ZONE ORANGE:
In case of strong earthquake shaking, unusual ocean behavior or noise, move
to high ground and/or inland following evacuation routes where present. Wait
for official all-clear.?, it might be ?TSUNAMI EVACUATION ZONE ORANGE: In
case of strong earthquake shaking, unusual ocean behavior or noise, listen
for the warning and move according to the described evacuation plan. If no
warning is accessible, evacuate to designated higher sites according to Plan
A. Wait for official directions of a change of plan or all clear.? 
2)    Information board signs: combine both Plan A and Plan B onto the sign/map
& describe how people should act differently according to these plans 
3)      Evacuation route signs: instead of saying just ?evacuation route?,
it could say ?Evacuation Plan A Route? or ?Evacuation Plan B Route? 
4)      ?Safer? zone signs (the original question): instead of ?Tsunami Safe
Location ? wait for official all clear?, it could say ?Tsunami Evacuation
Plan A Location ? wait for official directions of a change of plan or all
clear? (same for Plan B Location)

Alternatively, if some or all people have already evacuated according to
plan A when the warning changes to convey that expected wave or resulting
flood levels would be too high for use of the plan A site for evacuation,
officials at that site would then direct everyone there to switch to plan
B.

hopefully and gratefully,
bob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bob alexander
Independent Disaster, Climate Change, & Development 
Vulnerability-Reduction & Resilience-Strengthening 
Researcher, Trainer, & Consultant (currently under contract as 
Senior Advisor for the Joint FAO/WFP/UNICEF 
Food & Nutrition Security Resilience Initiative in Ethiopia)

Response 2:

Chris:

How about: "Tsunami Shelter" or "Tsunami Refuge" but presumably a name for
translation to Tongan?
It occurs to me also that there's a wealth on information on dual-purpose
cyclone shelters, serving as schools for example, from Bangladesh with a
similarly flat and vulnerable coastline prone to cyclones and tsunamis. Some
transference would not be impossible?

My regards to Tonga -

Response 1:

James
James Lewis Datum International www.datum-international.eu

Hi Chris, in the setting of Australian bushfire citizens are usually referred
to 'community bushfire refuges or shelters'. Perhaps this terminology would
be equally effective for your purposes?

Cheers 

Joe


On 06/02/2015 03:11, Chris Piper wrote:
 Hi everyone,

 I'm currently on a six month's DFAT contract in the Kingdom of Tonga 
 working as the National Emergency Management Organisation (NEMO) 
 Disaster Risk Management  (DRM) Adviser

 The main hazards we face here are Tropical Cyclones (TCs);earthquakes, 
 with the potential for tsunamis; drought; volcanic eruption; and climate
change.

 We have a special sub-group looking at the particular challenges of a 
 Magnitude  9 tsunami striking Nuku'alofa, the capital.  Because the city
is 
 largely flat, there are only limited high areas (or strong,tall 
 buildings), towards which people could rapidly move should such a calamity
eventuate.

 There is concern (from a legal perspective) about the current wording 
 currently being used, namely 'Tsunami safe location.  wait for official
all clear'.
 The problem is with the word 'safe'.  Could someone suggest some 
 alternative warning, which both sends a sound educational message to 
 readers, but at the same time, doesn't preclude the fact that not everyone
will be safe.

 Please either reply on this network, or contact myself or the 
 consultant directly..the latter's name is Malui Moeao on [log in to unmask]

 Thanks

 Chris Piper
 NEMO DRM Adviser
 Kingdom of Tonga
 Tel:  + 676 8700180
 Email: [log in to unmask]