Doc. 8638

26 January 2000

Social consequences of the recent earthquakes in Turkey

Report

Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee

Rapporteur: Mr László Surján, Hungary, Group of the European People's Party

Summary

      The Assembly points out that following the earthquakes in Turkey, loss of life was considerable, many people are now invalids or unemployed and the local economy was destroyed. Many families among the most deprived are still living in tents or prefabricated buildings. In addition to housing, many schools, universities, hospitals and other facilities have been destroyed or damaged and rendered unusable.

      The Assembly recommends to the international community to continue its financial aid - bilaterally or multilaterally- to reconstruction, to ensure intergovernmental co-operation in the social field, to help further develop civil society in Turkey and to offer Turkey the requisite expertise to promote effective decentralised government. The Assembly moreover invites member States to learn lessons from the earthquakes in drafting, if need be, an European crisis management model for dealing with natural disasters and in monitoring the enforcement of earthquake norms for the building sector.

I.       Draft recommendation

1.       The Assembly points out that the recent earthquakes in Turkey occurred in one of the country's most densely populated, heavily industrialised and prosperous regions. Loss of life was considerable; many people are now invalids or unemployed, and the local economy was destroyed. Some not only lost family members, but everything they had: possessions, home, job, a reason for living. They now live in fear and helplessness.

2.       Even today, despite the efforts and solidarity at national and international community level, many families among the most deprived are still living in great hardship in tents or prefabricated buildings, totally dependent on social welfare in a region in which the winters are particularly severe. In addition to housing, many schools, universities, hospitals and other facilities have been destroyed or damaged and rendered unusable.

3.       The Assembly welcomes the international community's positive reaction and the national and international solidarity which has taken the form of financial assistance; but it notes that the financial resources needed for reconstruction greatly exceed Turkey's means, given the country’s high debt level. Aid for reconstruction must therefore be given generously, and it is imperative that it continue and increase. But it must also be co-ordinated in order to optimise effectiveness, and reconstruction should be carried out with the agreement of and in consultation with the local authorities and other bodies directly involved.

4.       The Assembly also notes that the consequences of the earthquakes for the population pose great problems for the Turkish welfare services and it calls for greater European co-operation on appropriate health care and welfare policies.

5.       It welcomes the action of the Turkish governmental and municipal authorities after the earthquakes and especially the invaluable services rendered by Turkish non-governmental organisations, which must have the necessary funding and the Council of Europe's support if they are to continue to play their role. Apart from NGOs and the international community, ordinary citizens can be of enormous help to Turkey by visiting that country during the tourist season. The main tourist sites are at a considerable distance from the earthquake zone and the income from this tourism would be of immense help to the victims of the earthquakes.

6.       The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers invite the member states to:

7.       Lastly, since further earthquakes could strike not only in Turkey but in other parts of Europe, the Assembly urges the Committee of Ministers to learn the lessons of the recent earthquakes in the region, in particular:

II.       Explanatory Memorandum by the rapporteur

1. The earthquakes which occurred in Turkey in August and November 1999 ranked in a sadly high place on the long list of earthquakes of this century.

2. After the devastating earthquake of 17 August 1999 members of the Parliamentary Assembly tabled four motions for a resolution. These motions suggested fact-finding visits to the region and also recommended granting suitable aid to Turkey from different points of view such as the economy (Doc. 8494) and social policy (Doc. 9506 Rev.). Other motions suggested the drafting of Europe-wide seismic-protection legislation (Doc. 8562) as well as the creation of a world rescue organisation for national disasters (Doc. 8492). In late November the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development adopted a report, which principally focussed on the economic consequences.

3.       The Rapporteur for the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee visited the earthquake areas on 13 and 14 January 2000 and had meetings with a number of local and central government officials and with NGOs.

4.       This report focuses on the social consequences of the earthquakes and calls for further international aid for the reconstruction of the social infrastructure, including health and education facilities, etc. It also attempts to assess the effectiveness of the action taken by the Turkish authorities and of the international aid and to draw lessons from these earthquakes for all the countries of Europe.

5.       A large area of 60,000 km2 was hit on 17 August 1999, including the provinces of Kocaeli, Sakarya, Yalova, Istanbul, Bolu, Bursa, Eskisehir, Tekirdag and Zonguldak. More than 15 million people inhabited the disaster area, which contributed more than 8 percent of Turkish GDP. The magnitude of the Marmara region earthquake was 7.4 on the Richter scale. Another major earthquake, with a magnitude of 7.2, occurred on 12 November 1999, killing more than 800 people in the regions of Bolu, Düzce and Kaynasli (the "Düzce earthquake"). The total number of deaths from the two earthquakes stands at 18,000 and is still increasing. The number of those injured is also very high: 43,953. The city of Istanbul was also hit, and 900 people died there.

6.       The earthquake zone was formerly the richest part of Turkey. It was a developed area inhabited by a middle-class population, for whom the earthquakes have meant the loss not only of belongings, homes, employment and family members, but also of their role in society and their self-esteem. The scars of this large-scale tragedy will take many months to heal.

7.       The damage to buildings in most of the affected areas was also very extensive. 66,441 residential buildings and 10,901 businesses were destroyed. By the end of November 1999 the wreckage of 10,018 buildings had been removed and 5,915 heavily damaged buildings had been demolished. 14 hospitals were damaged out of the 22 in the disaster area. One was completely destroyed, whereas the others suffered partial destruction, varying from 3 to 45 percent. 22 primary and 21 secondary schools were completely destroyed, and 267 primary and 114 secondary schools were damaged.

8.       This is also an economic calamity. Thousands of small and medium-sized businesses no longer exist. Many people have moved, since they were no longer able or willing to live in the area. Many specialist workers and intellectuals, who are difficult to replace, have disappeared. In some hospitals the entire staff has gone as a result of the disaster. Apart from heavily industrialised areas, the zone also included hotels and a large number of second homes. It was a holiday area for the Turks themselves, benefiting from all the direct and indirect profits generated by the tourist industry.

9.       The main power generation facilities were not destroyed, but the water supply and sewage system was heavily damaged. Four telecommunications centres were destroyed and over a hundred were damaged, but by the end of November all were operational again.

10.       At first, the shock was huge. The Turkish administration had great difficulties in reacting in the early hours of the disaster. Telephone lines were cut off for several days, roads destroyed. The degree of preparedness of state rescue teams proved to be unsatisfactory. Rescue operations were, at the beginning, heroic but at the same time chaotic.

11.       To begin with there was complete disorganisation. Everything had been destroyed. There were no longer any records, nor any officials to record deaths. In accordance with religious requirements, some families took their dead to be buried in their regions of origin. It was therefore very difficult to know the exact death toll in the immediate wake of the disaster.

12.        The authorities also had some difficulty in channelling and co-ordinating the teams of national and international voluntary workers. There was a – sometimes unwarranted – uproar in the media, which criticised the national and local authorities and the alleged bad management of the situation. These critics often failed to take into consideration the dimension of the disaster and added to the confusion.

13.       The government finally took control of the situation and set up a Crisis Management Centre at the Prime Minister's Office. A Regional Disaster Management Co-ordination Office, with provincial units, was established by decree on 23 September 1999. This organisation has a two-year mandate and 795 members of staff. The aim of the reconstruction scheme is to rebuild housing for the end of 2000.

14.       Parliament established an ad hoc Earthquake Investigation Committee to study the situation locally and prepare the legislative measures needed to facilitate reconstruction.

15.       During the dramatic times following the earthquake voluntary organisations played a considerable role. They stepped in to fill the gaps and co-operated purposefully with the public authorities and international organisations. There is not enough place in this report to mention all of them, but two stand out as efficient examples of modern civil society organisations:

16.       The rapporteur regards the emergence of civil society and the strengthening of the NGOs' role as one of the positive aspects - if one may dare to use the term - of the disaster. The NGO representatives with whom the rapporteur had meetings drew attention to their organisations' need for financial resources and their difficulties in raising funds now that the first surges of generosity immediately after the disaster have died away.

17.       There was indeed a tremendous explosion of generosity by both private firms and individuals; campaigns were launched by banks, newspapers and Turkish associations abroad. Many families shared their homes with earthquake victims or put their holiday homes at their disposal. These acts of generosity are clearly of token value in comparison with the immensity of the needs.

18.       Over eighty countries have provided emergency humanitarian assistance to Turkey. Some deployed mobile hospitals, while others supplied tents. There were 406 foreign medical personnel from 26 countries working in the region in the aftermath of the earthquake. A contribution of USD 60,751,819 was reported by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in September 1999.

19.       On the whole, the aid deployed by the international community during the early weeks, both in personnel and equipment, was considerable. Turkish public opinion expressed its appreciation in many ways, as did the government and the media. Foreign aid was of course provided in different forms and to varying degrees: rescue teams, medical equipment and staff, hydraulic tools, transport vehicles, winterised tents, medicines, power generators, food and clothing, etc. Some countries, including several outside Europe, offered assistance with a view to covering medium-term needs such as educational programmes and prefabricated housing.

20.       Immediately following the earthquake, UNICEF raised USD 500,000 in order to meet emergency relief requirements. The UNICEF Recovery Plan for Turkish Children was implemented in close consultation with the Crisis Management Centre and other agencies. This scheme to aid Turkey's children covers programmes for clean water and sanitation facilities as well as for health and nutrition. It also includes educational and psychosocial activities. The programme has a budget of USD 10,806,590, but in September only USD 4,870,818 was available. UNICEF also plans to run training schemes for teachers and educators on the effects of post-quake trauma.

21.       Cash aid was made available by the government for the urgent needs of people affected by the earthquake (USD 6.5 million). Cash grants are being made to those whose homes were destroyed or damaged. The sum is proportional to the damage (total: USD 37.6 million). Cash support is available to those who move to another region of Turkey from the crisis area (so far about USD 2 million has been paid out). An earthquake tax was introduced in November 1999, which should bring in USD 5,000 million. It will be levied mostly on oil and oil products, property, mobile phones, cars and some items of corporate income.

22.       International institutions such as the World Bank have made direct contributions. In addition to the bilateral financial assistance offered by some of the member States of the Council of Europe, the Council of Europe Development Bank has pledged a loan of 300 million Euro for reconstruction projects submitted by the Turkish government. More details are to be found in the report by the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.

23.       Turkey informed the international community of its needs by sending a list of requested items to the United Nations in Geneva. These included winterised tents, prefabricated housing units, caravans, mobile kitchens, mobile hospitals, hospital equipment (X-ray and dialysis machines, incubation sets, mobile EKG, transport incubators, blood refrigerators), baby food, winter clothing and coats.

24.       It is obvious that the most gigantic task Turkey will have to face in the coming months and years is to erase the scars of this disaster. This will involve rebuilding the area - infrastructure and housing; relaunching economic activities; providing social and psychological help to survivors, especially children and students; reorganising administrative services; restoring confidence in the public authorities; and, last but not least, undertaking large-scale scientific research into the geology of the region as an input for future town planning.

25.       Psychological and socio-psychological support has been organised in the earthquake zone. Children naturally constitute a target group for post-trauma psychological counselling, but are not the only ones in need. It is also necessary to provide professionals and teaching staff with appropriate training. Early action must be taken to avoid social problems in future.

26.       Handling the social aspects of the aftermath involves dealing not only with families themselves but also with the communities they represent. For cultural reasons Turkey is not well off in the field of social counselling. The solution to social problems has always been the family, in the broad sense of the term. But this system has been undermined by the consequences of the earthquakes, and there is nothing to make up for this deficiency.

27.       The discussions which the rapporteur had during his visit show that at present all those affected have been provided with winterised tents or prefabricated housing and the chief priority now is to rebuild homes and public facilities, such as schools, universities and hospitals. The local authorities in the disaster area presented a large number of projects to the rapporteur, all of which are ready and waiting only for funding. Some rebuilding has already started with European support, such as the project in Izmit being funded by the German municipalities of Kassel and Mainz. According to local authority representatives, approximately 122 million dollars is needed immediately for reconstruction projects in these priority fields.

28.       International aid in the form of loans and donations must continue. However, in view of its external debt of USD 100,000 million, Turkey is in no position to incur further debts. The rapporteur takes the view that the public service sectors should be granted financial aid by the international community and that loan financing could be reserved for rebuilding the economic infrastructure proper.

29.       As an expression of European solidarity, various forms of partnership or twinning of municipalities might be developed. Some partnerships already exist, but given the extent of the rebuilding work a profusion of such initiatives is needed.

30.       To be effective, aid must be decentralised. Local and regional government would appear to offer the most appropriate framework. Turkey is currently preparing a Decentralisation Act, and expert assistance from the Council of Europe would not be amiss, with a view to achieving genuine decentralisation which prevails over partisan political rivalry and gives local authorities real powers to take and implement decisions.

31.       But decentralisation must go hand in hand with co-ordination, in order to make international aid as effective as possible. At present there would still seem to be some confusion, which caused the United Nations co-ordinator to tell the rapporteur that it is still not clear who does what and that this is delaying measures by organisations such as UNDP.

Conclusion

32.       Since the sixties Turkish cities have grown at an extraordinary rate because of the influx of immigrants from the countryside in search of employment and a better way of life. Some cities' populations have doubled every decade. Istanbul has 10 million inhabitants. Town planning, geological studies and the enforcement of building codes have been somewhat neglected. The combination of these circumstances with the hazards of geology and a very powerful earthquake has resulted in huge human losses in this extremely densely populated area of Turkey.

33.       Now winter has set in. Tens of thousands of people will most likely spend another six months to a year in precarious conditions. Despite the enormous work done by the Turkish government, and the nation-wide solidarity of Turkish society, it is absolutely essential that the international community participate in the reconstruction effort.

34.       Financial support (donations and loans) must therefore continue, through bilateral agreements and through international financial institutions. Intergovernmental co-operation in the social policy field must be stepped up, for example by supporting specific schemes devised by international organisations, such as UNICEF's "psycho-social rehabilitation" and "Child Friendly Space" projects, and by working with the ILO on vocational rehabilitation in the work place of those with post-traumatic stress disorder.

35.       With the help of international scientific agencies, the Turkish government should naturally undertake a large-scale investigation of the seismic profile of the densely populated areas near Istanbul and the bay of Izmit. These studies must be used in preparing future resettlement and urban development plans, as well as for laying down building industry standards.

36.       All member governments should learn the lessons of these earthquakes and take a critical look at past and recent Council of Europe texts, such as those on European solidarity in disaster relief, on earthquake prediction, and on protecting the cultural heritage from disasters, with a view to revising these texts, if need be, and preparing a possible European crisis management model.

III.       Appendices

Programme of the rapporteur's fact-finding visit

International Financial Assistance

Maps of Izmit Earthquake

*

* *

Reporting committee: Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee

Budgetary implications: none

Reference to committee: Doc. 8506, Ref. No. 2432, 20.9.99

Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 26 January 2000

Members of the committee: Mr Cox (Chairman), Mrs Ragnarsdóttir, Mr Hegyi, Mrs Gatterer (Vice-Chairs), Mrs Albrink (Alternate: Mrs Kofod-Svendsen), MM. Alis Font, Arnau, Mrs Belohorská, Mrs Biga-Friganovic, Mrs Björnemalm, Mrs Böhmer (Alternate: Mr Hornung), Mr Cesario, Mrs Chikhradze, MM. Christodoulides, Chyzh, Dees (Alternate: Mr Valk), Dhaille, Duivesteijn, Evin, Flynn, Gibula, Glesener, Gregory (Alternate: Mr Browne), Ms Gülek, MM. Gusenbauer, Haack, Hancock, Mrs Hřegh, Mr Hrebenciuc, Mrs Jirousova, Mr Kalos, Mrs Kulbaka, Mrs Laternser (Alternate: Mr Brunhart), Mr Liiv, Mrs Lotz, Mrs Luhtanen, MM. Lupu, Mrs Markovska (Alternate: Mr Pollozhani), MM. Marmazov (Alternate: Mr Baburin), Martelli, Marty (Alternate: Mrs Zapfl-Heilbling), Mattei, Monfils, Mozgan, Mularoni, Mrs Näslund, Mr Ouzky, Mrs Paegle, Mrs Poptodorova, Mrs Pozza Tasca, Mrs Pulgar, MM. Raskinis, Rizzi, Santkin, Sharapov, Skoularikis (Alternate: Mr Alevras), Mrs Stefani, MM. Surján, Tahir, Telek, Troncho, Vella, Mrs Vermot-Mangold, MM. Volodin, Voronin, Wójcik

NB:       The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries to the committee: Mrs Meunier and Mrs Clamer

Programme for the visit of Mr Surján, Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee to Turkey

(12-16 January 2000)

Wednesday, 12 January 2000 (Arrival in Istanbul)

2.50 pm       Arrival of Mr Surján in Istanbul (flight MA 200)

7.30 pm       Working dinner organised by the Turkish Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of Europe to which will also be invited representatives of NGOs and employer organisations active in the quake zone. (The exact time and address will be communicated later)

Thursday, 13 January 2000

9.00 am       Departure to the earthquake area by car (accompanied by an interpreter and possibly by a representative of the Governor of Istanbul

10.30 am       Meeting with Mr Kutluay Öktem, General Co-ordinator of the disaster zone (Kocaeli)

11.30 am       Meeting with Mr Kemal Önal, Governor of Kocaeli

12.15 am       Meeting with Mr Sefa Sirmen, Mayor of Izmit (at this meeting will also be present a responsible of the region for National Education and Health Authorities)

1.00 pm       Lunch offered by the Governor of Kocaeli

2.30 pm       Meeting with Mr Cahit Kiraç, Governor of Sakarya

3.15 pm       Meeting with Mr Aziz Duran, Mayor of Sakarya

4.00 pm       Visit to the tent-cities and prefabricated housing areas

5.00 pm       Departure to Istanbul

Friday, 14 January 2000

9.50 am       Arrival in Ankara and departure to the Hilton hotel (a responsible from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will accompany the visitors)

11.30 am       Meeting with Mr Faruk Loğoğlu, Deputy Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

12.15 am       Meeting with, Mrs Füsun Koroğlu, Deputy Under-Secretary to the Prime Minister

2.30 pm       Meeting with Mr Osman Durmuş, Minister of Health

4.00 pm       Meeting with Mr. Bener Cordan, Under-Secretary of the Minister of Education

5.00 pm       Meeting with Mr Alfredo Witschi-Cestari, United Nations General Co-ordinator

8.00 pm       Dinner offered by Mr Cevdet Akçali on behalf of the Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of Europe in honour of the Guest Delegation (Address: Türk Parlamenterler Birliği, Nenehatun cad. No: 64 GOP)

Saturday, 15 January 2000

Free

Sunday, 16 January 2000

10.00 am       Meeting with Mr Koray Aydin, Minister of public works and housing

12.15 am       Departure of Mr Surján to Istanbul (flight TK 127)

3.35 pm       Departure of Mr Surján from Istanbul (flight MA 201)

TURKISH EARTHQUAKE

International Financial Assistance foreseen1

So far only IMF loans have arrived. The other commitments are all project oriented. Please also note that all figures concern loans with an agreed interest rate.

1        Source: Discussion on the budget in Turkish Parliament, Dec. 1999