Appendix 5 : part 3
1.1. Auditing recovery in Pisco, Peru
Introducing the field study
On 15 August 2007 Peru was hit by an earthquake of 8.0 on the Richter scale. The earthquake also triggered tsunami waves. The consequences of the earthquake and tsunami were the death of more than 600 persons, more than 30.000 houses were destroyed affecting 656.965 people directly and severe damages were done to government buildings, houses, schools, water and sanitation infrastructure, roads and bridges.[1]
The WG AADA wanted to conduct a field study with the aim to assess whether open source and voluntary geospatial information would add value to auditing recovery activities.
The fields study focused on auditing rehabilitation and reconstruction of buildings (houses, schools and hospitals). The field study was a cooperation between the SAI of the Netherlands and the SAI of Peru, assisted by various public entities of the State of Peru and of local authorities. Furthermore, assistance was obtained from the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the National University of Engineering in Lima. These entities assisted in providing geospatial information with regard to damage assessment and information on recovery efforts.
Next to the geospatial information obtained from public entities, also voluntary geospatial information was obtained from Google Earth and Google maps including satellite imagery and uploaded (and geo-tagged) pictures taken from the ground just after the disaster happened.
Selecting sites with open source and voluntary geospatial information
Before obtaining damage assessment maps and information on recovery projects, the field study team obtained information from the Google Earth and Google maps platform. The Google Earth platforms provides the possibility to look at images from different moments in time – when available - from the same area. This function is called historical images and can be found under View in the Google Earth menu. When this function is activated, it will be possible to go back (and forward) in time to visually assess the changes in a specific timeframe. An example of the village Tambo de Mora (close to Pisco and in the affected area) is provided below, with the image above being taken at 20 February 2004 and the image below taken at 14 October 2009. It can be clearly seen that on a rural area new houses have been constructed in a more structured way than the urban area on the left of the image.
In the field study we have visited this area and could confirm that houses were constructed in that area based on pictures (see examples below) and interviews with residents. The match with the Google Earth image and the ground situation was made by marking the area with a GPS-device.
A number of pictures were taken after the disaster happened providing an overview of the situation on the ground. Below is an image from Google Earth showing a school in February 2004 (before the earthquake and tsunami occurred).
Via Google Earth it was also possible to view the same area after the disaster happened in December 2007, in red encircled temporary education facilities can be seen and in blue an uploaded picture.
Although this picture was not very accurately geo-tagged, still it could provide an insight in what damage was done and thus provide a benchmark for assessing the progress of recovery activities during the field study.
Based on the analysis of solely Google Earth images and voluntary geospatial information a number of sites were selected for the field study. The school of the example above looked like this in July 2010.
Field observations
The field study team inspected the selected sites. Pictures were taken of the situation on the ground, people were interviewed and parcels or buildings were marked with GPS. These markings with GPS were uploaded in a damage assessment map provided by Peruvian public entities (red dots), indicating the severity of damage per zone (green = no damage, red = very severe damage). See the map below, in which observations were made regarding the construction of new housing projects and of a new hospital, and regarding areas were the earthquake and or tsunami caused damage.
Field observations mapped in Google Map Maker
Google maps provides a tool, in which information can be added to a map of a certain area: Google Map Maker. For this field study some of the field observations were added to the map of Pisco. This added information will be checked by moderators belonging to the Google network before it is officially published on Google maps. An example is provided below of a newly constructed housing project (250 houses are planned here). At satellite imagery of 2007 this project cannot be seen, in July 2010 the project was inspected by the field study team. The construction plan of the project was obtained from the organisation responsible for the recovery of Pisco (ForSur).
The field study team marked the corners of the foundation of the project, that was being laid during the field study period. With the tracking function in the GPS activated, the outside boundaries of the project could be mapped in Google Earth.
The field observations could be used for mapping the area of the newly constructed housing project in Google Map Maker as can be seen below.
Field observations analysed in a GIS
For a new housing project, the corners of a number of houses were marked with GPS. These field observations were uploaded in a GIS to be analysed. With the measure function in the GIS the surface of the houses could be calculated to assess whether the surface was according plan. This measurement can be seen below.
The field observations were also used to assess whether new housing projects were constructed at the right place (not in a high risk zone). One of the new housing projects was constructed close to the sea. On the basis of field observations and geospatial data (risk zones) the following map could be made indicating that this housing project was constructed in a high till medium tsunami risk zone.
1.2. Auditing recovery in Haiti
Introduction
On Tuesday, 12 January 2010 a devastating magnitude 7.0 on the Richter scale earthquake occurred in Haiti. The epicentre was approximately 25 km (16 miles) west of Port-au-Prince, Haiti's capital, near Léogâne. The Haitian Government reports that between 217,000 and 230,000 people have died, an estimated 300,000 were injured, and an estimated 1,000,000 made homeless. Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) findings reveal that the total value of damage and losses is estimated at US$7.8 billion: US$4.3 billion represents physical damage and US$3.5 billion are economic losses. As of February, an estimated 250,000 residences and 30,000 commercial buildings had collapsed or were severely damaged.[2]
Also this major disaster – like that of the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 – led to a strong response from the international community that made approximately 1.3 billion US dollar available in 2010 and 2011.[3]
The Dutch aid flows for Haiti reached a total of € 112 million of which the Dutch government provided € 41,7 million.
Purpose of field study
The SAI of the Netherlands decided to continue stimulating transparency, accountability and audit of disaster-related aid after its study report with regard to the Dutch funds for the Tsunami affected countries[4]. That is way the SAI of the Netherlands agreed with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the umbrella organisation for humanitarian organisation, the Samenwerkende Hulporganisaties (SHO), to contribute to the accountability and audit arrangement of the Dutch funds for Haiti.
Furthermore, the SAI of the Netherlands will audit the spending of the Dutch funds for Haiti until the foreseen end of the reconstruction phase in 2015. The audits of the SAI of the Netherlands will cover all the Dutch funds that were gathered and spend by the SHO, because the funds provided by the Dutch government – for which the SAI of the Netherlands has an audit mandate – cannot be separated from the funds of other sources.
[1] Samir Elhawary and Gerardo Castillo (2008), The role of the affected state: A case study on the Peruvian earthquake response, see: http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/1838.pdf
[2] Joint Board of Geospatial Information Societies and United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, Geoinformation for Disaster and Risk management: Examples and Best Practices, 2 July 2010. http://www.un-spider.org/sites/default/files/JBGIS_UNOOSA_Booklet_0.pdf.
[3] http://haiti.humanitarianresponse.info/Portals/0/CAP%202012/CAP%202012_funding_12%2004%204%20English.pdf.
[4] Netherlands Court of Audit (2008), Lessons on accountability, transparency and audit of Tsunami-related aid: country report of the Netherlands; see: http://www.courtofaudit.com/english/searchresults?sortreversed=true&sortfield=searchdate&freetext=tsunami&zoek-submit=