| |
I was working in Tajikistan, right after graduate
school, as part of a United States-Soviet Union exchange program,
doing seismological research. The reason American and Soviet seismologists
were in the mountains of Tajikistan was because an earthquake
had occurred there in 1949 that killed 20,000 people.
One day, I was having tea with a Tajik friend, Borot, in his
home and I noticed it was different from any other home I had
seen in the region. In each corner, a tree trunk of about a
half-foot in diameter connected the adobe walls and roof together.
In traditional homes, there was no column in the corner; the
adobe walls abutted directly against each other. I asked Borot
to explain.
He said “Oh, that was my father’s idea. He built
this house and all the houses in our family compound. He thought
he could build houses that would defeat the earthquakes. He
was a real kook!”
Doing some rapid arithmetic, I said “Your father? You
mean these houses were built before the 1949 earthquake?”
“Yes,” he replied.
“What happened to them during the earthquake?”
I asked.
“They all came out fine, as you can see,” he replied.
I then asked, “And the other homes in the valley, those
with the traditional design?”
He answered, “They all collapsed and most of our neighbors
died.”
I had rarely heard of an experiment giving more clear and unassailable
results. “So,” I said jokingly and confidently “when
you build your children’s homes, Borot, what design will
you use?”
Borot replied, surprised and a bit insulted “Why the
traditional design, of course. The future is written. I’m
no kook.”
I knew this conversation was telling me something profound,
but I didn’t know what. Was the problem faulty construction
or faulty logic? Perhaps there was no problem, but just a difference
in values. And if there was a problem, was the solution to be
found in raising public awareness about earthquakes? Or in training
masons? Or in developing public policy? I was only sure that
my real education in international earthquake risk management
had begun.
My experiences as a researcher in Central Asia and, later,
in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America developed in me
a desire to become involved in applying seismology to public
policy. Eventually, I joined the California Geological Survey,
as head of the state’s geological hazards program. There,
I saw the wealth of resources – technical, intellectual,
legal, and fiscal – that California has marshaled to address
its seismic problems.
This was most satisfying work, but I never forgot what I had
seen abroad. The more I saw California successfully dealing
with its risk, the more I thought of the far greater risk abroad
and the far fewer resources available there to address it. Over
several years, the idea gradually grew in me to create a non-profit
organization that would apply the science, engineering and public
policy that had helped the U.S., Japan and Europe manage their
earthquake risks to the world’s most vulnerable countries.
In 1990, I shared this idea with some Japanese friends connected
with the OYO Corporation. One of them, Mr.
Satoru Ohya, served on our Board
of Trustees for many years, including his final years as Chairman. As a result of our discussions, OYO
Corporation provided start-up funding, as well as moral
and technical support, and GHI was launched in 1991, in that
warehouse in San Francisco.
|
|
| |
Over the past dozen years, the people of GHI have
worked valiantly to fulfill the mission:
As a result, we know that because of GHI:
-
Tens of thousands of people are aware of their risk
-
Thousands of school children are now safer
-
Hundreds of cities are now aware of their risk
-
Dozens of cities now have mitigation plans
From time to time I reflect on my conversation with Borot in
Tajikistan more than 30 years ago. At that time, I had wondered
if improving the earthquake safety of Tajikistan and other vulnerable
countries was possible, and even if it was any of my business.
But with each passing year, I’ve become more convinced
that giving all countries the opportunity to develop, unimpeded
by natural disasters, is not only possible; it is in everyone’s
interest. In our world today, current efforts to provide this
opportunity are not succeeding. In the coming years, GHI will
continue working to fulfill its vision and mission. And, because
GHI cannot accomplish this alone, we will continue to seek partners
and supporters from all sectors in order to broaden the base
of our efforts. Through such joint, cooperative actions we can
strengthen our ability to progress toward our vision of a world
in which all communities can develop unimpeded by periodic setbacks
from natural disasters. We hope that you will explore with us
the many ways in which you, your corporation, or your organization
can join us in our future work (see Become
a Member).
|
|
