Kyrgyzstan: Earthquake - Emergency Plan of Action Final Report DREF n° MDRKG012


A. Situation analysis Description of the disaster

On 3 May 2017, a 5.9 magnitude earthquake with a depth of 10 km occurred in northern Tajikistan near the border of Kyrgyzstan. The epicenter of the earthquake was 120 km away from Batken and 192 km from Osh city in southern Kyrgyzstan. Several aftershocks occurred the following days; a 5.8 earthquake, likewise with a depth of 10 km, was registered on 5 May in the same area. While there were no fatalities in Kyrgyzstan, the earthquakes severely damaged infrastructure, including educational and health facilities, as well as houses in the Chong Alay District of the Osh Province and in the Kadamjai District of the Batken Province. On 5 May 2017, the second earthquake hit the same area, increasing the number of harmed people and damaged facilities. Afterwards, RCSK deployed its National Disaster Response Team (NDRT) members from its Osh Branch to the scene. The team was deployed within 72 hours following the second earthquake and initiated emergency needs assessment (ENA) with provision of psychological first aid to the affected families, as well as the identification of priority needs and gaps.

According to the data provided by MoES and local municipalities, five villages of the Chong Alay District of Osh province (Karamyk, Jekendi, Kara-Teyit, Chuluk and Shibee) sustained major damages. 1,000 families (roughly 5,000 people) were reported to have been affected in these villages as of 8 May 2017, with 237 families whose houses were severely damaged (Cat III) and 537 families with partially or completely destroyed houses (Cat IV and Cat V). The earthquake caused damage in local infrastructure objects – (three local clinics, one school and one mosque) and loss of livestock (100 goats/sheep).

To address the needs of population in emergency shelter, MoES distributed 550 summer tents. On 8 May 2017, the RCSK Osh branch team was deployed to Chong Alay District to conduct emergency needs assessments (ENA) in five worst-affected villages. In order to organise a more effective and harmonised response, RCSK conducted analysis of primary data (household interviews, focus group discussions (community leaders, local traders, etc.) and available secondary data (status reports from Chong Alay district administration and situational reports and updates of local MoES representatives).