ROMANIA Management of Earthquake Risk TAFF Technical Assistance Financing Facility for Disaster Prevention and Preparedness 0 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 07 INTRODUCTION 13 EARTHQUAKE RISK PROFILE AND RISK TRENDS 15 EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT CAPACITIES 23 GOVERNANCE OF EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT 24 UNDERSTANDING EARTHQUAKE RISK AND USE OF RISK DATA 29 EARTHQUAKE RISK PREVENTION, REDUCTION, AND MITIGATION 35 EARTHQUAKE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC AWARENESS 43 EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 48 EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY, RECONSTRUCTION, POST-DISASTER FINANCING 54 CROSS-CUTTING TOPICS: SOCIAL RESILIENCE AND PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT 61 INVESTMENT NEEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65 ANNEX 1. REFERENCES 69 EARTHQUAKE RISK PROFILE AND RISK TRENDS 15 List of Tables TABLE 1. SEVERE EARTHQUAKES (OVER M6) IN ROMANIA FROM THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY TO 2025 20 TABLE 2. AN OVERVIEW OF KEY PROGRAMS/PLANS FOR EARTHQUAKE RISK REDUCTION IN ROMANIA 38 TABLE 3. POTENTIAL SECTORS/TYPES OF ASSETS FOR BUCHAREST PRIORITY STRENGTHENING INTERVENTIONS 41 TABLE 4. KEY INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ROMANIA IN EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT 66 List of Figures FIGURE 1. NATIONAL SEISMIC HAZARD ZONING MAP 18 FIGURE 2. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXPOSURE TO HIGH SEISMIC HAZARD IN ROMANIA: HEALTH CARE FACILITIES (LEFT) AND EDUCATION FACILITIES (RIGHT) 21 FIGURE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF RURAL VERSUS URBAN MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES ACROSS ROMANIA 22 FIGURE 4. NSRRS: ROLE OF THE VISUAL ASSESSMENT IN THE PRIORITIZATION OF INVESTMENTS 32 FIGURE 5. EMERGENCY SHELTER AND FEEDING CAPACITY OF BUCHAREST AS PLANNED IN RADP 2019 AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION DENSITY 50 List of Boxes BOX 1. RESULTS OF EU-WIDE EXPOSURE TO SEISMIC AND OTHER HAZARDS 21 BOX 2. ROMANIA’S INCLUSIVE DRM ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED BY THE WORLD BANK 47 BOX 3. CONTINGENCY FINANCE: WORLD BANK CAT DDO 56 Acknowledgement This report forms part of technical assistance under the Technical Assistance Financing Facility (TAFF), financed by the European Commission— Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitar- ian Aid Operations (DG ECHO)—and implemented by the World Bank and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). Part of a set, this report is being delivered as part of Component 2 (cross-cutting/multi-country) activities funded by the TAFF budget allocated in 2024. This report was prepared by World Bank staff and experts, consolidated by Delia Moleș (Disaster Risk Management Expert), under the supervision of Zuzana Stanton-Geddes (Sr. Disaster Risk Management Specialist). Contributions were made by Alexandra Călin (Disaster Risk Management Specialist), Matei Sumbasacu (Engineer, Expert), Nicole Paul (Sr. Disaster Risk Management Expert), Anda Anica (Disaster Risk Management Analyst), Soraya Ridanovic (Disaster Risk Management Analyst), Tara Juarros Lukic (Disaster Risk Management Researcher), and peer reviewed by Alanna Simpson (Lead Disaster Risk Management Specialist). The report was designed by Tamás István Török. The cover photo imagery was provided by © The European Commission. The team is grateful for guidance and comments received from the DG ECHO B3 unit and other units of the European Commission. Disclaimer 2025 May © International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: +1-202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent, or those of the European Union (EU). The World Bank and EU do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and do not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, pro- cesses, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement on the part of the World Bank and EU concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered a limitation on or waiver of the privileges and immunities of the World Bank, or the European Union for which privileges and immunities are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions: The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank and the European Union encourage dissemination of their knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for non-commercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution. Please cite this work as follows: World Bank. 2025. Romania - Management of Earthquake Risk. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Translations. If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official. Third-party content. The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third-party-owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringements rests solely with you. If you wish to reuse a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, the World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. KEY ACRONYMS AAR After-Action Review ANM National Meteorological Administration (Administrația Națională de Meteorologie) APIA Payments and Intervention Agency for Agriculture (Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură) BBB Build Back Better BCP Business Continuity Plan CAP Common Agricultural Policy Cat DDO Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option CatNat Catastrophes Naturelles CCM Climate Change Mitigation CIES County Inspectorate for Emergency Situations CSO Civil Society Organization DES Department for Emergency Situations DLD Disaster Loss Data DRF Disaster Risk Financing DRM Disaster Risk Management DRMKC Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre DRR Disaster Risk Reduction EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EC European Commission EFD European Fire Database EFFIS European Forest Fire Information System ERDF European Regional Development Fund EU European Union EUSF European Union Solidarity Fund EWS Early Warning System FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan GD Government Decision GEO Government Emergency Ordinance GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery GFN National Forestry Guard GIES General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations GIS Geographic Information System GNM National Environmental Guard (Garda Națională de Mediu) GO Government Ordinance GoR Government of Romania GWIS Global Wildfires Information System ICAS Institute of Research and Silvicultural Planning (Institutul de Cercetări și Amenajări Silvice) IGAv General Inspectorate for Aviation (Inspectoratul General de Aviație) IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IWFRM Integrated Wildfire Risk Management JRC Joint Research Centre MApN Ministry of National Defence (Ministerul Apărării Naționale) MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MCID Ministry of Research, Innovation, and Digitalization (Ministerul Cercetării, Inovării și Digitalizării) 03 MDPWA Ministry of Development, Public Works, and Administration MEWF Ministry of Environment, Water, and Forests MoE Ministry of Education MoF Ministry of Finance MoH Ministry of Health MoIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MoT Ministry of Transportation NBS Nature-Based Solution(s) NCCS National Climate Change Strategy NCES National Committee for Emergency Situations NDC Nationally Determined Contribution NDRMP National Disaster Risk Management Plan NDRRS National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy NECP National Energy and Climate Plan NFR National Forestry Registry NFS30 National Forest Strategy 2030 NGO Nongovernmental organization NPDRR National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction NRA National Risk Assessment NRRP National Recovery and Resilience Plan NSCCA National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation NSRRS National Seismic Risk Reduction Strategy OPD Organizations of Persons with Disabilities PAD Policy against Natural Disasters (Polița de Asigurare împotriva Dezastrelor Naturale) PAID Pool for Natural Disaster Insurance (Pool-ul de Asigurare Împotriva Dezastrelor Naturale) PPP Public-Private Partnership PRAF Peer Review Assessment Framework PwDs Persons with Disabilities RO-RISK Government of Romania National Risk Assessment RRF Resilience and Recovery Facility SFDRR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction SMEs small and Medium Enterprises SMURD Mobile Emergency Service for Resuscitation and Extrication (Serviciul Mobil de Urgență, Reanimare și Descarcerare) SNMSU National Emergency Situations Management System (Sistemul Naţional de Management al Situaţiilor de Urgenţă) SPSU Private Emergency Services (Serviciul Privat pentru Situații de Urgență) SVSU Volunteer Emergency Services (Serviciul Voluntar pentru Situații de Urgență) TAFF Technical Assistance Financing Facility UAT Territorial Administrative Unit (Unități Administrativ Teritoriale) UCPM Union Civil Protection Mechanism UNDRR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction UNSAR National Union of Insurance and Reinsurance Companies in Romania (Uniunea Națională a Societăților de Asigurare și Reasigurare din România) WUI Wildland-Urban Interface WWF World Wide Fund for Nature 04 KEY TERMS Earthquake risk assessment: A process that Earthquake risk is understood as the combination combines hazard, exposure, and vulnerability of seismic hazard (for example, the frequency of information to assess expected infrastructure and earthquake occurrence, the strength of ground human losses after an earthquake. Typically, this shaking given an earthquake), exposure (for exam- involves probabilistic calculations considering a ple, the number of people exposed, the value of range of hypothetical earthquake scenarios. assets exposed), and vulnerability (for example, the Microzonation: Microzonation studies involve susceptibility of assets to damage, the ability of geological and geotechnical surveys and analysis, populations to cope with earthquake effects). which are used to create detailed maps of seismic Hazard: A potentially destructive physical phenom- hazards in an area. This information can be incorpo- enon, such as a natural hazard (e.g., earthquake, rated into building codes, inform territory and land wildfire). use management, and guide post-earthquake reconstruction. Exposure: The situation of people, infrastructure, housing, production capacities, and other tangible Building code: A set of ordinances or regulations human assets located in hazard-prone areas. and associated standards intended to regulate aspects of the design, construction, materials, Vulnerability: The conditions determined by alteration, and occupancy of structures necessary physical, social, economic, and environmental to ensure human safety and welfare, including factors or processes which increase the susceptibil- resistance to collapse and damage. ity of an individual, a community, assets, or systems to the impacts of hazards. Early warning systems (EWS) are integrated systems that disseminate timely and meaningful Earthquake magnitude is a quantitative measure of information to users threatened by a hazard. These the size or energy released by an earthquake at its systems can enable protective actions to reduce source. It is determined using seismic data and harm posed by the hazard. Some examples of EWS reflects the amplitude of seismic waves recorded by include sirens, text messages/SMS, and TV or radio seismographs. The most common magnitude used broadcasts. Additionally, different hazard types may today is the moment magnitude scale (Mw), which require different technical capabilities and infra- largely replaced older scales such as the Richter structure. For earthquakes, EWS typically provide scale. Unlike intensity, which measures the post-event information such as earthquake details observed effects of an earthquake at specific and impact estimations, public advisories and locations, magnitude provides a standardized aftershock potential. EWS can also include earth- measure of an ear thquake's overall strength, quake early warning (EEW) which are alerts that give regardless of where it is measured. imminent notice before shaking begins, but these are not widely implemented. Earthquake shaking intensity measures the strength of ground shaking at a specific location and Earthquake early warning (EEW) involves detecting its effects, such as damage or human perception. initial ground shaking and rapidly notifying end Intensity varies with distance from the epicenter users before imminent, stronger ground shaking. and local site conditions. In Europe, a commonly The lead time between notification and stronger used intensity scale is the European Macroseismic ground shaking varies by location, depending on Scale (EMS-98), which ranges from I (not felt) to XII factors such as the density of seismic stations in the (completely devastating) and is based on observed area, the distance from the epicenter, and the data effects on people, buildings, and infrastructure. telemetry/EEW algorithm performance. While EEW Another widely used intensity scale is the Modified can be a part of the EWS, they are highly specialized Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, which is used in the and location specific and are not widely available. United States and other regions. Quantitative measures like Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and Coping capacity: The ability of people, organiza- similar parameters are also used in engineering tions, and systems, using available skills and design and seismic assessment and are based on resources, to manage adverse conditions, risks, or ground motion recorded by instruments. disasters.1 Secondary perils: Also known as earthquake-trig- gered perils, are hazards that are triggered by the primary earthquake event. These include landslides, soil liquefaction, tsunamis, and fire following, which can significantly increase the overall damage, losses and disruption. 1 Mysiak, Jaroslav, Veronica Casartelli, and Silvia Torresan. 2021. Union Civil Protection Mechanism - Peer Review Pro- gramme for Disaster Risk Management: Assessment Framework. Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC). Link. 05 Resilience: The ability of a system and its compo- Losses refer to indirectly quantifiable losses nent parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or (declines in output or revenue, impact on well-being, recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a disruptions to flow of goods and services in an timely and efficient manner, including ensuring the economy), or additional operational costs associated preservation, restoration, or improvement of with response and initial repairs. itsessential basic structures and functions.2 Reconstruction: The medium- and long-term ‘Build back better’ (BBB) principle: The use of the rebuilding and sustainable restoration of resilient recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction phases critical infrastructures, services, housing, facilities, after a disaster to increase the resilience of nations and livelihoods required for the full functioning of a and communities by integrating disaster risk community or society affected by a disaster, aligning reduction measures into the restoration of physical with the principles of sustainable development and infrastructure and societal3 systems and into the BBB to avoid or reduce future disaster risk. revitalization of livelihoods, economies, and the environment. Rehabilitation: The restoration of basic services and facilities for the functioning of a community or society Damage: Total or partial destruction of physical affected by a disaster. assets existing in the affected area. Damage occurs during and after the disasters and is measured in physical units (that is, square meters of housing, kilometres of roads, and so on).4 2 World Bank and European Commission. 2021. Economics for Disaster Prevention and Preparedness: Investing in Disaster Risk Management in Europe Makes Economic Sense, Background Report. Link. 3 The term ‘societal’ should not be interpreted as a political system of any country. 4 World Bank. 2021. Investment in Disaster Risk Management in Europe Makes Economic Sense Background Report. Economics for Disaster Prevention and Preparedness. Link. 06 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Romania is one of the most earthquake-prone countries in the European Union (EU). The national risk assessment (NRA, RO-RISK) identifies earthquakes as the country's top hazard, potentially affecting over half of the country. Romania’s capital city, Bucharest, with its dense population and aging building stock, is among Europe's most vulnerable urban areas.5 With estimated annual average losses6 of €512 million and potential large-scale damage and long-term impact on society, Romania’s earthquake risk underscores the urgent need to assess evolving risk trends and strengthen national earthquake response capacity. Romania has made several important efforts in seismic risk management. These include developing a national strategic framework in line with international standards, reinforcing the legislative framework, updating building codes, and streamlining the institutional set-up to foster greater cooperation among key stakeholders. Building on progress and lessons learned, Romania is intensifying efforts to enhance the resilience of its built environment and communities to earthquakes while strengthening response. To further strengthen seismic risk management in Romania, opportunities exist in enhancing legal frameworks, improving coordination, updating risk assessments, strengthening public administration, developing disaster risk financing strategies, and creating a multi-hazard recovery framework integrating the ‘build back better’ (BBB) principle. Strengthening cross-sectoral coordination and accountability through clear mandates, guidance, and performance monitoring can help embed risk reduction more effectively into all relevant sectors. To address all types of infrastructure, sectoral ministries must develop specific strategies, programs, or action plans, including strategic or nationally significant infrastructures. This report offers a rapid review of earthquake risks and risk management capacity, investment needs, and recommendations to inform policy dialogue and future research. Capacity considers earthquake risk governance, risk understanding, risk reduction and mitigation, preparedness and early warning, readiness and response, recovery and post-disaster financing, and cross-cutting topics such as social resilience and the private sector. Each section reviews the current arrangements, key challenges, and opportunities for improvements relevant to Romania. The findings aim to inform national and EU decision-making and contribute to ongoing policy and investment dialogue as well as future research. 5 Reported by the Earthquake Risk across Europe website. Link. 6 World Bank and European Commission. 2021b. Financial Risk and Opportunities to Build Resilience in Europe. Econom- ics for Disaster Prevention and Preparedness. Link. 07 �. KEY MESSAGES Rom�ni� f�ces high seismic risk due to its loc�tion �nd the concentr�tion of �ging infr�structure in densely popul�ted �re�s . A m�jor e�rthqu�ke in the Vr�nce� seismic zone, which h�s modelled m�ximum m�gnitude of 7.�–8.�, could �ffect over two-thirds of the country, including dense urb�n �re�s. Almost 72 The following key percent of urb�n housing is concentr�ted in multi-story buildings, with messages can be �7.� percent of these built between ���� �nd ��80,7 before seismic highlighted based on the codes were est�blished. review of earthquake risks and risk management 2. capacity in Romania: E�rthqu�kes could c�use severe d�m�ge to infr�structure �nd incre�se socioeconomic disp�rities. A repe�t of the ��77 e�rthqu�ke is projected to c�use even gre�ter d�m�ge tod�y, �ffecting h�lf the country, d�m�ging over �50,000 homes, �nd resulting in more th�n �5,000 serious injuries or de�ths. 8 Critic�l infr�structure is �lso vulner�ble. It is estim�ted th�t over �0 percent of Rom�ni�'s emergency response �ssets �re �t risk of strong seismic sh�king in � �-in-50-ye�r e�rthqu�ke. More th�n �,000 educ�tion�l f�cilities �re �t risk from strong seismic sh�king, �nd 70 percent of the existing hospit�l beds in Rom�ni� �re in high- or medium-seismic- h�z�rd �re�s. � M�rgin�lized �nd low-income communities �re disproportion�tely exposed �nd would f�ce even gre�ter b�rriers to recovery, further deepening existing socioeconomic disp�rities in the �fterm�th of � m�jor dis�ster.�0 �. Rom�ni�’s �ppro�ch to seismic risk m�n�gement is b�sed on � comprehensive leg�l fr�mework . Rom�ni� h�s n�tion�l codes �ligned with the Eurocode. It �lso h�s � N�tion�l Seismic Risk Reduction Str�tegy (NSRRS) with �n �ccomp�nying implement�tion pl�n, which seeks to cre�te � greener, more resilient, �nd inclusive built environment by 2050. The policy �nd institution�l fr�mework is coordin�ted prim�rily by the Ministry of Development, Public Works, �nd Administr�tion (MDPWA), especi�lly with respect to prevention �nd reconstruction, with the Ministry of Intern�l Aff�irs (MOIA) le�ding response efforts �nd line ministries �s well �s subn�tion�l �uthorities involved in the implement�tion of policies �nd progr�ms. �. Rom�ni� h�s risk �ssessment processes �nd sever�l methodologies in pl�ce; however, g�ps rem�in in the use �nd �ccessibility of risk inform�tion . The n�tion�l risk �ssessment (RO-RISK) is pending the next upd�te, requiring new h�z�rd m�ps �nd dyn�mic risk m�pping. Funding is needed to exp�nd countrywide microzon�tion efforts currently under w�y in two pilot cities. Rom�ni� h�s � recently est�blished methodology for collecting building d�t� in � tiered m�nner to prioritize retrofitting, �longside ongoing efforts to build loc�l �dministr�tive c�p�city. An integr�ted N�tion�l Building Registry �nd d�t�b�ses with relev�nt seismic inform�tion for improved l�nd pl�nning �re needed. 7 MDPWA (Ministry for Development, Public Works and Administration). 2022. National Housing Strategy 2022–2050. Link. 8 MoIA (Ministry of Internal Affairs). 2021. National Post-Earthquake Response Concept (Second Edition). Link. 9 GoR 2022, 20–23. 10 Kerblat, Yann, Ali Arab, Brian James Walsh, Alanna Leigh Simpson, and Stephane Hallegatte. 2021. Overlooked: Ex- amining the Impact of Disasters and Climate Shocks on Poverty in the Europe and Central Asia Region (English). World Bank Group. Link. The World Bank’s Unbreakable report (Hallegatte et al. 2017) first introduced well-being loss and socioeconomic resilience, suggesting policies to reduce asset losses or enhance recovery through financial inclusion and insurance. This framework adds socioeconomic resilience as a fourth component to traditional risk assessments, focusing on how effectively households maintain well-being despite disasters. Link. 08 5. KEY MESSAGES Rom�ni� h�s been investing in seismic risk reduction through v�rious progr�ms; however, �w�reness �nd commitment �mong line ministries to integr�te e�rthqu�ke risk reduction into their sector�l responsibilities—such �s m�int�ining the function�lity of he�lth, energy, �nd communic�tions systems post-e�rthqu�ke—�re limited. L�ws �nd progr�ms �re in pl�ce to support the seismic reh�bilit�tion of high-risk buildings, including the so-c�lled 'red dot' structures, with government- funded expertise, risk �ssessments, energy �udits, �nd post- intervention certific�tes. The MDPWA runs the N�tion�l Progr�m for the Consolid�tion of Buildings with High Seismic Risk, �iming to improve seismic s�fety �nd energy efficiency in residenti�l �nd public buildings, while the World B�nk supports seismic risk reduction with over €��0 million in projects t�rgeting critic�l infr�structure like emergency �ssets (police, fire, �nd gend�rmerie f�cilities) �nd schools. Progress in Buch�rest h�s been slow so f�r, with only six of 8�� high-risk buildings under work �s of April 2025. However, efforts �re being m�de by the Municip�lity of Buch�rest, through its speci�lized structure (Municip�l Administr�tion for Retrofitting of Seismic Risk Buildings), to �cceler�te progress, but low public trust in the progr�ms, uncle�r communic�tion on costs, �nd un�fford�ble retrofitting for vulner�ble groups st�ll the process. �. Rom�ni� h�s m�de signific�nt strides in prep�ring the popul�tion for seismic events through n�tion�l �w�reness c�mp�igns �nd regul�r public �l�rm drills, such �s ’Be Prep�red C�r�v�n’ . It h�s � robust gener�l e�rly w�rning system (EWS), � comprehensive network of seismic observ�tories integr�ted into intern�tion�l fr�meworks, �nd � function�l e�rthqu�ke e�rly w�rning system (EEWS) th�t informs critic�l services. However, public �ccess to EEWS rem�ins limited to �void p�nic. Rom�ni� h�s � n�tion�l pl�tform, ‘Fii Preg�tit’, fe�turing �ccessible, intern�tion�lly �ligned guides, inclusive public tr�ining, �nd � n�tion�l public �w�reness �nd risk communic�tion guide under the 202� n�tion�l DRR str�tegy. The RO-ALERT w�rning system is being upgr�ded for improved function�lity �nd �ccessibility, while the electronic siren network still requires exp�nsion, moderniz�tion, �nd regul�r m�inten�nce. 7. The N�tion�l Post-E�rthqu�ke Response Concept in Rom�ni� enh�nces oper�tion�l c�p�cities �nd coordin�tion �t �ll levels to protect life �nd property during e�rthqu�kes. Rom�ni� h�s � robust n�tion�l emergency response system fe�turing � cle�r comm�nd structure, integr�ted decision- m�king, �nd inter-�gency cooper�tion. Its rescue c�p�city includes emergency personnel, volunt�ry, �nd priv�te services, supported by the Civil Society Rel�tions Dep�rtment to enh�nce coll�bor�tion with civil society org�niz�tions (CSOs). Annu�l exercises since 20��, including the n�tion�l SEISM 2025 exercise in June 2025, test the response fr�mework. Tr�ining is provided through � robust network of n�tion�l �nd region�l centers, �nd speci�lized te�ms like the UN-certified RO-USAR �ssist in EU Union Civil Protection Mech�nism oper�tions, including in Alb�ni� �nd Türkiye. However, ev�cu�tion pl�ns, �nd emergency shelter inform�tion �re l�cking, hindering self-ev�cu�tion, �nd persons with dis�bilities (PwDs) still f�ce b�rriers in emergencies despite recent improvements. 09 8. KEY MESSAGES While efforts �re being m�de to upd�te its d�m�ge �nd loss methodology, Rom�ni� l�cks � form�l dis�ster/ e�rthqu�ke recovery fr�mework �nd unified d�m�ge �ssessment methodology . Some key �re�s where upd�tes �re needed include cl�rific�tion of roles �t the sub-n�tion�l level, cre�ting � more comprehensive pl�n for recovery �nd reconstruction �fter 72 hours post-event, except for wh�t is �lre�dy briefly touched upon in current legisl�tion (MDPWA’s regul�tions on post-dis�ster responsibilities, GD No. 557/20��, �nd the N�tion�l Post-E�rthqu�ke Response Concept), �nd �ctive integr�tion of principles to ‘build b�ck better’. MoIA is developing � digit�l pl�tform �nd unified methodology to improve d�t� collection �nd �utom�te imp�ct �ssessments. �. Rom�ni� h�s m�de steps in underst�nding potenti�l m�crofisc�l imp�cts from e�rthqu�kes �nd incre�sing its fin�nci�l resources, yet more could be done to strengthen fin�nci�l resilience. Rom�ni�’s Fisc�l-Budget�ry Str�tegy 2022–202� �nd the Fisc�l-Budget�ry Str�tegy 202�–202� consider potenti�l m�crofisc�l imp�cts of e�rthqu�kes. It h�s dis�ster funding through the Ministry of Fin�nce’s Reserve �nd Intervention Funds, �nd since 202�, �lso €���.� million in contingency fin�ncing.�� However, �mong the bro�der public, while insur�nce is m�nd�tory, penetr�tion levels �re low —p�rticul�rly in rur�l �re�s—due to sever�l re�sons. �0. Efforts �re ongoing to strengthen soci�l resilience, which could be lever�ged �long with gre�ter focus on priv�te sector resilience. Rom�ni� f�ces deep region�l disp�rities, the highest poverty r�te in the EU, �nd signific�nt vulner�bility �mong groups such �s PwDs, older persons, rur�l �nd Rom� popul�tions, �nd women—who �re disproportion�tely �ffected by dis�sters, which ex�cerb�te inequ�lity �nd gender-b�sed violence (GBV)—while the soci�l protection system l�cks integr�tion of dis�ster �nd poverty d�t�. The priv�te sector, especi�lly sm�ll �nd medium enterprises (SMEs), is highly vulner�ble to the imp�cts of e�rthqu�kes �nd rem�ins underprep�red with few business continuity pl�ns in pl�ce �nd limited eng�gement in response �nd recovery pl�nning. 11 World Bank. Romania Second Disaster Risk Management Development Policy Loan with a Cat DDO.Link 10 PRIORITIES GOING FORWARD �. Continue upd�ting the leg�l fr�mework �nd existing pl�ns �nd str�tegies, p�rticul�rly with respect to seismic prevention needs, with stronger focus on oper�tion�liz�tion, incre�sed support �t the loc�l level, improved vertic�l coordin�tion �nd inform�tion flow between �ll st�keholders �t �ll levels, �nd optimizing Going forward, Romania st�ffing �nd technic�l c�p�city �cross �ll levels �nd h�z�rds �ccording can benefit by prioritizing to risk level. Ensure sufficient fin�nci�l cover�ge to implement relev�nt investments across str�tegic fr�meworks. prevention, preparedness, and response phases to 2. Continue reforming building codes �nd norms in �lignment effectively manage and with Europe�n st�nd�rds. This includes focusing on the reduce earthquake risks. development of missing P�00 sections, such �s P�00-8 �nd P�00-2, with resources needed to ensure relev�nt technic�l expertise for dr�fting reform document�tion, compli�nce supervision, �nd Romania could continue to tr�ining of relev�nt �uthorities �nd �ctors. focus on a comprehensive approach that spans pre- �. Upd�te �nd cre�te more dyn�mic seismic risk �ssessments, vention, preparedness, integr�ting relev�nt inform�tion into loc�l pl�nning response, and recovery, processes �nd strengthening c�p�cities to use such including the following key inform�tion effectively. Key �ctions could include upd�ting seismic areas: risk �ssessments to cover �ll regions, herit�ge structures, critic�l infr�structure, �nd second�ry h�z�rds �s well �s upd�ting �nd improving pl�nning processes �nd methodologies to integr�te risk �ssessments �t loc�l �nd county levels (for ex�mple, oper�tion�lize the N�tion�l Building Registry �nd ensure its popul�tion with relev�nt d�t�). In p�r�llel, there is � need to strengthen c�p�city in public �dministr�tion for risk �ssessment �nd m�n�gement, p�rticul�rly in underst�nding e�rthqu�ke risk to inform prevention �nd prep�redness �ctions/investments. �. Continue to invest in public �w�reness �nd e�rly w�rning. This includes investments in infr�structure for renewing �nd integr�ting electronic sirens, modern digit�l pl�tforms, communic�tion systems, �nd devices to improve e�rly w�rning effectiveness �nd �ccessibility. Enh�nce inclusive seismic prep�redness by sc�ling up n�tion�l initi�tives, securing life-s�ving tools (for ex�mple, �utom�ted extern�l defibrill�tors [AEDs] �nd first �id kits) for schools �nd communities, modernizing risk �w�reness resources �nd equipment, �nd exp�nding the Be Prep�red (Fii Preg�tit) pl�tform to include resources for children �nd �ccessible content, �nd other options, such �s mobile �nd other online solutions for community prep�redness �nd educ�tion. 5. Continue to strengthen emergency response c�p�city, including profession�l emergency response st�ff, volunteers (including youth �nd young profession�ls), �nd CSOs, �nd eng�ge the priv�te sector me�ningfully. This could be done by exp�nding tr�ining, upgr�ding f�cilities �nd systems, incorpor�ting modern tools, �nd t�iloring progr�ms to improve the n�tion�l emergency response system, enh�ncing the existing MOIA-led comm�nd-�nd-control system. Ev�cu�tion routes, emergency shelters, �nd pre-positioned stockpiles must be est�blished, m�pped, �nd communic�ted to the public in �n �ccessible m�nner, regul�rly m�int�ined, �nd ensured to rem�in resilient �nd function�l in the event of � dis�ster. 11 �. Strengthening community prep�redness �lso requires focus on inclusive �ppro�ches, such �s tr�ining progr�ms �nd solutions for customizing �lerts for vulner�ble communities, including PwDs �nd other vulner�ble groups, univers�lly �ccessible shelters, �nd dis�bility-�ccessible services. Integr�te soci�l benefits �nd �d�ptive soci�l protection me�sures, such �s emergency c�sh tr�nsfers, to enh�nce the inclusivity �nd effectiveness of dis�ster risk m�n�gement �nd soci�l protection systems in the event of �n e�rthqu�ke. 7. Develop � st�nd�rdized methodology for collecting d�m�ge �nd loss d�t� �nd enh�nce d�t� sh�ring (th�t is, pl�tforms). While improving d�t� m�n�gement systems, it is essenti�l to build c�p�city �t �ll levels, especi�lly within loc�l public �dministr�tion, �nd to develop dis�ster loss tr�cking tools th�t ensure �ccur�te �nd timely inform�tion. 8. Cre�te � comprehensive post-e�r thqu�ke recovery fr�mework incorpor�ting BBB principles for reconstruction th�t �ligns roles, responsibilities, procedures, �nd funding �cross �ll levels of government, the priv�te sector, �nd civil society. L�y the found�tion for �n integr�ted, multi-h�z�rd n�tion�l dis�ster recovery fr�mework/pl�n, beyond completing ongoing efforts concerning d�m�ge �nd loss methodology �nd systems. �. Continue to pursue gre�ter underst�nding of potenti�l m�crofisc�l risk �nd the �doption/upd�ting of � r�nge of fin�nci�l instruments for emergencies �nd post-dis�ster recovery. Regul�rly review �nd upd�te dis�ster risk fin�ncing �nd insur�nce �rr�ngements, including opportunities to exp�nd insur�nce cover�ge �nd the qu�lity of services provided. �0. Continue efforts to strengthen inter-institution�l �nd inter-ministeri�l communic�tion �nd coordin�tion, �s well �s coll�bor�tion between public �uthorities, the priv�te sector, civil society, �nd the public. This m�y include optimizing current HR str�tegies �t ministeri�l levels, stre�mlining coll�bor�tion �nd communic�tion procedures, supporting multi-st�keholder risk pl�tforms, �nd promoting community-b�sed prep�redness progr�ms. H�ving incentives for priv�te sector business continuity pl�nning, exp�nding public-priv�te insur�nce products �nd fin�ncing opportunities �nd solutions for retrofitting, �nd providing inform�tion in �n �ccessible �nd tr�nsp�rent m�nner �bout seismic risk, ongoing risk reduction, �nd retrofitting progr�ms �nd costs, �s well �s prep�redness, response, �nd recovery efforts �re �lso import�nt. 12 INTRODUCTION This report is part of a series aimed at improving the understanding of the needs and priorities for disaster resilience investments in relation to two disaster risks: wildfires and earthquakes. The broader objective is to provide actionable insights and recommendations to help the European Union (EU), and its Member States make informed, strategic investments to enhance resilience against wildfires and earthquakes. This report focuses on earthquakes and describes current risk trends, risk management capacity, and investment needs and recommended approaches for Romania. To provide further perspectives, this note is complemented by two other country-specific case studies for Croatia and Cyprus, as well as a note looking at earthquake risk management based on existing information and data gathered across EU Member States.12 This report provides a rapid high-level overview based primarily on already existing information and data. Consultations with key national and EU organizations and researchers have been conducted to improve understanding of the key areas listed above. The note can serve to inform policy dialogue and future research. The analysis is structured following the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) Peer Review Assessment Framework.13 The approach also considers the following disaster risk management (DRM) elements, which have been applied in this note with focus on earthquake risk: 12 Overseas Countries and Territories are not considered. 13 Mysiak, Casartelli, Torresan. 2021. 13 INTRODUCTION 5. E�rthqu�ke prep�redness �nd emergency response focus on pre- �. Govern�nce of risk m�n�gement focuses e�rthqu�ke me�sures to ensure �n on the over�ll govern�nce fr�mework for effective response, including rescue c�p�city, risk m�n�gement, including the str�tegies, tr�ining, �nd situ�tion�l �w�reness, where�s institution�l fr�meworks, coordin�tion mech�nisms, e�rthqu�ke emergency response includes (i) the fin�ncing str�tegies, �nd systemic resilience rel�ted �ctivities �nd processes reg�rding the response to dis�ster risk �t the n�tion�l �nd subn�tion�l ph�se of � seismic event, including emergency �nd levels. ev�cu�tion pl�ns, tr�ining �nd exercises for emergency personnel, �nd oper�tion�l me�sures to 2. Underst�nding risk m�n�gement reduce imp�cts �nd (ii) the fr�mework concerning ex�mines the identific�tion, �n�lysis, the �ctions t�ken in the immedi�te �fterm�th to ev�lu�tion, communic�tion, �nd d�ys or weeks �fter �n event. c�p�cities �ssoci�ted with �ssessing dis�ster �. risks. Recovery, reconstruction, �nd post- dis�ster fin�ncing cover the processes �. Risk prevention, risk reduction, �nd �nd �ctions t�ken �fter � dis�ster event, mitig�tion �n�lyze prevention �nd including d�m�ge �ssessment, restor�tion efforts, explore legisl�tive reforms, development �nd recovery pl�nning. �nd enforcement of building codes, integr�tion of 7. h�z�rd consider�tions into l�nd pl�nning �nd Cross-cutting topics: soci�l resilience, documents, �nd retrofitting efforts �nd protection �nd inclusion explores w�ys to �dministr�tive c�p�cities rel�ted to dis�ster �ddress the disproportion�te imp�ct of prevention. dis�sters on vulner�ble popul�tions, with speci�l focus on PwDs proposing �d�pted me�sures �nd �. E�rthqu�ke e�rly w�rning systems t�ilored solutions to incre�se inclusion. Me�nwhile, (EEWSs) �nd public �w�reness covers priv�te sector covers relev�nt st�keholders’ prep�redness �ctivities, �w�reness involvement in the context of e�rthqu�ke risk c�mp�igns, EEWSs including other �lerting systems m�n�gement, including building owners �nd (for ex�mple, electronic sirens), public property m�n�gers, insur�nce comp�nies, business prep�redness tr�ining �nd exercises, �nd the over�ll owners, utility providers, construction �nd development of response c�p�cities of civili�ns. engineering firms, CSOs �nd so on. 14 EARTHQUAKE RISK PROFILE AND RISK TRENDS This chapter provides a short overview of risk trends for earthquakes in Romania. It draws on available data and information and focuses on the tectonic regime and hazard, drivers of risk, and exposure across sectors while also shedding light on locations with high concentrations of risk. It also offers a comparison of seismic risk to other EU countries and provides insight into and estimates of expected future risk trends. 15 Disaster risk context localized activity but can also cause significant impacts, affecting up to 10 percent of the popula- Romania is highly vulnerable to the impacts of tion.21 The distribution of seismic hazard is not even natural hazards, including floods, earthquakes, across the country but is concentrated in the droughts, landslides, wildfires, and extreme southern and eastern regions (Figure 1) which are weather events.14 Over recent decades, disaster likely to continue to experience significant casualties events have resulted in significant physical, social, and economic losses due to future strong earth- and financial impacts, affecting human well-being.15 quakes.22 Since 1980, Romania has experienced €12 billion in losses (with some 99 percent of those not insured) from climatological and hydro-meteorological IMPACTS OF PAST EARTHQUAKES events, with estimated annual losses of €585 million from floods.16 Romania also faces high seismic risk, Romania is a country with significant seismic and in combination with aging (and energy-ineffi- potential and a notable history of major earth- cient) infrastructure, it faces the third highest loss quakes (Table 1), although it has not experienced ratios in the EU, with modeled annual losses for a catastrophic event since the devastating earth- earthquake totaling €512 million. In 2022, Romania quake of 1977, almost five decades ago. Major past suffered over €1 billion in lost revenue for the earthquakes include those in 1940 (M7.3, around agricultural sector due to droughts and wildfires in 1,000 fatalities), 1977 (M7.5, 1,641 fatalities), and the southeastern region, 17 receiving almost €34 1990 (M6.7, 14 fatalities)23, while the strongest in the million from the European Union Solidarity Fund past 20 years occurred on October 27, 2004, in (EUSF) to cover part of the needs.18 Climate change Vrancea (M6.0, 98.6 km deep), without casualties or is expected to exacerbate the incidence and damage. The earliest reference to an earthquake in severity of weather-related disasters and their the territory of present-day Romania dates back to impacts, with increased threats of forest fires, the year 455, while the oldest with a confirmed date landslides, floods, strong winds, and heatwaves.19 occurred on August 29, 1471—when nearly all houses in Brașov and churches in Târgoviște TECTONIC REGIME AND HAZARD collapsed. In 1802, chroniclers described the “Great The Vrancea subcrustal source is Romania's most Earthquake” as lasting two minutes. The 1940 event potent seismic zone, influencing more than devastated Panciu and led to the collapse of two-thirds of the country and extending into Bucharest's Carlton building, killing over 100. After neighboring Moldova and Bulgaria. Located at the 1989 Revolution, the strongest quake hit in 1990 intermediate depths in the Carpathian curvature, and since then, ten more earthquakes of at least 5.5 driven by the convergence of the Eurasian, Moesic, magnitude have been recorded. Additionally, and Intra-Alpine tectonic plates, the zone generates historical records mention tsunamis in the Black Sea powerful earthquakes with significant impact and triggered by earthquakes, as well as soil eruptions, minimal attenuation. 20 The current seismic code and aftershocks—some lasting for days—with (P100-1/2013) uses a probabilistic approach to map significant impacts extending to neighboring seismic hazard, dividing Romania into seven seismic countries, particularly Bulgaria, Ukraine, and the zones and setting safety requirements for new Republic of Moldova.24 buildings, but it does not incorporate terrain classification as seen in Eurocode 8. Other seismic sources in Romania, like Banat and Dobrogea, have 14 The national risk assessment (NRA) (RO-RISK project) identifies 10 key natural risks (e.g., earthquakes, floods, droughts, forest fires, landslides), technological risks (e.g., nuclear and radiological risks, major industrial accidents involving hazardous substances [SEVESO], including major transportation accidents with dangerous goods), biological risks (e.g., epidemics, epizootic diseases, and zoonoses), and extreme weather events (e.g., storms and blizzards, heavy snowfalls, tornadoes, and extreme temperatures). 15 EM-DAT–The International Disaster Database. Link. Between 1900 and 2023, 103 catastrophic events (including 53 floods, 11 earthquakes, 21 extreme weather events, 13 storms, and two droughts) affected over 2 million people, caused nearly 5,000 deaths, and resulted in over US$17.2 billion in damage. 16 Munich Re, NatCatService—data on natural disasters since 1980, cited in World Bank. 2023b. Systematic Country Diagnostic Update: Romania. Link. 17 Dumitrescu, R. 2022. "Drought Wipes EUR 1 bln from Romanian Agricultural Sector." Romania Insider. Link. 18 World Bank. 2024b. Financially Prepared: The Case for Pre-Positioned Finance. Link. 19 See IPCC. Sixth Assessment Report - Regional Data - Europe of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link. 20 The average annual number of earthquakes with magnitudes over 5.0 in Vrancea is 1.8, but accurate earthquake prediction is hindered by data and model limitations. 21 NCES 2020. 22 The estimated annual average risk to life is 275 fatalities, with seismic risk concentrated in eastern Romania, including Bucharest, Bacau, and Prahova. 23 World Bank and European Commission 2021. 24 Earthquakes in Romania. MOBEE Project. National Institute for Earth Physics. Link. 16 EARTHQUKE RISK PROFILE AND RISK TRENDS DRIVERS OF RISK AND EXPOSURE Understanding sector-specific seismic exposure is crucial for targeted risk management strate- ACROSS SECTORS gies. 27 In Romania, the seismic exposure of buildings varies significantly across different sectors According to the National Housing Strategy and is linked to occupancy rates and the function of 2022–2050, Romania faces significant aging of its the buildings, based on data used to develop the housing stock, with many urban units requiring National LTRS. The country has over 5.5 million urgent maintenance and rehabilitation, especially buildings, with residential structures making up more in marginalized areas. The World Bank estimates than 90 percent of the total built area, followed by Romania as having the third highest annual seismic educational and commercial buildings. Occupancy risk in the EU, with an average annual loss (AAL) of rates in educational and health care buildings €512 million, primarily due to modeled residential significantly affect casualty risks during earth- building damage.25 In the 2011 census, there were quakes, highlighting the need for detailed data and 7.4 million families and 8.7 million housing units, with tailored intervention strategies for these sectors. 98.6 percent privately owned. Nearly 72 percent of Educational buildings often have higher occupancy urban housing is in multi-story blocks, many of during school hours, while health care buildings, which exceed their useful life and suffer from such as hospitals, are fully occupied 24/7. This insufficient maintenance. In urban areas, 67.6 increases their vulnerability during an earthquake, percent of housing is in apartment buildings built as the higher occupancy raises the risk of casualties, mostly between 1961 and 1980, needing mainte- and damage to essential services like hospitals can nance due to physical degradation. Multifamily disrupt critical community support. In the education buildings constructed between 1947 and 1989 are sector, 50 percent of students and 45 percent of also affected, requiring energy efficiency interven- buildings are exposed to medium seismic hazards, tions. Older buildings, especially those built before with 7 percent of students and 11 percent of 1947 and some from the communist period, require buildings at high hazard. In the health care sector, of extensive interventions, including seismic adaptation the 3,100 classified buildings, 14 percent are RS1 and urban regeneration. Additionally, marginalized (highest risk), 30 percent are RS2, and 10 percent of areas, affected by poverty and unsanitary condi- hospital beds are located in high-risk areas, while tions, require integrated rehabilitation over 60 percent are in moderate-risk areas with interventions.26 limited information on past rehabilitation for health care facilities, necessitating further technical analysis and validation. 28 Residential buildings mostly face medium seismic hazards (57 percent) with 12 percent at high seismic hazard. Romania also has a significant number of culturally valuable heritage buildings, which require specialized seismic risk reduction strategies to preserve their historical value while ensuring safety.29 The Cultural Heritage Information System (Sistemul Informatic pentru Patrimoniu Cultural Imobil, SIPCI) is being developed to manage and evaluate these assets. Commercial and office buildings, which are privately owned, lack specific seismic data, making it challenging to assess their risk and plan appropriate mitigation measures.30 25 World Bank and European Commission. 2021. 26 MDPWA (Ministry for Development, Public Works and Administration). 2022. National Housing Strategy 2022–2050. Link. 27 GoR 2022. 28 GoR 2022, 20–23. 29 Moreover, approximately 30,200 historical monuments, of which 18,000 are architectural monuments and 14,000 are civil and religious buildings, are exposed to seismic risk. 30 GoR 2022. 17 EARTHQUKE RISK PROFILE AND RISK TRENDS LOCATIONS WITH HIGH COMPARISON OF RISK TO OTHER EU CONCENTRATIONS OF RISK COUNTRIES Considering socioeconomic resilience 31 in Romania, along with Türkiye, Greece, Albania, and addition to hazard, exposure, and physical Italy, faces high seismic risk—the main drivers of the vulnerability, socioeconomic disparities, earthquake risk being an old building stock, high particularly in the northeastern regions, earthquake hazard, and densely populated urban increase disaster vulnerability and hinder areas. 33 Cities such as Bucharest, Istanbul, Izmir, recovery efforts. Limited access to financial Catania, Naples, and Athens face high earthquake risk, support, health care, and education exacerbates with ‘very high’ risk areas potentially incurring up to €65 poverty and complicates recovery for affected million in annual losses and more than 30 fatalities, while communities. Marginalized areas32 (Figure 3)— ‘moderate’ risk areas could see up to €25 million in both urban (informal/social housing) and rural losses and two fatalities annually. Moreover, urban (isolated communities)—are especially at risk, areas in Türkiye, Italy, Romania, and Greece experience with about 6.2 percent of the rural and 3.2 percent the highest earthquake risk, contributing to almost 80 of the urban populations residing in these percent of Europe's €7 billion annual economic loss regions, which increases exposure to risks like from earthquakes.34 Romania, alongside Italy, Bulgaria, floods, earthquakes, and climate-related hazards and Portugal, are among the countries expected to face while having scant resources for recovery. Many the highest number of earthquake-related fatalities, rural marginalized areas are small, have a high are expected to see a reduction in this risk by 2050 due representation of Roma communities, and are to projected population decline.35 geographically isolated, making intervention challenging. 31 Kerblat, Yann, Ali Arab, Brian James Walsh, Alanna Leigh Simpson, and Stephane Hallegatte. 2021. Overlooked: Ex- amining the Impact of Disasters and Climate Shocks on Poverty in the Europe and Central Asia Region (English). World Bank Group. Link. The World Bank’s Unbreakable report (Hallegatte et al. 2017) first introduced well-being loss and socioeconomic resilience, suggesting policies to reduce asset losses or enhance recovery through financial inclusion and insurance. This framework adds socioeconomic resilience as a fourth component to traditional risk assessments, focusing on how effectively households maintain well-being despite disasters. Link. 32 Tools like the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Communities in Romania and the Atlas of Marginalized Rural Areas and Local Human Development in Romania highlight the concentration of these areas, particularly in the North-East region, but lack detailed municipal data for targeted interventions. 33 According to the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model. Link. 34 Reported by the Earthquake Risk across Europe website. Link. 35 World Bank and Global Earthquake Model. Regional Risk Assessment of the European Union Member States. Issue 2. Figure 1. National Seismic Hazard Zoning Map Source: Pavel et al. 2016. 18 EARTHQUKE RISK PROFILE AND RISK TRENDS Table 1. Severe earthquakes (over M6) in Romania from the fifteenth century to 2025 Source: Earthquakes in Romania. MOBEE Project, National Institute for Earth Studies in Romania. Link, and publicly available information. 19 20 EARTHQUKE Box RISK exposure to seismic and other hazards 1. Results of EU-wide PROFILE AND RISK Exposure analysis across the EU shows that over 90 percent of emergency response assets in some TRENDS areas have a 10 percent chance of experiencing strong seismic shaking in 50 years, with Romania facing over 60 percent of its assets at risk, including more than 1,000 educational facilities (Figure 2).115 World Bank. 2024a. Tools for Making Smart Investments in Prevention and Preparedness in Europe - From Data to 115 Decisions. Economics for Disaster Prevention and Preparedness: Link. Figure 2. Concentrations of exposure to high seismic hazard in Romania: Health care facilities (left) and education facilities (right) Source: World Bank 2024. Link. Figure 3. Distribution of rural versus urban marginalized communities across Romania Source: Anton et al. 2014; Sandu et al. 2016. 21 EARTHQUKE RISK PROFILE AND RISK TRENDS EXPECTED FUTURE TRENDS Today, a seismic event similar to the 1977 Vrancea earthquake could cause even greater damage due The 1977 earthquake is the most recent cata- to aging infrastructure, urbanization, and socioe- strophic seismic event that left a mark in the conomic factors—Romania ranks among the top collective memory of Romania. The 7.2 magnitude five EU countries for earthquake and flood-related earthquake caused 1,578 fatalities (90 percent of annual losses (AAL) of €512 million for earth- them in Bucharest), 11,321 injuries, and severe quakes , with repair costs of public and private damage or collapse of 156,000 residential apart- infrastructure (on top of emergency response) for a ments, over 2,274 schools, and 459 hospitals. The 1-in-50-year event potentially reaching €5 billion.37 World Bank assessed that damage costs and The NRA RO-RISK project identified earthquakes as production losses reached US$2.05 billion (equiva- Romania's highest-risk hazard, leading to the lent to over US$10 billion today or more than 6 development of the National Post-Earthquake percent of Romania’s official exchange rate GDP at Response Concept. According to the concept, a that time). Post-1977 evaluations revealed signifi- Vrancea earthquake (magnitude 7.4–8.1) could cant damage to buildings in the capital city of severely affect 31 counties and Bucharest, damag- Bucharest (18,000 buildings) and Iași (2,000 ing over 350,000 residential buildings and causing buildings), with findings indicating that high-rise more than 45,000 serious injuries or fatalities concrete buildings performed poorly in Bucharest nationwide, with Bucharest potentially experiencing while low-rise buildings were more affected in Iași. severe damage to between 838 and 33,569 residen- Many buildings were left unrepaired after the tial buildings.38 Additionally, vulnerabilities, such as earthquake, while some others still remain highly unauthorized building modifications, degradation, vulnerable to similar future events, given that the severe traffic congestion, aging emergency infra- interventions carried out only aimed at restoring structure (including hospitals), limited public their pre-earthquake condition without reducing preparedness, and low disaster insurance coverage, their vulnerability.36 collectively worsen the potential impact of a future major earthquake. 36 GoR 2022. 37 World Bank and European Commission 2021b. 38 MoIA (Ministry of Internal Affairs). 2021. National Post-Earthquake Response Concept (Second Edition). Link. 22 EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT CAPACITIES The following chapters provide an overview of key gaps and vulnerabilities in existing risk management practice relevant to Romania, along with examples of successful strategies, investments, and approaches. It draws on publicly available information (such as national risk assessments, government reports, and studies) as well as information gathered during consultations. 23 GOVERNANCE OF DRM context EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT Romania’s DRM framework is aligned with the global Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR). The National Disaster Risk Management Plan (NDRMP) 2020–2027 (PNMRD), 39 approved in 2021, focuses on five natural risks— This chapter focuses on earthquakes, floods, forest fires, epidemics/pandemics, and droughts— seismic risk governance, and promotes institutional reform and investment in line with with an emphasis on the international guidelines. The plan facilitates access to various EU legislative, institutional, funding for disaster and climate resilience. The National Recovery and strategic, and planning Resilience Plan (NRRP),40 approved in 2020, facilitates access to the framework. The framework EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), supporting a transition to describes mandates, roles, a sustainable green and digital economy, with reforms and investments, and responsibilities as well including in disaster and climate resilience reforms such as integrated as coordination flood risk management. arrangements among the different stakeholders, Romania’s climate change framework is aligned with global and EU their policies, instruments, climate efforts on mitigation and adaptation .41 The Integrated and investments. National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) 2021–2030 sets targets for a clean energy transition, including a binding national target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System. Romania’s National Energy Strategy 2020–2030 includes goals, measures, and funding lines linked to the NECP. In addition, Romania’s Long-Term Renovation Strategy (LTRS), approved in 2020, aligned with EU energy efficiency goals, aims to achieve €12.8–18 billion in investment, with 39 percent expected from public funds and 61 percent from private and commercial sources. In 2024, the National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation will support cross-sectoral strategic planning and coordination and operationaliza- tion of policies for adaptation. DRM in Romania is governed by GD No. 557/2016, 42 comprising several areas, including prevention/risk reduction, preparedness, response, evaluation (investigation), and recovery and rehabilita- tion. National authorities are assigned primary or secondary roles in managing specific risks based on their competencies (such as Ministry of Development, Public Works, and Administration [MDPWA] for seismic risk or the Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests [MEWF] for floods), with primary authorities ensuring integrated coordination of all involved entities. Inter-institutional coordination and consistency of DRM and mitigation/adaptation efforts are also being fostered through the National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (NPDRR) set up in 2016 (GD No. 768/2016) consisting of key line ministries and agencies and the Inter-ministerial Committee on Climate Change (GD No. 563/2022), established in 2022. The platform provides a framework for all stakeholders—government, public administration, civil society, research institutes, and academia—to meet, discuss, and make decisions on risk management, community resilience, and unified solutions for risk reduction. At the local level, county and prefecture authorities have responsibilities across the DRM cycle. Externally, Romania has actively participated in the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, including projects such as RO-RISK-SIPOCA 30 for risk evaluation, and has developed certified intervention teams and advanced equipment through EU-funded projects.43 39 NCES (National Committee for Emergency Situations). 2020. National Disaster Risk Management Plan. Link. 40 NCES 2020. 41 Including the European Green Deal and the EU’s joint Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). 42 GD No. 557/2016 of August 3, 2016, regarding the management of risk types. Link. 43 NCES 2020. 24 GOVERNANCE OF EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS management and mitigation of seismic risks through comprehensive standards for building safety, Strategic and legal earthquake risk emergency preparedness, and insurance. More management framework information is provided in the next sections. The national strategic approach to earthquake risk Romania's legal framework for managing seismic management is outlined in the 2022 NSRRS and its risks encompasses a broad range of normative implementation plan. The NSRRS is implemented acts at both European 44 and national levels. In alongside other strategic documents such as the addition to Eurocodes, specific national codes and National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy (NDRRS), laws are in place. The P100-1/2013 Code and the NDRMP, and the LTRS. The NSRRS prioritizes P100-3/2019 Code address seismic design and the seismic risk for public and private buildings, includ- assessment of existing buildings, respectively, ing cultural heritage buildings, while other critical aligning with Eurocode 8. P100-1/2013 includes infrastructure for national or strategic purposes is zoning based on seismic hazard and categorizes addressed by the NDRRS. The NSRRS aims to create buildings by their importance and risk, while a greener, more earthquake-resilient, and inclusive P100-3/2019 focuses on evaluating and mitigating built environment by 2050 through (1) reducing the seismic vulnerability of existing structures. The seismic risk through targeted investments, (2) P100 part 1 (P100-1) currently under revision, which improving the sustainability and functionality of began in 2023 and is now in its final development buildings, (3) integrating seismic risk into planning phase, includes a key change related to seismic and recovery processes, and (4) increasing public hazard (from a 225 MRI to a 475 MRI) aligned with awareness and participation. Implementation will Eurocode—increasing design earthquake loads, on ensure the integration of energy efficiency with average, by 15-20 percent. This change could urban development and housing policies while also increase construction costs and complicate the accounting for seismic and other hazards, leverag- retrofitting of existing buildings, particularly those ing cost-saving synergies for comprehensive with cultural heritage value, as higher design loads solutions. Romania's LTRS outlines €12.8 billion in mean more invasive interventions. The development investment needs to enhance the energy efficiency of a specific analysis and retrofitting code for of its building stock by 2030, with the NRRP buildings with cultural heritage value should designating €2.2 billion for this initiative. To monitor therefore be accelerated. The specific section of progress, MDPWA uses sector-specific working the P100 code that would cover cultural heritage groups and strategic partnerships with technical buildings is P100 Part 8 (P100-8), but its develop- institutions, the academic sector, the private sector, ment is significantly delayed, with difficulties and civil society organizations (CSOs) to inform and establishing the acceptable level of risk versus the adjust future planning. Also, all involved institutions acceptable level of interventions for this type of are required to report on specific indicators to buildings. MDPWA, following a standardized data collection and Additional national regulations include Law No. reporting methodology, thus creating a generally 426/2023 for the amendment and completion of well-coordinated approach to earthquake risk Law No. 212/2022 regarding certain measures for management. reducing the seismic risk of buildings 45 which Institutional earthquake risk supports the National Program for the Strengthening management framework of High-Risk Buildings, and Law No. 115/2023, for amending and supplementing Law No. 260/2008 The institutional framework for earthquake risk regarding the mandatory insurance of homes management depends on coordination among against earthquakes, landslides, and floods, which multiple agencies and organizations responsible mandates compulsory insurance for buildings against for various functions; however, beyond emer- earthquakes and other natural hazards. Comple- gency response, line ministries show limited mentary ordinances and technical regulations, such awareness and commitment to risk reduction as those governing emergency response and measures—such as maintaining the functionality of post-seismic building safety, further solidify the legal health, energy, and communications systems framework. These measures aim to ensure effective 44 The Eurocodes, including Eurocode 8, provide essential standards for the design and assessment of earthquake- resistant structures, outlining methodologies for evaluating seismic risks, designing structures to withstand seismic forces, and assessing performance for both new and existing buildings. 45 Law No. 212/2022 on certain measures for reducing the seismic risk of buildings (‘the Law’) repealed Government Ordinance No. 20/1994. 25 GOVERNANCE OF EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT following an earthquake. MDPWA oversees the Analiză și Acoperire a Riscurilor, PAAR) 2019 for coordination and monitoring of actions and progress Bucharest. However, challenges remain, such as the (per GD No. 557/2016). With support from MoIA and need for updated regulations and improved coordi- the General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations nation with volunteers, CSOs, and other (GIES), MDPWA ensures that the implementation of stakeholders, as well as enhanced local capacities the NSRRS aligns with broader national strategies for disaster preparedness and response planning. and is primarily responsible for prevention and reconstruction/rehabilitation to restore normalcy, KEY OPPORTUNITIES whereas MoIA focuses on response operations. Various line ministries act as key implementers, With respect to the ear thquake governance working alongside MDPWA, regional and local framework, the following key opportunities have authorities, research institutes, and universities to been identified: (1) improving risk data collection synchronize efforts across different programs and and incorporating it into land planning frameworks, strategies aimed at reducing seismic risk. Among (2) improving damage and loss assessment and these entities, the State Inspectorate for Construc- developing a comprehensive recovery framework, tion (ISC) plays a key role in evaluating building (3) enhancing the engagement of CSOs and the safety and structural stability after seismic events private sector, (4) enhancing inter-institutional and determines emergency measures for vulnerable coordination and optimizing human resources structures. capacity through reform and training at all levels; (5) ensuring sufficient allocation of resources through At the subnational level, local authorities are EU funds and other sources fostering an enabling central to seismic risk management through environment that promotes private sector invest- several laws and frameworks, from risk assess- ment and public willingness to invest in renovations, ment and response to recovery, though challenges moving away from the current dependence on in coordination and capacity-building persist. grants. Local authorities are responsible for conducting EVRs of buildings to reduce seismic risk (Law No. 212/2022 amended and supplemented by Law No. Improving risk data collection and 426/2023), with a specific focus on public buildings such as schools and hospitals. They also oversee, incorporating it into land planning manage, and update hazard and risk maps at the frameworks county level, which are then approved by MDPWA, and are responsible for ensuring that hazard maps Romania has an opportunity to enhance its seis- are updated every 10 years. Civil protection legisla- mic risk assessment framework by creating a risk tion (Law No. 481/2004) assigns public authorities mapping methodology and standardizing risk at both central and local levels the responsibility for mapping procedures. This standardized approach risk identification, public awareness, emergency should be incorporated into Law No. 575, along response, alerting citizens, and disaster mitigation. with clear definitions to distinguish between Additionally, under the National Emergency Manage- hazard and risk. Moreover, the focus should fall on ment System (Sistemul Naţional de Management al the development of missing P100 sections, such as Situaţiilor de Urgenţă, SNMSU), local authorities the completion and approval of the P100-8 Seismic coordinate with county and national committees to Evaluation and Retrofitting Code for cultural her- manage emergency interventions, activating itage buildings; the P100-1 Seismic Design Code, response mechanisms based on the severity of the set to be implemented in 2025; and the develop- situation. ment of a Seismic Microzoning Guide, with terms of reference being currently drafted for two pilot Local authorities, coordinated with MoIA through projects in Râmnicu Sărat and Bârlad selected due GIES, manage population protection, evacuation, to their exposure to Vrancea seismic activity, with and recovery efforts during disasters, and assist the aim of enhancing data collection through the with reconstruction. However, gaps in the GD No. integration of information from the seismic moni- 557 prevent clear role definition for local authorities, toring network and local stations to demonstrate who are currently grouped under MDPWA (that is, the application of risk mapping and microzonation public administration) instead of being recognized methodologies. Enforceable provisions for the as distinct entities in recovery planning. Nonethe- integration of risk maps into planning processes less, they are also involved in managing evacuation should also be prioritized. shelters and post-disaster recovery, as outlined in the Risk Analysis and Defense Plan ( Planul de 26 GOVERNANCE OF EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT Improving damage and loss assessment This could be achieved by developing a human resources strategy, especially within MDPWA and developing a comprehensive which is responsible for national earthquake risk recovery framework management. Well-funded, long-term workplace training plans are needed to ensure the proficiency Developing a standardized methodology for and diversity of emergency management personnel collecting damage and loss data in Romania is at the national, county, and local levels. This can also needed, with GIES planning a future approach to help improve coordination in managing seismic risk, quantify losses. This would also imply addressing as well as communication and information sharing the current lack of distinction in terminology between central and local authorities. The human between damage and losses. Romania has yet to resource strategy at the MDPWA level should be develop a post-earthquake recovery framework. aligned with a broader, cross-ministerial approach Although some fragmented information exists, such addressing all disaster risks. This would establish as current regulations from MDPWA outlining solutions to optimize staffing and technical capacity post-disaster responsibilities, there is an opportunity at all levels and, if needed, reallocate personnel or to create a comprehensive post-earthquake recov- reassign positions currently assigned to lower-risk ery framework and update GD No. 557 to clearly hazards—such as hail—according to the risk define the roles and responsibilities of entities in the priorities outlined in the RO-Risk matrix. recovery phase, listing local authorities (also referred to as public administration) as a distinct Moreover, Romania's current seismic risk entity rather than being grouped under MDPWA. governance framework highlights the need for strengthening local capacities in understanding earthquake risk, prevention, preparedness, Enhancing the engagement of CSOs and planning, and response. While there are collabora- the private sector tive structures at various governance levels, such as Emergency Situations Committees as part of the Romania's current legislative framework on broader NCES system, there is an opportunity to enhancing collaboration with voluntary services improve local authorities' ability to develop their and the private sector in prevention, preparedness, own seismic risk reduction strategies, response response, and recovery presents ample opportuni- plans, and risk data maps. Enhancing local-level ties to refine laws to involve CSOs, spontaneous capacities will enable more effective risk manage- volunteers, and private entities at all stages while ment and ensure better coordination during addressing gaps in training, equipment provision, emergencies. Developing and expanding training and themes such as gender equality, vulnerability, opportunities on risk data collection and reporting and discrimination across regional and local levels. would build capacity and promote a sense of responsibility and agency among local actors by ensuring uniform data collection and reporting Enhancing inter-institutional standards, enabling easier integration of local data coordination and optimizing HR capacity into national and international systems, and improv- through reform and training at all levels ing overall coordination and response. Romania should continue to reform its human resource strategies in disaster risk management Ensuring continuous funds allocation for related fields and establish capacity-building and earthquake risk reduction career development opportunities at all levels, with a particular focus on technical expertise and Romania has the opportunity to ensure sufficient local-level implementation. The current significant funds allocation for earthquake risk reduction, imbalance in government staffing, with more clarify mandates and ensure budget while foster- personnel assigned to hail management despite ing an enabling environment that promotes earthquakes posing a higher risk, for example, private sector investment and public willingness should be prioritized. Romania could conduct a to invest in renovations. There is a need to ensure comprehensive assessment to realign human the legal framework and budget for Local Govern- resources according to actual hazard levels, to ments to allocate funds for auxiliary activities and enhance disaster preparedness and response items within the National Retrofitting Program (such across all hazards ensuring appropriate staffing and as notices, community discussions, technical capacity at all levels. assistance, price adjustments, etc.). Additionally, progress on key priorities outlined in the seismic 27 strategy could be scaled up by facilitating the reporting, and drafting of new programs and operationalizing mechanisms for tracking and together ensure that seismic risk reduction is an monitoring the execution of the strategy.46 While eligible activity across various programs being some are in place as noted above, more efforts and planned under the national budget or with the use of resources are needed. Bucharest City Hall, for EU cohesion/structural funds.47 example, could improve its use of the existing national risk reduction program and improve communication with MDPWA as the main counter- part in the seismic risk-reduction process. The city and MDPWA could collaborate in data and informa- tion sharing, communication, results and indicators 46 GoR 2024. 47 World Bank. 2021c. Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on the Bucharest Urban Development Program (P169577), Component 4: Bucharest’s Seismic Risk Reduction Program, Output 15: Recommendations for a City Strat- egy and Enhanced Public Awareness for Seismic Risk Reduction. Link. 28 UNDERSTANDING DRM CONTEXT EARTHQUAKE RISK AND USE OF RISK DATA Disaster risk assessments are supported by central authorities, research institutions, specialized working groups, and contributions through projects. The national RO-RISK project (2016–2018), coordi- nated by GIES, established a national framework for risk assessment, including a standardized methodology reflecting EU standards and This chapter focuses on best practices and a WebGIS platform for sharing results. The first the current understanding comprehensive NRA identified 10 key hazards from the 24 key risk of earthquake risks in scenarios with destructive potential outlined in GD No. 557/2016, Romania, which is informed resulting in hazard maps at the national level, a risk matrix, and the by various sources of data creation of the inter-institutional Working Group on NRA within the and analysis, research and NPDRR. From 2019 to 2023, improvements were made, including (1) innovation, NRAs, and developing a methodology for assessing disaster-related damage to other risk evaluations. ensure standardization and comparability of historical data, (2) Earthquake risk is updating risk assessments to account for climate change and understood as the migration, (3) creating a national disaster damage database to collect combination of seismic and share relevant data in a standard format accessible to all hazard (for example, the stakeholders, (4) refining flood risk mapping, and (5) devising a method frequency of earthquake for rapid visual assessment (Evaluare Vizuală Rapidă, EVR) of seismic occurrence, the strength of vulnerability in buildings. These efforts aim to enhance decision-making ground shaking given an and disaster risk reduction (DRR) across all administrative levels. earthquake), exposure (for example, the number of people exposed, the value CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS of assets exposed), and vulnerability (for example, National risk assessment: RO-RISK 2018 the susceptibility of assets to damage, the ability of Seismic risk data in Romania currently rely heavily on the RO-RISK populations to cope with project and vary across public sectors, only covering certain earthquake effects). buildings and including limited information, which makes them inadequate for civil protection and spatial planning. Seismic hazard maps were provided under RO-RISK at the administrative territorial unit (ATU) level, and for Bucharest, data is accessible to users in PDF format at the building level, including limited information, such as construction date, building type, year of assessment, and vulnerability class, focusing solely on buildings deemed at the highest risk. Additionally, the data used for the RO-RISK project are primarily based on the 2011 census and serve as the primary source for understanding the seismic exposure of the residential sector. While the data cover a significant portion of the housing stock, data for other critical sectors such as education, health care, and cultural heritage buildings are less comprehensive. For these sectors, information is fragmented and less detailed, reflecting a gap in the overall seismic risk assessment framework, with a need for more granular, uniformly formatted, and up-to-date data on risk-exposed elements. In addition, as of August 25, 2024, a little over half of the approximately 40 million properties (58.12 percent) in Romania are digitally registered and managed by the integrated cadastral and land registry system.48 Efforts are under way to develop and refine data systems like SIPCI to better manage and evaluate the seismic risk of cultural heritage structures. It is noted that Romania currently lacks dedicated efforts for seismic assessments and retrofitting of critical infrastructure like bridges, dams, tunnels, and pipelines. These struc- tures are designed following the Eurocodes or by adapting general building design codes rather than having specific seismic design standards for them (such as P100-2). 48 National Agency for Cadastre and Land Registration (NACLR). 2024. Properties Managed by the Integrated Cadastral and Land Registry System. Link. 29 Seismic hazard maps versus risk maps effects. Earthquake-induced fires are also a chal- lenge to model and assess effectively, making it In Romania, hazard maps are set to be updated difficult to integrate such hazards into risk frame- every 10 years at the county level, but there is a works. The identification of earthquake-related lack of risk maps that incorporate exposure and secondary hazards like landslides and dam failures vulnerability data at the local level, which requires remains critical, though existing tools and assess- additional effort. While the current hazard maps are ments could be expanded to address combined risks based on a 1,000-year return period, a 200-year more comprehensively. return period would be more suitable for earth- quakes, requiring updated research since the 2011 census data is no longer reliable. According to Order Microzonation No. 132/2007, local authorities must develop PAARs based on territorial risk schemes provided by the Microzonation in Romania is still to be implemented, emergency situations inspectorates at county level, necessitating increased resource allocation and a potentially including maps identifying Local authori- focus on collecting specific local data to improve ties are expected to maintain hazard and risk maps seismic risk assessments and planning. Currently, for their territories. However, many local authorities the seismic hazard maps at the county level mainly lack comprehensive, up-to-date hazard and risk replicate detailed versions of the national map maps for their administrative areas, with some cities without additional data or refinement, limiting their not having them at all. Many PAARs available on local usefulness for localized risk assessments. Recently, authorities websites are outdated, and the method- two pilot projects were planned to apply risk map- ology for developing PAARs does not require hazard ping methodologies in Romania, focusing on better or risk maps. Furthermore, how climate impacts are understanding soil conditions and their impact on integrated into local emergency plans remains to be seismic risk. Râmnicu Sărat and Bârlad were assessed.49 Current legislation in Romania does not selected due to their exposure to Vrancea seismic clearly distinguish between hazard and risk maps activity, with the aim of enhancing data collection (Law No. 575/2001), leading to confusion, while through the integration of information from the county-level seismic hazard maps mainly replicate seismic monitoring network and local stations. the national map without further refinement or However, the program suffers from limited funding. additional localized data. A new program by MDPWA for 2024–2027 aims to Pre-earthquake data collection: Rapid develop and update natural hazard maps for Visual Evaluation (EVR) earthquakes and landslides, with a budget of €1,770,000 (RON 8,850,000) (per GD No. 6/2024). Pre-earthquake data collection in Romania uses This initiative aims to identify vulnerable areas, methods like rapid visual evaluation (EVR) based enabling local authorities to implement targeted risk on the RTC 10-2022 Methodology,51 supported by mitigation measures and establish strategic land use the EVR platform, part of the NSRRS. The EVR plans. Funding can cover up to 50 percent of costs platform, managed by the MDPWA, is a digital from the state budget, fostering collaboration system that supports collecting and assessing between local and national authorities.50 However, seismic vulnerability and exposure data, prioritize there is a need for developing risk maps, but local building investments, and catalogue representative authorities face challenges in their development due building types. The data collection is conducted by to insufficient training in drafting terms of reference civil engineering students and specialists, focusing and a lack of a standardized methodology, resulting on public buildings. Private buildings are evaluated in hesitancy from specialists to validate these maps if they impact emergency responses. Hospital data due to the absence of a risk-specific quality control should have been included by the 1st of November process. 2024, but the Ministry of Health (MoH) is yet to provide the necessary information. Currently, despite extensive efforts by the MDPWA—including Secondary hazard maps circulars sent via the Prefect’s Office and four dedicated seminars to explain legal obligations and In Romania, secondary hazards like landslides and guide UAT representatives in using the platform dam collapses are recognized as key risks, with (public administration representatives, mayors some efforts made to create landslide hazard etc.)—feedback has been limited, suggesting a need maps at the county level (funded under GD No. for continued support and clearer communication to 932/2007). However, these maps primarily focus strengthen understanding and engagement at the on landslides triggered by heavy rainfall, not by local level. earthquakes, and do not account for combined 49 GoR 2024. 50 MoEF (Ministry of European Funds). 2024. The Program Regarding the Financing of the Development and/or Updat- ing from the State Budget of Natural Risk Maps for Earthquakes and Landslides for the Period 2024–2027. Link. 51 MDPWA. 2023. Rapid Visual Assessment Methodology for Buildings, Indicative RTC 10 - 2022. Link. 30 UNDERSTANDING EARTHQUAKE RISK AND USE OF RISK DATA The Municipal Administration for Retrofitting of heritage preservation. The certification exams Seismic Risk Buildings (AMCCRS) list,52 represent- reflect a significant gap in both training and experi- ing the only publicly available data on vulnerable ence, with only about 30 percent of candidates buildings in Bucharest, does not capture the full passing. Furthermore, there is a notable lack of extent of seismic vulnerability. The current list of qualified technical experts in seismic risk reduction, buildings assessed for seismic risk does not include with many younger professionals lacking experience details on ownership status and building function, and mid-career experts demonstrating low commit- which could aid in prioritizing retrofitting efforts. Out ment, posing a challenge to addressing seismic and of the total residential buildings in the city, the 2,495 other disaster risks effectively. residential buildings and 26,985 housing units listed represent only about 2 percent, leaving many potentially vulnerable structures unlisted.53 Addition- KEY OPPORTUNITIES ally, it does not yet mention certain vulnerable buildings, such as high-rise apartments built Regarding risk assessment, the following three key between 1950 and 1978, a period when seismic opportunities have been identified: (1) updating design codes were inadequate. These buildings may legislation and methodology for developing hazard be particularly vulnerable, but their standardized and risk maps and PAARs and (2) expanding the designs could offer scalable and efficient solutions scope of risk assessment to include heritage for seismic risk reduction, especially for publicly structures and critical infrastructure as well as to owned structures. consider secondary hazards. Concentrating more narrowly on data collection In 2024, Bucharest’s AMCCRS launched a pilot processes and improving information use and flow seismic assessment of 275 buildings, filled 47 EVR between stakeholders, the following two key forms and is now planning to expand it to 20,000, opportunities have been proposed: (1) establishing backed by a €500,000 grant from the Council of systems and mechanisms between sectors to Europe Development Bank. This pilot project was exchange information, consolidate data, regularly initiated following MDPWA Order No. 3.231/2022, update risk assessments, and create a more and all RVA forms were uploaded to the Ministry’s comprehensive seismic risk profile and (2) providing platform, while the remaining buildings were resources and training necessary at the central and ineligible under Law No. 212/2022 amended and local levels for efficient data collection and supplemented by Law No. 426/2023. AMCCRS is improved seismic risk reduction/DRR knowledge. now running a public procurement procedure to extend the assessment process, aiming to complete 20,000 EVR forms—mainly for protected and historic Update legislation and methodology for buildings. The project is co-financed by a €500,000 grant from the Council of Europe Development Bank, developing hazard and risk maps and but more funding shall be needed, with an estimated PAARs cost of €300/EVR form. Once the pilot project is implemented and the necessary technical insights An opportunity exists to strengthen Romania's risk are gained, it will be scaled and expanded across mapping system, including seismic, by developing Bucharest through a framework agreement, with the a unified methodology and a platform to centralize goal of fulfilling legal responsibilities by 2025. risk maps and integrate them into planning pro- cesses. A new NRA should ensure that past efforts are acknowledged and reflected in updated seismic Access and use of data microzonation maps, while the earthquake hazard mapping could be improved by adopting a more Other challenges include limited access, collection, suitable (e.g. 200-year) return period, supported by and lack of continuous exchange and operational updated research to replace outdated 2011 census use of risk data between stakeholders, as well as data. Additionally, a geotechnical drilling campaign a lack of specialized experts in seismic risk could be prioritized and fund allocated to under- assessment. Romania currently faces a shortage of stand the dynamic characteristics currently missing certified technical experts in critical fields such as and needed for effective microzonation. This energy efficiency, structural engineering, and process could be complemented and accelerated by 52 MARBSR (Municipal Administration for the Reinforcement of Buildings with Seismic Risk). 2024. "List of Buildings [Updated List of Buildings].” Link. 53 Ana Elian. 2023. "What We Currently Know About the Vulnerability of Residential Buildings in Bucharest and Across the Country.” Acasa în Siguranță. Link. 31 Figure 4. NSRRS: Role of the visual assessment in the prioritization of investments Source: NRRS. National Seismic Risk Reduction Strategy (MLPDA) Program allocation and design Allocation of funds across multiple programs informed LEVEL 1 by risk data (for both public and residential buildings) National Probabilistic seismic risk assessments Regional allocation of investment Allocation of funds across cities/towns/communes in- formed by risk data Implementation of Investment Program (by Cities, Towns, Communes, Line Ministries and other stakeholders) LEVEL 2 Visual seismic assessments to collect building Prioritization of interventions data and identify the vulnerability of existing Information from visual seismic assessments is used to building types prioritize and rank existing assets based on risk LEVEL 3 Detailed seismic evaluations, including feasibil- Execution of interventions ity studies and detailed designs Retrofitting or construction works are implemented in prioritized assets creating a centralized database of geotechnical Expanding the scope of risk assessment information. For example, private companies could be required to submit borehole data for depths Romania has the opportunity to enhance seismic greater than 10 meters, following best practices resilience by expanding risk assessments to such as those implemented in France. Romania include heritage structures and critical infrastruc- could also prioritize regular revisions and updates ture as well as to consider secondary hazards . to Law No. 575/2001 based on the latest risk Although the seismic risk assessment within RO-RISK assessments, thus clarifying the terminology has primarily focused on the residential sector, there between hazard and risk and amending the law is a need to extend efforts toward public buildings accordingly, which would further help ensure and heritage structures through the development of consistency and improve local authorities' capacity specialized systems to improve data accuracy and to draft and validate risk maps. Additionally, the sector-specific risk assessment. Moreover, assess- methodology for developing PAARs should be ing and retrofitting critical infrastructure such as revised to incorporate hazard and risk maps, and bridges, dams, tunnels, and pipelines should be efforts should be made to ensure that climate supported by the development of a tailored national impacts are properly integrated into local emer- seismic assessment and design and evaluation code gency plans. Furthermore, an NRA registry could be for these structures. Additionally, addressing developed to integrate upcoming risk maps from the secondary hazards like earthquake-induced land- NRA, which will ultimately support a more seamless slides and dam failures through comprehensive risk integration into planning processes through plat- assessments and tools that account for combined forms like the National Observatory and INSPIRE, effects can significantly improve seismic risk man- which include risk layers. Lastly, the draft law for the agement. Territorial Planning, Urbanism, and Construction Code could streamline and consolidate regulations into a single, coherent framework, covering related fields like environment, energy, transportation, property, and risk management. 32 UNDERSTANDING EARTHQUAKE RISK AND USE OF RISK DATA Improving information use and flow Providing resources and training There is also potential for establishing multiple Finally, to address personnel challenges in seismic systems and mechanisms between sectors to data collection, there is scope to allocate resources, exchange information, consolidate data, regularly secure funding, provide staff training, reform expert risk assessments, and create a more comprehen- certification systems, and embrace innovative sive seismic risk profile. Funding should be methods. Investments in training and guidance for ensured and resources allocated for establishing public administration at all levels to improve seismic data collection protocols across institutions, risk reduction/DRR knowledge, including a training combined with leveraging sources like the National mechanism for disaster damage and loss assessment, Buildings Registry, the Territorial Observatory, and with periodic exercises are also needed to enhance publicly available data from the National Institute technical capacity for data collection, management, of Statistics, which can improve data consistency, and analysis. Romania has an opportunity to address transparency, and the effectiveness of seismic risk its shortage of certified technical experts by reform- reduction efforts. ing the certification system—given that only around 30 percent of candidates currently pass—thus improving qualifications, training, and professional- ism, ensuring better preparedness for tackling seismic and other disaster risks. Moreover, providing training in drafting terms of reference for hazard and risk maps, alongside implementing a specific risk- related quality control process, would enhance local authorities' capacity to effectively assess seismic risk and ensure the validation and approval of these maps by specialists. Leveraging ideas like engaging diverse actors to populate databases, as seen in the EVR platform where Technical University of Civil Engineer- ing of Bucharest (Universitatea Tehnică de Construcții București, UTCB) students catalog data using EVR, can enhance coverage, though full assessments still rely on trained inspectors or students with relevant academic backgrounds. 33 34 EARTHQUAKE RISK In line with the governance framework, planning and prevention PREVENTION, activities fall under the scope of MoIA and relevant line ministries REDUCTION, AND (depending on the hazard) as well as the subnational level. In 2024, MITIGATION the NDRRS 2024—203554 was approved, covering all hazards identi- fied by the NRA and providing a comprehensive strategic framework for enhancing Romania's disaster resilience. It promotes a whole-of- society approach through multisectoral, multi-hazard, participatory, and inclusive efforts. Related to flood risk management, Romania’s This chapter focuses on Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs), with the most recent cycle earthquake risk prevention, approved in 2024, are the main instrument required under the EU reduction, and mitigation, Floods Directive. These plans include major investments for rehabilita- outlining opportunities tion and retrofitting worth €3.8 billion prioritized in FRMPs, €1.05 billion regarding legislative for climate-related measures in the Updated National Basin Manage- reforms, development and ment Plan, and €235.3 million for dams and €105 million for 510 km of enforcement of building dike lines under the NRRP. The NSRRS 2022 promotes an integrated codes, and enhancing approach to seismic risk reduction and green building transitions, current retrofitting aligning investments with the LTRS priorities and incorporating programs for public and energy-efficient renovations where feasible, proposing a total of €13.6 residential buildings. It also billion to retrofit and improve the energy efficiency of buildings by 2030. addresses the integration Additional information will be presented in the subsequent sections. of hazard considerations into planning documents Funds for DRM55 are sourced mainly from the state budget, local and sectoral strategies as budgets, and internal funds from public and private contributions, well as the scaling up of insurance, and complemented through the EU or other international retrofitting efforts in critical funding. So far, Romania has used these funds for DRM in four main sectors. The chapter areas: developing policies and strategies, increasing public awareness, recognizes that the training operational personnel, and strengthening intervention capaci- concept of risk prevention ty.56 A complete overview of existing public and private, national and varies through Romanian international funding opportunities and synergies is not available; strategic documents and however, it is estimated that between 2014 and 2021, Romania invested would benefit from a over RON 73 billion (€15 billion) in DRM through national programs unified understanding and funded by the state budget, alongside approximately RON 7.3 billion definition. (€1.5 billion) from EU investments.57 Other sources of funds accessed for DRM include the Norwegian Mechanism 2014–2020 and World Bank loans.58 CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS Legislative updates While Law No. 426/2023 has introduced a range of important updated relevant for seismic risk reduction, challenges persist—including unaffordable retrofitting for vulnerable groups, limited financial support instruments and continued double standards allowing occupancy of high-risk public buildings—leaving many citizens and public servants exposed to serious risk. Amending and supplementing Law No. 212/2022, the 2023 new law provides investment opportuni- ties for seismic rehabilitation of high-risk buildings (including the red dot/stamp 59 buildings); restricts the use of vulnerable residential 54 GoR (Government of Romania). 2024. National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction 2024–2035. Link. 55 The following legislative framework governs disaster risk financing in Romania: Law No. 500/2002, Law No. 273/2006, GD No. 932/2007. 56 NCES 2020. 57 GoR 2024. Since 2002, Romania has invested around €1.5 billion in DRM from various EU funds, including, among others, Structural Investment Funds, Next Generation EU, the Recovery and Resilience Facility and UCPM. These funds supported various initiatives, including the development of EWSs, risk knowledge enhancement (RO-RISK), improved monitoring and forecasting capabilities, and better alert dissemination techniques (RO-ALERT). 58 NCES 2020, 90. 59 Red dot/stamp buildings, designated as SR I, are highly vulnerable to collapse in a major earthquake, with 356 such buildings listed. Most of these were assessed in the 1990s, and efforts to engage owners in retrofitting have been slow, hindered by outdated notification methods and legal loopholes. These gaps allowed property rentals and events in red dot/stamp buildings, reducing owners' urgency to retrofit and compromising public safety. World Bank 2021c. 35 structures; and supports retrofitting with govern- hazard levels for new constructions and retrofitting ment-funded technical expertise, risk assessments, projects. However, this update has sparked debate energy audits, and post-intervention performance within the Tprofessional community, as some certificates . The eligibility criteria have been designers worry the new standards might become expanded, allowing all public interest buildings— overly restrictive if seismic hazard levels are regardless of ownership—to qualify for intervention increased. The NDRRS includes plans to update works,60 while residential buildings no longer need other sections of the seismic design code in line with to meet the minimum height of P+3 and 10 apart- Eurocode 8, with the involvement of all relevant ments to qualify.61 stakeholders. A new provision under the new law allows homeowners' associations or individual owners to Land use planning: the National Building apply for state-guaranteed loans for seismic Registry rehabilitation. In this case, the state covers interest costs through the Ministry of Finance's designated Currently, the territorial planning system does not institution, with eligibility restricted to buildings in systematically address seismic risk reduction seismic risk classes I (SRI) and II (SRII). However, this objectives. This lack of integration means that measure has low effectiveness given limited bank seismic risk is not adequately considered in territo- involvement in the drafting process of the law and rial planning documents and development strategies the absence of practical financial support mecha- at the local, county, regional, and national levels. nisms. Moreover, the new law also enhances safety Initiatives are under way at MDPWA to create the by prohibiting apartment rentals and large gather- necessary tools for central public administration ings in vulnerable structures while introducing authorities responsible for approving documentation government-funded coverage for technical exper- and especially for local public administration tise, seismic risk classification, intervention authorities managing and implementing territorial assessments, energy audits, and post-intervention and urban planning documentation, including in GIS energy performance certificates, fostering proactive systems. These efforts aim to enhance community retrofitting and effective risk management. How- development and implement public investments ever, the same usage restrictions do not yet apply to using territorial planning instruments while address- public buildings classified as high seismic risk (SRI ing climate change and uncontrolled urban and SRII), meaning they can still be occupied despite expansion. the serious safety risks—exposing public servants and citizens to potential harm during an earth- In Romania's NRRP, funding has been allocated for quake. the digitalization and development of tools and databases in construction, territorial planning, and urbanism. Under Component 10 (Local Fund), 298 Seismic building codes territorial and urban planning documents will be prepared, and under Component 5 (Renovation The seismic vulnerability of buildings in Romania is Wave), a National Digital Building Registry which in significantly influenced by the building codes in its pilot phase will focus on buildings renovated place at the time of their construction, which, through the NRRP. However, the National Building although periodically updated, still require further Registry, a critical tool for the MDPWA, initially enhancements to address current risks and planned for online release on the public utility challenges effectively. Seismic design codes in information system with its pilot section by Decem- Romania began with P13-63 in 1963 and have ber 21, 2024, is currently stalled due to fiscal evolved through several updates, incorporating situation, which inhibits the integration with cadas- lessons from accelerographic data since 1977 to tral and other national databases. improve building safety. However, buildings con- structed before 1978 under less stringent codes remain particularly vulnerable, especially compared Seismic risk reduction programs to those adhering to modern seismic standards.62 Currently, the seismic design of buildings follows the Given the lack of updated, structured data on the technical regulation P100-1/2013 (updated in 2019), built environment, the NSRRS proposes a strategic which aims to protect life, maintain essential investment planning methodology based on a services, and minimize material damage during tiered, three-level evaluation approach that earthquakes. MDPWA is preparing an update to the prioritizes buildings based on seismic risk and P100-1 seismic design norm, which defines seismic potential benefits from risk reduction actions. As 60 Provided they are classified as SR I or SR II and have a peak ground acceleration (PGA) value of ≥0.15g, lowered from ≥0.20g. 61 As long as their PGA is also ≥0.15 g. 62 Buildings are categorized based on the code period—Pre-Code (before 1963), Lower-Code (1963-1977), Moderate- Code (1978-1992), and Superior-Code (post-1992)—with older codes indicating higher vulnerability. 36 EARTHQUAKE RISK PREVENTION, REDUCTION, AND MITIGATION noted in the section on understanding risk, the cannot afford it. Moreover, to access the program approach involves a national-level assessment of for residential buildings, a majority (50 percent + 1) the existing building stock for various sectors (for decision by the homeowners' association is now example, residential, educational, health care) to sufficient, resolving previous issues related to the understand its vulnerability, classify risks, identify requirement for unanimous consent, but since it high-risk buildings, and perform detailed technical does not allow forced eviction, relocation remains a evaluations only for those identified as high-risk, challenge—authorities must still go to court to with stricter performance criteria for those critical to remove residents who refuse to leave so that work public safety and emergency response. This can begin. Finally, despite clear legal responsibilities optimizes fund allocation and ensures that seismic under the new law, sector municipalities have not risk assessments are used to inform investment carried out their mandates regarding retrofitting decisions that yield the maximum protection and efforts, leaving the task to the overstretched financial efficiency. Multiannual programs for both Municipality of Bucharest through AMCCRS. public and private buildings, funded by public, private, and European or external sources, are included in the strategy. The strategy also follows Residential buildings the build back better (BBB) principle, proposing the demolition and replacement of seismically vulnerable Despite recent efforts, progress in enhancing buildings without historical or architectural value.63 seismic resilience in Bucharest could be further scaled up. As of April 2025, six of the 849 buildings MDPWA finances sectoral investment programs to classified as high seismic risk have ongoing work. allocate state funds for the consolidation and Despite clear responsibilities under Law No. assessment of vulnerable buildings, while county 212/2022, which was subsequently amended and and prefecture authorities are responsible for supplemented by Law No. 426/2023, and repeated prevention and management at the local level. The notifications from AMCCRS since 2022, sector National Program for the Consolidation of Seismic municipalities have not engaged in rapid seismic risk Risk Buildings, established under Law No. 212/2022, assessments, leaving the burden to the Municipality which was subsequently amended and supple- of Bucharest—the only one with a dedicated mented by Law No. 426/2023, includes a structure—while sector city halls rely on over- Subprogram for Residential Buildings and one for stretched departments, stalling 71 approved Public Interest Buildings. Through this program, projects (61 locally funded) and risking the expiration non-repayable state funding is provided, including of technical assessments. Additionally, as noted non-residential spaces under a state aid scheme. above, public communication has led to misunder- These investments serve as models for further standings by implying that seismic retrofitting under modernization and investments through national or the NRRP is entirely free of charge, whereas in EU funds (see Table 2). practice, property owners may be required to contribute a co-financing share of 10–20 percent (up However, retrofitting works have been delayed due to €30,000), which has negatively impacted public to unresolved legal issues around relocation, trust in AMCCRS, currently implementing the limited implementation capacity at the sectoral residential retrofitting subprogram. level, and a lack of clear communication about retrofitting costs, which has led to confusion and diminished public trust in AMCCRS. Although the program is publicly promoted as fully free, in practice Public interest buildings it requires homeowner co-financing ranging from 10 – 20 percent (up to €30,000), with the remainder The Subprogram for Public Interest Buildings supported by the NRRP which is financing €700/m² targets public interest structures, focusing on including VAT, . The General Council of Bucharest improving seismic safety and energy efficiency in may charge an extra €500–€600/m² for construction public buildings, including schools and hospitals. and installation, further increasing out-of-pocket The Safe and Healthy Schools Program proposes a costs for homeowners. In many cases, the retrofit list of 214 schools in 2025, focusing on seismic cost is higher than the apartment’s market value, consolidation, rehabilitation, modernization, and making it financially unviable for owners—especially energy efficiency, with funding from MDPWA and for vulnerable groups like the elderly, who often 63 The value of buildings with cultural heritage significance must be quantified and incorporated into analyses, requiring a political decision to assess various sites in Bucharest, as demolition is not an option, thus necessitating careful plan- ning to minimize the impact of interventions. 37 execution by local authorities. 64 Other projects intervention measures for 4,800 buildings in the include the Consolidation of Hospitals Program health and education system by 2027. ‘Mihail Cantacuzino’ includes intervention works at 35 hospitals in 2024 with confirmed hospitals such as Caransebeș Municipal Emergency Hospital, the only one in the Banat region, Dr. Pompei Samarian County Emergency Hospital in Călărași, and Bălcescu Hospital in Pitești which is renovating Building C at their diagnostic and treatment center; and the National Program for the Assessment of Public Buildings with Seismic Risk in the Health and Education Systems65, financing technical assess- ments to classify seismic risk and develop 64 The National Investment Program "Safe and Healthy Schools". MDPWA. Link. 65 GoR 2024. Table 2. An Overview of Key Programs/Plans for Earthquake Risk Reduction in Romania Source: Authors based on available information. Area Project Name Measures Actor Estimated Budget Period National Program for the Seismic Strengthening of Buildings with High Seismic Risk in Romania Contributes to safer, more functional pre-university edu- cation buildings in Romania The Safe and through seismic consolidation, Commitmentcred- Healthy Schools rehabilitation, modernization, MDWPA its: €16 million Program (EO No. and energy efficiency works, Budget credits: €4 Public Interest Buildings (Health and education) 7/2023) including related facilities and million possible partial demolitions. It targets intervention works at 214 schools in 2025. Funds seismic consolidation, rehabilitation, modernization, and reconstruction of public 2023-2027 (multi-annual) health buildings are assessed Consolidation of by certified experts, with eligi- Commitment cred- Hospitals Program ble beneficiaries including lo- MDWPA, its: €40 million ‘Mihail Cantacuzino’ cal authorities and public MoH Budget credits: €4 (EO No. 49/2023) health institutions that are million currently not fully financed by the state. It includes interven- tion works at 35 hospitals in 2024. Finances technical assess- National Program ment services to classify for the Assessment buildings by seismic risk and of Public Buildings to support the development of Commitment cred- with Seismic Risk in intervention measures for MDPWA its: €8 million the Health and Edu- structures in the health and Budget credits: €4 cation Systems (EO education systems, with a tar- million No. 49/2023) get of 4.800 buildings by 2027. Subprogram for the From 2024-2027, funding will Residential Buildings Design and Execu- cover seismic consolidation tion of Intervention and energy improvements for MDPWA approx. €800 mil- Works for Residen- 73 multifamily residential lion tial Buildings buildings and 100 public build- ings, averaging 900 sqm each. 38 Esti- Area Project Name Measures Actor mated Period Budget World Bank’s Portfolio of Investment Projects in Critical Infrastructure/Services in Romania Strengthening Prioritizes up to 28 high-risk disas- Disaster Risk ter and emergency response facil- Management ities, including fire stations, for MoIA, DES and €142 2018-2027 Project seismic upgrades and energy effi- GIES million (P166302) ciency enhancements. Critical emergency infrastructure Focuses on enhancing the re- silience of 7 facilities of the Roma- Improving nian Police that are critical for Resilience and emergency response, improving MoIA, General Response energy efficiency and providing Inspectorate of €50 2019-2026 Management universal access, while also ensur- Romanian Po- million Project ing operational readiness for res- lice (P168119) cue personnel, with enhanced training and access to vital equip- ment. Focuses on enhancing the re- Strengthening silience of 7 facilities of the Roma- Preparedness nian Gendarmerie that are critical and Critical for emergency response, improv- MoIA, General Emergency In- ing energy efficiency and provid- Inspectorate of €40 2019-2026 frastructure ing universal access, while also the Romanian million Project ensuring operational readiness for Gendarmerie (P168120) rescue personnel, with enhanced training and access to vital equip- ment. Approximately 10 primary and lower secondary schools in high seismic areas are being recon- structed, with a focus on safety, sustainability, accessibility, earth- Educational infrastructure quake resistance, fire safety, en- ergy efficiency, and climate re- silience, and 12 other schools have Romania Safer, been assessed and have technical Inclusive, and designs prepared. Out of these 22 Sustainable schools, 18 of them were provided MDPWA €100 2021-2027 Schools Project with mobile classrooms to tempo- million (P175308) rarily move children to safe learn- ing spaces. The project will benefit students, including those with dis- abilities and from marginalized communities, by strengthening in- stitutional capacity and providing model school designs, training, and streamlined project prepara- tion documents for nationwide im- pact. 39 EARTHQUAKE RISK PREVENTION, REDUCTION, AND MITIGATION KEY OPPORTUNITIES ment-backed risk mitigation measures—such as partial loan guarantees or interest subsidies—and Regarding the improvement of seismic prevention fostering PPPs to share risks and improve access to efforts in Romania with a focus on mitigation capital for high-risk buildings. measures, the following three key opportunities emerged: (1) enhancing legislative effectiveness and introducing additional risk mitigation measures, Reforming seismic building codes (2) reforming building codes to match international standards and creating new sector-specific regula- Romania has several opportunities to improve tions, and (3) reforming land use planning to seismic risk management, including updating incorporate hazards considerations. seismic design norms like the P100-1 and creating Retrofitting programs could be enhanced through new regulations for specific sectors, such as the following two key measures : (1) scaling up retrofitting cultural heritage buildings (P100-8) and retrofitting efforts in critical sectors and (2) building designing for infrastructure like pipes, tunnels, and trust through prevention activities and awareness bridges. There is a need for better seismic isolator campaigns. testing norms to encourage wider adoption as well as for operationalizing MDPWA’s National Building Registry and updating the post-earthquake assess- ment methodology (ME-003/2007). Addressing Expanding risk mitigation measures and these gaps and improving collaboration between ministries, such as MDPWA and the Ministry of enhancing legislative effectiveness Culture, for example, in the case of updating the There is scope for expanding risk mitigation P100-8 norm, could strengthen Romania's approach measures in several ways. This could be done, for to seismic safety and risk reduction. example, by offering guarantees, subsidies; foster- ing public-private partnerships (PPPs) to support seismic retrofitting; expanding the administrative Secure funding for land use planning: the capacity of AMCCRS; and enforcing clear mandates National Building Registry for sector municipalities, supported by technical assistance and dedicated funding streams, to To effectively mitigate seismic risks, it is essential accelerate seismic assessments and ensure conti- for land planning frameworks to incorporate nuity of approved projects. This could be ensured by comprehensive risk assessments and unblock, creating specialized seismic risk units/departments reallocate and secure funding for the release of within sector municipalities using AMCCRS as an digital resources such as a National Building example, with targeted funding and capacity- Registry. Integrating hazard considerations into building, to ensure efficient use of available planning documents and sectoral strategies— resources and reduce pressure on general depart- through systematic data collection and improved ments. granularity of available information—will enable local There is also a need for prioritizing the amendment authorities to prioritize interventions in vulnerable of national regulations to streamline the prohibi- areas, ensuring that both new developments and tion of occupancy of all buildings . This could existing structures can withstand seismic events. To include public and private buildings, under certain this end, Romania should prioritize reallocating or conditions, classified as high seismic risk (SRI and securing alternative funding of the National Building SRII) until structural safety measures are imple- Registry and prioritize integration with cadastral and mented, ensuring consistent protection of life and other national databases to enable data-driven risk safety regardless of ownership. Additionally, the management and infrastructure planning. government should ensure transparent public communication through awareness campaigns (especially using TV spots) on the actual costs and Improving health care and cultural process of retrofitting and introduce targeted heritage resilience financial support or subsidies for vulnerable home- owners to make retrofitting both accessible and Scaling up retrofitting efforts in critical sectors like economically viable. To this end, addressing banks’ health care and cultural heritage offers a key reluctance to finance seismic retrofitting is essential opportunity by prioritizing buildings for seismic and could be achieved by implementing govern- protection and allocating funds based on best 40 EARTHQUAKE RISK PREVENTION, REDUCTION, AND MITIGATION practices from ongoing projects, such as those in Building trust through prevention education regarding the 12 schools prioritized by the activities and awareness Ministry of Education and Research (MoE) and emergency infrastructure set forward by MoIA and To enhance seismic prevention efforts in Romania, retrofitted with World Bank funding. Expanding it is crucial to build public trust in retrofitting priority lists for no-regret investments, improving programs through targeted solutions. The first step coordination with relevant ministries (for example, would entail conducting comprehensive cost-benefit MoH and Ministry of Culture), and leveraging data analyses of proposed prevention measures, which on vulnerabilities can enhance the efficiency of fund can provide evidence-based justification for invest- usage, especially at Bucharest City Hall level (see ments, thus fostering informed decision-making and Table 3). Strengthening collaboration between DRR efficient allocation of resources. This could be actors, including public and private sector involve- followed by promoting prevention activities across ment in exploring emergency intervention funds and all levels of governance, ensuring they are sup- seismic insurance, is essential for improving sector ported by clear, actionable local-level guidelines resilience as well as coordination between sectoral tailored to the unique needs of each community. ministries and GIES for elaborating evacuation and Additionally, targeted risk awareness campaigns response plans as well as business continuity plans, should be designed to educate the public about particularly in health care, where approximately 45 seismic risks and the benefits of retrofitting pro- percent of existing buildings could be highly grams while also making sure to portray current vulnerable to earthquakes.66 programs realistically with all costs and measures implied to avoid bottlenecks in the retrofitting process and loss of image of state authorities leading the process (e.g., AMCCRS). These cam- paigns should aim to build trust and encourage proactive participation in earthquake preparedness and mitigation efforts, ultimately creating a culture of resilience. 66 GoR 2024. Table 3. Potential sectors/types of assets for Bucharest priority strengthening interventions Source: World Bank 2021c. Sector Category of assets - Emergency response assets (fire stations and so on) - Designated shelters/evacuation/feeding centers spaces Local public - Public administration buildings (especially those with emer- administration as- gency response responsibilities) sets (SRI and SRII) - Assets owned by local authorities providing services to the public that may be critical following a disaster (identification, land registry, social care and support, and so on) Targets and timelines to be set with stake- - Hospitals (especially those providing emergency services) holders, for example: Health Sector - Heath centers People benefiting from safer and more resilient - Schools (secondary/primary, dormitories, higher education) buildings and Education Sector - Kindergartens Percentage of the building stock more re- - Bridges and underpasses silient to earthquakes. Transport Sector Culture Sector - Museums, galleries, theaters, and so on - Condominium with soft story - Condominium with or w/o commercial spaces Residential Sector - Condominium with similar typologies - Single household 41 42 EARTHQUAKE EARLY DRM CONTEXT WARNING SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Romania has operational multi-hazard EWSs for risks such as extreme weather and floods, with seismic early warnings currently being provided to relevant authorities but not to the public. There are sector-specific EWSs for monitoring extreme weather and floods, benefiting from real-time data sharing and cross-border collaboration, This chapter focuses on early especially for transboundary events. The RO-ALERT system, compliant warning systems (EWS), earth- with the European Electronic Communications Code, has been quake early warning (EEW), and operational since 2019 under the management of MoIA through its public awareness. While long- Department of Emergency Situations (DES) and GIES. RO-ALERT can lead time forecasting of earth- issue geo-targeted emergency alerts to mobile phones in areas quakes is not possible, short- affected by natural or man-made disasters, based on requests from term warnings of several sec- sectoral and local authorities. RO-ALERT relies solely on mobile phones onds can be feasible, enabling for alerts and has some limitations in device compatibility, network protective actions that can coverage, and full utilization of communication protocols. These are reduce casualties or damage. addressed by authorities as part of efforts to expand multi-hazard and However, timely alerts must be impact-based approaches, enhance cross-sectoral coordination, and combined with adequate training fine-tune alert mechanisms to better serve the population.67 A 2021 and an educated public to national survey with 1,690 respondents revealed areas that could successfully enhance societal benefit from improvement in disaster preparedness, indicating a resilience against earthquake significant need for authorities to enhance public disaster education, risks. leverage existing communication platforms like RO-ALERT, and capitalize on the public's willingness to engage in preparedness and community support efforts.68 DES, 69 under the coordination of MoIA, is responsible for public communication regarding emergencies and disasters and manages the official multi-risk national preparedness platform, Be Prepared (Fii Pregătit). GIES, through its County Inspectorates for Emergency Situations (CIES) and the Bucharest-Ilfov Inspectorate for Emergency Situations ( Inspectoratul pentru Situaţii de Urgenţă "Dealul Spirii" Bucureşti-Ilfov, ISU BIF), leads the national risk communication and preventive information efforts through multiple channels, including its website, subordinate units' sites, social media platforms, public information sessions, and preventive exercises, as well as the devel- opment of emergency management regulations. 70 Secondary authorities and public institutions may also create their own risk management protocols.71 Additionally, the MoE and GIES implement risk communication and education in schools, supported by the CIES at local levels. Media organizations, under Law No. 481/2004, are required to report on DRR and collaborate with civil society for aware- ness activities. MoIA also oversees public alert systems, with contributions from various ministries and agencies, including the MEWF, Ministry of Culture and Identity, and the Special Telecommuni- cations Service.72 67 EC. 2023b. Peer Review Report: Romania - Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid. Link. It notes that local authorities often lack resources to respond effectively before or during emergencies, and public warning is frequently compro- mised due to malfunctioning or absent public alert equipment (for example, sirens). 68 The survey was part of the ‘Disaster and Climate Resilience Development Program’ project implemented by MoIA and MDPWA in 2021. Half of the respondents lack disaster preparedness knowledge, and one-third do not believe they will be affected by a disaster. While 75 percent support improved access to information, many feel underinformed about natural disasters. Additionally, 83 percent are willing to assist their community in a disaster, with 96 percent open to volunteering. About 75 percent are interested in first aid training, and over three-quarters are aware of and prefer re- ceiving disaster information through RO-ALERT. GoR 2024. 69 See GoR. 2004. Emergency Ordinance No. 21 of April 15, 2004, regarding the National Emergency Management Sys- tem. Link. 70 GIES (General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations). 2020. Summary on Disaster Risk Management, Bucharest. Link. 71 GoR. 2022. National Seismic Risk Reduction Strategy. Link. 72 GoR 2024. 43 CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS systematically. Disaster preparedness courses, including first aid, are yet to be standardized Preparedness and public awareness nationwide, which makes it difficult to monitor their effectiveness, while also not being fully accessible Romania’s strategy for earthquake risk communi- to PwDs and foreign populations due to a lack of cation is guided by several key frameworks, adaptation and language support. GIES staff including by chapter 14 of the NSDRR and relevant responsible for preparing the population could legislation such as Law No. 212/2022, amended benefit from standardized professional formal and supplemented by Law No. 426/2023 on training to develop the necessary skills to effec- seismic risk reduction. Although GD No. 557 of tively teach these courses using modern and August 3, 2016, mandates MDPWA as the primary inclusive methods. Additionally, there is currently no government authority responsible for managing formal and systematic disaster preparedness seismic risk, MoIA and other ministries and local curriculum implemented in schools, despite the fact authorities further contribute by running campaigns that the training of children and young people in to raise awareness about seismic risks and promote emergency situations remains a constant concern at preparedness. Regarding seismic education and the national level. This is carried out in accordance preparedness efforts, several key initiatives have with the provisions of the Cooperation Protocol on been developed in the last decades 73 ; the most emergency preparedness for children, pupils, and current one being the I Don’t Shake during an students in the national pre-university and higher Earthquake ( Nu tremur la cutremur ) campaign, education systems, signed as early as 2013 between ongoing since 2015. Regular public alarm drills, like the MoIA and the MoE. Drills’ Wednesday ( Miercurea Alarmelor ) and informational displays in public transport and outdoor advertising, further support these efforts. While in recent years, special focus has also been Earthquake Early Warning Systems given to expanding the concept of mobile caravans (EEWS) for nationwide population preparedness. Seismic monitoring and research in Romania are Additionally, DES and GIES have demonstrated in conducted through two key networks: the National recent years a strong commitment to prioritizing Seismic Network, managed by the National disaster preparedness, including seismic, for Institute for Earth Physics (NIEP), and the National PwDs, working to create an inclusive emergency Seismic Network for Constructions, managed by system through a range of initiatives. Romania has the National Research and Development Institute enhanced its disaster preparedness by relaunching for Construction, Urban Planning, and Sustainable the Be Prepared (Fii Pregătit) platform with interna- Territorial Development ( Institutul Naţional de tionally aligned and accessible guides and features Cercetare ‒ Dezvoltare în Construcţii, Urbanism şi for PwDs, while accessible content for other vulner- Dezvoltare Teritorială Durabilă URBAN-INCERC, able populations, such as children, is still under INCD URBAN-INCERC) for over 40 years. The consideration. This content is also accessible on a National Seismic Network includes over 160 mobile application, the DES Application (Aplicația locations with 311 seismic sensors, transmitting DSU). Moreover, DES and GIES have been training real-time data to the Seismic Monitoring Center in over 600 emergency responders through a three- Măgurele. NIEP operates 11 seismic observatories, a year pilot project, planning to scale this training multidisciplinary geophysical network, and a Global nationwide, while also currently working on spear- Navigation Satellite System/Global Positioning heading a nationally standardized accessible and System network with 29 measurement points for adapted disaster preparedness course to train crustal monitoring. The National Seismic Network for 10,000 PwDs and support them in completing Constructions includes 57 seismic stations monitor- emergency plans by 2027, while also signing new ing ambient vibrations from seismic and non- collaboration protocols and key disability organiza- seismic sources, with 32 connected to a real-time tions to strengthen community outreach and transmission system.74 support. The EEWS is operated by the NIEP overseeing Despite recent efforts, disaster preparedness Romania's seismic monitoring via the Romanian activities remain uneven nation-wide, often Seismic Network and National Seismic Data inaccessible to PwDs and foreigners, with no Centre. The EEWS is activated for earthquakes standardized training for instructors or formal exceeding 3Mw nationwide or 4Mw in the Vrancea school curriculum in place to be implemented region. Upon detection, NIEP swiftly provides 73 Among the earthquake preparedness campaigns developed by DES and GIES, the following can be mentioned apart from the Nu tremur la cutremur campaign: the National Anti-seismic Education Program (1990–2007) developed and distributed safety materials; ROEDUSEIS_NET (2012–2016) integrated earthquake education into schools; INFORISX (2006–2007) created a comprehensive website on seismic risk; Safe Quake (2010–2011) improved earthquake re- sponse through awareness and training. 74 NCES 2020. 44 EARTHQUAKE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC AWARENESS seismic data, shake maps within 10 minutes, and paigns. Public awareness around seismic risks could casualty estimates within 30 seconds to 15 minutes, benefit from broader outreach, as many people may depending on the magnitude. The system can not fully grasp the urgency and importance of provide pre-warnings up to 20 seconds before the seismic risk reduction. Using multiple channels for earthquake impacts, targeting government agencies disseminating information, such as mass media, and critical infrastructure, including GIES, county including radio, and social media, would help reach inspectorates for emergency situations in the as large a percentage of the population as possible. southern part of the country, the Cernavodă and Developing a cohesive and integrated communica- Kozloduy nuclear power plants, the Vidraru and tion approach that involves central and local Bicaz dams, and several private sector beneficia- authorities, CSOs, and media outlets is crucial for ries. 75 However, public aler ts are not yet amplifying effectiveness, leveraging current strate- implemented to avoid potential panic and potential gic commitments under Chapter 14 of the NDRRS. loss of lives until preparedness levels increase. NIEP Increased funding for seismic risk communication also supports the Aristotle initiative by delivering and expert consultation will help tailor messages to reports to the Emergency Response Coordination diverse audiences. Additionally, communication Centre within 3 hours and has been gathering strategies could be improved through systematic geo-localized public perception data after earth- evaluation, as the impact of different campaigns can quakes following events in April 2020 and May vary. 2021.76 Additionally, the RO-ALERT system, operational since 2019 and compliant with the European Scaling up inclusive earthquake Electronic Communications Code, is often mistak- preparedness enly seen as an EEWS, but it is actually intended for post-earthquake communication with the Opportunities for enhancing inclusive disaster public, alongside the electronic siren network , preparedness, including seismic, are substantial, which requires an inventory to evaluate its coverage particularly through current national initiatives led and functionality. by DES and GIES in collaboration with local OPDs aligned with reforms under international commit- ments. Expanding the Be Prepared (Fii Pregătit ) platform to include resources for children and KEY OPPORTUNITIES accessible content like audio guides and videos with Romanian Sign Language interpretation will enhance Ensuring timely and appropriate life-saving accessibility and build on ongoing efforts with behavior of the population in Romania during an national grassroots organizations to improve content earthquake, the following three key opportunities for people with different disabilities. The ongoing have been identified: (1) enhancing seismic risk project led by DES and GIES, in partnership with communication through more targeted, cohesive, national OPDs and supported by the World Bank, inclusive, and behavior-focused awareness cam- aims to enhance disaster preparedness for PwDs, paigns; (2) scaling up inclusive earthquake including seismic preparedness, and is set to scale preparedness considering various needs of different up to reach 10,000 PwDs by 2027 (see Box 2 ). vulnerable populations, with a special focus on Additionally, these initiatives could be further PwDs; and (3) continuing (E)EWS modernization for supported through inclusive updates in existing efficient alerting. training resources, such as the Be Prepared SMURD Caravana and the DES mobile training center, featuring advanced simulation equipment, as well as in acquisitions of assistive technologies and other Enhancing seismic risk communication learning materials needed to support inclusive and awareness campaigns preparedness. To significantly enhance earthquake risk commu- Increasing seismic and broader risk awareness in nication, public awareness, and the preparedness schools is essential, supported by specialized of citizens in Romania, several strategic opportu- training in life-saving skills and equipment such as nities should be leveraged for more targeted, automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and first cohesive, inclusive, and behavior-focused cam- 75 NCES 2020. 76 EC 2023b. 45 EARTHQUAKE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC AWARENESS aid kits. Tailored, inclusive, and action-oriented would empower individuals to take timely and programs integrated into the curriculum can effective action during an earthquake. strengthen preventive education, while community outreach initiatives and other efforts, such as first Additionally, allocating resources to local authori- aid training for teachers and equipping schools with ties and creating an inventory of public post- AEDs and first aid kits, enhance preparedness. seismic alert equipment, such as the network of Leveraging good practices from ongoing pilot electrical sirens, would provide a clear overview of projects by the MoE, DES, and GIES with support the system, serving as a foundation to modernize it from the World Bank under the Romania Safer, by improving functionality, ensuring regular mainte- Inclusive, and Sustainable Schools Project in nance, and potentially expanding the network, selected schools presents an opportunity to scale thereby enhancing overall (post-)seismic warning these efforts nationwide, benefiting both the school and communication effectiveness. community and broader disaster readiness initia- tives. Finally, expanding preparedness information and activities to all vulnerable and marginalized populations, including the Roma community, is essential. This can be achieved by operationalizing the NDRRS and by adapting, expanding, and scaling up existing successful initiatives, such as current projects designed for PwDs and for children, supported by the World Bank. Continuing (E)EWS modernization Seismic-specific enhancements to EWS should prioritize expanding accessibility, while the overall system has several other opportunities for enhancement, as underlined in the 2023 UCPM Peer Review.77 Strengthening governance through regular testing, staff training, and public awareness campaigns is needed to refine the EWS overall. Given Romania's unique tectonic conditions, there is a unique opportunity for public access to an EEWS to be prioritized, as it has the potential to save lives. A multidisciplinary pilot project could assess the most effective public recommendations and response strategies, serving as a foundation for evaluating how the EEWS should be expanded to the wider population. The EEWS system should be fully automated, similar to the approach in Japan, with no human intervention, from data collection to alert transmission. Given that the RO-Alert system is not compatible for real-time early warning due to potential delayed alert delivery, it could instead be used to provide the public with guidance on what to do during an earthquake or post-event instructions on evacuation, correct behavior, and safe locations. Complementing this with comprehensive activities on public seismic preparedness and educational campaigns on interpreting and responding to alerts 77 EC 2023b. 46 EARTHQUAKE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Box 2. Romania’s inclusive DRM activities supported by the World Bank Romania has recently advanced efforts to place PwDs at the center of the emergency system by adopting an integrated and inclusive approach to DRM, with support from the World Bank. The following initiatives position Romania as a best practice example in the region for inclusive approaches to disaster preparedness: 1.Over 600 emergency responders were trained in 10 high seismic risk counties to assist PwDs during emergencies , with PwD representatives leading courses, creating syllabuses, and developing materials, including a pocket guide for interventions. 2.A Train-the-Trainers (ToT) program was developed to train firefighters nationwide on assisting PwDs, with plans to scale up to all firefighters in the country, ensuring sustainability, building capacity, and transferring ownership. 3.Inclusive disaster preparedness course and resources for PwDs are under development to prepare 10,000 individuals with disabilities by 2027, including an implementation manual for emergency personnel to serve as a foundation for nationwide training. 4.The national preparedness platform, Be Prepared,116 relaunched on March 1, 2024, introduced over 20 new adapted and accessible multi-hazard guides, including a specific guide for PwDs, multi-language content, AI features, 18 audio guides for the blind (in partnership with ANR), and ongoing development of sign language video guides (in partnership with ANSR). 5.Three new collaboration protocols were signed with key national OPDs to expand outreach and inclusion, namely the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of People with Disabilities (ANPDPD), the Association for the Blind in Romania (ANR), and the National Association of the Deaf in Romania (ANSR). See: World Bank. 2023c. Strengthening Disaster Risk Management in Romania: Building Modern, Inclusive, Near-Zero Energy, and Disaster-Resilient Fire Stations. Feature Story. September 13, 2023. Link. 116 See the Be Prepared (Fii Pregătit) platform. Link. 47 EARTHQUAKE DRM Context PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Romania has made significant efforts to strengthen its multi-hazard emergency preparedness planning. This includes the development of response concepts for major risks (earthquakes, floods, nuclear acci- dents, and wildfires). Other initiatives have included public awareness campaigns, training programs, and practical disaster simulations. This chapter focuses on GIES, responsible for emergency preparedness, has continuously im- earthquake preparedness proved tools and raised awareness, establishing the National Training and emergency response. Center for Emergency Management and three regional centers in Earthquake preparedness 2004 to provide regular training for public administration representa- includes pre-earthquake tives. This training and exercise system is centered on the National measures to ensure an Centre for Improving Training in Emergency Situations Management effective response, (NCITESM) and three Zonal Training Centres in Cluj, Craiova, and including rescue capacity, Bacău. These centers offer comprehensive training for both opera- training, and situational tional personnel and public administration staff (for example, mayors), awareness. Earthquake including specialized courses for disaster assessment, response coor- emergency response dination, and incident management, with curricula updated by GIES includes (i) the activities after major disasters. and processes regarding the response phase of a Romania's emergency response system has a clear command seismic event, including structure, integrated decision-making process, and strong inter- emergency and evacuation agency cooperation, following a gradual, bottom-up response model, plans, training and with the possibility of directly mobilizing national-level resources for exercises for emergency effective intervention when needed. MoIA is at the core of the system, personnel, and operational with DES providing strategic oversight and policy direction, coordinating measures to reduce all functions, including specialized first aid (through the Mobile impacts and (ii) the Emergency Service for Resuscitation and Extrication [SMURD]) and framework concerning the emergency medical care in emergency care units and centers.78 In actions taken in the addition to DES, GIES at the national level, through its county immediate aftermath to inspectorates for emergency situations at the local level (CIES), days or weeks after an ensures a streamlined approach to emergency management with 284 event. intervention units and 27,000 professionals, 8 percent of whom are women.79 During national emergencies, DES and GIES operate under SNMSU or the National System as per EO No. 21/2024, alongside other public administration authorities and a network of specialized actors, coordinating resources and efforts to prevent, manage, and recover from emergency situations. The National System includes emergency committees, DES, GIES, professional and volunteer emergency services, operational and coordination and intervention-leading centers, and operational centers for emergencies. The decision-making emergency committees, whose decisions are mandatory, consist of the National Committee for Emergency Situations (under the direct leadership of the Prime Minister, as the president), ministerial commit- tees, the Bucharest Municipal Emergency Committee, county emergency committees, and local emergency committees. At lower levels, county committees, led by the prefect and including local officials and business representatives, coordinate emergency responses by assessing risks, implementing measures, and ensuring resources through county plans, while local committees, headed by the mayor, manage emergencies within their jurisdiction by evaluating risks, notifying county committees, implementing responses, and securing resources through local plans. 78 In addition, the national DES ecosystem of emergency management comprises the General Inspectorate of Aviation regarding medical missions, the public Salvamont and Salvaspeo mountain and cave rescue services, and the canine search-and-rescue activities in emergency situations. See NCES 2020. 79 Currently, about 642 GIES and CIES staff members per county (including Bucharest) serve a population of 19 million, which falls short of the government's benchmark of 800 staff per county. In 2022, the average emergency response time nationwide was 12 minutes and 22 seconds, projected to improve slightly to 12 minutes and 3 seconds by 2027. 48 EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Regarding the volunteer emergency services, the Training and exercises for emergency Romanian legal framework defines two types of personnel volunteers: those involved in the volunteer emer- gency services for prevention and crisis situations Romania has developed a strong training and (SVSU) (under GD No. 1579/2005) and those in exercise framework for emergency management, other public or private organizations (SPSU) (under which are carried out annually at the local, county, EO No. 26/2000), with spontaneous volunteers such national, and even international levels. Romania, as digital volunteers and community members not through the MoIA, including DES and GIES, is an having a formal legal status. Current legislation is yet active player in participating in various consortia for to include specific provisions for the involvement of conducting international-level exercises (e.g., volunteers from CSOs and spontaneous volunteers bilateral exercises, such as the ‘EU ModEX 2018’ and in emergency response protocols, disaster recon- ‘VIGOROUS WARRIOR 19’ and cross-border drills struction, humanitarian aid management, gender with neighboring countries), as well as preparing and equality, and addressing gender-based violence training specialized intervention teams: the medium (GBV), vulnerability, and discrimination; updates are urban search and rescue team (RO-USAR), two needed for prevention activities and legal framework high-capacity pumping teams (RO-HCP), the CBRN improvements regarding equipment provision and detection and sampling team (RO-CBRNDET), two volunteer emergency services training.80 medical teams (RO-EMT), the medical evacuation team for disaster victims by air (RO-MEDEVAC), and two forest firefighting teams with vehicles CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS (GFFF-V-RO). These teams have been made avail- able to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, and the The National Post-Earthquake Response Concept intervention forces of the Romanian state and CSO in Romania focuses on enhancing and integrating personnel deployed to Albania (2019) and Türkiye operational capacities, knowledge, and resources (2023) gained valuable experience from earthquake across the national, county, and local levels within response missions, returning with enhanced skills to SNMSU. It aims to establish a general action frame- strengthen disaster preparedness at home. Addi- work for leading, coordinating, and controlling human tionally, while Romania has enhanced the equipment and material resources to protect life, property, and of subordinate units and its facilities mainly through the environment during major seismic events, EU-funded projects (e.g., the VISION 2020 invest- mitigate disaster effects, and ensure a swift return ment project), there is still a need to expand training to normalcy. Additionally, it seeks to provide a timely capacity, further enhance facilities, and incorporate and efficient response to maintain socioeconomic modern technologies like virtual reality and online continuity and government functions during signifi- courses to improve preparedness and response cant earthquakes, with continuous adaptation to capabilities. operational realities. Since 2016, several annual national earthquake exercises have been conducted in Romania to test and validate this concept, Emergency evacuation, shelters and focusing on verifying response measures, including stockpiles specialized modules and equipment; testing the effectiveness of information and decision-making The lack of information on evacuation plans and processes without field forces; encouraging emergency shelters (i.e., disaster relief camps/ international cooperation and assistance; and tabere de sinistrați) limits effective self-evacua- refining decision-making processes and operational tion during disasters, although evacuation routes adjustments to improve overall response efficien- are outlined in the evacuation plans of cities/the cy.81 Municipality of Bucharest but may differ from the planned routes depending on the earthquake's consequences. Current legislation focuses on authorities' actions, with little guidance for public self-evacuation. Communities are unaware of emergency shelter locations, evacuation routes, or safe roads/ alternatives for blocked paths. A reason behind this lack of clarity on the location of these disaster relief camps providing safe shelter post- 80 EC 2023b. 81 NCES 2020. 49 EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE seism, typically set up in schools or sports halls, is Civil society engagement and volunteer that authorities cannot effectively plan covering emergency services scenarios involving large numbers of victims. While maintaining stockpiles remains a challenge, around Romania's rescue capacity in the event of a 10,000 field beds are available (used during the national-level earthquake, the entire SNMSU is 2018 national exercise), with a full inventory involved, with particular emphasis on the expected to be undertaken during the national response of the DES and the structures under its SEISM 2025 exercise in June 2025. In the 2019 coordination (GIES, IGAv) as well as those under version of the PAAR for Bucharest, for example, operational coordination (e.g., the emergency there are no clear instructions for the population on reception units and the ambulance services), what to do post-evacuation—such as whether to including voluntary emergency services, and wait for guidance or self-evacuate—which creates private emergency services. The volunteer system uncertainty and may hinder effective response in the includes two categories: ‘Volunteers within the aftermath of an earthquake. Currently, the volunteer service for emergency situations’, number- Bucharest City Hall relies on electronic billboards to ing nearly 60,000, and ‘Rescuers for passion’, with display the locations of safe shelters, but this may about 6,600 members. Volunteers are organized and not be effective in a disaster where electricity is trained at local levels according to GD No. disrupted, making the system potentially unreliable, 1579/2005, and their activities include prevention, while reliance on police and gendarmerie for medical first aid, and awareness campaigns. Despite direction may not be sufficient. Additionally, the low being supported by a structured framework, accessibility of infrastructure and evacuation Romania’s volunteer system faces challenges such procedures not adapted to the needs of PwDs as limited technical, administrative, and financial increases vulnerabilities in the event of a disaster. resources, an aging volunteer base with low According to the 2020 national survey for the turnover, insufficient incentives to attract younger Diagnosis of the Situation of People with Disabilities volunteers, modest financial support, and the need in Romania, PwDs face significant barriers in for better integration of volunteer services within accessing homes, public institutions, and evacuating local public administration. Whereas private emer- during disasters, with none of the 1,442 evaluated gency services are required by law in high-risk institutions being fully accessible, while 75–79 industries and large public buildings, to provide percent.82 support in emergencies at key economic operators requiring such services with a focus mainly on fire- related incidents and thus are confined to operating within their specific facilities, limiting their broader involvement. 82 WB 2021a. Figure 5. Emergency shelter and feeding capacity of Bucharest as planned in RADP 2019 and spatial distribution of population density Source: World Bank 2021c. 50 EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Additionally, DES has acknowledged the vital role and (4) operationalizing and implementing post- of civil society in risk management by creating a earthquake assessment. dedicated unit for civil society relations and currently holds 50 cooperation protocols with Expanding training and exercises for CSOs, academic institutions, and private entities emergency personnel to support SNMSU response efforts in the event of an earthquake. Social workers and CSOs are Romania has significant opportunities to enhance essential in engaging vulnerable communities and its emergency management and civil protection linking national authorities with local populations, systems by investing in expanding training capac- exemplified by their effective management of the ity, upgrading facilities, incorporating modern Ukrainian refugee crisis using a Microsoft Teams tools, and tailoring programs. Key priorities include platform. The absence of a clear legislative frame- developing a robust national emergency response work for civil society engagement in DRM poses system, enhancing the command-and-control challenges to effective collaboration. Strengthening system of GIES, and integrating local intervention these partnerships with CSOs through defined roles units to reduce response times. Challenges include and responsibilities, alongside targeted training strengthening the capacity of central and local programs, would foster a more cohesive approach authorities, CSOs, and the private sector involved in and enhance interoperability. emergency management, which requires additional financial resources, technical equipment, and specialized personnel. Increasing the training Post-earthquake assessment capability of the National Centre for Improving Training in Emergency Situations Management Currently, post-ear thquake assessments in (NCITESM) and its regional centers beyond the Romania are guided by the ME-003/2007 Method- current 3,000 people per year could address the ology pending update, with a new post-earthquake growing demand and improve preparedness. rapid assessment application under development. Upgrading training facilities and incorporating GIES, MDPWA and ISC are currently finalizing the modern IT tools, such as virtual reality and online methodology—pending certain clarifications—with courses, would enhance the effectiveness and reach the aim of making it easier to apply and less subject of training programs. Additionally, providing specific to contestation before it enters ministerial approval. training tailored to the needs of diverse population Whereas, a first draft of this app is expected by groups and individuals with disabilities would ensure December 2024, with approval anticipated in 2025. more inclusive and effective emergency manage- This app, designed for use by assessment teams in ment. Emphasizing prevention and awareness in the field, will collect data through pre-prepared training curricula would also strengthen the role of formats, distinct from the pre-disaster data collec- local authorities in managing emergencies. tion processes. GIES will manage the integration of Addressing challenges with the Emergency Manage- these data for use in guiding interventions and ment Information System by ensuring efficient data resource allocation. Additionally, training courses for integration and regular updates could further nonspecialist assessment teams will be developed, improve system performance. Overall, these steps and funding for these initiatives is already secured. would contribute to a more robust and responsive national emergency management framework. KEY OPPORTUNITIES Expanding inclusive training for emergency Optimizing overall readiness, response coordina- personnel is crucial, building on a successful pilot tion, and resource allocation in Romania related to project that laid the groundwork for enhanced a seismic event would require implementing the prevention and response efforts in communities. following four key opportunities : (1) expanding The ‘Inclusive Disaster Resilience’ project, supported training and exercises for emergency personnel by by the World Bank and a Global Facility for Disaster enhancing facilities, adopting advanced tools, and Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) grant, in partner- creating customized programs tailored to opera- ship with DES and GIES and national-level OPDs, tional challenges and the needs of different trained over 600 first responders in inclusive populations, such as PwDs and women; (2) strength- interventions for PwDs, as of April 2025. This ening civil society and volunteer partnerships by initiative utilized innovative curricula and materials, providing technical and financial support as well as now integrated into the GIES course packs. The formalizing volunteer integration in local gover- project’s success, including a Training of Trainers nance; (3) enhancing emergency evacuation, session, provides a solid foundation for scaling the shelters and stockpiles availability and maintenance; program nationwide. Continued efforts in this 51 EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE direction would enhance emergency management post-disaster population flow, their reliability during by ensuring it effectively addresses the needs of an earthquake is uncertain in Romania due to limited diverse population groups and PwDs. data on vulnerable buildings, highlighting the need to scale up building evaluations and integrate Strengthening civil society and volunteer results to better map evacuation and safe routes. engagement This can be achieved through public displays and conducting partial or full evacuation drills, along with There are opportunities to enhance Romania's other activities to familiarize the population with rescue capacity by improving the technical and evacuation procedures. Regarding disaster relief financial support for the volunteer system and shelters and the challenge of planning for large- CSOs and integrating volunteers more formally scale victim scenarios, authorities could develop within local governance structures. Expanding scalable contingency plans with tiered response incentives for new volunteers, such as additional levels, pre-contract with private sector partners for benefits (for example, free public transport at the increased capacity, and invest in modular shelter local level) and targeted information campaigns, infrastructure that can be rapidly deployed ensuring could increase engagement and address the aging it is kept well maintained, while also collaborating volunteer demographic. Opportunities for improving and supporting local volunteers and CSOs to disaster response could be achieved by enhancing manage neighborhood-level micro-shelters. the legislative framework for civil society involve- Additionally, there is an opportunity to engage ment, which would strengthen coordination and private operators to pre-arrange access to stock- integration of CSOs into DRM. Implementing tar- piled resources, easing the burden on public geted training at national and local levels, along with agencies and centralized facilities. providing necessary equipment, could boost community engagement, improve response effec- tiveness, and ensure additional capacity when Operationalizing and implementing post- needed. Leveraging already successful PPPs, like earthquake assessment the Microsoft Teams platform used for recent emergencies including the COVID-19 crisis, could be The planned developments in post-earthquake extended to other phases of disaster management, assessment include the creation of a rapid assess- such as prevention. New technologies, such as the ment application to improve data collection and ongoing development of the Resource & Volunteer integration, alongside updating the ME-003/2007 Management83 tool developed by Code for Romania methodology to align with international standards. (IT CSO) and managed by DES, enabling the man- Once the app is approved and operational, there is agement of volunteer resources, materials, and their potential to enhance the efficiency of disaster storage locations during disasters of any kind, can response through real-time data sharing between effectively support disaster management efforts if assessment teams and GIES. The platform could be it receives the necessary backing from CSOs, expanded to include mobile or cloud-based tech- enabling better coordination and resource distribu- nologies to ensure timely updates and data sharing tion during crises. during post-disaster recovery. Furthermore, the training of nonspecialist assessment teams opens avenues for greater community involvement and Enhancing emergency evacuation, capacity-building in disaster response should be shelters and stockpiles availability and improved. Clarification regarding the type of data maintenance expected by GIES will be critical in ensuring that the system is fully optimized for resource allocation and Romania could revise evacuation plans and response coordination. Additionally, the MDPWA is emergency shelters and stockpiles, ensuring they considering developing a new platform to be are inclusive and well-known, while developing interconnected with this post-earthquake EVR flexible and mapped solutions through public- platform, pending alignment discussions with GIES; private collaboration. Evacuation plans, particularly and plan to launch a new procurement process for for schools, should be revised to address vulnerable this new platform once the methodology is groups' needs, incorporate risk assessments and approved. Additionally, regarding the current update hazard maps, update regulations to international of the methodology, it is essential to ensure that it standards, and ensure public awareness through is aligned with international standards and includes displays and drills. While useful for managing all provisions already mentioned in the NSRRS, such 83 RVM (Resource & Volunteer Management). Code for Romania. Link. 52 as establishing clear evaluation criteria, defining evaluator responsibilities, introducing simplified investigation methods, clarifying inspection roles, and developing framework solutions for immediate interventions to secure damaged buildings. 53 EARTHQUAKE DRM Context RECOVERY, RECONSTRUCTION, GIES is planning a unified methodology for damage assessment in POST-DISASTER emergency situations/disasters, while a distinction between damage FINANCING and loss is still to be officially clarified. According to GD No. 1492/2004, the management of emergency situations data is overseen by GIES, with local support from (CIESs). After a disaster, local committees or special commissions collect disaster loss data in analog or digital format, and this information is then transmitted through the This chapter covers Information Management System for Emergency Situations to aid earthquake recovery, decision-making and facilitate external funding from entities such as reconstruction, and post- the EU and UN. Evaluating the economic impact of disasters is the disaster financing. This responsibility of all authorities involved in DRM, a key tool for strategic refers to actions taken resource planning. However, due to the lack of dedicated tools, after the response phase fragmented or inaccessible information, and absence of collaboration when priorities shift toward protocols, these evaluations often focus only on physical impact restoring affected areas, without assigning an economic value. Damage evaluation commissions, rebuilding buildings and formed by specialists designated by the prefect, assess losses during infrastructure, and helping emergencies but lack a specific methodology, which can lead to communities return to inaccurate values and reluctance to include economic data in post- normal. event reports crucial for local recovery fund allocations. GIES is aiming to develop an IT system based on a unified methodology for damage assessment in emergency situations/disasters, improving the economic impact assessment methodology already developed in the RO-RISK project. This updated methodology will be applicable not only for evaluating future risk scenarios but also for assessing post-disaster damage to gather historical data, aiding in the identification of major impact scenarios. The IT system will be based on this methodology and will consist of: (1) customized software for calculating economic impact and (2) a database with physical, statistical, and financial data, interconnected with other national databases.84 Romania covers disaster costs through the Government Reserve Fund and the Intervention Fund, allowing flexible resource allocation for initial disaster expenses (per Law No. 500/2002). Different ministries manage disaster-related budgets, and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) can reallocate funds. Romania has mandatory household insurance (through the Pool for Natural Disaster Insurance [(Pool-ul de Asigurare Împotriva Dezastrelor Naturale, PAID]) which covers three catastrophic risks—earthquakes, floods, and landslides—up to €20,000 or €10,000. 85 Despite an ascending trend in recent years, insurance penetration in Romania remains below the European aver- ages of 7.4 percent and €2,100 per capita. Between 2013 and 2023, insurance companies affiliated with the National Union of Insurance and Reinsurance Companies in Romania ( Uniunea Națională a Societăților de Asigurare și Reasigurare din România, UNSAR) provided nearly €20 million in financial support for restoring homes affected by floods, earthquakes, and landslides, with payouts in the previous year being five times greater than in 2022.86 84 GIES. Terms of Reference for Consulting Services to Create a "Unified Methodology for Damage Assessment in Emer- gency Situations/Disasters." Link. 85 Law No. 260/2008 on the compulsory insurance of buildings against earthquakes, landslides, and floods. Link. de- pending on the construction type, regardless of the property's actual value, with fixed premium rates differing for urban and rural areas. 86 UNSAR (National Union of Insurance and Reinsurance Companies in Romania). 2024c. “Press Release - EUR 20 Mil- lion in Compensation Paid for Restoring Homes after Natural Disasters.” Link. 54 EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY, RECONSTRUCTION, POST-DISASTER FINANCING RoTTmania has no public asset insurance. Romania Understanding potential disaster impacts also uses international financial sources such as and risk-informed budgeting contingency funding (including from the World Bank),87 donor assistance, and the EUSF.88 Given The MoF incorporates fiscal risk into strategic potential government liabilities, the current arrange- documents, estimating that earthquake scenarios ments may not be sufficient in case of major could lead to damages of up to €26.257 trillion, disasters.89 with the highest loss of €16.383 trillion (2020) from a 1,000-year return period earthquake of magni- CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS tude over 8, 90 using data from the RO-RISK platform. The NDRMP outlines measures, funding Damage and loss assessment sources, and implementation timelines regarding said earthquake risks. The NSRRS projects that Romania is currently developing a unified method- €13.6 billion will be needed by 2030, focusing on ology for disaster data collection through two building consolidation, with €1.5 billion allocated for projects, with plans for informal consultations with public buildings, while European funding through ministries before formal submission. The first various programs, including the NRRP,91 will support project led by GIES in partnership with the World these efforts. This is complemented by an LTRS, Bank focuses on creating a damage and loss approved in 2020, which highlights the €12.8 billion assessment methodology and corresponding of investment needs for improving the energy software to record disaster losses. While, the efficiency of Romania’s building stock by 2030. second project, funded by the EU, aims to imple- Additionally, communication and training activities ment DesInventar, enabling GIES to produce periodic will be funded by national and local budgets, with an reports for the Sendai Monitor. The resulting IT annual budget of €119,000. system will integrate data from the damage assess- ment software, alongside additional information on the economic impacts of disasters. A distinction between damage and losses is still to be officially clarified. Authorities aim to test the methodology through a pilot exercise and propose using multiple evaluation methods—4 to 5 per type of exposed element. Challenges remain, particularly in determin- ing asset value; discussions with stakeholders like UNSAR are ongoing, especially around using insurance values, though consensus is lacking due to the low value of mandatory disaster insurance (PAD) which hinders realistic estimations. The digital platform to follow the methodology is intended to support on-site evaluation teams by allowing local authorities to input field data directly, while calcula- tions will be automated via a platform-accessible algorithm, improving consistency and ease of use through mobile devices or tablets. 87 Second Disaster Risk Management Development Policy Loan (DPL) with a Catastrophe-Deferred Drawdown Option (Cat DDO). 88 As of 2025, Romania has received over €161,10 million from the EUSF to address such crises. Link. 89 World Bank 2023. In the event of a major disaster, government liability in Romania could exceed 0.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) due to the high vulnerability of residential buildings and public assets, with over 50 percent of potential losses tied to residential buildings. World Bank (2024). 90 GoR 2024. 91 The NRRP allocates €2.2 billion to efforts aligned with the EC’s Renovation Wave initiative to drive energy-efficient renovation of buildings. 55 Box 3. Contingency finance: World Bank Cat DDO Romania's financial resilience was strengthened through access to predictable contingent financing amounting to €466.9 million (US$500 million equivalent) approved by the World Bank. This new Cat DDO program in Romania is proposed as an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development loan and will help the GoR advance key disaster and climate resilience reforms that are fully aligned with the FY25–29 Country Partnership Framework for Romania and contribute to the World Bank Group’s mission and priorities, particularly as they relate to climate change and crisis preparedness. Policy reforms are organized under two pillars: (1) strengthening inclusive multi-hazard preparedness and response with a focus on vulnerable groups through improved emergency response access, disability-inclusive disaster preparedness, and GBV transformative training for first responders and (2) advancing DRR and climate change efforts by enhancing resilience of the physical environment, preparedness in schools, and zero-emission urban mobility. This Cat DDO operationalizes the World Bank’s Crisis Preparedness and Response Toolkit by enabling the potential use of the Rapid Response Option92 and the recommendations of the 2023 Romania Country Climate and Development Report (CCDR) by fostering strategic integrated water resources management, promoting climate action across key sectors, and enhancing EWS and public awareness. It leverages reforms and results of the World Bank’s previous contingent credit line to Romania under Cat DDO1 (2018–2021), ongoing Investment Project Financing loans, and innovative advisory services provided to Romania related to disaster, flood, and seismic resilience, urban development, and education sectors. Source: Romania Second Disaster Risk Management Development Policy Loan with a Cat DDO. Link. 92 The Rapid Response Option was signed by the GoR on June 13, 2024, which can provide additional funds from Ro- mania’s portfolio of World Bank operations, if needed, in case of an emergency. Government instruments Earthquake insurance In Romania, catastrophe insurance for household- The Government allow for flexible resource s—including earthquake coverage—is mandatory allocation for disaster expenditures by the MoF by Law No. 115 and serves as a prerequisite for through two instruments: the Reserve Fund and obtaining optional insurance policies. Recent the Intervention Fund (as per Law No. 500/2002). regulatory updates, effective November 12, 2023, to Additionally, different ministries manage disaster- Law No. 115 amending and supplementing Law No. related budgets, such as MDPWA for seismic-re- 260/2008 on the mandatory insurance of dwellings lated expenditures, while local authorities can use against earthquakes, landslides, and floods, existing resources and budget lines, reallocate as strengthen long-term financial resilience by intro- needed, and request additional funds from the ducing multiyear insurance policies, property Reserve Fund. For instance, following the February registration checks, pricing in RON, optional cover- 2023 earthquakes in Gorj County, the GoR allocated age for high seismic risk buildings without prior €10.4 million from the annual state budget's mandatory insurance, and policies lasting over one Intervention Fund to aid in the rehabilitation, consol- year. The Natural Disaster Insurance Pool (PAID) is a idation, and reconstruction of 16 buildings, including Romanian company made up of private insurers, schools and sports facilities.93 Additionally, comple- which provide the mandatory Natural Disaster mentar y to the state budgetar y instruments, Insurance Policy (PAD) covering type A dwellings up Romania recently secured, in the fall of 2024, a to €20,000, and Type B up to €10,000. The PAD contingent finance that could be used for earth- serves as a prerequisite for obtaining facultative quakes from the World Bank in the form of a second (optional) insurance policies, which can provide Cat DDO amounting to €466.9 million. However, more comprehensive coverage. current fiscal resources are insufficient for extreme seismic events, highlighting the need for sustainable The existing mandatory catastrophe insurance for disaster risk financing. households faces limitations due to low penetra- tion and reduced enforcement, particularly in rural 93 Cristescu, George-Andrei. 2023. "The Truth. 51 Million Lei for the Rehabilitation of 16 Buildings Affected by the Earth- quake in Gorj County.” Adevărul, February 22, 2023. Link. 56 EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY, RECONSTRUCTION, POST-DISASTER FINANCING areas, with limited options to fully cover the actual reflecting a 44 percent increase from the previous cost of earthquake damages. PAD amounts that are year, highlighting the growing importance of obtain- unlikely to fully compensate for real damage in the ing optional insurance, especially as only 1 in 10 event of a serious disaster, however, additional Romanians are financially prepared for a disaster.99 optional policies have the potential to bridge the gap between the limited PAD coverage and the true cost of reconstruction or repair, offering households Earthquake recovery framework better financial protection overall. However, in Romania, the available products—whether under the Romania has not yet established a post-earth- state-mandated PAD or facultative policies offered quake recovery framework, and this phase is by private insurers or banks—appear to apply only mostly absent from national and local emergency to individual apartments or units within those plans, with significant uncertainty surrounding buildings, leaving the structural damages of the roles, responsibilities, capacities, and standards. multistory buildings or blocks of flats superstructure Fragmented information exists, such as MDPWA sustained during an earthquake uncovered.94 Finally, regulations on post-disaster responsibilities and GD the responsibility for enforcing the mandatory home No. 557 on the Management of Emergency Situa- insurance requirement in Romania is delegated to tions including natural disasters like earthquakes. local public authorities, rather than being linked to However, GD No. 557 fails to clearly define the banking sector or utility access (e.g., Turkey’s recovery-phase roles, leaving public authorities TCIP-like scheme where no utilities, mortgages, or under MDPWA's jurisdiction within the public property sales are allowed without valid insurance), administration sphere, yet the ministry has no actual as seen in other countries, which might decrease its control over city halls and other local structures effectiveness. post-earthquake. Although gaps in the framework can be noted, it is essential to build on existing plans Despite recent improvements, Romania’s insurance and legislation, streamlining information and coverage remains well below the EU average, with supplementing with more operational and compre- only 20 percent of homes insured and enforcement hensive details, while also identifying the key left to local authorities—while just 1 in 10 Romani- stakeholders, ensure their ownership of the process, ans are financially prepared for a disaster. and secure sources of funding to address them Romania's insurance penetration is at 1.35 percent effectively. of GDP and insurance density at €220 per capita95, both showing positive trends over the last three Additionally, while the National Post-Earthquake years, yet still falling short of the European averages Response Concept outlines the response of 7.4 percent and nearly €2,100 per capita, sequence including recovery and reconstruction, respectively.96 Although 80 percent of people are it provides only brief guidance on recovery and aware that natural disaster insurance is legally lacks clear definitions of roles, responsibilities, required, only 20 percent of homes are covered, funding, coordination, and procedures. The plan is with Bucharest (38 percent) and Ilfov (36 percent) structured around three phases for a major impact being the most insured counties. 97 Additionally, seismic event, as follows: Phase 1 – Immediate public confidence has also been weakened by reaction (T0 to 72 hours post-event), Phase 2 – recent insurer collapses, raising the need for Stabilization (T+3 days to T+15 days post-event), potential public intervention to restore trust.98 Claims which involves ensuring access to drinking water, accounted for over 85 percent of total payouts, food, hygiene and sanitation conditions, emergency collective shelters, medical services, protection of 94 The desk research did not reveal any evidence of insurance coverage available for the superstructure of multistory buildings or blocks of flats in Romania. The available products—whether under the state-mandated PAD or facultative policies offered by private insurers or banks do not explicitly mention the possibility of this type of insurance. 95 For the purpose of this paper, and based on data from the Romanian insurance entity UNSAR, the terms are used as follows: insurance density refers to the average annual insurance premiums paid per capita, while insurance penetration indicates the proportion of properties or individuals covered by insurance policies. See UNSAR. 2024a. 96 UNSAR. 2024a. "Editorial with Alexandru Ciuncan – President of UNSAR: 30 Years in the ‘Insurance World’.” Link. 97 A study by the Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy commissioned by UNSAR provides insights into the landscape of home insurance in Romania for 2023, revealing that major risks, particularly earthquakes and fires, are of primary concern for Romanians. While 70 percent express interest in home insurance, only 10 percent feel financially prepared for potential disasters affecting their homes. The study also notes the importance of educating the population about the benefits of home insurance to translate knowledge into action. Asiguropedia. 2023. Home Insurance in Ro- mania 2023: Trends and Perceptions. Link. 98 Optional insurance can only be purchased in Romania if a property is already covered by the mandatory PAD. 99 UNSAR. 2024b. “Home Insurance: Paid Claims Increase by 63%.” Link. 57 EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY, RECONSTRUCTION, POST-DISASTER FINANCING vulnerable persons, and continuation of restoring Developing an earthquake recovery essential public utilities, and Phase 3 – Gradual framework integrating ‘BBB’ principles recovery (after 15 days post-event), ensuring the for reconstruction continuity of Phase 2 actions and progressive return to a provisional state of normality. It also very briefly Romania has a strategic opportunity to develop a mentions needs varying from day 1 to day 200 comprehensive post-earthquake recovery frame- post-disaster for the remediation of essential public work that aligns roles, responsibilities, procedures, utilities—such as water supply, gas, communica- and funding across all levels of government, tions, healthcare, sanitation, heating, electricity, and private sector and civil society, and lay the transport—as well as critical infrastructure (e.g., foundation for an integrated, multi-hazard national roads, bridges, airstrips, ports, and railways). This disaster recovery framework/plan. There is an plan should be integrated with information from the opportunity to create a comprehensive post- MDPWA regulations on post-disaster responsibilities earthquake recovery framework, by updating and GD No. 557 on the Management of Emergency current legislation (such as GD No. 557 to clearly Situations, and should include more detailed and define the roles and responsibilities of entities in the operational procedures to ensure effective coordi- recovery phase, listing local authorities (also nation and implementation, including information on referred to as public administration) as a distinct post-disaster debris management preparedness, for entity rather than being grouped under MDPWA. In example, which is currently missing from Bucharest’s parallel, the current matrix of the National Post- plans. Earthquake Response Concept should be restruc- tured and expanded to include clearer definitions of roles, responsibilities, funding mechanisms, and KEY OPPORTUNITIES operational procedures. This would support a more coordinated and effective recovery and reconstruc- Romania has scope for enhancing seismic recov- tion process by identifying key stakeholders from at ery and reconstruction through three key all levels including public authorities, private sector opportunities: (1) finalizing the damage and loss and civil society, strengthening their ownership, methodology and establishing a system, (2) promoting inter-institutional and inter-ministerial developing a seismic/disaster recovery framework collaboration, aligning mandates, and securing integrating BBB principles for reconstruction, and dedicated funding sources to enable timely and (3) improving existing disaster risk financing and effective action. BBB principles should also be insurance (DRFI) arrangements by considering the integrated into post-disaster reconstruction, creation of a disaster financing strategy while also shifting from merely restoring damaged elements to promoting the uptake of public and private insur- enhancing resilience and infrastructure functionality ance. to minimize future disaster impacts.100 Over time, this revised post-earthquake recovery and reconstruction framework could be integrated Finalizing the damage and loss with other hazard-specific recovery plans into a methodology and establishing a system single, overarching, multi-hazard national recovery framework/plan tailored to Romania’s context. To There is also scope for Romania to enhance the this end, enhancing the institutional framework to efforts under way toward standardized damage establish a functional, up-to-date communication assessment databases and processes, finalize and system should also be a priority for recovery efforts. pilot the multi-method loss assessment approach This should build on improving damage assessment currently coordinated by GIES, among others by processes and creating protocols and agreements working with private insurance stakeholders to with key stakeholders, such as the private sector, to define a realistic asset valuation model beyond ensure effective collaboration in disaster response, PAID’s limits, and transpose the methodology into a recovery, and reconstruction.101 digital platform for real-time field data entry and automated valuation. A distinction between dam- ages and losses should also be officially clarified, updating the relevant legislation. 100 GoR 2024. 101 GoR 2024. 58 EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY, RECONSTRUCTION, POST-DISASTER FINANCING Improving existing DRFI arrangements to the mandatory home insurance law (PAD policy), through Law No. 115 effective November 12, 2023, Romania needs to reduce seismic risk exposure in present additional opportunities to enhance manda- both the private and public sectors, address tory home insurance uptake and community difficulties in securing funding, including by engagement by having local authorities inform accessing technical tools, and tackle the limited citizens about mandatory insurance requirements, technical capacity of administrative staff while while fines for uninsured properties can be directed also encouraging insurance uptake for households to local budgets, providing municipalities with and public assets and considering sovereign-level additional resources. 105 Operating procedures financial tools like contingent financing and conducted by local authorities (mayors) to file claims catastrophe bonds to support quick response and for state compensation should also be fine-tuned as recovery.102 There is scope for promoting the use of a complementary step. dedicated ex ante financial instruments, considering the development of a DRFI strategy, and continuing This could be complemented by offering strong to integrate and develop sustainable financing incentives for key stakeholders and developing solutions for multi-hazard resilience, including additional insurance products. Therefore, Romania seismic. The GoR, through MoF and supported by could enhance the enforcement of the existing PAD MDPWA, has the opportunity to ensure seismic risk requirement by adopting a TCIP-style model, which along with other major risks is integrated into annual ties insurance uptake to access to utilities (electric- and medium-term budget strategies while also ity, water), property transactions, or mortgage reviewing the adequacy of state reserves, current eligibility — mechanisms that proved effective in mechanisms, and public insurance systems. Turkey. Promoting new market-based insurance Developing a cross-sectoral national disaster solutions that will cover actual damage costs, such financing strategy is essential to ensure the efficient as introducing structural insurance for entire use of national and external funds through unified buildings through homeowners’ associations (HOAs) monitoring, avoiding double financing, and or building managers, following relevant international strategically prioritizing investments at all levels— best practices, would constitute a priority by national, regional, and local—including for underrep- learning from the neighboring countries experience resented hazards like earthquakes and landslides, (i.e., Turkey). This type of arrangement could as well as for prevention, preparedness, recovery, potentially be included in building fees currently and the protection of cultural heritage. Additionally, being collected, such as those covering capital enhancing the capacity of public authorities to repair and maintenance costs, thereby enhancing understand and utilize available funds is crucial for both risk coverage and financial resilience. Finally, the planning, monitoring, and implementation of instead of flat-rate pricing (up to €20,000 Type A DRR investments, as well as for the sustainability and dwellings and up to €10,000 for Type B), Romania efficiency of projects. A centralized database and could move toward a model where premiums vary monitoring mechanism can enhance transparency in depending on more dynamic factors (such as fund utilization and dissemination of funding seismic risk zone, soil type, building age, and opportunities. structural integrity), which would incentivize prop- erty owners to invest in seismic strengthening, and Boosting insurance uptake in Romania requires reflects the true risk profile more accurately, where financial education and streamlined claims safer, retrofitted buildings in lower-risk areas would processes and increased engagement of local pay less, while higher-risk properties would pay authorities. To this end, PAID is looking to increase more — encouraging insurance uptake and penetration using awareness programs with a target resilience. of 40 percent over the next five years,103 such as the upcoming PAD Caravan campaign104 initiated by the Financial Supervisory Authority ( Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară, ASF) to inform communi- ties about the importance of insurance as a safety net during disasters. Moreover, significant changes 102 See “Resilience to Natural Hazards and Climate Change Is Low” in World Bank, 2023. 103 World Bank 2024. 104 PAID. 2024. 15 Years of Financial Protection for Insured Homes. Link. 105 CECCAR Business Magazine. 2023. "PAID Director - Amendments to the PAD Law Come into Effect on November 12: Their Impact Can Be Analyzed in 2025.” Link. 59 60 CROSS-CUTTING CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS TOPICS: SOCIAL RESILIENCE AND Disasters disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, PRIVATE SECTOR particularly in Romania's rural and peripheral areas, exacerbating ENGAGEMENT poverty, thus pointing to the need to ensure quality and inclusive preparedness and response services. Romania is home to people with a range of vulnerabilities, including 900,000 PwDs, 106 an aging population, people with chronic diseases, victims of domestic violence or human trafficking, people addicted to drugs and alcohol, people Social resilience, social living in isolated communities, homeless people, and other groups. protection, and inclusion Despite economic growth and income convergence with the EU average over the last two decades, Romania has the highest poverty rate in the This section covers social EU, experiencing severe regional disparities, particularly in rural regions, resilience, social where poverty, restricted access to services, and underdevelopment protection, and inclusion in persist. Socioeconomic inequalities are visible across population the context of groups, with the self-employed, single, elderly, rural, and Roma people earthquakes. Recognizing at the highest risk of poverty, especially those belonging to multiple current operational and vulnerable groups. Disasters exacerbate vulnerabilities, increase legislative gaps, it gender inequality, and raise the risk of GBV, particularly for women and proposes ways to address children; Romania already has high rates of GBV,107 physical and/or the disproportionate sexual violence, and harassment of women. impact of disasters on vulnerable populations, Despite progress and greater visibility and attention given to social including through resilience in the current NDRRS, several challenges remain. This developing an adaptive strategy establishes for the first time a strategic framework that allows social protection system. for the correlation and integration of actions undertaken in specific Special focus is put on sectors, systematically addressing cross-sectoral issues such as social PwDs by proposing tailored resilience and social protection and involving various stakeholders in solutions and adapting accordance with a participatory and whole-of-society approach. In general measures to place addition, sectoral strategies such as the National Strategy on the Rights them at the center of DRM of Persons with Disabilities (2022–2027) include a specific section on at all stages, emphasizing reducing vulnerability to risk situations and humanitarian emergencies, preparedness and recognizing the state's importance in ensuring that PwDs have access response. not only to the same emergency response resources available to the general population but also to special intervention resources created for their needs. Based on the findings of the Diagnosis of the Situation of Persons with Disabilities in Romania conducted by the World Bank in 2021,108 the strategy indicates that gaps remain in emergency response plans, risk mapping, access to services, and trained person- nel to adequately support these groups during disasters. In addition, the social protection system is not well placed to adapt to disasters and climate-induced shocks, lacking the capacity to integrate data on poverty and natural disasters to identify vulnera- bilities. Coordination between the DRM sector and the social protection system could be improved through several actions, including the creation of early-action trigger disbursement mechanisms to support communities in case of need and improvement of the coverage and interoperability of existing social protection databases, enhancing disaster response effectiveness. The lack of a registry for vulnerable individuals hinders effective disaster response. Establishing such a registry would improve the identification and assistance of those in need, leading to more targeted and efficient emergency services. 106 According to ANPDPD, as of June 30, 2024, Romania had a total of 942,889 PwDs, with 98.34 percent (927,275 individuals) living independently or with their families, and 1.66 percent (15,614 individuals) residing in public residential social assistance institutions. Link. 107 Per police records of acts of violence, a total of 51,222 victims of violence were identified in Romania in 2021, 33,970 of them women. Băluţă, Ionela, and Claudiu Tufiş. 2022. Gender Violence Barometer 2022—Violence against Women in Romania: Representations, Perceptions. Link. 108 World Bank. 2021a. Diagnosis of the Situation of Persons with Disabilities in Romania. Link. 61 KEY OPPORTUNITIES Developing an ASP system Romania has built momentum to enhance social To enhance the inclusivity and effectiveness of the resilience and protection for vulnerable popula- DRM system in the event of an earthquake, it is tions through two main opportunities: (1) boosting crucial to integrate social benefits and ASP innovation in inclusive preparedness for both PwDs measures. This includes ensuring that social and emergency personnel and (2) developing benefits and financial assistance programs are adaptive social protection (ASP) with robust safety seamlessly incorporated into disaster response nets, improved data, and better coordination to plans, offering immediate support to those affected. support vulnerable populations during and after a Developing ASP systems that can quickly adjust to seismic event. the needs of different vulnerable groups, such as targeted cash transfers or subsidies, is essential for addressing their specific challenges. Strengthening social safety nets, including insurance schemes and Broadening innovative measures for emergency grants, will provide robust support and increased inclusive preparedness ensure that vulnerable populations receive the necessary assistance during and after an earth- Romania should leverage its role as a regional quake. Expanding access to emergency support leader in inclusive DRM by enhancing innovative services, including mental health counseling and training, solutions, and partnerships with OPDs. specialized care, will further support individuals with Building on the momentum of recent projects, the various needs. Involving representatives from GoR has a unique opportunity to scale up nationwide vulnerable populations in policy development training and awareness, particularly in disaster ensures their needs are considered, while improved response and social services, to better support data collection on the social impacts of disasters can individuals with physical, sensory, or cognitive tailor protection responses more effectively. impairments, leading to more effective interventions and improved outcomes for vulnerable populations. Additionally, regular preparedness activities and drills involving vulnerable populations will help familiarize them with emergency procedures and identify safety barriers. A comprehensive registry should be developed to track individuals with specific needs, ensuring timely assistance. Inclusive communication strategies and platforms must be employed to provide critical information in accessible formats. Establishing community-based support networks and partnerships will facilitate coordinated efforts while increasing funding opportunities, including PPPs, and establishing formal frameworks for disaster response involving civil society could improve resilience. 62 PRIVATE SECTOR CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS ENGAGEMENT The private sector, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), is highly vulnerable to the impacts of disasters such as earthquakes, floods, landslides, and wildfires. Consultations during the diagnostic This section covers private phase of the NDRRS revealed that most CSOs and private companies sector involvement in the have never participated in or supported disaster preparedness, risk context of earthquake risk reduction, or response planning activities in their local communities. management. Relevant Moreover, a diagnostic analysis of the DRM framework revealed that stakeholders might include about two-thirds of companies, particularly in and around Bucharest, building owners and have limited understanding of the potential impacts of disasters. property managers, Although there are efforts to engage the business community, such as insurance companies, forming programs for business continuity planning, comprehensive business owners, utility strategies are still lacking. The private sector's involvement is not yet providers, construction and fully integrated into national and local efforts. Existing frameworks, engineering firms, CSOs, such as the legal structure for chambers of commerce, are not tailored and non-profits. to address multi-hazard risks or enhance business resilience effective- ly.109 Many Romanian companies face significant challenges in recovering from such events and are inadequately prepared for climate-related, pandemic, or human-induced stress factors. The adoption of business continuity plans (BCPs) is not widespread among SMEs, which also rely on highly exposed supply chains.110 A public sector area that affects the resilience of the private sector is the Romanian health care system, which consists of both public hospitals and a wide network of privately owned and operated health clinics. Currently, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) is investing in real estate, with a focus on strengthening and enhancing sustainability, particularly in commercial, logistic, and office buildings (with respective green certifications, and requiring business continuity insurance policies), and preparing several PPP projects in the health sector to enable relocations of existing services to modern hospitals. Therefore, limited risk understanding, insufficient accessible information and disaster continuity plans, particularly among SMEs, with minimal involvement from chambers of commerce and no national platform for best practices, remain areas of potential improvement. Private disaster insurance market In Romania, the disaster insurance market is managed by PAID, a PPP insurance/reinsurance company created through the associa- tion of insurers with state guarantees and enforcement authorized to cover catastrophe risks, including earthquakes. PAID offers mandatory insurance for natural disasters under Law No. 260/2008. Additionally, companies under UNSAR offer optional policies but only for homes already insured by the mandatory policy. The private insurance sector is regulated by ASF, while the responsibility for enforcing the mandatory home insurance requirement in Romania is delegated to local public authorities. Overall, the home insurance market (both mandatory and voluntary) saw a 22 percent increase in premiums and a 14 percent increase in new contracts in 2023. 111 According to PAID, as of July 2024, national coverage has surpassed 23 percent, reaching a historical high, with over 30 percent of urban homes now covered by mandatory insurance and no county having coverage below 10 percent. Despite its growth, Romania's insurance system faces challenges, including low public awareness, limited insurance coverage, particu- larly among SMEs, and a shortage of tailored products for high-risk 109 GoR 2024. 110 GoR 2024. 111 Financial Supervisory Authority ASF). 2023. "Market Evolution of Insurance in 2023.” Link. 63 areas. Moreover, despite an ascending trend in insurance companies, especially in high-risk areas, recent years, insurance penetration in Romania while establishing a centralized database for remains below the European averages of 7.4 per- public-private contracts and best practices could cent and €2,100 per capita, placing pressure on the further foster better coordination and transparency. government to cover all uninsured households in Finally, there is also scope for operationalizing the case of a disaster. Rising reinsurance costs due to Investment and Development Bank113 established at increased catastrophe losses have pressured the end of 2023 through Romania's NRRP, aiming to insurers like PAID, leading to higher payouts and serve as the country's central development institu- requests for premium rate adjustments to maintain tion, supporting innovative and sustainable projects financial stability. to modernize infrastructure, stimulate economic growth, and open new opportunities for entrepreneurs, investors, and local communities, KEY OPPORTUNITIES which is also expected to eventually offer green financing and financial inclusion. Two main opportunities exist for Romania to strengthen the resilience of the private sector to disasters/earthquakes: (1) improving private sector resilience through incentives for increasing insur- Strengthening collaboration between ance penetration, strengthening BCPs legislation, public authorities, the private sector, and and risk communication and (2) strengthening civil society at all stages in DRM partnerships between authorities, the private sector, and civil society to increase capacity on both sides Strengthening disaster response training, enhanc- at all stages in DRM. ing private sector involvement in risk communication, and developing partnerships with volunteers, CSOs, and the private sector in areas of preparedness, response, recovery, and resilient Enhancing private sector resilience reconstruction are critical. Enhancing coordination through BCPs, risk communication, and and raising awareness among CSOs and the private improved financial tools sector about existing DRR plans is crucial. Improve- ments can be made in planning, operational There is substantial potential for the GoR to arrangements, and engaging institutional actors at enhance the resilience of private companies and both central and local levels with volunteers, CSOs, SMEs by increasing insurance penetration, and the private sector to expand support to other supporting the development of additional insur- groups and ensure additional capacity. Targeted ance products, developing green financing, training and equipment should be provided to improving financial inclusion, and enhancing enable contributions from volunteers and CSOs. The business continuity legislation. Key stakeholders private sector can significantly enhance cross- beyond private companies include employer sectoral resilience practices by establishing formal associations, chambers of commerce, commercial agreements with the government to mobilize and professional societies, and tourism organiza- additional resources for DRR and supporting DRR tions, all of which can contribute to resilience efforts community initiatives through corporate social and preparedness. Updating legislative frameworks responsibility (CSR) mechanisms. Additionally, the and integrating risk considerations into business private sector could also contribute with the rapid practices are crucial steps. In addition, enhancing provision of machinery, data, and expertise during private sector involvement in risk communication disaster response and reconstruction phases, as can increase awareness and leverage insights from well as to increase resilience in critical industries and Romanian companies and SMEs on how disasters to implement mixed-finance DRR initiatives.114 impact economic activities and supply chains, thereby improving disaster response and recovery strategies.112 Regarding the insurance uptake within the business community, financial incentives, such as tax deduc- tions or subsidies, could encourage SMEs to invest in insurance coverage, particularly for natural disaster risks, complemented by awareness cam- paigns to increase understanding of existing and new insurance opportunities. Tailored products for SMEs could be developed in collaboration with 112 GoR 2024. 113 Ministry of Finance. 2023. "Press Release - The Establishment of the Investment and Development Bank, Approved by the Government of Romania.” Link. 114 GoR 2024. INVESTMENT NEEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter proposes key priorities for reforms and investment areas, which may be considered as part of technical assistance, policies or instruments. It is informed by desk research and consultations. To manage and reduce earthquake risks effec- Disaster financing strategies should be developed, tively, Romania should prioritize investments at all complemented by expanding contingent financing DRM stages, comprehensively targeting under- solutions and increasing earthquake insurance standing risk, prevention, response, preparedness, uptake to avoid overreliance on external funding. and recovery. Strengthening legal frameworks, Risk financing has to go hand in hand with risk plans, and strategies for prevention, optimizing reduction efforts, as well as enhancing resilience of staffing and technical capacity across all levels and businesses and communities. Increasing insurance hazards according to risk level, and improving uptake and coverage is key and could be upscaled coordination between central and local authorities, through improved awareness, the development of CSOs, and stakeholders should be a priority. new public-private tailored products, and strength- Sufficient financial coverage should be ensured to ened enforcement. Finally, implementing a multi- implement these changes. Updating and integrating hazard recovery framework, with specific consider- more dynamic risk assessment data and results into ation for potential large-scale earthquake event(s), planning, including critical infrastructure and clarifying roles and responsibilities across all secondary hazards, is also important. This could be relevant plans, legislation, and frameworks, backed by improved capacity in public authorities to grounded in BBB principles, will support long-term collect and use such data while also reforming resilience and recovery. building codes and improving disaster loss data A list of recommendations is provided in Table 4, management systems. with more information per key topic under the Empowering local authorities and fostering a table. bottom-up approach is critical. Community pre- paredness could be scaled up by building on existing pilot programs focusing on inclusive training and preparedness. EWSs could continue functional upgrades and improve accessibility, while EEWSs could be opened to the public with automated and digitalized solutions, in the context of adequate public awareness and training. The electronic siren system could be updated, expanded, and main- tained to support post-earthquake communication. Increasing accessibility for alert systems like RO-Alert and preparedness platforms such as Be Prepared should be prioritized. Evacuation routes, shelters, and stockpiles should be mapped, acces- sible, well maintained, and disaster ready. 65 INVESTMENT NEEDS AND RECCOMMENDATIONS Table 4. Key investment recommendations for Romania in earthquake risk management Develop a human resources strategy, especially for MDPWA, which is responsible for national Governance earthquake risk management, to address the need for better coordination in managing seis- mic risks and optimize staffing and technical capacity across all levels and hazards according to risk level. Create a unified risk mapping methodology and standardize procedures, incorporating these into Law No. 575, along with clear definitions to distinguish between hazard and risk. Develop and update hazard and risk maps for all regions and levels of government. Develop the National Buildings Registry, secure funding for populating it, and integrate risk maps into planning processes through platforms like the National Observatory and INSPIRE, improving land use, urban planning, and emergency management documentation. Understanding Expand risk assessments to cover heritage structures, critical infrastructure, and secondary risk hazards. Develop tools to account for combined effects and conduct comprehensive risk assessments that address secondary hazards, such as earthquake-induced landslides and dam failures. Allocate resources, secure funding, and provide staff training to build capacity in public ad- ministration for risk assessment and management. Additionally, reform expert certification systems. Ensure funding and allocate resources for establishing data collection protocols across insti- tutions. Update seismic design norms like P100-1 to reflect current knowledge and best practices. Create new regulations for specific sectors, including the P100-8 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofitting Code for cultural heritage buildings and the P100-2 design standard for critical in- frastructure such as pipes, tunnels, and bridges. Risk prevention, Develop a seismic microzonation methodology and guides, allocate funding, and implement reduction and drilling/geotechnical pilot projects to enhance understanding of seismic risks. mitigation Amend national regulation to prohibit the occupancy of all high seismic risk public buildings (SRI and SRII) until structurally secured. Simultaneously improve public communication on retrofitting costs and processes, offer targeted financial support for vulnerable homeowners, and address banks’ reluctance to finance retrofits through risk-mitigation measures and PPPs to improve access to capital. Expand the administrative capacity of AMCCRS to retrofit while also enforcing clear mandates for sector municipalities, supported by technical assistance and dedicated funding streams. Enhance the accessibility and inclusivity of preparedness information (for example, the Be Prepared platform) and resources (for example, the DES mobile training centers). Allocate funds and train preparedness personnel to deliver inclusive and nationwide earth- quake preparedness workshops and materials. Improve earthquake risk awareness in educational facilities (for example, children, teachers, and staff seismic and first aid preparedness). EEWS and public awareness Allocate resources and equip schools with life-saving equipment (AEDs, first aid kits, and so on). Implement a unified seismic risk communication approach with CSOs, media, and the private sector for inclusive, targeted awareness campaigns in alignment with Chapter 14 of the NDRRS. Automate and open to the public the EEWS, complemented by increased preparedness activi- ties, and tailor it for at-risk populations, integrating it with RO-Alert and the electronic sirens system for post-seismic communication. 66 INVESTMENT NEEDS AND RECCOMMENDATIONS Enhance inclusive and gender-responsive/transformative emergency training. Enhance response capacity and allocate funds for new technology and resources for inter- ventions. Preparedness and response Revise evacuation plans, emergency shelters, and stockpiles, ensuring they are inclusive and well-known, while developing flexible, sustainable, and mapped emergency solutions through public-private collaboration. Allocate funds to expand the training capacity of the NCITESM and its regional centers, en- hancing training programs with modern IT tools like virtual reality and online courses to in- crease effectiveness and outreach. Create a standardized methodology for collecting damage and loss data in Romania, address- ing the current lack of distinction between damages and losses. Develop a comprehensive post-earthquake recovery framework integrating BBB principles for reconstruction that aligns roles, responsibilities, procedures, and funding across all levels of government, private sector, and civil society, and lay the foundation for an integrated, multi- hazard national disaster recovery framework/plan. Develop a national disaster financing strategy that integrates risk assessments and estab- lishes post-disaster funding instruments. Recovery, reconstruction, Establish a centralized database and monitoring mechanism for private and public, national, and post-disaster and international DRR investments. financing Develop a methodology for assessing the economic and macroeconomic impact of imple- mented DRR measures. Enhance the capacity of public authorities to understand and utilize available funds to sup- port the planning, monitoring, and implementation of DRR investments, including through on- line training. Establish strong incentives for acquiring mandatory disaster/earthquake insurance (prioritiz- ing households, the private sector, and high-risk industries), develop new insurance products (such as multistory residential buildings superstructure insurance through HOAs), encourage private market solutions, and allocate funds for awareness campaigns to promote them and increase coverage Update intervention procedures to accommodate the diverse communication and functional needs of various groups. Develop inclusive training and communication initiatives for the population. Social resilience, social protection and inclusion Enhance the accessibility of emergency facilities and services (such as assessing the 113- emergency number's effectiveness, establishing a national registry for vulnerable populations, and ensuring accessible emergency shelters, transportation, and health care). Improve social protection in disasters by strengthening safety nets (for example, insurance schemes and emergency grants) and creating an ASP system, starting from conducting a stress test of the social protection system to evaluate its adaptability to shocks and an analy- sis of marginalized groups' resilience in earthquake scenarios. Strengthen private sector resilience through BCPs and PPPs to develop DRM strategies (for example, training and guidelines for BCPs, creating a centralized national database for con- Private sector tracts, tailored insurance products for SMEs in high-risk areas, and financial incentives for in- surance uptake, such as tax deductions or subsidies). 67 INVESTMENT NEEDS AND RECCOMMENDATIONS Governance and institutional collaboration: De- Emergency response capacity: Strengthen emer- velop a human resources strategy, particularly for gency response capacity, including volunteers and MDPWA, which is responsible for national earth- CSOs, while also engaging with the private sector in quake risk management, to address the need for a meaningful way. Evacuation routes, shelters, and better coordination in managing seismic risks and stockpiles must be mapped, accessible, well- optimize staffing and technical capacity across all maintained, and available at all times. Key investment levels and hazards according to risk level. opportunities include training, technology, infra- Strengthen capacity in public administration for structure, equipment, e-learning platforms to risk assessment and management, while reforming enhance accessibility and scalability of training expert certification systems. Key investment op- programs, national IT collaborative platforms for portunities include training programs, capacity- cooperation at all stages, national incentives to building initiatives, and certification systems, as attract young people to the volunteer system, digital well as technologies and services that support risk solutions, PPPs, and other solutions for establishing management and assessment in public administra- and mapping stockpiles. tion. Disaster financing and insurance: Reform DRFI in Risk assessment, planning, and data management: Romania by developing a comprehensive disaster Update Law No. 575 and improve risk assessments financing strategy, including for earthquakes, and to cover all regions, heritage buildings, critical improving the mandatory earthquake insurance infrastructure, and secondary hazards. Continue system to boost uptake among households, busi- strengthening planning by integrating risk assess- nesses, and high-risk sectors through increased ments at local and county levels. Update and awareness, improved enforcement, and the devel- standardize how disaster loss data are collected and opment of new products. Key investment shared, and improve building codes and norms to recommendations include centralized funding align with European standards. Key investment databases, online training for public authorities, recommendations include digital resources such as financial instruments, tailored insurance products, the National Building Registry and resources awareness and marketing campaigns, digital needed to populate and expand the registry, risk platforms, training and guidelines for BCPs, PPPs, assessment tools, mapping technologies, and and data-driven technologies to support implemen- infrastructure projects that align with improved tation, streamline claim processes, and enhance territorial planning practices, data collection sys- customer engagement. tems, GIS technology, and platforms for data sharing, expertise services for drafting reform Recovery framework and reconstruction: Create a documentation, compliance solutions, training, and multi-hazard recovery framework, incorporating certification for the updated standards. seismic risk and integrating BBB guidelines for reconstruction, thus laying the foundation for an Community preparedness and EEWSs: Strengthen integrated, multi-hazard national disaster recovery earthquake community preparedness through framework/plan. Key investment recommendations inclusive practices and accessible emergency include recovery planning tools, capacity building facilities and services, create an ASP system, for administrative personnel, and services focused expand the capacity of authorities to prepare and on resilient reconstruction and multi-hazard risk engage communities inclusively, and upgrade management. EEWSs to improve functionality, expand coverage, and ensure public access. Key investment recom- mendations include inclusive training, life-saving tools (for example, AEDs, first aid kits for schools and communities), updated risk awareness resources (for example, mobile training centers), modern digital platforms like the ‘Be Prepared’ platform, online tools for community education, stress test of the social protection system, infra- structure for electronic sirens, tailored alert systems for vulnerable groups, including PwDs, and enhanced communication devices to increase early warning effectiveness. 68 ANNEX 1. REFERENCES GoR. 2024. National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction 2024–2035. Link. Hallegatte, Stephane, Adrien Camille Vogt-Schilb, Mook Bangalore, and Julie Rozenberg. 2017. Unbreakable: Building the Resilience of the Poor in the Face of Natural Disasters. Climate Change and Development. Amariei, C. 2024. "The Earthquake Lottery: Only Two of Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Link. the 849 High Seismic Risk Buildings in Bucharest Are Being Worked On." Radio Free Europe. Link. IPCC. Sixth Assessment Report - Regional Data - Europe of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link. Anton, Simona, Koo Bryan, Man TitusCristian, Sandu Ciprian Moldova, Manuela Sofia Stanculescu, and Kerblat, Yann, Ali Arab, Brian James Walsh, Alanna Leigh Robertus A. Swinkels. 2014. Elaboration of Integration Simpson, and Stephane Hallegatte. 2021. Overlooked: Strategies for Urban Marginalized Communities: The Examining the Impact of Disasters and Climate Shocks on Atlas of Urban Marginalized Communities in Romania. Poverty in the Europe and Central Asia Region. Washington, DC: World Bank. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Link. ASF (Financial Supervisory Authority). 2023. "Market AMCCRS (Municipal Administration for Retrofitting of Evolution of Insurance in 2023.” Link. Seismic Risk Buildings). 2024. "List of Buildings [Updated Asiguropedia. 2023. "Home Insurance in Romania 2023: List of Buildings].” Link. Trends and Perceptions.” Link. MDPWA (Ministry of Development, Public Works, and Administration). 2022. National Housing Strategy CECCAR Business Magazine. 2023. "PAID Director - Amendments to the PAD Law Come into Effect on 2022–2050. Link. November 12; Their Impact Can Be Analyzed in 2025. MDPWA. (2023). Rapid Visual Assessment Methodology Link. for Buildings, Indicative RTC 10 - 2022. Link. Cristescu, George-Andrei. 2023. "The Truth. 51 Million Lei MOBEE (Mobile Exhibition about Earthquakes). for the Rehabilitation of 16 Buildings Affected by the Earthquakes in Romania, National Institute for Earth Earthquake in Gorj County.” Adevărul, February 22, 2023. Studies in Romania (NIEP). Link. Link. MoEF (Ministry of European Funds). 2021. National Crowley, H., J. Dabbeek, V. Despotaki, D. Rodrigues, L. Martins, V. Silva, X. Romão, N. Pereira, G. Weatherill, and Recovery and Resilience Plan. Link. L. Danciu. 2021. European Seismic Risk Model (ESRM20). MoEF. 2024. The Program Regarding the Financing of the EFEHR Technical Report 002 V1.0.0, Link. Development and/or Updating from the State Budget of Natural Risk Maps for Earthquakes and Landslides for the Dumitrescu, R. 2022. "Drought Wipes EUR 1 bln from Period 2024–2027. Link Romanian Agricultural Sector." Romania Insider. Link. MoF (Ministry of Finance). 2023. "Press Release - The EC (European Commission). 2023a. Sendai Framework Establishment of the Investment and Development Bank, for Disaster Risk Reduction – Midterm Review 2023: Working towards the Achievement of the Sendai Approved by the Government of Romania.” Link. Priorities and Targets. Link. MoIA (Ministry of Internal Affairs). 2021. National Post- EC. 2023b. Peer Review Report: Romania - Civil Earthquake Response Concept (Second Edition). Link. Protection and Humanitarian Aid. Link. Mysiak, Jaroslav, Veronica Casartelli, and Silvia Torresan. 2021. Union Civil Protection Mechanism - Peer Review Elian, A. 2023. "What We Currently Know About the Programme for Disaster Risk Management: Assessment Vulnerability of Residential Buildings in Bucharest and Framework. Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Across the Country." Acasă în Siguranță. Link. Change (CMCC). Link. EU (European Union). 2023. Wildfire Peer Review National Agency for Cadastre and Land Registration. Assessment Framework. Link. 2024. "Properties Managed by the Integrated Cadastral European Parliament. 2021. Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of and Land Registry System.” Link. the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 NCES (National Committee for Emergency Situations). February 2021 Establishing the Recovery and Resilience 2020. National Disaster Risk Management Plan. Facility. Official Journal of the European Union, L 57/17. Bucharest, Romania. Link. Link. PAID. 2024. "15 Years of Financial Protection for Insured Financial Studies. 2024. "The Earthquakes in Gorj Have Seriously Impacted the Insurance Market: Compensation Homes." Link. Up 60%. How to Save Thousands of Euros with Just 10 Pavel, F., R. Văcăreanu, J. Douglas, M. Radulian, C. O. Euros a Month.” Link. Cioflan, and A. Barbat. 2016. "An Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for Romania and Financial Supervisory Authority. 2023. "Market Evolution Comparison with the Approach and Outcomes of the of Insurance in 2023.” Link. SHARE Project." Pure and Applied Geophysics 173 (6): 1881–1905, DOI:10.1007/s00024-015-1223-6. General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations. 2020. Summary on Disaster Risk Management. Link. Sandu, Dumitru D., Bogdan Corad, Cătălina Iamandi- Cioinaru, Titus-Cristian Man, Monica Marin, Ciprian GIES (General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations). Moldovan, Georgiana Neculau, Emil Daniel Tesliuc, Vlad 2020. Summary on Disaster Risk Management. Alexandru Grigoras, and Manuela Sofia Stanculescu. Bucharest. Link. 2016. Atlas Marginalized Rural Areas and Local Human Development in Romania. Washington, DC: World Bank. GoR (Government of Romania). 2022. National Seismic Link. Risk Reduction Strategy. Link. GoR. 2024. National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation 2024–2030, with a Perspective for the Year 2050. Link. 69 UNSAR (National Union of Insurance and Reinsurance Healthy Schools." Link. Companies in Romania). 2024a. "Editorial with Alexandru Ciuncan – President of UNSAR: 30 Years in the 'Insurance Emergency Ordinance No. 49 of May 26, 2023, regarding the approval of the National Investment Program for the World'." Link. strengthening of "Mihail Cantacuzino" hospitals and the UNSAR. 2024b. "Home Insurance: Paid Claims Increase National Program for the expertise of public buildings at by 63%." Bucharest. Link. seismic risk in the health and education systems. Link. UNSAR. 2024c. "Press Release - EUR 20 Million in Government Decision No. 1,579 of December 8, 2005, Compensation Paid for Restoring Homes after Natural (updated) for the approval of the Statute for volunteer personnel in voluntary emergency services (updated until Disasters.” Link. May 25, 2016). Link. World Bank and European Commission. 2021a. Economics for Disaster Prevention and Government Decision No. 932 of 2007 for the approval of Preparedness: Investing in Disaster Risk Management in the Methodology on state budget funding for natural risk Europe Makes Economic Sense, Background Report. maps for earthquakes and landslides. Link. Link. Government Decision No. 557 of August 3, 2016, World Bank and European Commission. 2021b. Financial regarding the management of risk types. Link. Risk and Opportunities to Build Resilience in Europe: Economics for Disaster Prevention and Preparedness. Government Decision No. 6 of January 4, 2024, regarding the amendment of the annex to Government Decision No. Link. 932 of 2007 for the approval of the Methodology for World Bank and Global Earthquake Model. Regional Risk financing from the state budget of natural risk maps for Assessment of the European Union Member States. Issue earthquakes and landslides. Link. 2. Government Ordinance No. 20 of January 27, 1994, World Bank. 2017. Disaster Risk Profiles - Romania. Link. (republished) regarding measures for reducing the seismic risk of existing constructions. Link. World Bank. 2020. Recommendations for Legislative, Regulatory, and Institutional Reforms to Accelerate Government Order No. 132 of February 29, 2007, for the Seismic Resilience Actions in Bucharest City (Output 14, approval of the Methodology for the development of the Bucharest Urban Development Program, P169577, Risk Analysis and Coverage Plan and the Framework Component 4: Bucharest’s Seismic Risk Reduction Structure of the Risk Analysis and Coverage Plan. Link. Program, P170101). Link. Law No. 575 of October 22, 2001, regarding the approval World Bank. 2021a. Diagnosis of the Situation of Persons of the National Territorial Planning Plan - Section V: with Disabilities in Romania. Link. Natural Risk Areas. Link. World Bank. 2021b. Inputs to the National Seismic Risk Law No. 500 of July 11, 2002, regarding public finances. Reduction Strategy (NSRRS) (Output 4, Reimbursable Link. Advisory Services Agreement on Consolidation of the Strategic Planning Capacity of the Ministry of Law No. 481 of November 8, 2004, (republished) Development, Public Works and Administration for regarding civil protection. Link. Renovation of the National Building Stock for Energy Efficiency and Seismic Risk in Romania, P169420). Link. Law No. 260 of November 4, 2008, (republished) regarding the mandatory insurance of homes against World Bank. 2021c. Reimbursable Advisory Services earthquakes, landslides, and floods. Link. Agreement on the Bucharest Urban Development Program (P169577), Component 4: Bucharest’s Seismic Law No. 212 of July 12, 2022, regarding certain measures Risk Reduction Program, Output 15: Recommendations for reducing the seismic risk of buildings. Link. for a City Strategy and Enhanced Public Awareness for Seismic Risk Reduction. Link. Law No. 242 of July 20, 2022, regarding data exchange between information systems and the establishment of World Bank. 2023a. Country Climate and Development the national interoperability platform. Link. Report for Romania. Link. Law No. 115 of May 10, 2023, for amending and World Bank. 2023b. Systematic Country Diagnostic supplementing Law No. 260 of 2008 regarding the Update: Romania. Link. mandatory insurance of homes against earthquakes, landslides, and floods. Link. World Bank. 2023c. Strengthening Disaster Risk Management in Romania: Building Modern, Inclusive, Law No. 198 of July 4, 2023, on pre-university education. Near-Zero Energy, and Disaster-Resilient Fire Stations. Link. Feature Story. September 13, 2023. Link. Law No. 426 of December 29, 2023, for the amendment World Bank. 2024a. Economics for Disaster Prevention and completion of Law No. 212 of 2022 regarding certain and Preparedness: Tools for Making Smart Investments measures for reducing the seismic risk of buildings. Link. in Prevention and Preparedness in Europe - From Data to Decisions (English). Link. Ordinance No. 26 of January 30, 2000, regarding associations and foundations. Link. World Bank. 2024b. Financially Prepared: The Case for Pre-Positioned Finance. Link. DATABASES/WEBSITE LEGISLATION National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of Emergency Ordinance No. 21 of April 15, 2004, regarding Persons with Disabilities (Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Drepturilor Persoanelor cu Dizabilități). 2023. the National Emergency Management System. Link. Statistics. Link. Emergency Ordinance No. 7 of March 1, 2023, for the approval of the national investment program "Safe and Fii Pregătit web platform. Link. 70 71