Reconstruction monitoring in Beirut, Lebanon, following August 2020 explosion, for the Reform, Recovery and Reconstruction Framework (3RF) (2021-03-10)

Activation date: 2021-03-10
Event type: Industrial accident

Activation reason:

The explosion of a large amount of ammonium nitrate stored in a warehouse in the port of Beirut on the 4th of August 2020, had a devastating outcome not only for the port area but affecting larger areas of Greater Beirut, reaching kilometres inland. The Reform, Recovery and Reconstruction Framework (3RF) has been developed by the World Bank Group, United Nations and European Union, bringing together the civil society, the government and the international community in order to provide a roadmap to ensure that people’s needs are addressed through a combination of socio-economic recovery and reform. EMSN087 provides the 3RF with data and information on the baseline damage assessment as for February 2021, and subsequent six monitoring assessments of the reconstruction progress on a quarterly basis beginning in April 2021 and reaching until July 2022. While satellite imagery data serve as the primary information source, ancillary data were made available by UN-Habitat Lebanon. UN-Habitat and the Municipalities of Beirut and Bourj Hammoud conducted a field survey for damage assessment after the explosion. This survey was supported by the Rotary Club Beirut Cedars in helping to provide the GeoPal application of the GeoPal company free of charge to assist the response. The data were used to cross-check the damage assessment based on the satellite imagery from February 2021. A first reconstruction monitoring cycle was performed, in order to evidence the reconstruction progress comparing with the damage assessment from February 2021, which served as reference for the reconstruction monitoring. Based on photointerpretation of satellite imagery acquired in April 2021, each damaged building/feature identified in the baseline got associated with a reconstruction status.Damage assessment at building level (February 2021, baseline)The damage assessment was conducted at building level, including a focus on industrial areas or facilities of public interest. It was based on a visual inspection of satellite images comparing the situation pre-event, immediate post-event and post-event imagery (February 2021). A photointerpretation key (PIK) was developed as a guide to the imagery analysts to assign the damage grade and allow the user to understand how the analysis was conducted. The classification is based on the following grading classes:Destroyed (Very heavy structural damage total or close to collapse)Damaged (Visible Structural and non-structural damage)Possible damaged (Uncertain interpretation due to reduced visibility)No visible damage (No visible damage in the satellite imagery data)Under reconstruction (already under reconstruction)New building (not existing before the explosion)Not analysed (due to e.g. cloud coverage, building shadow)The results of the analysis show that for the vast majority of the buildings no damage visible damage could be determined based on the visual analysis of the satellite imagery with the reference data February 2021.Reconstruction monitoring at building level1st Reconstruction monitoring analysis, April 2021The reconstruction monitoring was conducted at building level, with a focus on landfills, wrecks and storage waste. The monitoring was performed based on visual inspection of satellite images comparing the situation post-event as of February 2021 (involved in the damage assessment) and April 2021. Photointerpretation keys (PIK) were developed to assess the reconstruction status of buildings and features involved in the monitoring process. The classification is based on the following reconstruction status classes::New (structures/features not existing in the baseline damage assessment)Unchanged (no changes detected with respect to the damage grade identified in the baseline damage assessment of February 2021)Reconstruction ongoing (structures under reconstruction e.g. cranes, scaffolding)Demolished (residuals of the demolishment are visible)Removed (structures in the damage assessment are missing in the images of April 2021)Reconstructed (structures detected as fully functional)No visible change (uncertain interpretation due to the quality of satellite imagery)Not analysed (due to e.g. cloud coverage, or non-visibility in the images)Results of the first reconstruction monitoring cycle, based on visual interpretation of the satellite imagery of April 2021, show that buildings assessed with damage grades as damaged, destroyed, possible damage in February 2021 are mostly under the same conditions and therefore classified as unchanged. A small amount is classified as reconstruction ongoing. Only 4 buildings are identified as reconstructed.2nd Reconstruction monitoring analysis, July 2021Once again, the reconstruction monitoring was conducted on building footprint level, with a focus on landfills, wrecks and storage waste. The monitoring was performed on the basis of a visual inspection of comparing satellite images with a temporal coverage of post-event imagery of the reference date of February 2021 (used for the baseline damage assessment), the post-event imagery of the reference date of April 2021 (used for the first reconstruction monitoring cycle) and post-event imagery of the reference date of July 2021 (relative to the second reconstruction monitoring). To assess the reconstruction status of building and other pertinent features a Photointerpretation keys (PIK) were developed. The reconstruction status classes are the same as in the April 2021 reconstruction monitoring but with the following updates below:Unchanged (no changes detected with respect to the April 2021 reconstruction monitoring, with exception to “reconstruction ongoing”, “no visible change” and “not analysed” classes)Removed (damaged structures in April 2021, but missing in the images of July 2021)Results of the second reconstruction monitoring cycle, based on means of visual interpretation of the satellite imagery of July 2021, show that buildings assessed in the reconstruction monitoring of April 2021 are mostly under the same damage grade and therefore classified as unchanged. 50 Buildings are under reconstruction while only 12 buildings are identified reconstructed.3rd Reconstruction monitoring analysis, October 2021The reconstruction monitoring was conducted on building footprint level, covering as well landfills, wrecks and storage waste. The monitoring was performed on the basis of a visual inspection of comparing satellite images with a temporal coverage of post-event imagery of the reference date of February 2021 (baseline damage assessment), the post-event imagery of April 2021, July 2021 and October 2021 (current reconstruction monitoring cycle). To assess the reconstruction status of building and other pertinent features photointerpretation keys (PIK) were used. The reconstruction status classes are the same as the previous cycles, but with the following updates below:Unchanged (no changes detected with respect to the reconstruction monitoring cycle of July 2021).Removed (damaged structures in July 2021, but missing in the images of October 2021).Results of the third reconstruction monitoring cycle, based on means of visual interpretation of the satellite imagery of October 2021, show that buildings assessed in the reconstruction monitoring of July 2021 are mostly under the same damage grade and therefore classified as unchanged. 10 Buildings are under reconstruction activities, 16 buildings are identified as reconstructed.4th Reconstruction monitoring analysis, January 2022Conducted on building footprint level, the reconstruction monitoring covered also landfills, storage waste and wrecks. It has been performed based on a visual inspection by comparing satellite images with a temporal coverage of post-event imagery of the reference date of February 2021 (taken from the baseline damage assessment), the post-event imagery of the reference dates of April 2021, July 2021, October 2021 and January 2022 (the present reconstruction monitoring cycle).In order to assess the reconstruction status of the building and other relevant features, photointerpretation keys (PIK) have been used. As in the previous cycles, the same reconstruction status classes have been used, applying the following updates:Unchanged (no changes detected with respect to the reconstruction monitoring cycle of October 2021).Removed (damaged structures in October 2021, missing in the images of January 2022).Results of the fourth reconstruction monitoring cycle show that the majority of the buildings remains with the same damage grade that was assigned in the third monitoring cycle, four (4) are in a state of reconstruction ongoing and the same amount has been reconstructed.5th Reconstruction monitoring analysis, April 2022Conducted on building footprint level, the reconstruction monitoring covered also landfills, storage waste and wrecks. It has been performed based on a visual inspection by comparing satellite images with a temporal coverage of post-event imagery of the reference date of February 2021 (taken from the baseline damage assessment), the post-event imagery of the reference dates of April 2021, July 2021, October 2021, January 2022 and April 2022 (the present reconstruction monitoring cycle).In order to assess the reconstruction status of the building and other relevant features, photointerpretation keys (PIK) have been used. As in the previous cycles, the same reconstruction status classes have been used, applying the following updates:Unchanged (no changes detected with respect to the reconstruction monitoring cycle of January 2022).Removed (damaged structures in January 2022, missing in the images of April 2022).Results of the fifth reconstruction monitoring cycle show that the majority of the buildings remains with the same damage grade that was assigned in the fourth monitoring cycle, two (2) are in a state of reconstruction ongoing and four (4) has been reconstructed.6th Reconstruction monitoring analysis, July 2022Conducted on building footprint level, the reconstruction monitoring covered also landfills, storage waste and wrecks. It has been performed based on a visual inspection by comparing satellite images with a temporal coverage of post-event imagery of the reference date of February 2021 (taken from the baseline damage assessment), the post-event imagery of the reference dates of April 2021, July 2021, October 2021, January 2022, April 2022 and July 2022 (the present reconstruction monitoring cycle).In order to assess the reconstruction status of the building and other relevant features, photointerpretation keys (PIK) have been used. As in the previous cycles, the same reconstruction status classes have been used, applying the following updates:Unchanged (no changes detected with respect to the reconstruction monitoring cycle of April 2022).Removed (damaged structures in April 2022, missing in the images of July 2022).Results of the sixth reconstruction monitoring cycle show that the majority of the buildings remains with the same damage grade that was assigned in the fifth monitoring cycle, five (5) are in a state of reconstruction ongoing and six (6) has been reconstructed.

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) (2021): Reconstruction monitoring in Beirut, Lebanon, following August 2020 explosion, for the Reform, Recovery and Reconstruction Framework (3RF) (2021-03-10). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) [Dataset] PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/aa4e3619-4e53-406d-8dec-954d9a6372d3

No additional information