asean safe schools initiative phase 1 report

Cambodia

Laos

Thailand

Malaysia

Vietnam

Philippines

Indonesia

Singapore

Brunei Darussalam

Myanmar

ASEA

N Safe Schools Initiative Phase 1 Report

ASEAN Safe Schools Initiative

Phase 1 ReportProgress of nine ASEAN member states and recommendations from stakeholders

AADMER Partnership Group consortium

Supported by

For more information, please visit:http://www.aadmerpartnership.org/

ASEANSafe Schools InitiativePhase 1 Report

ASEAN Safe School Initiative Phase 1 is supported by ASEAN Secretariat, AADMER Partnership Group consortium and Australian Aid.

MAY 2013

CONTENTS

Foreword 5Acknowledgements 6About Plan International 7About the AADMER Partnership Group 7Executive Summary 9Introduction 12

Country Level Consultations 15 Cambodia 16 Existing Country Level Provisions 18 Challenges and Gaps 20 Recommendations for Priority Activities 21 Indonesia 22 Existing Country Level Provisions 24 Challenges and Gaps 26 Recommendations for Priority Activities 27 Lao PDR 28 Existing Country Level Provisions 30 Challenges and Gaps 32 Recommendations for Priority Activities 33 Malaysia 34 Existing Country Level Provisions 37 Challenges and Gaps 38 Recommendations for Priority Activities 38

Myanmar 40 Existing Country Level Provisions 42 Challenges and Gaps 44 Recommendations for Priority Activities 45 Philippines 46 Existing Country Level Provisions 50 Challenges and Gaps 52 Recommendations for Priority Activities 53 Singapore 54 Existing Country Level Provisions 57 Challenges and Gaps 57 Recommendations for Priority Activities 57 Thailand 58 Existing Country Level Provisions 61 Challenges and Gaps 62 Recommendations for Priority Activities 63 Vietnam 64 Existing Country Level Provisions 67 Challenges and Gaps 68 Recommendations for Priority Activities 68

Asean Regional Cooperation Recommendations 70Appendices: 74 Acronyms 74 References 77

Foreword

Schools are the best venues for forging durable collective values; therefore they are suitable for building a culture of prevention and disaster resilience. This is one of the reasons why the United Nations in 2006 chose to create a campaign about reducing the risk of disasters in schools.

In the ASEAN region, nine out of ten children spend half of their waking hours in schools.

and other hazards. The impacts of disasters on schools have been increasing, and could threaten the investments in education that countries have made to achieve the education targets of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals.

This report was prepared as part of the ASEAN Safe schools Initiative and shows the progress of Nine ASEAN member states on their Safe School programmes. The information was collected from consultations in each member state, which were organised by the AADMER Partnership Group with support from the ASEAN Secretariat as part of the AADMER Work Programme 2010-2015. The report also shows that the achievements related to Safe Schools have been uneven among and within countries. Challenges remain on how to roll out national level poli-cies into actions at the sub-national and local levels, and how to scale up pilot programmes into country-wide initiatives.

The report also captures recommendations from different stakeholders – national and local governments, non-government agencies, private sectors, and experts – to address existing gaps and to accelerate the Safe School programme in each country. There are also recommendations

sustainable approaches and in the implementation of future Safe School agendas.

Since the UN started its campaign for disaster risk reduction at schools almost a decade ago, we have learned that change can happen when it is being done as a collaborative effort

the ASEAN region can achieve a safer and more secure learning environment. Now is the time to step up our efforts to build a more resilient future for our children.

Mark Pierce Regional Director Plan Asia

Plan International

Acknowledgements

The report was consolidated and edited by Mari Fitzpatrick and Avianto Amri on behalf of Plan International and the ASEAN Agreement for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) Partnership Group (APG), based on the country consultation reports of the ASEAN Safe schools Initiative Phase 1 (ASSI 1). We would like to thank MERCY Malaysia, Save the Children, and World Vision as implementing partners of the ASEAN Safe Schools Initiative, for their time and contributions to this report.

6

About Plan International

Founded over 75 years ago, Plan is one of the oldest and largest children’s development organisations in the world. Plan works in 50 developing countries across Africa, Asia and the Americas to promote child rights and lift millions of children out of poverty.

Plan’s vision is of a world in which all children realise their full potential in societies that respect people’s rights and dignity. Plan aims to achieve lasting improvements in the quality of life of deprived children in developing countries, through a process that unites people across cultures and adds meaning and value to their lives.

About the AADMER Partnership Group

The AADMER Partnership Group is a consortium of international NGOs that have agreed to cooperate with ASEAN in the implementation of the AADMER. It comprises ChildFund, HelpAge, MERCY Malaysia, Oxfam, Plan International, Save the Children and World Vision.

Disclaimer

Australian Aid. The views expressed herein should not be taken, in any

7

Plan International

Executive Summary

undertaken in nine countries participating in the ASEAN Safe schools Initiative (ASSI) Phase 1. The ASSI project is one component of a regional undertaking by the ASEAN Committee for Disaster Management (ACDM) to standardise approaches

focus on school safety.

The South-East Asia region has a high incidence of disasters

decades. Since ASEAN countries in particular have high levels of school enrolment and attendance, it is crucial that school safety and resilience to disaster events become a priority focus for programming. A series of in-country consultations and workshops involving a range of national and international stakeholders were conducted to gauge the progress of country-level initiatives towards a Safe School model. These consultations provide a country-level audit of school

(DRR) in school curricula, disaster risk management (DRM) for schools, and existing vulnerability assessment guidelines.

9

The results of the consultations indicate varying levels of compliance and capacity to adhere to and manage a Safe School model. All the countries that participated in the consultations have demonstrated a commitment to national policies on disaster management and climate change adaptation (CCA), and have produced a series of national guidelines that vary in detail

the lack of a common agreement on categories and standards for Safe Schools, not only between countries but also within countries. Different understandings

measure of progress towards achieving minimum school safety.

This highlights the need to have a common guide for conducting vulnerability assessments of existing schools, which is one of the expected outputs of the AADMER Work Programme 2010-2015. Building on the institu-tional strengths and the principal of active collaboration in ASEAN1, this project will promote shared learning and best practices among ASEAN member states and aims to deliver all of the expected outputs of the AADMER Work Programme related to safe schools.

1 ASEAN Aims & Purposes #2: To provide assistance to each other in the form of training and research facilities in the educational, professional, technical and administrative spheres.

10

Other issues highlighted include:

absence of national regulatory frameworks to ensure compliance to standards, including school site selection, construction, and a monitoring process to ensure implementation and maintenance;

lack of a dedicated budgetary allocation for all phases of school DRR and management; vulnerability assessments are often lacking and do not have common standards; and lack of technical skills to implement and maintain proposed systems

and processes.

The most frequently cited challenge was the lack of coordination between government departments, with civil society organisations (CSOs) and international organisations implementing separate disaster risk reduction and disaster management projects. There is limited attention given to the “inclusion agenda” to reach all children, including the most vulnerable – such as infrastructure and curriculum development to accommodate disabled students, and awareness-raising approaches to accommodate out-of-school children, children with non-mainstream educational needs, and schools in remote

standards and guidelines would also be useful.

base to inform future decision making for ASSI Phase 2 and other ongoing activities at the regional and national levels.

11

Introduction

Plan International

The Asia region is home to many of the fastest growing economies in the world, especially those of the ASEAN countries. In recent decades, the region’s rapid growth has lifted millions of people out of poverty and has enabled governments to move closer to meeting their commitments to children’s rights. As of 2010, nine out of every ten primary school-aged children in the ASEAN region attended school. At the same time, the area has a high incidence of natural hazard impacts. Over the last decade, 85 per cent of people affected by disasters globally have been in Asia, and seven of the ten disasters with the most fatalities took place in Asia, including two in the ASEAN countries of Indonesia and Myanmar. Almost 150 million people in the ASEAN region, mostly women and children, were affected by disasters in the last decade. A recent study shows that more than 100 million children in ASEAN countries are at risk in schools located in earthquake-prone

half of their waking hours in school facilities that are often neither constructed nor maintained to be disaster resilient. It

education sector is a setback for the region’s investments and hard-won achievements in education.

13

At the regional level, ASEAN has developed the AADMER Work Programme 2010-20152, which includes components on Disaster Safety of Educational Facilities and Integrating DRR in School Curricula that support the Safe School agenda. All ASEAN member states have endorsed this work programme. The ASEAN Secretariat and the AADMER Partnership Group (APG)3 initiated the ASEAN Safe schools Initiative (ASSI) as a two-phased approach to developing an overall regional strategy that will assist with implementing a programme to build resilience against natural disasters and to manage natural disaster events. The objective of this programme is to improve and accelerate the implementation of Safe schools initiatives in all ASEAN member states, by: developing regional guidelines and indicators for Safe Schools; devising tools to assess school safety; awareness raising and capacity building approaches; and formulating a Safe School model for different designs and contexts. Since ASEAN member states have different capacities and have made varying progress on school safety standards, the role of ASSI Phase 1 is to conduct an audit through a consultative process on existing school safety provision, and to eventually share learning about good practices on school safety between the member states.4 Country-level consultations were conducted in eight out of the ten ASEAN member states: Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.5 Before the formal consultations, participants gathered additional data through: desktop reviews; key informant interviews; focus group discussions with students, staff and community groups; and activity mapping

sector representatives, community groups, donors, local and international organisations, students and teachers, and administrative staff. This is the Design phase of the approach, which will support and inform the Implementation phase to follow.

2 The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) came into force in 2009 and is a legal framework and common platform to comprehensively respond to disasters within ASEAN.3 The APG consortium comprises ChildFund International, HelpAge International, Mercy Malaysia, Oxfam, Plan International, Save the Children, and World Vision International. 4 With support from AusAID and funding from Plan Australia, Plan is leading a consortium with Mercy Malaysia, Save the Children, and World Vision to implement ASEAN Safe schools Initiative (ASSI) Phase 1 to formulate recommendations for ASSI Phase 2. 5 Due to funding restrictions and limited operational presence, consultations could not be conducted in Brunei. A small meeting between APG and the School Safety Unit of the Ministry of Education in Singapore was also conducted.

14

COUNTRY LEVELCONSULTATIONS

Plan International

Cambodia

Plan International

Cambodia is vulnerable to extreme weather events and is

landslides, storms, typhoons and disease epidemics. Floods cause the most fatalities and economic damage. Cambodia

The impacts of disasters disproportionately affect rural areas

for their livelihoods. Approximately 21 per cent of schools in 6 The school year in

total drop-out rate of students from school. Currently there is a National Committee for Disaster Management platform with representation at provincial, district and local levels. Cambodia has a Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) for Disaster Risk Reduction 2008-2013 7 and a draft Law on Disaster Management (2010). Cambodia has also implemented a Priority Implementation Partnership (PIP) to mainstream DRR in the education sector. The ASSI 1 consultation workshop was organised by Plan Cambodia, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS)8, and the Child Rights Fund, and attended by government

international NGOs. The Safe School project currently targets 12 schools and has conducted a variety of activities.

6 Enhancing Child-centered Disaster Risk Reduction for Safe Schools: Insights from Cambodia, China and Indonesia.7 This mechanism also incorporates the National Strategic Development Plan 2006-2010 and the National Adaptation Program of Action for Climate Change 2006.8 MoEYS is a member of the National Committee for Disaster Management and has mandate to act and establish various disaster management policies and mechanisms for schools.

Cam

bodi

a

Cambodia

17

Existing Country Level Provisions

School vulnerability assessment tools and methodologies

Students undertook risk mapping exercises at 12 target schools, followed by the development of action plans for risk minimisation. National level assessment tools will be developed as part of safe school guidelines to be developed (SSG)9.

Safe school construction practices and guidelines

as a national standard for school construction and distributed to all stakeholders implementing DRR, Safe schools initiatives, and climate change adaptation activities.

Integration of DRR in education and awareness-raising

Through the activities generated by the Priority Implementation Partnership (PIP), DRR modules and a Teachers’ Guide were developed. The 12 target schools have DRR educational material and lesson plans10.

9 School safety guidelines will be informed by the Comprehensive School Safety Paper and focus on a three-pillar framework: Safe School Environment, School Disaster Management, and Risk Reduction Education.10 IEC materials, student booklets and Teachers’ Guide, developed by Action Aid with MoEYS.

18

Plan International

School disaster management

School Support Committees, teaching staff and Commune Disaster Management Teams received DRR/Wash training, which will be replicated in classrooms and communities. Equipment

provided, such as life-jackets. A CSO-driven Disaster Risk Management in Education Working Group provides technical support.

Cam

bodi

a

Challenges and Gaps

1. A lack of awareness among key stakeholders at national and sub-national level about the goals and potential to address comprehensive school safety, along with child-friendly schools concepts.

2. Limited multi-sector coordination and capacity of national and sub-national governments with limited resources on the implementation and dissemination of Safe schools initiatives.

3. A lack of comprehensive data management about school vulnerabilities.

4. A lack of comprehensive budget allocation for Safe Schools, which includes retrofitting and rehabilitating of school infrastructures.

5. The main focus has been on post-disaster emergency relief and less on improving community capacity and enhancing community-based initiatives to cope with hazards and climate change.

20

Recommendations for Priority Activities

1. Ensure that the MoEYS incorporates the guidelines for school safety in all areas of the comprehensive school safety framework in all strategic and budgetary planning and provides appropriate training, establishes and resources operational committees and monitoring mechanisms, and supports the development of appropriate training materials.

2. Strengthen the capacity of the National Committee for Disaster Management and all sub-national representatives (PCDM, DCDM), Commune Committees for Disaster Management (CCDM) and School Support Committees (SSC), head teachers and teachers to to apply the school safety guid-ance.

3. Mainstream risk reduction and disaster management concepts into all school curriculums and support ongoing schools-based campaigns and information sharing.

4. Provide training for all educational stakeholders, including School Support Committees (SSC), head teachers and teachers on the guidelines for school safety, addressing all three pillars of comprehensive school safety.

5. Develop a national hazard mapping system and an early warn-ing system for all schools.

6. Standardised provision to schools of DRR measures, appropriate

practice drills to cope with and to improve schools’ resilience

7. Integrate a Safe School model into all School Development Plans at the sub-national level.

8. Establish a mechanism to document DRR best practices and

Cam

bodi

a

21

Indonesia

Plan International

Indonesia is the most populous ASEAN member state and has the highest number of schools in the region.11 The increased incidence of disasters caused by natural hazards and the large student population make it a priority to ensure school safety and to build future resilience. Most of the existing older school buildings were constructed without DRR protocols. In Indonesia, more than 90 per cent of government elementary schools were built in the 1970s when DRR was not considered and earthquake-resistant standards were not in place.12 There are more than 110,000 severely damaged classrooms that need urgent repairs. Based on education cluster assessments, 280 out of 2,239 primary schools in the national capital Jakarta

in a non-attendance rate for pupils of almost 100 per cent.

of Safe schools initiatives led by the National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB) mobilising campaigns, and a variety of guidelines and curriculum strategies. The ASSI consultation was hosted by Plan International, World Vision and UNESCO in Jakarta on 13th March 2013 and was attended by 102 people, including representatives of the National

the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment

Indo

nesi

a

11 Approximately 258,000 schools with more than 100 million students.12 Enhancing Child-centered Disaster Risk Reduction for Safe Schools: Insights from Cambodia, China and Indonesia.

Indonesia

23



A school-based disaster preparedness model/tool has been developed by UNESCO and the Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI) to assess the preparedness of primary, junior and senior secondary schools and formulate required interventions. Joint Education Needs Assessment (JENA) training

school stakeholders to assess school access and the learning environment, water and sanitation in schools, teaching and learning materials, support for the education process, and coordination and community participation. This

and 16 secondary schools.


Government agencies and international partners have supported a pilot program13 to implement Safe School Guidelines in three provinces. Muslim madrasah schools have also developed guidelines for Safe Schools and classroom rehabilitation: BNPB Regulation Number 4/2012 Manual Guidance of Safe Schools/Madrasah from Disaster.


BNPB has worked in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and Culture

pilot programme (see note 13) also conducts awareness-raising programmes.

NGO support, developed teaching modules about natural hazards and the appropriate responses at the primary and secondary levels. Training has also been conducted to integrate DRR into education at the sub-national and local levels, organised by UN agencies and NGOs.

13

24

Plan International


established with a mandate to support the Safe School agenda with the active participation of children, to provide technical assistance, and to support local government and schools to manage vulnerability data. The

A school-based disaster preparedness model/tool has been developed by UNESCO and the Indonesian Institute of Science to assess the disaster preparedness of primary, junior and senior secondary schools, and to formulate required interventions. The education cluster has translated the School Disaster Management Guidance Template, and the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies Minimum Standards (INEE MS) into Bahasa Indonesia, and has trained personnel from the education, protection and emergency humanitarian sectors in this child-rights-based approach. Frontline responder training has also been conducted by the education cluster to strengthen the capacity of the government, national and international NGOs, and other civil society partners to respond to education emergencies and to improve educational continuity planning.

Indo

nesi

a

25

Challenges and Gaps

1. Weak or ad-hoc multi-sector coordination between various government agencies and from national to district levels of government, as well as between CSO groups and the private sector.

2. A lack of designated ministerial ownership and responsibility for safe school initiatives. This also includes a lack of designated focal points and clear leadership from relevant agencies for collaboration and coordination.

3. A lack of common agreement across ministries about a framework and criteria for schools safety.

4. A lack of comprehensive data management on school vulnerability. 5. A lack of monitoring on the implementation of school safety initiatives.

rehabilitation and replacement of schools outside of pilot activities. 7. A need to increase the capacity of school communities to develop

disaster management plans, due to the lack of trained staff outside the pilot project areas.

8. A lack of general awareness and participation in DRR at school and community levels.

9. A lack of local level regulations on DRR. 10. Existing national regulations regarding DRR in schools and Safe Schools

are not consistently disseminated to district levels.

26


1. Develop a clear national government framework and strategy for imple-mentation of comprehensive school safety that encompasses standards, regulations, the coordination of roles and responsibilities, budget alloca-tions, and the dissemination and mainstreaming of the DRR approach.

2. Support collaboration between national and sub-national government bodies and international and national civil society stakeholders, to integrate Safe School DRR as part of community-based disaster risk management.

3. Prepare nation-wide scale-up programmes for school safety, with an emphasis on disaster-prone and remote areas.

4. Create documentation of best practices for aspects of comprehensive school safety approach to share and support extended coverage.

5. Strengthen the integration of DRR concepts and procedures into the education system, including school curricula, work plans and DRR education campaigns.

6. Integrate an inclusive approach to safe schools, incorporating the

issues of child protection, gender, etc. 7. Strengthen monitoring systems for the provision of all safe schoolsinitia-

tives. 8. Improve the knowledge and capacity of all relevant personnel on DRR

issues.

Indo

nesi

a

27

Lao PDR

Plan International

Over the past two decades, the number of natural disasters affecting Lao

droughts and severe cold spells, but experts predict the severity of these events will intensify, driven by factors such as climate change and environmental degradation. Disasters have negative consequences on the education system, including: physical impacts on students, staff and school facilities; economic impacts that affect school enrolment; and psychological impacts on students and staff. Information from 2002-2005

damaged by windstorms. Most structural damage occurs in the remote north of the country. Such disasters have been reported to keep children out of school for typically between two and three weeks.

The national policy on DRR was initiated in 199914. It established the

management, with overall responsibility for coordination and cooperation on disaster preparedness, mitigation, and emergency response and recovery issues. DRR is incorporated into the current 7th National Social Economic Development Plan for 2011-2015. The Ministry of Education and Sports has its own disaster management committee, although responsibilities are devolved to the district and village level.

On 27th March 2013 a national-level consultation meeting was held to consider ASSI Phase 1. The participants included 48 representatives from the Ministry of Education and Sport (MOES), the National Disaster Management

to this, interviews were conducted with all departments of the Ministry of Education.

Lao

PDR

14 Under Prime Ministerial Decree 158.

Lao PDR

29



There is currently no comprehensive baseline data about the condition and quality of school facilities and infrastructures at the national level. Most of the existing information is anecdotal.


The Ministry of Education and Sport (MOES), with the assistance from the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Directorate-General (ECHO), has formulated the School Construction Guidelines (2009) to ensure that future school designs will minimise harm brought by natural hazards. These guidelines apply to rural and urban areas, and to all levels of government from the national to the village level. There are no national guidelines on school maintenance, which is generally conducted by the local community.


Discussions are underway to include DRR as a subject in university curricula. A Technical Working Group is responsible for undertaking DRR in education, which involves the Research Institute for Educational Science and NDMO, although integration of DRR into the primary curriculum is ad-hoc through NGO pilot programmes. School disaster management

Except for areas covered by pilot programmes, there are no routine plans in place for disaster management procedures, and no training for staff. There

30

Plan International

Lao

PDR

Challenges and Gaps 1. A lack of coordination between government agencies, international

NGOs, NPAs, academics and other stakeholders on DRR and management activity.

3. Limited knowledge on DRR and management at the local and community levels.

4. Many of the areas worst hit by natural disasters are remote and inaccessible, so the most vulnerable lack DRR services and follow-up.

5. No comprehensive database of the condition and quality of school facilities, indicating a lack of comprehensive monitoring and assessment procedures.

6. No current policy or guidance on disaster management in the education sector.

7. National level guidance, Disaster Management Committees (DMCs) and DRR networks are not operationalised at the district and village levels.

8. A lack of Information Education Communication (IEC) materials and media communication (TV, radio, mobile phones).

9. A lack of national building codes. Current school construction guidelines do not fully integrate DRR concerns.

32


Safe School Facilities

1. Integrate safe school concepts into education management information systems so key data about school facilities and conditions can be

2. Review and update the MOES School Construction Guidelines and produce standards for maintenance guidelines.

3. Facilitate coordination between Disaster Management Committees, the Division of Design and Construction Management (under the Department of Finance), and the Provincial Unit for Construction and Development Assistance (PUCDA) for school-site selection and ongoing site-based risk assessments.

School Disaster Management

4. Develop guidance and materials for the institutionalisation of school-wide

boys, girls and people with disabilities). 5. Develop linkages between the disaster management sector and the

education sector, including: coordination between the NDMO and MOES Disaster Management Committee at all levels, support for the establishment of provincial, district, and village level disaster management focal points; and coordination between Disaster Management Committee focal points at the provincial, district, and village levels.

Disaster Risk Reduction Education

6. Review existing practices to develop and establish a national approach to integrate DRR and CCA into the school curriculum15 .

7. Establish effective mechanisms for the inclusion of DRR and CCA into teacher training practices.

8. Develop innovative teaching methodologies to support the in-and out-of-school dissemination of DRR education.

15 Linking DRR and CCA education to UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Initiative.

Lao

PDR

33

Malaysia

MERCY Malaysia

are the most common types of natural disasters in Malaysia that cause injuries, deaths, damage and disruptions, as well as

of measures to mitigate such disasters. The ASSI 1 consultations included 24 participants from primary and secondary education stakeholders and MERCY Malaysia, a volunteer relief organisation. The consultations were done in collaboration with the National Security Council of Malaysia and the Ministry Education (MOE), along with its Education, Policy and Research Division and School Division. The review demonstrated that Malaysia has a range of programmes, policies, procedures and guidelines on school safety. In 2002 the Safe School Programme was imple-mented and in 2008 the MOE endorsed a standard mechanism

for schools, and directives on national disaster management, security and civil defence.

Mal

aysi

a

Malaysia

35

MERCY Malaysia



An electronic system of reporting on the Safe School Programme is admin-istered by the MOE. It is compulsory for schools to conduct risk assessments twice a year, and these are done according to an MOE checklist with a safety rating system.


Rules of building construction are recommended for school construction projects. Guidelines on disaster management for schools have been circulated. Integration of DRR in education and awareness-raising A proposal was announced in early 2013 to implement a disaster risk reduction teaching module in schools in Malay language.


It is compulsory for schools to conduct emergency drills and conduct risk

situations; the maintenance costs for safe equipment are supported by the MOE; schools in vulnerable areas received CSO and MOE support to train students and teachers in disaster preparedness; no safe school program currently cater for students with disability. MERCY Malaysia and UNICEF also provide training workshops

Mal

aysi

a

37

Challenges and Gaps

2. Many staff lack the capacity to conduct a range of activities, including the provision of assessments on school safety.

3. It is not mandatory to include DRR in school curricula. 4. An absence of local DRR expertise to inform curriculum development

or provide training. 5. A lack of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

Recommendations for Priority Activities 1. Multi-hazard and vulnerability mapping should be further developed

and made accessible to the public. 2. Further investment is required to mainstream DRR concepts throughout

all government departments and in the education sector. 3. Disaster preparedness activities should be made mandatory for all

schools. 4. More focus and support is needed on DRR education and awareness. 5. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

(UNISDR) ten-point checklist for Resilient Cities should be used to manage urban growth and school development.

6. Include CSOs and the private sector in Safe School activities. 7. Provide more comprehensive guidelines about how to survive disaster

situations. 8. Separate school safety budgets from each school’s annual plan. 9. Coordinate the work of different agencies to provide school safety

to enhance school safety. 10. Provide support to more widely disseminate and enhance the uptake

of knowledge of DRR and DRM.

38

MERCY Malaysia

Mal

aysi

a

Myanmar

Plan International

Myanmar is vulnerable to many natural hazards, including

date, Cyclone Nargis in 2008, caused the loss of more than 138,000 lives and an estimated US $10 billion worth of damage, with more than 2,200 schools totally or partially damaged. In Myanmar over 200,000 teachers and eight million students are located in 42,000 schools. The ASSI consultations were organised by the Ministry of Education, Plan International and UNESCO, and attended by representatives from the Ministry of Education, the Myanmar Education Research Bureau, the Department of Relief and Resettlement, the Department of Health, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Revenue, the Department of Planning, the Department of Advanced Science and Technology, seven local and international NGOs, and two UN agencies.

Mya

nmar

Myanmar

41

Plan International



There are no national level assessment tools and methods. To date only the areas affected by Cyclone Nargis have been re-assessed.


now include the needs of disabled children. Three-thousand new schools have been constructed using this approach, although it is not suitable as a national guideline, while UNESCO has developed a maintenance manual. The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) has a proposal to update the national school construction guidelines.

Save the Children and Development Workshop France have implemented a Safer School Project in Myanmar to spread the message about safe construction. Small bamboo frame demon-stration structures in the playgrounds of each school were used to demonstrate the principles of safe storm-resilient construction, important for reconstruction of both schools and residences.


After Cyclone Nargis (2008), selected teachers in affected areas received DRR training and DRR education modules were integrated into the school curriculum.16 There is an opportunity to include a DRR framework for schools within the current Comprehensive Education Sector Reform (CESR)17 process, and to include DRR awareness in a proposed nationwide literacy campaign. The Excel project18 highlights DRR issues for out-of-school children.


A Disaster Preparedness and Response for Education (DPRE) Working Group was established in 2008 to recommend existing resource materials and best practices and manage and disseminate DRR training and distribution of materials to schools and policymakers. Since 2010 the INEE Minimum Standards have been translated, the Myanmar Inter-Agency Contingency Plan developed, and training at national and sub-national levels initiated for education in emergencies.

16 This was initially done in areas affected by Cyclone Nargis and followed up by the MOE, with UNESCO providing training to more teachers from Upper Myanmar.17 (CESR) in the capital Naypyidaw on the 23rd October 2012. The CESR will undertake an in-depth equity-sensitive

a fully costed education sector plan by 2014. Available: www.unicef.org/myanmar/reallives_19891.html18 The Extended and Continuous Education and Learning Project run by the Myanmar Local Resource Centre.

Mya

nmar

43

Challenges and Gaps

activities.

2. Existing school construction guidelines are basic and do

components and lacks a monitoring and evaluation mecha-nism.

3. A lack of institutional and specialist expertise and capacity on all aspects of DRR practice and management in

4. DRR and climate change are not included in the school curriculum, and general public awareness and education campaigns are underdeveloped.

5. A lack of coordination of multiple DRR initiatives, especially education activities, between government departments, CSOs, schools and communities.

6. No comprehensive inclusion agenda for disabled and out-of-school children.

7. Current DRR activities have limited coverage. 8. A need to upgrade DRR educational materials and to

44


1. Promote the development of a national policy mandate for increased budget allocation for DRR components in all sectors, including education, as well as donor advocacy efforts to support increased budget allocation for DRR.

2. Conduct local risk assessments, nation-wide to inform national guidelines. 3. Build on experience in development of community-based structural

safety knowledge and skills through school construction work. 4. Develop a national building code to cater for high risk areas, DRR

school construction for multi-hazards. 5. Conduct training to build the capacity of DRR resources, technical

specialists and managers, and to maintain ongoing training support workshops and seminars.

6. To continue and expand upon quality training programmes to build capacity of both technical specialist and education sector stakeholders in general, about DRR and climate change through a range of learning and popular electronic media formats.

7. Mainstream DRR and climate change knowledge into the school curriculum.

8. Implement a mechanism to coordinate government and stakeholder activities.

9. Establish fully funded and decentralised mechanisms for school disaster management, including monitoring teams to implement regular reporting and continuous monitoring of school construction, as well as embedded School Disaster Management Committees (SDMC) to oversee Safe School implementation.

10. Inclusion of non-mainstream children in overall approaches to disaster management.

Mya

nmar

45

Philippines

Plan International

The islands of the Philippines, with almost 25 million students and 45,525 thousand elementary and secondary schools, are vulnerable to all major types of natural hazards, and the country is widely acknowledged as one of the most hazard-prone in the world. As an archipelagic country, it is exposed to earthquakes, periodic eruptions from 22 active volcanoes, tropical cyclones,

vulnerable to climate-related hazards. There are an average of 20 tropical cyclones a year, as well as recurring El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) weather events.19 Natural hazard impacts occur frequently and have affected almost 11 million children in the past 5 years. The largest one most recently was Typhoon Bopha in 2012. Natural hazard impacts that become disasters are a drain on national resources, reinforce poverty and set back development goals. Repeated small-scale and infrequent large scale disasters that damage schools, or reassign them as evacua-tion centres, have impacted school attendance rates and created

Phili

ppin

es

19

Philippines

47

Prior to the national meeting, ASSI1 inputs sought from children, teachers and community members in the disaster affected Bicol and Laguna districts. The ASSI 1 consultation took place on 6th March 2013. The participants included 56 key stakeholders from the Department of Education, the Department of Civil Defense, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), the School Disaster Risk Reduction Management Group (SDRRMG), the Center for Disaster Preparedness, the Southeast Asian Ministries of Education Organization (SEAMEO), the Council for the Welfare of Children, and various academic institutions, local government authorities, and local and international NGOs. The Philippines national government and sub-national authorities have made extensive progress on disaster preparedness and management with a wide range of policy and programme measures, notably the National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (NDRRMC) formed in 1978, and a National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Plan (NDRRMP) formalised in 2009. This led to Department of Education Order Order 50 (2011), creating the DepEd

48

Plan International

Phili

ppin

es



The NDRRMC stipulates that responsible authorities at all levels should conduct risk assessments and enforce zoning regulations. Ongoing school hazard mapping is undertaken by the Mines and GeoScience Bureau, DepEd, DILG and includes the National Mapping and Resources Information Authority. The Department of Education uses the RADAR (Rapid Damage Assessment Report) tool for post-disaster damage assessment.


NDRRMC regulations stipulate that the design and engineering of public build-ings should be disaster-resilient and land use restrictions should be enforced in high risk zones.


The NDRRMP mandates the integration of DRR education in school curricula and mandatory training for public sector employees. The Policy Guidelines on Child Rights-Based Disaster Management mandate child-

preparedness and management into the school curriculum, with local governments implementing the Disaster Safety Awareness Program for Children. Other legislation requires the integration of climate change concepts into the primary and secondary school curriculum, as well as climate change adaptation approaches.

50


The Department of Education Order No.9 (2005) provides guidelines to prepare for and manage the impacts of disasters and their aftermaths on education provision. Dep Ed Oder 55 (2007) provides for mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and management in the school system, and Order 50

there have been guidelines to prepare for and manage impacts of disaster and the aftermath on education provision, these are considered to be in need

Improvement Plans (SIP) at preschool, elementary and secondary levels provide opportunity for linkages to school safety.

Phili

ppin

es

51

Challenges and Gaps

1. Safe School Facilities: Standards for assessment, safe site

upgrading of school water and sanitation facilities, and building maintenance, temporary learning spaces follow-ing hazard impacts, and resourcing for implementation.

2. School Disaster Management: Simple policies and guid-ance for ongoing participatory site-based school disaster management, including: assessment and planning, risk reduction and response preparedness, guidance for compliance with national and local early warning systems, incorporation of the needs of pre-school children,

safety. 3. Disaster Reduction Education: Guidance tools for all school

involvement in school disaster management, quality control of IEC materials content and pedagogy, budget for materials dissemination, and standardized approach to monitoring and evaluation.

4. Awareness on national standards and guidelines needs enhancement including compliance of implementation at the local level

5. Education sector is under-resourced with just over 2.1% of GDP compared with UN recommended 6%, and spending levels 7 or 8 times lower than Thailand and Malaysia, for example.

6. Smaller, high-frequency hazard impacts on education are

than the more well-known disasters. Future impacts of urban earthquakes and climate change are underesti-

7. Conflict areas pose additional challenges for the provision of educational continuity.

52


1. Consolidation of national standards for safe school facilities, assessments, and ongoing monitoring tools, including approach for

2. Ensure that standards and guidelines, as well as training documents, are succinct and accessible, , especially via self-study materials for DRRM focal points. Include Standard Operating Procedures, incident command systems and basic response skills guidance.

3. Create DRRM focal points at all sub-national and school level. 4. Build local capacity and knowledge regarding national policies and

guidelines, safe site selections, safe construction methods, and monitoring.

5. All schools should update DRR plans annually and have ongoing disaster risk management groups with child participation, and student DRM clubs.

6. Continue to use the Education Cluster to enhance agency coordination, compliance, awareness and knowledge-sharing, and link vulnerability data, monitoring and damage assessment to education information management systems.

7. Establish guidance for regular building inspection and repair for health and safety.

8. Develop consensus- and evidence-based key messages for household and school disaster risk reduction and disseminate these messages consistently in all IEC materials.

9. Provide training materials to schools in digital formats, and provide support for teachers to develop and share their own IEC materials.

10. Prepare how-to videos for standard operating procedures.

parents and communities in DRR education, and include parents and community in DRM education.

Phili

ppin

es

53

Singapore is relatively protected from many of the hazard

risks for school safety planning include terrorism and chemical attacks, urban hazards, and disease epidemics and pandemics, as well as the effects of climate change that can bring higher winds and heavier rainfall, and challenges to natural resource management, water and power supplies. The Ministry of Education (MOE) has established programmes to focus on DRR and emergencies in schools, coordinated with the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is responsible for all emergency planning. A small meeting took place between Save the Children, World Vision and a representative from the Ministry of Education.



No information on existing assessments or methodologies.


Policy Landscapes of Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change

an ongoing issue but current statistics do not yet demonstrate a big problem.

Sing

apor

e

Singapore

55


The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) visits all MOE schools twice a year to conduct evacuation drills. Safety messages do not have stand-alone status but are integrated into regular classes.


The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) visits all MOE schools twice a year to conduct evacuation drills. All schools have a civil defence shelter for emergencies. There are also a number of underground areas that can be used as school emergency shelters, and school spaces that can function as neighbourhood evacuation facilities. The MOE is attempting to develop a community engagement programme to involve family and communities in school safety management.

Challenges and Gaps


Sing

apor

e

57

Thailand

Plan International

The experience of two catastrophic events within the last

in central Thailand and Bangkok) have revealed existing disaster-related strengths, while at the same time highlighting

damage to 2,198 schools, 223 non-formal education institutes, 96 private schools, 126 vocational institutes and nine higher education institutes, at a total estimated cost of US $166 million. The damage to materials and facilities affected 538,218 students and 21,275 teachers. New disaster risk reduction initiatives were undertaken by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and some international NGOs to minimise the impact of disasters on schools. The MOE has primary responsibility for overseeing all levels of education, although some responsibilities overlap with other ministries. World Vision Foundation of Thailand was the lead agency responsible for carrying out the ASSI 1 consultation process. The consultation workshops were held from 7-8th March 2013 to review DRR provision in schools, and were attended by representatives from schools that had experienced a range of natural disasters. A National Round Table held on 18th March 2013 was attended by government representatives from the Bureau of Academic Development and Educational Standards (OBEC) and the Bureau of Policy and Planning, as well as representatives from international and local NGOs. The INEE Minimum Standards framework20 was used as a guide to gauge the consultation process. Th

aila

nd

20 The Inter-Agency for Education in Emergencies (INEE) is an open global network of practitioners and policymakers working together to ensure standards for a quality education and safe environment in emergencies and recovery.

Thailand

59

Plan International



There is no current database to report or monitor the disaster vulnerability of existing schools. Safe school construction practices and guidelines

-tion Commission (OBEC) are responsible for school site selection, construction,

all educational facilities. However, approaches to site selection and construc-tion are not standardised in practice. Ministerial guidelines have been issued on the construction of earthquake-resistant school buildings.21


OBEC has disseminated generic guidelines on mainstreaming DRR into the school curriculum. These set out the principles of DRR teaching and learning

-mend coordination with disaster management routines operating in schools. The aim is to build students’ knowledge and awareness about natural hazards, and to build capacity to deal with actual hazard events.School disaster management

OBEC is mandated to provide guidelines on national hazard management for the education sector. They in turn require local ESAOs to coordinate and manage disasters in terms of preparedness, response and recovery. A manual on disaster management for schools has been produced by UNICEF and the MOE.

21 Developed by Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce

Thai

land

61

Challenges and Gaps

1. No overall assessment protocol of safety standards of existing schools or a coordinated information database on hazards and risks.

2. A need for technical support for schools to upgrade safety features.

social and linguistic context and be appropriate for non-formal education as well as appropriate to local needs.

4. A need for review and monitoring process to examine the coverage and relevance of DRR curriculum mainstreaming.

5. A need for technical training and development in DRR for education sector staff in high-risk zones.

6. A need for participatory pedagogy to enhance learner-centred approaches to DRR education.

7. No clear focal point for disaster management and coor-dination.

8. No practical guidelines on DRR activities for local schools. 9. No consistent budgetary allocation for DRR or recovery. 10. No focal points for school recovery efforts after disasters.

62


1. Develop a legal and institutional framework for the systematic implemen-tation, monitoring and evaluation of school infrastructure and facilities.

2. Strengthen strategies on early warning and preparedness systems. 3. Develop and implement vulnerability and hazard risk assessment tools

for the education sector, including a national database and monitoring system for Safe Schools.

4. Formalise monitoring systems for the integration of DRR throughout the school curriculum.

5. Build the technical capacity of the education sector in DRR expertise and training.

6. Develop a knowledge database and exchange platform for DRR best practices and lessons.

7. Create a capital investment plan for the construction of a Safe School

8. Promote and support local networks as focal points to mobilise resources for affected areas.

9. Provide support for schools to formulate detailed DRR management plans and practices.

Thai

land

63

Vietnam

Plan International

Vietnam is one of the most hazard-prone countries in

earthquakes. The most frequent and devastating hazards are

in low-lying river basins and coastal areas, more than 70 per cent of the population is exposed to risks from multiple natural

the late 1990s the government has partnered with international and local organisations to develop approaches to community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM). In 2007 the Na-tional Strategy for Natural Disaster, Prevention, Response and Mitigation to 2020 stressed the important of community-level awareness and practice in disaster prevention and response, and supported a CBDRM program. On the 2nd December 2008, Vietnam’s Prime Minister approved the National Target Program to Respond to Climate Change. The ASSI 1 consultation took place from 28-31st January 2013 using key informant interviews methodologies with 11 participants, representing the Ministry of Education, the government’s Disaster Management Centre, Care (as the lead of the Joint Advocacy Network Initiative in Vietnam, or JANI), the German Red Cross, Live and Learn (a local NGO), Save the Children, Plan Vietnam and UNICEF.

Vie

tnam

Vietnam

65

Plan International



National hazard mapping has a primary focus on water related events, indicating a lack of comprehensive risk mapping across Vietnam. In addition, donor and NGO projects have sponsored ad hoc provincial and community level risk assessments. There is a need for a Safe School assessment tool, an improved monitoring system, and a Safe School model contextualised for local natural hazards

Safe school construction practices and guidelinesAt the moment there are no guidelines, although the Ministry of Education is in discussion with the Ministry of Construction to develop these. Integration of DRR in education and awareness-raising The Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) has an action plan to implement DRR in the education sector.

School disaster managementIn October 2010 the MoET endorsed the Action Plan for Response to Climate Change in the Education Sector 2011-2015. On 4th May 2012, the MoET established a Flood and Storm Control Committee and implemented the Action Plan for National Strategy on Disaster Reduction, Preparedness and Response in the Education Sector 2011-2020. On 8th September 2011 the MoET promulgated a plan to implement a national strategy on natural disaster prevention, control and mitigation in the education sector for the period 2011 to 2020.

Vie

tnam

67

Challenges and Gaps

1. Currently there is no singular or comprehensive understanding of what constitutes a Safe School.

2. The Ministry of Education has started to build an understanding of DRR, but it is not as developed as in the agricultural sector.

3. There is a need for a Safe School assessment tool, an improved monitoring system, and a Safe School model contextualised to local natural hazards.

further enhanced. 5. There is no knowledge platform to disseminate best practices. 6. Budgetary constraints. 7. A lack of policy guidelines on Safe Schools from the national to

sub-national level.


1. Incorporate assessment tools and guidelines into the MOE action plans. 2. Improve monitoring systems of all DRR and DRM activities across the

education sector. 3. Develop DRR and DRM data management system across all relevant

activities in the education sector. 4. Develop a Safe School model relevant for a range of local contexts. 5. Mobilise a public awareness campaign on DRR and DRM through a

range of media, and develop IEC materials. 6. Enhance national high level support for DRR and DRM by enhancing

regional linkages.

68

Plan International

Vie

tnam

ASEAN REGIONALCOOPERATION

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plan International

These recommendations were developed during the consultation which took place in Jakarta on 13th March 2013.

Consultations at the regional level

Workshop on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Educa-tion in Malacca in 2011. The workshop produced a benchmarking tool for mainstreaming DRR in the curriculum developed and published by ASEAN Secretariat.

The Comprehensive School Safety framework was presented

Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) in November 2012. SEAMEO expressed endorsed the framework (safe school facilities, school disaster management - including education in emergencies - and DRR education). The support includes: the

coverage and implementation of national policy frameworks; initiatives in collaboration with partners for the design and imple-mentation of scalable approaches and measures for each of the three framework pillars; the documentation of hazard impacts on education; research on resilience factors; and the engagement of relevant SEAMEO centres in innovative efforts and partnerships, including mapping activities to identify policy gaps in SEAMEO countries taking part in future capacity building activities. The SEAMEO Secretariat has offered to coordinate with the relevant education ministries on related activities.

71

SEAMEO has had long-standing interest in promoting school safety, most recently

in 2010. One of these, Project 10, addresses education in emergencies and disaster preparedness. The lead countries are Indonesia and the Philippines. Activities include the provision of kits and guidelines, teachers and community involvement, the refurbishment of structures, and advocacy.

presented at the First UNISDR Asia Partnership (IAP) meeting in 2013. The

Phase 2 at the second Prevention and Mitigation Working Group meeting in 2013, chaired by the DDPM of Thailand and the NCDM of Laos.

General recommendations for ASEAN

1. Encourage adoption of a comprehensive approach to school safety as one of the main goals or priorities in each ASEAN member state, where each national development plan should be considered in the light of its contribution to the achievement of school safety in the respective member states.

2. Promote the availability of joint commitments among ASEAN member states to implement implement a comprehensive approach to school safety in their respective countries. Common standard or indicators related to this framework in ASEAN should be developed and agreed by all member states.

3. Promote the design of a regional initiative for comprehensive school safety at the ASEAN level, conducted in association with SEAMEO and considering local contexts.

72

4. Foster consistent collaboration in the education sector among ASEAN member states, alongside the economic and political sectors for the purposes of strengthening comprehensive school safety.

5. Encourage the governments of ASEAN member states to report on the progress on the efforts of safe schools programmes, as a follow up to the Yogyakarta Declaration in regular meeting of the ASEAN Committee for Disaster Management (ACDM).

6. Develop guidance materials from ASEAN, in coordination with SEAMEO to support development of the national policy/regulations for a comprehensive school safety approach, in each member state.

7. Promote the availability of ASEAN’s safe schools guidance materials and

national policies and regulations in ASEAN member states.

8. Foster exchange learning among ASEAN member states on all aspects of comprehensive school safety.

9. Provide access to information about potential international funding and interest in investment in safe schools initiatives in each ASEAN member state.

10. Organise a regular ASEAN-led consultation on Safe schools initiatives to share learning and progress among ASEAN member states, inviting relevant regional actors such as SEAMEO.

11. Share information through an online knowledge repository on safe schools at the ASEAN level.

73

APPENDICES:

ACRONYMS

AADMER ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response

ACDM ASEAN Committee for Disaster Management

ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre

AHA ASEAN Coordinating Center for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management

APG APG = AADMER Partnership Group

ASEC ASEAN Secretariat

ASSI ASEAN Safe Schools Initiative

BNPB National Agency for Disaster Management, Indonesia

CCA Climate Change Adaption

CBDRM Community-based Disaster Risk Management

CESR Comprehensive Education Sector Reform

DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness ECHODAK Education Special Allocation Fund

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DMC Disaster Management CommitteeDPRE Disaster Preparedness and Response for Education working group

74

ECHO European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Directorate General

ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation

ESAO

ESP Education Strategy Plan

IEC Information Education Communication

INEE Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies

ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

LIPI Indonesian Institute of Science

MOE Ministry of Education

MOES Ministry of Education and Sport

MOET Ministry of Education and Training MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

NDMC National Disaster Management Committee

NDMO

NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council75

NGO Non-Government Organisations

OBEC

PIP Policy Implementation Partnership

PKS school safety in Malaysia

PUSKUR Curriculum Centre, Indonesia

SCDF Singapore Civil Defence Force

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SDRRMG School Disaster Risk Reduction Management Group

SEAMEO Southeast Asian Ministries of Education Organization

SEKNAS National Secretariat for Safer Schools

SIP School Improvement Plan

SNAP Strategic National Action Plan

SSG Safe School Guidelines

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNESCO Organization

UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Fund76

References

Plan International

REFERENCES

_________________, Comprehensive School Safety – Towards a Global Framework, UNICEF, UNESCO, Save the Children, Plan International, World Vision, ADPC. Oct. 2012. 6p. http://www.preventionweb.net/go/15279

APG, Plan, AusAID (2013) ASSI Phase 1 Findings, Vietnam. Powerpoint.

Enhancing Child-centered Disaster Risk Reduction for Safe Schools: Insights from Cambodia, China and

Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies from Thirty Countries, UNESCO/UNICEF: Paris

Towards A Learning Culture of Safety and Resilience, UNESCO/UNICEF: Paris

Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (2010). Minimum Stan-dards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery, 2nd Edition. New York, NY, 2010. 78p. http://www.preventionweb.net/go/4546

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2012). Public Awareness and Public Education for Disaster Risk Reduction: key messages. Geneva. 64 p. http://preventionweb.net/go/31061

Institutional and Policy Landscapes of Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Asia

MERCY Malaysia (2013) ASEAN Safe School Initiative Consultation Phase Report, Malaysia Workshop Report, March 2013.

78

Plan Cambodia (2013) ASEAN Safe School Initiative Consultation Phase Report, Cambodia Workshop. 12th March 2013, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Plan Indonesia (2013) ASEAN Safe School Initiative Consultation Phase Report, Indonesia Workshop. 13th March 2013, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Save the Children, Australia (2013) ASEAN Safe School Initiative Consultation Phase Report, Philippines Workshop. 15th March 2013.

Save the Children, Lao PDR. (2013) ASEAN Safe School Initiative Consultation Phase Report, Lao PDR Workshop. 29 March 2013, Vientiane, Lao PDR.

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization 2013. Global Framework for Comprehensive School Safety, HOM-Working Paper 35, 14pp.

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (November, 2013), Adopted,

Bangkok.

Ministry of Education, Plan International, UNESCO (2013) ASEAN Safe School Initiative Consultation Phase Report, Myanmar Workshop. 13th March 2013, Naypyidaw, Myanmar.

(2013) Summary of SWOT, Myanmar Workshop.

Assessing School Safety from Disasters – A Baseline Report.

UNISDR and the World Bank (2011) Vietnam: Disaster Risk Management

79

UNISDR (2010). Guidance Notes – School Emergency and Disaster p.30 http:///www.prevention-

web.net/go/15734

Wiboonuppatum, Raewadee Eiamsuntornwit, Wisit Thongkhum (2013) Thailand’s Current Level of Progress on the Disaster Risk Reduction in Curriculum, and Safety of Education Facilities, Management.

____________(2013) Notes on ASSI Meeting with Wong Hen Jeng, Assistant Director of School Safety Unit, MOE, Singapore. 7th March 2013

80

Cambodia

Laos

Thailand

Malaysia

Vietnam

Philippines

Indonesia

Singapore

Brunei Darussalam

Myanmar

ASEA

N Safe Schools Initiative Phase 1 Report

ASEAN Safe Schools Initiative

Phase 1 ReportProgress of nine ASEAN member states and recommendations from stakeholders

AADMER Partnership Group consortium

Supported by

For more information, please visit:http://www.aadmerpartnership.org/

asean safe schools initiative phase 1 report

Documents

priority activities

country level consultations

asean secretariat

schools initiativephase

asean member states

national level policies

safe school programmes

aadmer work programme