asean school initiave.pdf

8/10/2019 Asean School Initiave.pdf

1/82

ASEANSafe Schools Initiative

Phase 1 Report

Progress of nine ASEAN member states and

recommendations from stakeholders

AADMER Partnership Group consortium


2/82

ASEAN

Safe Schools InitiativePhase 1 Report

ASEAN Safe School Initiative Phase 1 is supported

by ASEAN Secretariat, AADMER Partnership

Group consortium and Australian Aid.

MAY 2013


3/82


4/82

CONTENTS

Foreword 5

Acknowledgements 6

About Plan International 7

About the AADMER Partnership Group 7

Executive Summary 9

Introduction 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



Lao PDR 28



Recommendat ions for Priority Activities 33

Malaysia 34





5/82

Myanmar 40




Philippines 46

Existing Country Level Provisions 50 Challenges and Gaps 52


Singapore 54




Thailand 58




Vietnam 64




Asean Regional Cooperation Recommendations 70

Appendices: 74 Acronyms 74

References 77


6/82

Foreword

Schools are the best venues for forging durable collective values; therefore they are suitablefor 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 educationtargets of the UNs 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 informat ion 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 implementat ion 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


7/82

Plan International

Acknowledgements

The report was consolidated and edited by Mari Fitzpatrick

and Avianto Amri on behalf of Plan International and theASEAN 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 SchoolsInitiative, for their time

and contributions to this report.

6


8/82

About Plan International

Founded over 75 years ago, Plan is one of the oldest and largest

childrens development organisat ions 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.

Plans vision is of a world in which all children realise their full potential in

societies that respect peoples 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 theAADMER. It comprises ChildFund, HelpAge, MERCY Malaysia, Oxfam,

Plan Internat ional, Save the Children and World Vision.

Disclaimer

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

7


9/82Plan International


10/82

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 consultat ions andworkshops 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


11/82

The results of the consultat ions 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 acommon agreement on categories and standards for Safe Schools,notonly 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 AADMERWork 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


12/82

Other issues highlighted include:

absence of national regulatory frameworksto ensure complianceto standards, including school site selection, construction, and a monitoring

process to ensure implementation and maintenance;

lack of a dedicated budgetary allocationfor all phases of schoolDRR and management;

vulnerability assessments are often lackingand do not have commonstandards; and

lack of technical skillsto implement and maintain proposed systemsand 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 inclusionagenda to reacha ll children, including the most vulnerable such asinfrastructure 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


13/82

Introduction

Plan International


14/82

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 regions rapid growth has lifted millions of people

out of poverty and has enabled governments to move closer to

meeting their commitments to childrens 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 regions investments and

hard-won achievements in education.

13


15/82

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 Curriculathat support the Safe School

agenda. All ASEAN member states have endorsed this work programme. TheASEAN Secretariat and the AADMER Partnership Group (APG)3initiated 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 buildingapproaches; 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 Implementationphase 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 consort ium 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, consultat ions could not be conducted in Brunei. A small

meeting between APG a nd the School Safety Unit of t he Ministry of Education in Singapore was also conducted.

14


16/82

COUNTRY LEVELCONSULTATIONS

Plan International


17/82

Cambodia

Plan International


18/82

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. Cambodiahas a Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) for Disaster Risk

Reduction 2008-2013 7and 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 consultat ion workshop was organised by P lan

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 t he National Committee for Disaster Management and has mandate to act and establish various

disaster management policies and mechanisms for schools.

Cambodia

Cambodia

17


19/82

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 act ivities 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


20/82

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 technicalsupport.

Cambodia


21/82

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 coordinat ion 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 da t a management ab out schoolvulnerabilities.

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


22/82

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 t raining materials. 2. Strengthen the capacity of the Nat ional 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 ongoingschools-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 nat ional 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

Cambodia

21


23/82

Indonesia

Plan International


24/82

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 13thMarch 2013 and was attended

by 102 people, including representatives of the National

the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Womens Empowerment

Indonesia

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


25/82



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 sanitat ion in schools, teaching and learning materials, support for

the education process, and coordinat ion and community participation. This

and 16 secondary schools.


Government agencies and international partners have supported a pilotprogram13 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 cooperat ion with the Ministry of Educat ion 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


26/82

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 SchoolDisaster 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.

Indonesia

25


27/82

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 andcriteria 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 part icipation in DRR at school and

community levels.

9. A lack of local level regulat ions on DRR.

10. Existing nat ional regulat ions regarding DRR in schools and Safe Schools

are not consistently disseminated to district levels.

26


28/82


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 pract ices 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.

Indonesia

27


29/82

Lao PDR

Plan International


30/82

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 andschool 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 1999

14

. 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 representat ives 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.

LaoPDR

14 Under Prime Ministerial Decree 158.

Lao PDR

29


31/82



LaoPDR


33/82

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 know ledg e on DRR and mana g ement at the loca l 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 andmedia communication (TV, radio, mobile phones).

9. A lack of national building codes. Current school construction

guidelines do not fully integrate DRR concerns.

32


34/82


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: coordinat ion 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 pract ices.

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

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

LaoPDR

33


35/82

Malaysia

MERCY Malaysia


36/82

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 educationstakeholders and MERCY Malaysia, a volunteer relief organisation.

The consultat ions 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.

Malaysia

Malaysia

35


37/82MERCY Malaysia


38/82



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 alsoprovide training workshops

Malaysia

37


39/82

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 evaluat ion mechanisms.


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 disastersituations.

8. Separate school safety budgets from each schools 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


40/82MERCY Malaysia

Malaysia


41/82

Myanmar

Plan International


42/82

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 tot ally or part iallydamaged. 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 ofPlanning, the Department of Advanced Science and Technology,

seven local and international NGOs, and two UN agencies.

Myanmar

Myanmar

41





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 nat ional

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.


44/82

Save the Children and Development Workshop France have

implemented a Safer School Project in Myanmar to spread themessage 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

nat ionwide literacy campaign. The Excel project 18 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 havebeen 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 t he MOE, with UNESCO providing

training to more teachers from Upper Myanmar.17

(CESR) in the capita l Naypyidaw on the 23rd October 2012. The CESR will undert ake an in-depth equity-sensitive

a fully costed educat ion sector plan by 2014. Available: w ww.unicef.org/myanmar/reallives_19891.html18 The Extended and Continuous Educat ion and Learning Project run by the Myanmar Local Resource Centre.

Myanmar

43


45/82

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 institutiona l and specia list expert ise and

ca pa city 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 initiat ives,

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


46/82


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 stakeholdersin 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 regularreporting 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.

Myanmar

45


47/82

Philippines

Plan International


48/82

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 Nio 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 largescale disasters that damage schools, or reassign them as evacua-

tion centres, have impacted school attendance rates and created

Philippines

19

Philippines

47


49/82

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 consultat ion

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 theInterior 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 internat ional NGOs. The

Philippines national government and sub-national authorities

have made extensive progress on disaster preparedness andmanagement 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



Philippines


51/82



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 conceptsinto the primary and secondary school curriculum, as well as climate change

adaptation approaches.

50


52/82


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.

Philippines

51


53/82

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 disastermanagement, including: assessment and planning, risk

reduction and response preparedness, guidance for

compliance with national and local early warning

systems, incorporat ion of the needs of pre-school children,

safety.

3. Disaster Reduction Education: Guidance tools for all school

involvement in school disaster management, qualitycontrol 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 spendinglevels 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 theprovision of educa tional continuity.

52


54/82


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 householdand 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.

Philippines

53


55/82


56/82

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 resourcemanagement, 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 stat istics do not yet demonstrate

a big problem.

Sin

gapore

Singapore

55


57/82


58/82


The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) visits a ll 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 foremergencies. 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


Sin

gapore

57


59/82

Thailand

Plan International


60/82

The experience of two catastrophic events w ithin 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 someresponsibilities overlap with other ministries. World Vision

Foundation of Thailand was the lead agency responsible for

carrying out the ASSI 1 consultat ion process. The consultat ion

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 Nat ional Round Table held on 18th March 2013 was attended

by government representatives from the Bureau of AcademicDevelopment 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. Thailand

20 The Inter-Agency for Education in Emergencies (INEE) is an open g lobal network of practitioners and policymakers

working together to ensure standards for a quality education and safe environment in emergencies and recovery.

Thailand

59


62/82



There is no current database to report or monitor the disaster vulnerability

of existing schools.


-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 coordinat ion 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.


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 Thailands Ministry of Commerce

Thailand

61


63/82

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


64/82


1. Develop a legal and institutional framework for the systematic implemen-

tat ion, monitoring and evaluat ion 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.

Thailand

63


65/82

Vietnam

Plan International


66/82

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 centof 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,

Vietnams Prime Minister approved the National Target Program

to Respond to Climate Change. The ASSI 1 consultat ion took

place from 28-31st January 2013 using key informant interviews

methodologies with 11 part icipants, representing the Ministry

of Education, the governments 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 localNGO), Save the Children, Plan Vietnam and UNICEF.

Vietnam

Vietnam

65


68/82



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 educat ion 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

MoETestablished 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 MoETpromulgated a plan to implement a national strategy on natural

disaster prevention, control and mitigation in the education sector for theperiod 2011 to 2020.

Vietnam

67


69/82

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 plat form to disseminate best practices.

6. Budgetary constraints.

7. A lack of policy guidelines on Safe Schools from the nat ional 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 relevantactivities 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



Vietnam


71/82

ASEAN REGIONAL

COOPERATIONRECOMMENDATIONS

Plan International

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


72/82

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;

initiat ives in collaboration with partners for the design and imple-

mentation of scalable approaches and measures for each of thethree 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


73/82

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) meet ing 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. Encourageadoption of a comprehensive approach to school safety as

one of the main goals or priorities in each ASEAN member state, whereeach national development plan should be considered in the light of

its contribution to the achievement of school safety in the respective

member states.

2. Promotethe availability of joint commitments among ASEAN memberstates 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 agreedby all member states.

3. Promotethe design of a regional initiative for comprehensive schoolsafety at the ASEAN level, conducted in association with SEAMEO and

considering local contexts.

72


74/82

4. Fosterconsistent collaboration in the education sector among ASEAN

member states, alongside the economic and political sectors for thepurposes of strengthening comprehensive school safety.

5. Encourage the governments of ASEAN member states to report onthe progress on the efforts of safe schools programmes, as a follow

up to the Yogyakarta Declarat ion in regular meeting of the ASEAN

Committee for Disaster Management (ACDM).

6. Developguidance materials from ASEAN, in coordination with SEAMEOto support development of the national policy/regulations for a

comprehensive school safety approach, in each member state.

7. Promotethe availability of ASEANs safe schools guidance materials and

national policies and regulations in ASEAN member states.

8. Fosterexchange learning among ASEAN member states on all aspectsof comprehensive school safety.

9. Provideaccess to information about potential international fundingand interest in investment in safe schools initiatives in each ASEAN

member state.

10.Organisea regular ASEAN-led consultation on Safe schools initiat ives

to share learning and progress among ASEAN member states, invitingrelevant regional actors such as SEAMEO.

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

73


75/82

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 Assistanceon Disaster Management

APG APG = AADMER Partnership Group

ASEC ASEAN Secretariat

ASSI ASEAN Safe Schools Initiat ive

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 Allocat ion Fund

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DMC Disaster Management CommitteeDPRE Disaster Preparedness and Response for Educat ion working group

74


76/82

ECHO European Commissions Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

Directorate General

ENSO El Nio Southern Oscillat ion

ESAO

ESP Education Strategy Plan

IEC Information Educat ion Communicat ion

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 TrainingMoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

NDMC Nat ional Disaster Management Committee

NDMO

NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council75


77/82

NGO Non-Government Organisations

OBEC

PIP Policy Implementat ion 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 Educat ion Organizat ion

SEKNAS National Secretariat for Safer Schools

SIP School Improvement Plan

SNAP Strategic Nat ional Action Plan

SSG Safe School Guidelines

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNESCO Organization

UNICEF United Nat ions International Childrens Fund76


78/82

References

Plan International


79/82


80/82

Plan Cambodia (2013) ASEAN Safe School Initiative Consultation Phase

Report, Cambodia Workshop. 12thMarch 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

Consulta t ion 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 Consultat ion Phase Report, Myanmar Workshop. 13th March 2013,

Naypyidaw, Myanmar.

(2013) Summary of SWOT,Myanmar Workshop.

AssessingSchool Safety from Disasters A Baseline Report.

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

79


81/82

UNISDR (2010). Guidance Notes School Emergency and Disaster

p.30 http:///www.prevention-web.net/go/15734

Wiboonuppatum, Raewadee Eiamsuntornwit, Wisit Thongkhum (2013)

Thailands Current Level of Progress on the Disaster Risk Reduction in

Curriculum, and Safety of Education Facilities, Management.

____________(2013) Notes on ASSI Meet ing w ith Wong Hen Jeng ,

Assistant Director of School Safety Unit, MOE, Singapore.7th

March2013

80


82/82

Cambodia

Laos

Thailand

Malaysia

Vietnam

Philippines

Singapore

Brunei Darussalam

Myanmar

asean school initiave.pdf

Documents