Safe school policies and practices in Nepal

Safe School Policies and Practices
Plan Nepal
This study is commissioned by Plan Nepal in the support from NDRC Nepal
Good Initiatives, Gaps, Implications and the Way Forward
Research Report
2013
Plan Nepal
Dhruba Gautam, PhD
Independent Researcher and Consultant
National Disaster Risk Reduction Centre (NDRC Nepal)
Phone: 01-4115619, 9851095808, email: drrgautam@gmail.com, ndrcnepal2007@gmail.com

Plan Nepal
© Plan Nepal, 2013
(This research study is part of Safe School Initiative 2012/13, funded by NORAD and implemented by Plan Nepal.)
Plan Nepal
Nepal Country Office
Pulchock, Kathmandu
Phone: 01-5535580, 5522712
Fax: 01-5536431
Email: nepal.co@plan-international.org
www.plannepal.org
Researcher
Dhruba Gautam, PhD
Independent researcher and Consultant
Phone/fax: 01-4115619, 98510-95808
Email: drrgautam@gmail.com
National Disaster Risk Reduction Centre
(NDRC Nepal)
Sangam Chowk, Baneshwor, Kathmandu
Phone/fax: 01-4115619, 98510-95808
Email: ndrcnepal2007@gmail.com, drrgautam@gmail.com
Disclaimer: The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the researcher and do not necessarily reflect the view of Plan Nepal. Plan Nepal does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. For more information, please contact the researcher at NDRC Nepal or Plan Nepal in one of the above addresses.

Plan Nepal
List of Acronyms
BPEP Basic and Primary Education Project
CRC Rights of the Child
DoE Department of Education
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
ECED Early Childhood Education and Development
EFA Education for All
EiE Education in Emergencies
ESD Education for Sustainable Development
GCE Global Campaign for Education
HFA Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA)
HVCA Hazard, vulnerability and capacity analysis
INEE Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies
MDG Millennium Development Goal
NFE Non-formal education
NSDRM National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management
NSET National Society for Earthquake Technology
PABSON Private and Boarding Schools' Organisation, Nepal
PTA Parent Teacher Association
SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SEEDS Sustainable Environment & Eco Development Society
SMC School Management Committee
UNGEI United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative
UNISDR UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

Plan Nepal
Acknowledgements
This research report has been possible because of the support of so many people personally and professionally. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all persons who contributed to this research in many different ways: by sharing their experience, thoughts and opinions, and by contributing time, advice and hospitality during field, district and national level consultations.
Additionally, it would not have been possible to complete this research without the support, patience and co-operation from officials from Education cluster, school teachers and district stakeholders. I am indebted to the school management, SMCs and PTAs who served as invaluable resource persons during the entire research. I was encouraged when teachers, children and youths accepted my presence, answered my queries passionately and made me internalize the key issues of research inquiry. Therefore, I remain obliged to them.
I would like to acknowledge Plan Nepal Country Office Team for making this study possible. I am particularly grateful to Plan Nepal senior country team and to the project management team for their feedback on and suggestions about research conceptual framework and methods. Thanks goes to NORAD for allocating fund for this research.
I am also grateful to national level stakeholders' viz. Save the Children, Practical Action, Care, Oxfam, UNDP, UNICEF, UNOCHA, ActionAid, Dan Church Aid, Mercy Corps, and Lutheran World Federation, etc for their professional inputs.
My special thanks to Shyam Sundar Jnavaly, DRM Coordinator for excellent coordination during the entire research period. Krishna Kumar Shrestha, PME Research Officer deserves the special thanks for his excellent coordination from the entire research period. The support received from Subhakar Baidya, Program Support Manager and Krishna Ghimire, Sponsorship and Grants Support Manager was highly instrumental for designing the research. Finally, I would like to thank Donal Keane, Country Director of Plan Nepal for entrusting me with the task of conducting this research.
Thank you all.
Dhruba Gautam
Kathmandu, Nepal
2013

Plan Nepal
Executive Summary
1. Context: Schools are centres of learning and education and best tool for reducing disaster risk and vulnerabilities. Disasters reduce overall educational achievement by damaging school infrastructure, disrupting academic calendars, forcing children to drop out the school, and undermining the resiliency of communities. The impacts of disasters can be minimized by promoting the safe school approach because education is a cost-effective approach to establishing safe schools, disaster risk reduction (DRR) education bolsters the safe school approach, and safe schools enhance a culture of safety and secure the right of children.
A comprehensive school safety approach rests on three pillars like safe school facilities, school disaster management, and risk reduction education. Despite the combined efforts of varied agencies, safe school initiatives are not progressing well. Challenges impeding the ‘safe- school mission’ includes disaster risks are increasing; and disasters violate children’s right to protection, threaten safe learning environments, and violate children’s right.
2. Objectives: The specific objectives of this study are two-fold: i) review existing policies and develop a comprehensive safe-school framework to address all major hazards that affect schools in the country and ii) develop a framework for a safe-school kit.
3. Methods: The study methods embraced seven steps: mobilization, desk analysis, instrument design, stakeholder consultation, data analysis, data interpretation, and report writing. Primary desk analysis comprised the review and analysis of data available, especially all legislation, policies and strategies related to education sector, and was used to devise study tools and techniques to collect primary/secondary information. A draft report was produced after analyzing all primary and secondary information collected and a final report was produced after incorporating feedback and suggestions received from the relevant stakeholders.
4. Safe school policies and practices: While disasters impact the education sector very negatively, this sector is itself a powerful tool to reduce disaster losses. Safety in schools is starting point for DRR and mainstreaming DRR in education is a key agenda. To translate this agenda into practice, safe-school policies and practices have been formulated to safeguard schools by mitigating their vulnerability, ensuring educational continuity even during emergencies, and empowering communities and students to build resilience to disasters.
Though many policies acknowledge that “people’s science” could be one way of securing safe schools, but in practice, this science is overlooked. Despite continuous advocacy for safe schools that meet minimal standards and uphold the rights of children, progress is limited because the national government lacks the political will. Many declarations, agendas and frameworks were developed without reviewing progress—the actual impacts and gaps remaining—and ended up just re-inventing the wheel. Since no nation-wide comprehensive safe school policy is in place, making school safe is still a choice, not an obligation.
Since 1990, when Nepal participated in the World Conference on Education for All and signed the culminating declaration, many provisions, policies and protocols have been developed to enable an uninterrupted development effort in the education system. The Government of Nepal has issued many policies and guidelines regarding DRR, but they focus only on structural components, and do not include safety measures designed to increase resistance to other hazards.
In Nepal, there is neither a policy nor guideline on how to integrate DRR approaches into curricula, education materials and training despite institutional commitment to and policies on DRR. The safe-school approach is not incorporated in either formal or informal education curricula or in the training curricula of teachers’ training. Though they did vaguely address the issue of child rights, it was silent about need for school safety. Despite, there are some good initiatives for safe schools, but there are as many, if not more, gaps.
5. Good initiatives: In Nepal, building codes have been developed and retrofitting guidelines

Plan Nepal
prepared. In the last decade or two, many agencies have invested time, energy and resources in making safe schools and people’s knowledge, understanding and awareness about structurally safe schools have increased. They helped in undermining the myth that creating structurally safe school requires a lot of financial resources. Civil society organizations have raised awareness that children’s lives should not be compared for the sake of financial resources.
Nepal has designed DRR curricula to reduce vulnerability to local hazards for formal, informal and out-of-school education programs. This curriculum was aligned to the existing curriculum and was established only after thoroughly assessing and taking into account children’s aptitude, capacity and level. Co- curricular education retrofits the formal education system by supplying additional and life-skills knowledge simultaneously. Government of Nepal has allotted at least 25% of the total curriculum in formal schools to co-curricular activities.
Teachers and Resource Centre heads have participated in various capacity-building activities to sharpen their knowledge to work with children from the ECED to secondary level of formal schools as well as non-formal institutions. Adopting the philosophy of ‘building-back- better’ they have promoted emergency preparedness and risk reduction in the aftermath of disasters and emergencies.
Awareness has grown on the significance of climate change, reflecting an increase in knowledge about this phenomenon and the associated increase in the frequency of natural disasters and their implications for children’s education. Public consciousness about disaster risk and school protection is accelerating awareness among education stakeholders too. The government has committed itself to seeing schools disaster-free and safe through international protocols. The political will to change commitment into action is slowing growing.
6. Gaps: In Nepal, the deep-rooted mindset that schools should be in remote locations works against safety, as does the fact that the public land freely allocated is usually cheap. The land donated out of religious merit-earning motives is similarly unsafe. The gap between policy and practice has seen many schools be renovated without assessing their physical vulnerability or fulfilling the provisions of the National Building Code. The quality of school building construction is often sub-standard because of tendering processes are not transparent. Too often policies ignore structural safety issues or, if they do consider them, do not make addressing them mandatory. The majorities of parents choose a school for their children based on the quality of education it offers in general and its educational performance in particular and accord safety standards little priority.
The role of hazard, vulnerability, and capacity analysis (HVCA) is crucial but unfortunately, such analysis is rarely carried out or taken into consideration. Few new school buildings adhere to building codes and land-use and hazard maps are rarely consulted or hazard safety measures incorporated while constructing a building. If HVCA is not carried out and the provisions of the National Building Code are not upheld during construction, new school buildings will not be able to withstand the impacts of disasters and both teachers and students will always feel a nagging sense of fear that will render children unable to grasp and teachers unable to deliver lessons at their potential.
While it is true that budgetary limitations and the absence of a clear policy and governmental guidance have negatively impacted safe-school construction, if the political will to build safe schools truly existed, the government will no doubt take steps to overcome those constraints. Because there are no conditions attached to annual budget provided from the Department of Education (DoE), it is not always used as it is intended to. The difference in the level of understanding of various stakeholders is another gap. One common reservation among all stakeholders stems from a lack of appreciation about the need for safety, while teachers may feel safety considerations will increase their workload and parents that it will cost them financially.
Most curricula developed so far focuses on educating people on the subject matters but not on developing the real life skills; it discusses ‘symptoms’ but not their ‘consequences’’ and is problem- rather than solution-centric. As a result,

Plan Nepal
these curricula often create havoc and generate ‘fear’. Other limitations are that they do not explicitly address socio-psycho and do not involve people in creative learning. The existing policy allows teachers to select reference materials to suit their lessons. Such flexibility is a good way to generate innovation but most teachers do not use any reference materials and those who do often do not use materials that suit the Nepali local context. While the curricula do address the types and nature of natural hazards and the problems and challenges each poses, too little learning is directed disaster prevention and preparedness. Nor do the curricula consider the value of local knowledge to provide physical and environmental protection from these hazards. Neither the curricula nor the textbooks and teachers’ guides are fully disaster-sensitive. Correlations among the curricula, children’s understandings and teaching methods and processes are weak.
As teachers are not fully trained and do not understand what they are supposed to deliver, they are not enthusiastic about conducting DRR lessons. The fact that reference materials are not provided and are their usage is optional serves as a disincentive to teachers who are not well- informed on the subject matter. Instead of co- curricular activities, students participate in extra- curricular activities. Even when co-curricular activities are organized, too often the DRR and safe-school messages they deliver are not reinforced by the delivery of the same messages in formal education.
Despite its importance, the non-structural component is not really an agenda of safe schools in general and capacity-building in particular. There is no ‘uniform governmental definition of a safe school’ and no ‘indicators for monitoring’ school safety. As a result, many institutions working in this sector have set their own definitions, which vary widely. Inadequate capacity-building and empowerment regarding safe-school issues leave SMCs ill-prepared to provide psychological counselling during disasters.
Disseminating public safety messages and bridging the gap between scientific knowledge and people’s science is still a challenge. The DoE’s flash reports contain no information about school facilities, existing infrastructures or the need for a safe-school approach and learning. Some knowledge documentation is in place but it is at the project not the program level and very patchy. Because information about past learning is fragmented, it is difficult to use it to predict future situation and thereby tailor upcoming initiatives adequately.
School safety policies should reflect physical and socio-cultural realities as well as the priorities of state and local entities but they do not. The plethora of policies and provisions has created some confusion and made it difficult to monitor their performance. The crucial challenge is the influence of party politics, which divides SMCs and PTAs and makes it difficult to mobilize them to embark on collaborative efforts to promote school safety. Another problem is that Nepal has produced many policies, regulations, frameworks and plans without assessing the good practices of and gaps in already formulated policies. Thus, these new policies sideline previous policies, some of which were extremely good, and further undermine political will.
7. Implications: Guardians and SMCs have little motivation to promote school retrofitting is that this work is both tedious and time-consuming. As a result, community contributions to school retrofitting fall below expectations. Poor transparency regarding the budget received from the government results in confrontations among the members of SMCs and PTAs over resources. As a result, there is little chance of co- financing from donor agencies, and local stakeholders lose the motivation to share resources and make community contributions.
Institutions working on safe-school initiatives do not share their own ideas or embrace the ideas of others. As a result, coordination is poor and rivalry is high. Progress in the use of knowledge to build a culture of safety and resilience has been slow because of poor knowledge management. Poor documentation has resulted in the loss of crucial information and knowledge and each successive safe-school initiative has to start again from scratch. Because school safety is not the main focus of existing policy, school safety and preparedness are optional rather than, as they ought to be, mandatory.

Plan Nepal
8. The way forward  The safe-school approach should include earthquake-resilience measures, emergency support mechanisms, safe school plans, a protection-from-multiple-hazards perspective, and personal safety and rights. To counter the widespread believe that investment in retrofitting is a waste of time, resources and energy, there is a need for building awareness about its rationale.
 To foster positive energy, SMCs and PTAs should be involved in all steps of school construction, including the selection of safe school sites; HVCA; design and cost estimation; management of good-quality construction materials; and construction itself. The government should mobilize its District Education Offices and Resource Centres to carry out HVCA analysis and develop complete risk mitigation plans.
 Building Codes and Standards should be simplified for the construction of disaster- resistant and child-friendly schools following review and reflection by education stakeholders. The simpler the codes, the more likely it is that they will be employed.
 The DoE should prepare make it mandatory to consult Building Codes and land-use and hazard maps before it channels any funding. Requiring social auditing and public hearings to be held at different stages of school construction would help to eliminate loophole and financial irregularities.
 Curriculum should be context-specific, and tailor-made but not ad hoc. Curricula should be learner-cantered and generate life skills. In the present context of global warming and climate change, issues related to migration, famine and conflicts related issues should also be incorporated in the existing curricula.
 Co-curricular activities should not be optional but mandatory and the members of SMCs and PTAs and Resource Centre heads should ensure they are offered to students.
 The capacity of teachers in contemporary safe-school issues should be increased through training. The teachers’ selection examination should include a mandatory question on safe schools and at least one session on safe schools should be
incorporated into the teachers’ training curricula.
 Disaster-and-education-related materials, manuals, data, guidelines, minimum standards, good practices and lessons learned should be properly maintained in a knowledge bank. The DoE’s flash reports should address the three safe- school components, providing updates on progress toward making schools safe. To create an integrated and holistic approach to education and child wellbeing, educational materials should be reviewed for gaps, refined, tested, finalized, and shared widely.
 A safe-school ‘advocacy group’ with clear terms of reference should be made and mobilized through the involvement of individuals and institutions. It should review and reflect on safe-school initiatives, share knowledge and good practice and advocate that concerned agencies mainstreaming DRR and the safe-school concept into education.
 As the vast majority of policies have proved confusing, a single comprehensive safe-school policy should be developed. The role of the other policies would then become supplementary and contributory. Clear M&E mechanism with SMART indicators for Safe school must be developed to translate school safety policies into action. Plan Nepal should develop the safe school kit/guideline and safe school assessment tools to measure the level of vulnerability of school in the context of disaster.
 It should ensure that DRR issues are incorporated in school improvement plans as well as lay out regulations for constructing disaster-resilient school buildings and develop guidance for the planned use of schools as temporary post-disaster shelters while at the same time protecting the educational rights of the children.
 To translate the safe-school approach into action, the government should prepare a well-articulated plan of action and back it up with strong commitment by all political parties and budget allocations. Local governments should mobilize themselves to internalize and allocate resources for school safety action plans.

Plan Nepal
Table of Content
List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ 4
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 1: Prelude ................................................................................................................................ 10
1.1 Challenges for safe-school initiatives ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Rationale behind the “safe-school approach” ....................................................................................................... 12
1.3 Study objectives ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Study methods ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 2: Safe School Policies and Practices ....................................................................................... 14
2.1 Global policies and practices ................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 South Asian policies and practices .......................................................................................................................... 21
2.3 Safe-school policies and practices in Nepal .......................................................................................................... 26
Chapter 3: Good initiatives, major gaps and implications .................................................................... 32
3.1 Structural (physical infrastructure) ................................................................................................................................. 33
3.1.1 Safe-school construction through retrofitting .................................................................................................... 33
3.1.2 New school construction ........................................................................................................................................ 35
3.1.3 Management of financial resource for structurally safe schools .................................................................... 36
3.2 Non-structural component ................................................................................................................................................ 37
3.2.1 Curriculum ............................................................................................................................................................... 38
3.2.2 Co-curricular activities .......................................................................................................................................... 39
3.2.3 Capacity-building .................................................................................................................................................. 39
3.2.4 Knowledge management ...................................................................................................................................... 40
3.3 Policy (advocacy and campaigning) .............................................................................................................................. 41
3.2.1 Mainstreaming DRR into education ..................................................................................................................... 41
3.3.2 Safe-school provisions are not incorporated in existing policies ................................................................... 42
3.3.3 Political will and governmental commitments .................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 4: The way forward ................................................................................................................. 43
Reference ........................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Annex-1: Safe school initiatives in Nepal (1988-2013) .............................................................................................................. 52
Annex-2: Major disaster incidence (1992-2012) .......................................................................................................................... 52
Annex-3: Efforts of different agencies in safe school initiatives ................................................................................................ 55
Annex-4: Structure of Safe School Toolkit ....................................................................................................................................... 61

Plan Nepal
Mapping of Safe-School Policies and Practices
Chapter 1: Prelude
Because school-going children spend about 30-35% of each day in school, it is essential to make schools safe from disasters. Creating safe schools can minimize disruptions of education activities and allow children to learn and develop in a healthy environment.
Recent events have re-emphasized the need to ensure that schools remain ‘havens of safety’ as well as 'centres of learning'. The media’s graphic reporting on climate- induced disasters like floods and landslides, geological hazards like earthquakes, and other natural calamities has generated new interest in the safety of millions of children, especially in schools situated in disaster- prone areas. Every parent is concerned about of the level of safety of the schools their children go to.
Most existing schools in Nepal are unsafe and, due to the lack of awareness about disaster risks, new schools are too often built in disaster-prone areas. The increase in the incidence of disaster events over the past 25 years has rendered the problem of unsafe school even graver.
The Government of Nepal has issued many policies and guidelines regarding disaster risk reduction (DRR), but they focus only on structural components, specifically those regarding earthquake safety, and do not include safety measures designed to increase resistance to other hazards such as floods, landslides, fires, windstorm, and cold and heat waves. Moreover, the existing guidelines are unclear and do not encourage contributions from school management committees (SMCs) or parent-teacher associations (PTAs).
1.1 Challenges for safe-school initiatives
Despite the combined efforts of national and international organizations, safe school initiatives are not progressing well. Some of the many challenges impeding the ‘safe- school mission’ are discussed below.
a. Disaster risks are increasing
Around the globe, the number and severity of disasters is growing. Extreme weather events are increasingly causing upheaval in the lives of children, violating their fundamental rights, and preventing them from meeting their needs. A flash appeal launched by the UN in 2007 revealed that since the 1970s the annual number of natural disasters attributable to both climatic and non-climatic hazards has quadrupled and that the average number of affected people each year increased from 100 million to more than 250 million. Disaster risk has increased mainly due to increases in environmental degradation as well as exposure and vulnerability to weather and climate hazards.
Children constitute the group most vulnerable to disaster most because of their age- specific vulnerabilities and very limited capacity to cope during a disaster. Factors such as age, knowledge, and physical strength affect their ability to cope and survive in a disaster context. When their families lose their livelihoods, it is children who most often end up homeless, hungry and deprived.
As the frequency and intensity of extreme climatic events rises, a growing number of school-going children, including the disabled,

Plan Nepal
are getting exposed to several hazards. Some are forced to discontinue their studies, with factors such as poverty, absent or unsatisfactory infrastructure within and outside schools, and physical obstruction playing a key role in that eventuality.
When education is interrupted by a disaster, students are more likely to drop out permanently, thereby triggering permanent adverse economic and social impacts for themselves, their families, and their communities. Disasters prematurely end the education of many students for several interrelated reasons: classes not quickly resume after a disaster, students fall behind and cannot catch up the lessons, and the lack of sufficient household income forces students to help at home or join the workforce.
Preventing recurring hazards from disrupting education is crucial as disasters threaten to deprive children of the number of school days prescribed. Since 1991, the number of days off from school has increased by up to 65% in both the hills and the Terai, though slightly more in the former. Much of this increase is attributed to extreme weather and natural disasters and to the use of schools as shelters in the aftermath of such occurrences. The number of days off is so great that it threatens to reduce school attendance to below the required 220 days (Plan International, 2012).
There is a need to promote DRR in the education sector for sustainable development and to assure universal access to quality education as the situation threatens only to become worse.
b. Disasters violate children’s right to protection
Even if a child is not killed or injured during a disaster, the loss of livelihood associated with disaster may render him or her homeless and deprive him or her of the right to education. Exposure to disaster can be so traumatic that it affects their future development if timely counselling is not provided. Every child has the inalienable right to a healthy and safe school environment. To save their lives and prevent possible injuries, children need physical, psychosocial and cognitive protection.
Disaster violates the basic rights of children. Children should not be discriminated against for any reasons, not caste, ethnicity, sex, financial status, physical frailty, or mental capacity. They should be treated equally both within and outside school. Every student is entitled to a safe and caring learning environment; in fact, safety is a precondition for learning. The concept of a “safe school” bridges the gap between child rights and DRR.
c. Disasters threaten safe learning environments
A safe school provides a learning environment which assures children’s education, health, safety and security in both normal times and during disasters. It consists of structurally sound physical infrastructures and non-structural facilities that do not harm students, teachers and staff, especially during disasters. A safe school is a community of learners committed to promoting a culture of safety and prepared to respond to different disasters. Recurrent disaster events threaten the school safety approach and render learning environments unsafe.
School safety creates and maintains a safe learning environment. Because they are quick learners, children, can integrate new knowledge about safety acquired at school into their daily lives and teach it to their family and community. Making disaster prevention a focus of school curriculum and empowering children and youth to understand the warning signs of hazards and the measures that can be taken to reduce risks and prevent disasters are crucial starting points for building the disaster

Plan Nepal
resilience of an entire community. Every stage of the process of making schools safer is an opportunity for teaching and learning and anyone with the appropriate knowledge, from a primary school student to the highest state official, can contribute.
d. Disasters violate children’s right to education
Through schools, children, teachers and parents can engage in DRR activities. Schools are central to promoting a culture of safety and bringing communities, authorities and other actors together to reduce risks. In countries like Nepal where water-induced disaster are common, large numbers of people are force to seek shelter in schools, sometimes for a month at a time, disrupting regular classes and causing students fall behind and even drop out. School enrolment also declines, especially among girls when such incident happens. Schools are important social forums within communities as they are used for protection during disasters and centres for social action and interaction during normal times. Their use during disasters, however, can violate the right to education of children.
1.2 Rationale behind the “safe-school approach”
Schools are centres of learning and education, particularly the sharing of disaster knowledge, is the best tool for reducing disaster risk and vulnerabilities. The impacts of disasters can be minimized by promoting the safe school approach.
Safe school: Different understandings  “ A safe school is a place free from violence, and represented by an environment where there is no perceived fear with respect to the school or its disciplinary procedures.” Hernandez, Floden, and Bosworth (2010)  “A safe school is one that provides a positive environment, allowing students, teachers, staff, and visitors to interact without fear or threats, and in a supportive way to achieve the educational mission of the school while fostering and nurturing personal growth.” Butcher & Manning (2005)  “Safe school includes the school’s culture and the appropriate training and resources to respond to threats and hazards.” Hull (2010)
Specific reasons for adopting this approach are summarized below.
a. Education is a cost-effective approach to establishing safe schools.
Education can be a cost-effective tool to proactively build DRR and resilience in communities. Its sector-wide reach encompasses many actors and it provides for the systemic sustainability of climate-smart DRR awareness raising, knowledge and skills development. Education increases public awareness and equips people with the skills they need, DRR needs to be mainstream into the education system as it is essential for building disaster resilience.
b. Disaster risk reduction education bolsters the safe school approach.
Since DRR has improves educational achievement and education is a useful, even necessary, tool for DRR, they should go hand in hand. DRR education is important in teaching life skills designed to develop a culture of safety and resilient communities. In the next decade, across the globe up to 175 million children are likely to be affected every year from different disasters, climate change-induced or otherwise. The degree of devastation can be mitigated by mainstreaming DRR in formal and informal education. DRR minimises underlying factors of vulnerability, improves preparedness and builds the resilience of an education system.

Plan Nepal
It also provides physical, cognitive, and psychological protection for children.
Key components of disaster risk reduction in education  Capacity building: Train, facilitate, and coach members of school management committees and parent-teacher associations, in contemporary education issues.  Curriculum: Include units on the nature and magnitude of disasters and how to prevent, mitigate and respond to them in formal, non-formal, and higher education curricula.  School and community disaster management: Equip schools and communities to carry out risk reduction and response preparedness, educational continuity planning, school and community disaster planning based on a thorough assessment of risks.  Infrastructure: Construct disaster-resilient schools and carry out school retrofitting and replacement and building maintenance and ensure proper building use.
c. Safe schools enhance a culture of safety
Introducing a culture of safety in schools embraces a wide range of issues, including children’s rights, education and DRR policies, institutions, governance, resource allocation, disaster preparedness and family inclusion. It also includes anti-bullying policies, measures to reduce threats and humiliation, the creation of an environment in which students can learn-without-fear, and reducing violence and discrimination in any form. The framework for a culture of safety in school is centred on children and incorporates both structural and non-structural components. The structural component includes school site selection, disaster-resilient design and construction or retrofitting, proper Building Code use and regular maintenance and the non-structural component assesses and mitigates hazard, vulnerability, and risks and enhances capacities.
A culture of safety minimizes non-structural risks from all sources and maintains safe learning environments by engaging SMCs, PTAs, and students in ongoing school community disaster prevention activities, including simulation drills for expected and recurring disasters and making plan for safe reunification.
d. Safe schools secure the right of children
It is the right of every child to be safe in school. The rights of all children to both education and safety must be safeguarded simultaneously. Safe schools see to it that the particular needs of children, including those with disabilities and from vulnerable groups, are met.
1.3 Study objectives
A comprehensive school safety approach aligns educational policy and practices with disaster management at the national, regional, district and local school levels. It rests on three pillars: safe school facilities, school disaster management, and risk reduction education.
In Nepal, there is neither policy nor guidelines on how to integrate DRR approaches into curricula, education materials and training despite institutional commitment to and policies on disaster risk management. Embedding DRR in the education sector through appropriate policy will strengthen people’s capacity to cope with disasters and protect the nation’s development outcomes.
The Government of Nepal does not have adequate safe school policies and those policies which do exist are not fully translated into action. Safe school policies are necessary to protect children from the ever-increasing threats as well as to minimize the disruptions to educational activities following disasters. A review of the existing

Plan Nepal
policies will identify both good initiatives and gaps to be filled with regard to mainstreaming DRR into education. Since the formulation of appropriate policy and legislation is vital for reducing risks to children, this study will investigate how school safety can be prioritized in the policy frameworks of both the education and disaster management sectors.
There is a critical need for reviewing and revising existing policies and guidelines on safe school standards in order to minimize the gaps. The mapping of safe school policies and practice will be a huge step forward in mainstreaming the safe-school approach in Nepal and beyond. The specific objectives of this study are two-fold: i) review existing policies and develop a comprehensive safe-school framework (policy guidelines) to address all major hazards that affect schools in the country and ii) develop a framework for a safe- school kit.
1.4 Study methods
The study methods embraced seven steps: mobilization, desk analysis, instrument design, stakeholder consultation, data analysis, data interpretation, and report writing. Mobilisation included making practical arrangements, collecting and taking stock of relevant data and reports, and preparing a study framework. Primary desk analysis comprised the review and analysis of data available, especially all legislation, policies and strategies related to education sector, and was used to devise study tools and techniques to collect primary/secondary information. A concise checklist of guiding questions for focus group discussions and key informant interviews was developed in order to explore good initiatives, major gaps and implications.
Focus group discussions were held with different actors, including children and members of school management committees, parent-teacher associations, the Association of Private and Boarding School Nepal, education working groups and the education cluster. Key informant interviews were held with key personnel from the Department of Education/Ministry of Education, Department of Urban Development and Building Construction/Ministry of Physical Planning and Public Works, Disaster Management Section/Ministry of Home Affairs and other relevant line agencies. A draft report was produced after analyzing all primary and secondary information collected and a final report was produced after incorporating feedback and suggestions received at a national-level workshop with government and non-government education cluster members.
Chapter 2
Disaster is not a new phenomenon. For centuries, a variety of natural and man- made hazards and disasters have impacted a large population around the globe. Disasters cause immense loss of life and property and impact the education as well as other sectors negatively. Specifically, disasters reduce overall educational achievement by damaging school infrastructure, disrupting academic calendars, forcing children to drop out the school, and undermining the resiliency of communities.
Education is central to development, peace and social justice. It plays a fundamental role in reducing poverty, exclusion, ignorance, conflict and human rights violence. Article 26(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations,

Plan Nepal
racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.”
While disasters impact the education sector very negatively, this sector is itself a powerful tool to reduce disaster losses. To reduce the impacts of disasters on education sector, many initiatives are being undertaken. Safety in schools is starting point for DRR and mainstreaming DRR in education is a key agenda. To translate this agenda into practice, many safe-school policies and practices have been formulated to safeguard schools by mitigating their vulnerability, ensuring educational continuity even during emergencies, and empowering communities and students to build resilience to disasters through capacity-building and knowledge-management initiatives.
Since 1990, when Nepal participated in the World Conference on Education for All and signed the culminating declaration, many provisions, policies and protocols have been developed to enable an uninterrupted development effort in the education system and contribute to achieving the goal of a good-quality education for all. In the following section, existing safe-school- related policies and practices are reviewed at three levels: global, South Asia, and Nepal.
2.1 Global policies and practices
This section reviews global policy provisions in chronological order, are reviewed.
i. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990)
Every child, by reason of his or her physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) offers guidance to governments on the sort of legislative and policy reform needed to ensure children’s rights to health, protection and wellbeing. The CRC recognizes that every child has both the inherent right to life (Article 6) and the right to education (Article 28) and that recurring hydro-meteorological and geophysical hazards threaten both of these rights. The CRC specifically calls on all State Parties to take appropriate measures to ensure the protection of children from all forms of violence, injury, abuse and neglect, to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the dignity of the child, and to ensure children’s rights.
CRC has ensured the right to education of all children both by ensuring that all children have enrol in school and that all schools build their capacity to provide an appropriate education. The CRC has also recognizes that all children have the right to receive a good- quality education without any discrimination so that they can achieve overall development.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 1386 (XIV) that all children have the fundamental right to both education and safety. In view of the fact that children around the world are denied the basic right to education because of bullying in school, the CRC advocates against gender discrimination and violence in schools. Verbal, sexual and physical abuse in school denies children their fundamental rights because it works against the basic principle that “all learners have an equal right to quality education in a safe school environment.” Despite many efforts in awareness-raising, capacity-building, drills, and coordination among the education related stakeholders, children’s rights have not been fully ensured in practice. The CRC advocates for only the non-structural components of a safe school.
ii. UNESCO and UNEP’s Protocol (2004)

Plan Nepal
Schools are playing an increasingly important role in the lives of communities in disaster-prone area. They serve as centres of learning and locations of community activities and are seen as safe havens in times of disaster. School vulnerability reduces a nation’s ability to achieve its goals, including the millennium development goal (MDG) of the universal right to primary education, the eradication of poverty and the fulfilment of the “Education for All” (EFA) initiative, all goals attainable only when the principles of resilient environments and school safety are made a priority.
In 2004, UNESCO and UNEP emphasized the importance of school safety: "the upgrading and construction of schools that will be relatively safe during the occurrence of disasters should be part of a nation's long-term planning." This protocol advocates that safe schools will save lives by providing shelter during emergencies, continuing education by developing and implementing contingency plans, offering social forums, and providing appropriate environments. In Nepal’s national disaster risk management plans, however, schools have not been given adequate attention, and poor disaster management has too often left schools isolated and inaccessible in times of disaster.
iii. Millennium Development Goals1 (2005)
Education helps human beings develop their personalities and prepares them for their future lives. In addition, it is considered the cornerstone of social and economic development. The second MDG is to ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. In Nepal, in view of future disaster risks, progress in this MDG is not satisfactory.
1In September 2000, 189 world leaders met at the United Nations and promised to free more than a billion people from extreme poverty by 2015. They agreed on a roadmap setting out eight time-bound and measurable goals to be reached by 2015, known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
This MDG has implications for the construction of new school buildings which meet standards of safety. The Dakar Framework for Action for EFA clearly spelled out that “MDGs will not be achieved without the construction of safer and more disaster resilient education facilities.” The Dakar Framework advocated only for the structural component of the safe school and largely ignored the non-structural component. Considering the considerable value of non- structural components, however, it is clear that deliberate and proactive steps are needed to ensure that every school is a safe school and that children’s education includes societal values, norms, and protocols that help to keep learning environments safe.
Disasters in hazard-prone countries pose a significant challenge to achieving the goals of EFA and MDG 2. In practice, progress has been extremely slow. There is a need for international support, national commitment, and resource management to improve efforts.
iv. Hyogo Framework of Action2 (2005)
The Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) inspired action to develop resilient communities. It states “we can and must further build the resilience of nations and communities to disasters through people- centred early warning systems, risks assessments, education and other proactive, integrated, multi hazard, and multi-sectoral approaches and activities in the context of the disaster reduction cycle, which consists of prevention, preparedness, and emergency response, as well as recovery and rehabilitation.”
Knowledge and education is a key component of resilience-building strategies.
2The HFA is a 10-year plan to make the world safer from natural hazards. It was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in Resolution A/RES/60/195 following the 2005 World Disaster Reduction Conference.

Plan Nepal
The HFA (2005-2015) serves as the first effort to explain, describe and detail the work required of all different sectors and actors – including education – to reduce disaster risk. It acknowledges the role of education in solving the global challenge of climate change and disasters. It calls for the “use of knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels” as set by its third priority actions and its second core indicator as “school curricula, education material and relevant training include DRR and recovery concepts and practices.”‖
Disasters can be substantially reduced if people are well informed and motivated to adopt a culture of disaster prevention and resilience, which in turn requires the collection, compilation and dissemination of relevant knowledge and information on hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities.
v. The UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction3 (2006-07)
The UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) carried out a global campaign entitled “Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School” with support and contributions from all UNISDR system partners. This campaign has been the basis for most international agreements and initiatives on child rights-centred disaster reduction in the education sector. It has promoted major awareness-building initiatives on school safety.
Schools are the best venues for forging durable collective values and therefore
3Created in December 1999, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) is the secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). It is the successor to the secretariat of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction with the purpose of ensuring the implementation of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (General Assembly resolution 54/219.
suitable for building a culture of prevention and disaster resilience. For this reason, UNISDR advocates the promotion of school safety through the integration of DRR into school curricula. It also recognizes that non- formal education activities can make a crucial contribution to awareness-raising, knowledge-building, and skills development for DRR. The key to education and DRR is sharing and using information and knowledge in a productive way through awareness-raising and educational initiatives so that people make informed decisions and take action to ensure their resilience to disasters.
Education is conveyed through experience, established learning arrangements, and information technology. One of the beauties of UNISDR’s campaigns is that it recognizes and uses both formal education in schools and informal education, including traditional wisdom and local knowledge for protection from natural hazards.
vi. Global Partnership for Education, (2002)
Education is one of the major driving forces behind human development. It opens doors to combat inequality, child mortality, social disintegration, and environmental degradation. Education empowers people with knowledge, wisdom, skills and values. The Global Partnership for Education is the only multilateral partnership devoted to getting all children to attend school and get a good-quality education. This campaign claim that known and expected hydro- meteorological and geological hazards do not have to result in disasters and that the practical and technical knowledge to prevent most of the losses of life, livelihood, community, cultural heritage and school that increasingly attend these natural hazard events already exists. Though this campaign acknowledges that “people’s science” could be one way of securing safe schools, it

Plan Nepal
observes that, in practice, this science is overlooked in favour of a focus on physical science.
vii. United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative (2000) The United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI) is an initiative launched by the United Nations in 2000 at the World Education Forum in Dakar. It aimed to reduce the gender gap in schooling for girls and give girls equal access to all levels of education. UNICEF is the lead agency and secretariat. The UNGEI Global Advisory Committee in Kathmandu in 2008 prepared its vision statement: "A world where all girls and boys are empowered through quality education to realize their full potential and contribute to transforming societies where gender equality becomes a reality." UNGEI has been providing stakeholders with a platform for action and galvanizes their efforts to get girls in school. Despite the functional coordination, resource and technical idea- sharing and continuous advocacy and campaigning, girls’ basic human right to education is violated as their enrolment is still below the levels expected. Rampant poverty, conservative social norms and values, and long distances to school are some reasons behind the high drop-out rate among girls.
viii. Education for Sustainable Development
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural (UNESCO) promotes the principle of ‘education for sustainable development’ (ESD), which tasks education with seeking to ‘balance human and economic well-being with cultural traditions and respect for the Earth’s natural resources’ and promotes learning content on citizenship, peace, and health. ESD, through its interdisciplinary and holistic approach to learning, can help create resilient societies and encourage a long-term perspective with regard to decision-making processes, critical thinking and holistic and innovative approaches to problem–solving, thereby making a substantial contribution to DRR. At the same time, DRR can increase the relevance and quality of education in disaster-prone areas.
ix. Learning Metrics Task Force4 The first report of the Learning Metrics task force, ‘Towards Universal Learning: What Every Child Should Learn’ lays out a holistic framework of seven learning domains. This task force identified global learning competencies beyond mere literacy and numeracy for the early childhood, primary, and post-primary levels and reached a global consensus on how to measure them. In doing so, it developed a vision of ‘what every child everywhere should learn and be able to do, whether at the classroom, system, or global level, by the time they reach post- primary age’. Its effort catalyzed a shift in the global conversation on education from a focus on access to access plus learning. It investigated the feasibility of identifying common learning goals to improve learning opportunities and outcomes for children and youth. It advocates for global and regional political influence, technical knowledge about how to evaluate of learning, and building capacity to move learning forward on the global development agenda. The benefits of education for national development, individual prosperity, health and social stability are well known, but these benefits are significantly greater when the children who go to school are actually learning. Despite commitments to and progress in improving access to education at the global level, learning levels are still low. According
4The UNESCO Institute for Statistics and the Center for Universal Education at Brookings formed this joint task force.

Plan Nepal
to the 2012 EFA Global Monitoring Report, at least 250 million primary school age children around the world are not able to read, write or count well despite having spent at least four years in school. It’s estimated that 171 million people could be lifted out of poverty if all students in low- income countries completed school with just basic reading skills (UN Secretary- General, Education First, 2012). It is impossible to understand the full scale of the low-learning crisis because the measurement of learning is limited, and unlike the measurement of access, difficult to assess at the global level. To advance progress for children and youth around the world, it is critical that education and learning are recognized as essential for human development.
x. Ahmadabad Agenda5 (2007), Bangkok Agenda6 (2007) and Islamabad Declaration7 (2008)
Global initiatives on school safety were advanced by these declarations, all of which emphasize the need to mainstream DRR in education with the overall goal of empowering children to engage in DRR. The declarations advocate that national and local governments develop school safety policies which focus on preparedness and mitigation as part of their national development plans. National governments are urged to form partnerships with local authorities to create national school safety programs and provide funding to implement action plans for structural and non-structural initiatives. They advocate that government’s partner, private institutions and corporations
5 The International Conference on School Safety was held from 18 to 20 January, 2007, in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
6 The Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on School Education and Disaster Risk Reduction was held from 8 to 10 October, 2007, in Bangkok, Thailand. 7 The Islamabad Declaration on School Safety was made on May 16, 2008, at the International Conference on School Safety held in Islamabad, Pakistan.
in order to promote synergistic resource- and idea-sharing, but note that such partnerships are rare. Some of the key provisions in each of the agenda are summarized below.
Ahmadabad Agenda (2007)  DRR education in schools  Disaster-resistant school infrastructure  Safe school and community environments  Advocacy for government policy on school safety  Reaffirming the third Priority for Action 3 of HFA (2005-2015), using knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels, and the UN MDG 2, achieving universal primary education by the year 2015, the participants of the workshops recognized that every child has the rights to both education and a safe and sustainable living and set themselves the goal of achieving both in solidarity. Bangkok Agenda (2007) The three-day Regional Workshop on Education for DRR was an initiative developed by the Education Task Force as a first step to demonstrate long-term commitment to integrating DRR into the education sector. This workshop was part of a longer-term regional strategy aimed at raising awareness on the need to integrate DRR and school safety construction programs into educational curricula. It brought together decision-makers and practitioners from the fields of DRR, disaster management, and education and built on past and existing in- country initiatives as well as key processes and bodies at the country and regional level that have placed education for DRR and school safety as a top priority of their agenda. These include the Asian Conferences on Disaster Reduction, Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) Committee for Disaster Management, United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), and International Federation of Red Cross.

Plan Nepal
To build on on-going global and regional processes related to DRR and to adopt a gender-sensitive perspective, the workshop took stock of initiatives, good practices and processes developed by various participating governments, in-country actors and regional partners in the area of DRR education and came up with key recommendations for all stakeholders on the following four priority areas for action  Integrating DRR into school education  Strengthening DRR education in order to build community resilience  Making schools safer  Empowering children to engage in DRR Islamabad Declaration (2008) This declaration recommends these steps:  Developing proactive school safety policies focusing on preparedness and mitigation as part of national development plans  Partnering local authorities to create national school safety programs and allocating funding to implement action plans comprising structural and non- structural initiatives  Having national governments serve as the regulatory body for private schools to ensure that they meet the minimal standards of safe schools within the next five years  Having local governments, in consultation with communities, develop school safety action plans that address local priorities and fall within the framework of national school safety programs  Having local governments partner, private institutions and corporations, seeking their support and commitment for the implementation and finance of school safety action plans.
xi. Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (2009)
Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) is an open global network of representatives from NGOs, UN agencies, donors agencies, governments, academic institutions, schools and affected populations who work together to ensure that all persons can exercise their right to a good-quality, safe education during emergencies and in post-crisis recovery periods. The INEE collaborated with the World Bank in 2009 to produce essential guidance on school safety. Its revised and updated minimum standards for access to and quality of education incorporate preparedness, response, and recovery and review DRR concepts.
During emergencies, children are the most vulnerable group. Disasters threaten the very ones upon whom the progress of a nation depends, the future leaders. Since natural disasters are growing more frequent and often have a significant and negative impact on the educational sector, there is a need for schools to have a guideline governing the behaviour of teachers, staff and students on what to do during an emergency.
Attention to both the structural and non- structural components of DRR is needful. In particular, there is a need for attention to the threat of earthquakes. Despite INEE’s continuous advocacy for safe schools that meet minimal standards and uphold the rights of children, progress is limited because the national government lacks the political will to make a significant change.
xii. Children Charter (2011)
The Charter was endorsed by United Nation's International Strategy for Disaster Reduction and has been signed by representatives from 26 governments. It was launched in 2011 at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction. The Charter was a

Plan Nepal
strong feature of the 2011 International DRR day ‘Step Up' Campaign. The Charter lists five priorities for DRR which were developed by children for children. Access to education and safer schools are children's top priority in emergencies. Children also identified protection, access to information, community infrastructure and ensuring DRR initiatives reach the most vulnerable groups as their main needs. The Charter calls for greater commitment from governments, donors and agencies to take appropriate steps to protect children and utilise their energy and knowledge to engage in DRR and climate change adaptation.
xiii. The Global Campaign for Education (2013)
The global campaign for education (GCE) identified education as being at the centre of several crosscutting global challenges and their solutions, including ‘economic stability and youth unemployment, security and conflict, climate change and environmental sustainability.’ GCE recommends that the teaching of life skills, which provides an easy entry point for DRR, receive appropriate attention.
GCE works to strengthen the voice of civil society in the development of national education. Through good-quality resources, shared learning, and initiatives such as the Civil Society Education Fund, national campaigners hold governments to account to ensure EFA is implemented in countries with the greatest need. GCE’s annual Global Action Week calls attention to the urgent need to invest in the future of the millions of out-of-school children around the world. GCE only advocates for the implementation of its provisions but does not impose its will on central government or civil society organizations.
2.2 South Asian policies and practices
South Asia is home to the largest number of children and is one of the most disaster- prone regions in the world. According to UNICEF’s State of the World’s Children 2010, there are 614 million8 children under 18, nearly 28% of the world’s total child population and greater than the child populations of Europe, the Americas, Oceania and half of Africa combined. The global database of natural disasters claims that South Asia has faced as many as 1333 disasters over the last four decades (1970- 2009), which together took the lives of 980,000 people, affected 2,413,100 individuals and damaged assets worth US $105 billion9. The children of South Asia are among the most vulnerable in the world. One of every three child deaths globally occurs in South Asia and nearly half of the world’s undernourished children live here. More than one-third of the world’s children without basic education are from this region.
i. SAARC Convention on Regional Arrangements on the Promotion of Child Welfare (2002)
The heads of states and governments of the South Asian countries signed the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Convention on Regional Arrangements on the Promotion of Child Welfare in South Asia in 2002 and adopted the SAARC Social Charter in 2004. Both strongly emphasize promoting the rights and wellbeing of children. SAARC has identified the following ten priorities for action: a. Assessing the vulnerabilities of children to disasters b. The evacuation of, search for and rescue of children during disasters c. Food security and nutrition for children d. Water, sanitation and hygiene facilities for children
8 Statistical Annexure, State of World’s Children, UNICEF 2010, http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/sowc/statistics.php
9 2Emergency Data Base (EM-DAT) on natural disasters, Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters, Leuven, http://www.em- dat.net/

Plan Nepal
e. Emergency medical care and health services for children f. Mental health services and psycho-social support for children g. Reconstructing built environments for children h. Child protection during disasters i. Education during emergencies and school safety for children j. Participation of children in disaster management
ii. SAARC Development Goals (2005- 2010): An Engagement with Hope
In 2005, SAARC set 22 development goals. The sixth and thirteenth goals focus on children and their safety. The sixth goal is to “reduce social and institutional vulnerabilities of the poor, women, and children.” This goal was set because the poor, women and children in particular, face a number of social and institutional barriers to and insecurities in the pursuit of livelihood and social life, the removal of which should be a priority. Targets were set for the reduction of country-specific social ills such as dowry, female feticide, trafficking of women and children, bonded labour, child marriage, child labour in hazardous jobs, and marginalization and social exclusion. Because these social challenges are often invisible, complex and difficult to respond to, progress in overcoming them is limited.
In order to achieve the 13th goal, access to primary school for all children, girls as well as boys, targets were set to ensure that there was a school within walking distance of every village or urban centre an on every island and to achieve gender parity at both the primary and secondary levels. Even though many schools have been opened to reduce the commute, gender disparities persist, the teacher-student ratio is too high, and the retention rate at the primary level too low.
iii. SAARC Framework for Action (2006- 2015)
The heads of states and governments at the 13th Dhaka Summit called for developing a comprehensive framework on early warning systems and disaster management. In view of the December 2004 Asia tsunami and the 2005 Pakistan earthquake, participants underscored the urgency of establishing a regional response mechanism dedicated to disaster preparedness, immediate emergency relief and rehabilitation. They directed the concerned national authorities to coordinate their activities in the areas of disaster management such as early warning, exchange of information, training, and the sharing of experiences and best practices in emergency relief efforts.
In 2011, a regional workshop on children and disasters was organized by UNICEF and Save the Children in Hyderabad, India, in close coordination with SAARC Disaster Management Centre and National Institute of Disaster Management. The workshop aimed to bring governmental representatives and civil society practitioners together in one platform to share learning and identify issues, challenges, priorities. The workshop identified and laid out a plan to address the emerging needs of South Asian children in disasters in the South Asian Regional Framework for Action on Children and Disasters. Many of its provisions are still limited in paper and have not been put into practice.
iv. Decade of the Rights of the Child (2001- 2010)
The SAARC Rawalpindi Resolution on Children in South Asia (1996) declared 2001-2010 as the Decade of the Rights of the Child and, inter alia, agreed to eliminate child labour, initiate and strengthen community-based social support systems, reduce the under-five child mortality rate, lessen severe and moderate malnutrition,

Plan Nepal
and enable all children of primary school age to complete school. These provisions provided support for the care, protection and participation of children during disasters. Unfortunately, many declarations, agendas and frameworks were developed without reviewing progress—the actual impacts and gaps remaining—and ended up just re-inventing the wheel.
Safe school policies are slowly emerging in South Asia to address recurrent disaster events. The following section reviews the disaster-related policies of the SAARC countries, all of which have some safe school initiatives but most of which depend upon the willingness and enthusiasm of individual’s decision-makers and program implementers rather than institutional mechanisms for their effectives.
a. Pakistan
Following the October 2005 earthquake and the loss of lives of innocent schoolchildren, Aga Khan Planning and Building Services and FOCUS Humanitarian Assistance agencies issued the Islamabad Declaration on School Safety. This declaration highlighted the major risks inherent in the construction and design of current school structures and the devastating consequences following natural disasters. The declaration identified ways in which school safety could be enhanced to better protect school communities.
This declaration was part of Pakistan’s global commitment to DRR and open many avenues and much scope in the safe-school sector. It leads, in particular, to the National Assembly Resolution on Safe Schools (2008), the National Disaster Management Authority Policy (2008) and the National Education Policy (2009). The latter, for the first time, included specific reference to education in emergencies (EiE) and disaster management although the term “disaster risk reduction” is not used explicitly. Its policy actions have served as a good starting point for the development of a sound and comprehensive school policy: it is the basis for the collaboration of provincial disaster management authority and UNESCO to develop a comprehensive plan for making schools safer. However, since no nation-wide comprehensive safe school policy is in place the task of making school safe is still a choice, not an obligation.
b. Bangladesh
In 1997 the Ministry of Education introduced a policy to include disaster preparedness in educational institutions. Its social safety net program of that year covers four major areas: (i) employment generations, (ii) programs to cope with natural disasters and other shocks, (iii) incentives provided to parents to educate their children, and (iv) incentives provided to families to improve their health status.
The national policy (draft version 2008- 2015) on disaster management recognizes the importance of school safety and focuses on developing and implementing a school safety program including a national school safety plan and school building-level emergency response plans. The Government of Bangladesh has taken a major initiative in strengthening the physical structure of schools located in hazard-prone areas. Civil society organizations have taken several initiatives in preparing schools to reduce the impact of disaster risks through school safety plans, simulations and drills and training sessions in first aid, search and rescue, and fire safety for students and teachers.
The Government of Bangladesh has introduced structural reforms to achieve its EFA and MDG commitments in the education sector. The national policy on disaster management emphasizes that every ministry must have a general guideline to incorporate a DRR agenda. Despite the noteworthy initiatives taken by the Government of

Plan Nepal
Bangladesh to minimize risks at schools and for schoolchildren, the absence of a consolidated and separate safe-school policy has stymied the implementation of full- fladged safe-school initiatives.
c. India
The ongoing Right to Safer Schools Campaign launched in 2001 led by the All- India Disaster Mitigation Institute. The programme fostered a culture of safety with demonstrations and installations of fire safety equipment and first aid kits, insurance policies, awareness materials, training for teachers and staff, drills, and need-based support to schools and student families.
In 2005, Sustainable Environment & Eco Development Society (SEEDS), a prominent humanitarian institution, in association with state governments and international humanitarian communities, introduced school safety programs in four regions across India. The Andaman School Safety Initiative, covering 40 schools on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands is using the window of opportunity offered by the post-tsunami rehabilitation process. Based on the recommendations of the National Policy on Education (1986), some initiatives were undertaken in a few pilot schools. In June 2010, the Government of India launched the National School Safety Program, a demonstration project of the National Disaster Management Authority; this historic step will result in safe schools in India. Like other SAARC countries, India also manages to implement safe-school activities based on the flexibility of various provisions of other education-related policies and frameworks.
d. Sri Lanka
The government has developed a national guideline for making disaster-safe schools. The Disaster Management Act (2005) provides strong legislative and institutional arrangements for DRR and safe school. Sri Lanka’s National Guidelines for School Disaster Safety (2005) embrace seven steps:
a) Establish a school-safety team b) Create awareness among the members of the school community c) Identify hazards and resources d) Establish and train the school-safety team e) Prepare a school-safety plan f) Disseminate the plan and conduct drills g) Evaluate and update the plan
The guidelines were reviewed by various ministries and donors in a participatory process and, ultimately, the Ministry of Education officially recognised its legal mandate. From 2009, implementing its provisions has been mandatory, making Sri Lanka one step ahead of other South Asian countries in endorsing a separate and comprehensive policy for safe schools.
NGOs and civil society organizations have a considerable role in making school environments safe. After the tsunami, ActionAid run a nationwide ‘Back-to-School’ campaign that capacitated thousands of teachers in providing psychosocial care. Through knowledge documentation, specifically the preparation of IEC materials and an education package, ActionAid Sri Lanka was crucial in reducing the disaster risks at schools and in their neighbourhoods. Between March 2006 and March 2007, the Asian Disaster Reduction Centre implemented the Enhancing Natural Disaster Education in Schools project with support from USAID and the Department of Education, building a culture of safety in schools and their vicinity. Strong policies and an active civil society have helped Sri Lanka move forward in implementing its safe school agenda.
e. Bhutan
The Royal Government of Bhutan endorsed the National Disaster Risk Management Framework in 2006 and drafted the National Disaster Management Bill in 2008.

Plan Nepal
More than 300 schools in Bhutan have prepared disaster management plans according to the School Disaster Management Planning Guidelines issued by the Department of Disaster Management. This Department also is also conducting drills and training trainers of teachers in safe school initiatives, including first aid trainings.
The National Education Policy (2011) states that the Royal Government of Bhutan shall promote and encourage by all means possible, including fiscal means, the setting up and operation of private schools at all levels from pre-primary through class XII. It gives the Ministry of Education the responsibility of facilitating the establishment of private schools in Bhutan.
Two years ago, the National Action Plan for School Earthquake Safety (2011) was formulated under the technical support of GeoHazards International in order to reduce future losses of life and property due to earthquakes and other natural hazards. This plan provides guidance to concerned governmental departments regarding actions to take, policies to put into place and projects implement to ensure that all schools in Bhutan are safe.
The National Disaster Risk Management Framework of Bhutan (2006) outlined eight components: (i) institutional, legislative and policy frameworks, (ii) hazard, vulnerability and risk assessments, (iii) early warning systems, (iv) disaster preparedness, (v) mitigation and incorporation of DRR in development sectors, (vi) public awareness and education, (vii) capacity development, and (viii) communication and transportation. There is enough policy space in Bhutan to work for safe school endeavours but there is no consolidated and separate policy for safe schools.
f. The Maldives
In response to the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster of 2004, which inflicted an unknown number of deaths across its coastal areas, many of which were attributed to the slowness of the response, the Government of the Maldives formulated a guide, “School Emergency Operations Plan,” in 2009. This document, prepared by the Ministry of Education in collaboration with UNDP Maldives is designed to prepare the citizenry, especially those in schools, to respond effectively to various emergencies.
The guide aims at educating school administrators and staff as well as students on the appropriate protocol to follow during an emergency. It helps minimize losses and protect the lives of all those at school, especially children. It addresses various emergency scenarios, including fires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and sea-based disasters, with the potential to occur during school hours. The guide has increased the level of awareness of risk in schools and provided teachers, parents and children with the knowledge they need to equip themselves to build a safer and more sustainable future.
As part of the policy, the Government of Maldives set up the National School Safety Coordination Committee from relevant sections of the Ministry of Education to spearhead the school safety initiatives. The School Health Unit is mandated to coordinate the DRR education activities. Minimum safety standards for school infrastructure and a school building code were developed and are now begin implemented. School safety and disaster management plans have been formulated. These plans include an “Every Child Swims” life skills component, which ensures that both students and teachers are taught to win and sees teachers serve as swimming instructors.

Plan Nepal
The integration of disaster prevention education in school curricula and the development of teaching and learning materials on disaster preparedness is another very important initiative of the Maldivian government. Demonstrations and drills in school safety, the training of search- and-rescue and first-aid task forces, the identification of vulnerabilities in existing schools, and the establishment of standards for retrofitting or replacing new buildings are other crucial initiatives.
g. Afghanistan
Law on combating disasters in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (1991) makes the Department of Emergency Preparedness responsible for organizing matters related to prevention of natural disasters. Specific DRR provisions include: article 4(5) and article 5(12) which deal with the economics and finances of preventing natural disasters; article 4(7) which deals with educating inhabitants about the effects of disasters; article 5(6) which deals with early warning; and article 6(2) which deals with risk and identification assessment
In 2003, under the aegis of United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Department of Disaster Preparedness of the Government of Afghanistan, SEEDS carried out a consultation process to develop and disseminate a National Disaster Management Plan for Afghanistan. The process included building schools’ awareness of and capacity for disaster risk management. SEEDS produced a range of educational material on school safety for wide-scale use in schools and their neighbourhoods.
In 2007, structural and non-structural hazards were assessed in school buildings using hazard vulnerability and capacity analysis and fire safety demonstrations were carried out through drills at pilot schools. This consideration of how to better prepare for and better respond to disasters helped build the capacity of schoolteachers, students, staff and guardians. Integrating programs into the government system is always a priority agenda to advocate safe school success.
2.3 Safe-school policies and practices in Nepal
The safe-school policies and practices extant in Nepal are thoroughly reviewed and critically analyzed. Good initiatives, major gaps and their implications are briefly shared in chapter 4.
i. Education Act (1971)
The systematic development of education only began after the enactment of the Education Act in 1971, which focused on the development of human resources for national development and promoted good conduct, decency and morality in consonance with the new multi-party democratic system. The Act mentions nothing about school safety and has no provisions regarding the likely risks to the education sector posed by natural and man- made disasters.
In 2001, seven amendments were made to this Act, making it more democratic by addressing issues such as gender mainstreaming, affirmative action for girls, sensitization to the issues of the Dalit, development of mother tongue curricula and textbooks, teaching in translation, and inclusive education. The eighth amendment in Act, adopted in 2004, included the following provisions:
 Commitment to provide free primary education  Provisions for an alternative schooling program for out-of-school children, whether they had never enrolled or dropped out after beginning, through a non-formal program  Implementation of a teachers' licensing policy through the National Teacher Service Commission

Plan Nepal
 Empowerment of SMCs through capacity- building in their various responsibilities  Formation of inclusive SMCs and PTAs
Progress in implementing the provisions of the Act and its amendments is extremely slow. No amendment has yet internalized the concept of disaster risks and or the need to make schools safer.
ii. New Education System Plan (1971)
This plan, based on the Education Act (1971) of the same year, successfully laid out rules and regulations for textbooks and reference materials in order to promote good-quality of education. While it did to systematize the curriculum, this plan did not incorporate school safety issues and says nothing about the structural component of school safety, i.e. the physical improvement of schools and their vicinities.
iii. Natural Calamity Relief Act (1982)
This is the first act directed towards disaster management in Nepal. Its sole focus is on responding to disasters and providing relief to the affected. The government recognized that it did not have a sufficiently comprehensive platform for implementing national DRR strategies. In particular, it had the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (NSDRM). However, until it is replaced by a proposed new Disaster Management Act, it remains the principal framework for disaster response and for a limited range of DRR activities within the scope of rescue, relief and response. This Act does not say school safety or children’s issues.
iv. Basic and Primary Education Project (BPEP) Master Plan I (1992–97)
To translate the key provisions of the Education Act (1971) and the New Education System Plan (1971) into practice, the Basic and Primary Education Project (BPEP) was designed and implemented. Its goal was to strengthen the network of pre-primary educational institutions. It addressed the issues of non-enrolment, non-attendance and low retention in primary education on a sustainable basis. It stressed the need for bottom-up, community-based planning in which parents, teachers and other stakeholders are consulted about program formulation and the management of BPEP activities.
BPEP I was built upon the experiences of the Seti Education for Rural Development Project and the Primary Education Project of the 1980s. Pre-primary education is not currently part of the formal education system. BPEP I aimed to increase access and equity, enhance quality and relevance, and improve the management efficiency of primary education. It covered 40 districts and served about 55% of public schools. It had 14 components: (i) textbook and curriculum development and dissemination; (ii) regular evaluation; (iii) teacher training; (iv) resource centre development; (v) early childhood development; (vi) school building construction; (vii) non-formal education; (viii) women's education; (ix) education for special target groups; (x) special education; (xi) community mobilization; (xii) enhanced technical capability; (xiii) improvement in educational management and information system; and (xiv) program management and improvement. It clustered schools under a resource centre school (usually a high school) supervised by a resource centre head. Because BPEP I covered so many issues, its focus was diluted and its impact less than expected. It had nothing to say about safe schools of making children the centre of school safety.
v. Governmental Periodic Plans
Though Nepal adopted a planned development approach in 1956, it was not until the Eighth Plan (1992-97) that the role of primary education was emphasized. This

Plan Nepal
plan introduced compulsory primary education (grades 1-5) and provided for gradual expansion of compulsory to higher grades. The Ninth Plan (1997-2002) focused on ensuring that out-of-school children would gain access to schooling. It emphasized the gradual introduction of compulsory primary education and the launching of national literacy campaigns with the involvement of national and international agencies, local bodies and communities as a strategy for achieving EFA.
The Tenth Plan (2003-2007) campaigned for educational access and equity along with free primary education. This plan also focused on ensuring EFA, including for deprived groups (the poor). This plan, like the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, identified education as a key way to reduce poverty. It integrated the National Plan of Action for EFA and MDG 2 (achievement of universal primary education by the year 2015). This Plan stressed a pro-poor approach and emphasized achieving the objectives of universal primary education and reducing illiteracy.
The Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007) and national documents on education lay down guidelines for safeguarding and ensuring the rights of children. The current Three-Year Interim Plan (2010-2013) includes strategies to implement the School Sector Reform Program effectively, resolve the problems existing in teachers’ management and educational administration, and revise and reform the curricula of and teaching materials for all levels of school education.
Though many targeted programs have been formulated to ensure education for all, progress is not satisfactorily. The safe-school approach is not incorporated in either formal or informal education curricula or in the training curricula of teachers’ training. vi. National Education Commission (1992)
The National Education Commission was formed in 1992 to address the weakness of the previous education plan, that of 1971. It brought a change to the education system by ensuring the quality of education, building the capacity of teachers and improving the curricula. Though it did vaguely address the issue of child rights, it was silent about need for school safety.
vii. Building Act (1998)
The Building Act (1998) and its first amendment (2007) provide for the regulation of building construction to protect buildings against earthquakes, fires, and other natural calamities, to the extent possible. National building codes are administered by the Department of Urban Development and Building Construction, whose direct regulatory responsibilities extend only to public buildings. District and local municipal and village governments are responsible for seeing that private building construction upholds these codes.
viii. BPEP II (2001-04)
One good practice under BPEP II (2001-04) was to bring school-age girls and children from disadvantaged and deprived communities into the mainstream schooling system, an initiative later reinforced in the EFA core plan (2004-09). BPEP II made it clear that schools, teachers, and local institutions must have a vision for achieving good-quality education.
Compared to BPEP I, BPEP II’s coverage was high. It covered all 75 districts and its design fell within the overall framework envisaged in the Ninth Plan and was in line with the objectives identified by BPEP I. Eight BPEP 1 components were reformed: (i) school physical facilities, (ii) special needs education, alternative schooling, education of girls, and education of special focus groups,

Plan Nepal
(iii) early childhood development, (iv) community mobilization and literacy, (v) curriculum renewal and assessment, curriculum and textbooks renewal, and continuous assessment, (vi) teacher training and professional support, recurrent training and support, and certification training, (vii) strengthening institutions, strengthening central level institutions, strengthening district planning and implementation, and local capacity building, and (viii) core investment program management, program management and the establishment of the Technical Support Advisory Group. Compared to BPEP I, BPEP II had more provisions for safe schools as it had covered both structural and non-structural components, but even it did not internalize the possible consequences of disasters that may impact school environments,
ECED in Emergencies Children between the ages of 0-8 years are particularly vulnerable in emergency situations. In addition to the direct physical impacts, emergencies often disrupt or destroy the protective systems and social fabric which are so crucial to the well-being of these children. “Education that protects the well-being, fosters learning opportunities, and nurtures the overall development (social, emotional, cognitive, and physical) of children affected by conflicts and disasters.” (Save the Children Alliance Education Group, 2001). ECED in emergencies aims to promote the physical, social, emotional, cognitive, psychological, spiritual and language development of young children. Emergencies pose a set of challenges for young children living in difficult situations. They are at increased risk of separation from primary caregivers; sexual and gender-based violence; physical harm; long-term cognitive, emotional, and psychological effects. Emergencies threaten children not just directly but indirectly through its effects on parents and caregivers. The harsh realities of their lives reduce their capacity to provide the care and nurturing young children desperately need to grow and develop their full potential.
ix. Local Self-Governance Act (1999) and Regulations (1999)
This legislation delegates responsibility for local governance and development (including DRR projects outside the context of a declared disaster) to regional, district and local governments--municipalities in urban areas and village development committees in rural areas. For the first time, local governments were able to assume considerable responsibility for the management of public schools, especially regarding construction and the payment of teacher’s salaries from the annual budget.
x. Education Regulations (2002)
The government replaced the term ‘adult education’ with ‘non-formal education’ in the Education Regulations (2002) and expanded the scope of such education to incorporate basic adult education, post-literacy education, continuous education, and alternative primary education programs. None of these non-formal education programs have anything to say about making children disaster-resilient either at school or in their communities. None of the curricula of these programs address the safe-school approach or any of its associated issues.
The second amendment (2004), however, does have a provision for compensation if school property is lost due to a natural disaster. The rules reads: “If any loss of the property of a community school is incurred because of a natural disaster or other situation beyond the control of that school, such as environmental degradation, compensation may be provided--up to Rs. 5000 by the school management committee on the recommendation of the headmaster, up to Rs. 10,000 by the District Education Officer on the recommendation of SMC, up to Rs. 20,000 by the Director of Department of Education, and up to Rs. 25,000 by the Secretary of the Ministry of Education. More

Plan Nepal
than this amount can be granted if the Ministry of Education secures the approval of the Ministry of Finance.” These rules acknowledge that natural disasters have consequences for the safety of schools for the first time.
xi. National Plan of Action (2003)
This plan envisages using formal and non- formal education to ensure that all children have ‘equitable access to quality education.’ It addresses pertinent issues like (i) achieving EFA goals, (ii) early childhood and development, (iii) appropriate learning and life skills, and (iv) ensuring the rights of indigenous people. Even though a rationale for establishing safe schools was made blatantly obvious during the 1988 earthquake in Udaypur, the majority of Nepal’s policies, frameworks and plans are disaster-blind.
Xii. Education for All (2004–09)
Nepal EFA (2004–09) was a natural continuation of BPEP I and II, a strategic program guided by the national policy to provide free and compulsory primary education to all children. Its components are based on the six EFA goals as well as plus the additional goal of ‘ensuring the right of indigenous people and linguistic minorities to basic and primary education through mother tongue’.
Implementing Nepal EFA, which focused on primary education and led to the development of the School Sector Reform Program (2009-2014), helped Nepal make significant progress in basic education. It fostered the decentralization of educational decisions and management as key to increasing access, meeting learning needs through inclusive education, and improving quality. Its strategies included the development of school improvement plans, which were linked with village and district education plans and which, in theory, enabled schools and communities to plan and monitor work with a view toward managing and thereby improving access, quality, retention, and achievement. In practice, however, things are different: a review of Nepal EFA revealed that School Improvement Plans are mainly used to secure or allocate allocating funding not to carry out genuine community-based planning for local education needs. Overall, the review concluded that the performance of the EFA is not satisfactorily.
xiii. School Sector Reform Plan (2009-15)
This plan came into being after Nepal EFA (2004-09) ended. It is a long-term strategic plan for achieving certain goals and objectives related to both basic and secondary education (2009-14). It comprises key strategic interventions and the estimated financial resources required to implement them. It continues the activities of Nepal EFA, the Secondary Education Support Programme, the Community School Support Programme and Teacher Education Project and also introduces new, strategic reforms such as restructuring school education and improving the quality of education. It also emphasizes increasing access among out-of- school children and commits to enabling all children to learn by enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of services in the education sector. This plan is based on Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which reads “to develop its personality, talents, physical and mental abilities to its fullest potential”. This plan is a comprehensive one which mainstreams a number of issues, including the right to education, gender parity, inclusion, and equity, into the education sector.
Under this plan, the Department of Education more effectively manages school safety, particularly regarding the safe construction and retrofitting of schools to meet national standards. Masons and engineers are trained to oversee construction, implement

Plan Nepal
safety standards and ensure safer public schools, but the insufficient numbers of such capacitated human resources within the Ministry and Department of Education, has resulted in the limited translation of provisions into action. Thus, despite its willingness to mainstream DRR into the education system, the government has its hands tied.
xiv. Department of Water-Induced Disaster Prevention (2003)
The Department of Water-Induced Disaster Prevention (2003) produced a supplementary reader for Grade 5 which contains seven units: (i) Nepal’s geographical situation, (ii) concepts related to, types and causes of, and measures for controlling of water-induced disaster, (iii) soil erosion, (iv) landslides, (v) debris flow (vi) floods, and (vi) participatory disaster control measures. The last chapter includes topics relating to the concept and mapping of disaster, trends of hazards, disseminating information to people, and evacuating people to safe places. While this is a good initiative for making curriculum disaster-friendly, there are no vertical linkages to upper or lower grades.
xv. Non-Formal Education Policy (2007)
The government-issued non-formal education (NFE) policy of 2007 aims to establish NFE as parallel and equivalent to formal education system. This policy envisions having literacy and post-literacy programs that provided lifelong and continuous education. NFE centres deliver NFE education services for various target groups of illiterate people.
Alternative schooling opportunities for out- of-school children and school drop-outs through the open education mode are also provided for. The curriculum takes into account many issues, but not school safety and disaster issues. In fact, words like “disaster” and “school safety” are not even used.
xvi. National Curriculum Framework for School Education (2007)
This framework emphasizes the relationship between education and issues related to the democratic polity and human rights. ”Education,” it declares, “should help enhance and strengthen social justice, democracy, human rights, co-existence, equity and equality. Education should also address peace, tolerance, etiquette and employment.” This framework provides a long-term vision for school education. It includes policy for and guidelines on contemporary curricula, including environmental issues like plantation, natural disaster, and conservation. It also includes home and school sanitation, the causes and mitigation of environmental pollution, safety from accidents involving fire, electric current and sharp tools. This framework contributed a good deal to safe-school by including disaster-related issues in curriculum.
xvii. Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (2009)
Building on the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management, the Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium was formed to support the Government of Nepal in developing a long-term action plan for DRR. Based on government priorities and discussions with multi-stakeholder groups, the consortium members and the government identified five flagship areas for immediate action, the first of which is school and hospital safety. This flagship area focuses on both structural and non-structural mechanisms for making schools and hospitals earthquake-resilient and is the most relevant initiative for making schools safer.
xviii. Building Regulations (2009)

Plan Nepal
This legislation specifies items that need approval prior to the construction of large buildings, particularly those in the categories of A, B and C (but not D) and small homes less than three stories tall. Detailed documentation must be submitted to the concerned municipal and district urban development offices. In terms of the construction of new school buildings, however, the provisions of this legislation are not fully operationalized. In fact, even though the provisions of this legislation are, in general, good, they are not stringently implemented. Nor is there a specific law regulating the safety of private schools. As a result, the physical condition of private schools, most of which are housed in rented accommodations, is poor.
xix. National Framework for Child-Friendly Schools (2010)
A child-friendly environment is an ideal environment in which there is neither any harm to children nor any obstructions to their physical, mental, intellectual and emotional development. Since to earn the label “child- friendly” a school must special precautions to protect children from potential accidents, this framework includes arrangements for improving the physical conditions of schools. Filling in pits and trenches, erecting walls or fences around school grounds, making provisions for first aid and fire control, insulating rooms from extreme heat or cold, and making appropriate lighting arrangements are among the structural safety measures provided for. This framework also advocates adopting measures to protect schools from earthquakes and other natural disasters through the planned dissemination of information and organization of simulation exercises. However, due to limited political will and capacities, these important provisions are not adequately implemented.
xx. National Policy on Children (2012)
This policy prohibits armed conflict-related and political activities within school premises. It also bans corporal punishment of children by family, educational institutions and child homes and encourages governmental and national and international non-governmental organizations working with children to formulate child protection policies. In addition, it provides for the development of child-friendly teaching-learning environments at schools; the implementation of existing school curricula and training materials in a child-friendly way; the adoption of peace education and non-violent, punishment-free educational systems; and the formation of inclusive SMCs and PTAs. It calls for the inclusion of issues like child rights, sexual exploitation and abuse into school textbooks. Rules and regulations have been developed to take departmental action against teachers who inflict physical or psychological torture on students. This policy is highly pro-children because it erases in the traditional belief in controlling and punishing students in the name of discipline. It addresses the non- structural elements of safe schools. As is the case for all the other legislation discussed above, implementation is poor.
Chapter 3: Good initiatives, major gaps and implications
Since children spend significant time at school during their formative years, school safety should be effectively managed, promoted, and prioritized. In Nepal, there are some good initiatives for safe schools, but there are as many, if not more, gaps.
In its safe school framework, Plan Indonesia advocated for three key pillars as (i) policy and governance, (ii) raising awareness, and (iii) institutional strengthening. These pillars consider the five components viz. Safe location; facilities; awareness, attitude and behaviours; class design and setting; and safe structure.

Plan Nepal
While many others organizations
propagated for other safe school
frameworks. Following the analysis of safe
school frameworks promoted many agencies,
institutions and organization, this study
suggest incorporating three key pillars as
structural, non-structural and policy (see
figure 1). These three pillars are further
divide into 10 sub-components (see figure 2).
Good initiatives, gaps and implications are
categorized as per these 10 sub-components
broadly categorized under three pillars as
(i) structural (physical infrastructure), (ii) non-structural
(awareness, capacity building,
knowledge management), and (iii) policy
(advocacy and campaigning).
3.1 Structural (physical infrastructure)
The structural component mainly addresses
the physical infrastructure of schools. Physical
infrastructure development covers the
construction of safe new schools and the
retrofitting of unsafe old schools. Financial
resources need to be allocated for both
activities for structurally safe school.
3.1.1 Safe-school construction through
retrofitting
a. Good initiatives
Not all schools are safe from earthquakes
despite the fact that there is ample
information about the sort of knowledge and
technologies which can make schools
safer through regular school maintenance
and retrofitting. Building codes have been
developed and retrofitting guidelines
prepared. There are even agents to carry it
out: National Society for Earthquake
Technology (NSET), for example, is a pioneer
in school retrofitting. It implemented the
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and
Recovery and the World Bank-initiated
Strategy for Improving the Seismic Safety of
Schools in Nepal as a first step in
institutionalizing a school earthquake safety
program.
Efforts for earthquake resilient school buildings
construction: Under the financial support from ADB
and AusAid, DoE and NSET is retrofitting 260 public
school buildings in the Kathmandu Valley and
providing trainings in school safety best practices to
around 4,000 teachers and 50,000 students
throughout the nation.
Safety assessments, training of masons and engineers
in safe school construction, and awareness-raising
among local communities. With AusAid’s support, in
the Nepal School Sector Reform Program, 39,729
children have been provided with textbooks; 40,576
children enrolled in basic education, 10,000 enrolled
in secondary education; and 40 classrooms have been
built or upgraded.
(NSET) has been implementing a project ‘Developing
a Strategy for Improving Seismic Safety of Schools in
Nepal’ which covers school vulnerability assessment,
implementation of seismic strengthening measures in a
Figure 2: Sub-components of three pillars
Figure 1: Safe school framework
Non-structural
component
Policy
component
Safe school
framework
Structural
component

Plan Nepal
few schools together with training and awareness raising activities in two districts of Nepal. All these actions are geared towards assisting the development of a national strategy for improving seismic safety of schools in Nepal. NSET has also developed a Strategy for improving Seismic Safety of Schools in Nepal. UNDP provided support for the structural intervention in 7 Schools (Bhaktapur, Banke and Sunsari districts) and earthquake drills in 11 Schools in the same districts. The program ameliorated seismic safety of public and private schools, critical facilities, residences and public infrastructures and institutionalized earthquake risk management practices. enhanced structural and non-structural safety of public institutions, provided technical assistance to the municipalities for implementing seismic building code, and conducted training programs for masons, technicians, engineers, business community. Food Assistance for Vulnerable Populations Affected by Conflict and High Food Prices Project was launched in food insecure districts under the funding support from WFP. Part of the funding was used for the construction of 974 units of school under the food/cash for work scheme. DanChurchAid and Lutheran World federation supported project trained 150 school teachers from 70 schools in School Earthquake Preparedness from 6 batches, and trained 734 masons/technicians and self-builders in earthquake safety construction. Save the children run project has constructed 99 earthquake resilient schools in 24 VDCs of the project districts. In collaboration with DoE, MS Nepal, ActionAid Nepal promoted green school model as they are cost effective, climate responsive, ecologically sustainable and earthquake safe considering the extreme weather patterns of hills and Terai. Handicap International has been promoting disable- friendly schools by introducing modifications into existing school system and also in new building constructions. Assessment of schools in terms of “accessibility” for most vulnerable group of people like persons with disabilities is the key component of the project.
Through demonstration, this pilot program developed clear strategies for improving school safety and built a strong case for enhancing and expanding intervention in Nepal. School retrofitting activity is increasing. In addition, the education cluster focuses on education in emergencies and has made a good start handing response and recovery issues.
b. Gaps
It is crucial that sites for school construction be carefully selected, in Nepal, however, the deep-rooted mindset that schools should be in remote locations works against safety, as does the fact that the public land freely allocated is usually cheap and therefore often hazardously located along a riverbank, on a degraded hill slope or on a ridge. Such locations are exposed to a variety of disasters, including floods, landslides, earthquake and windstorm, rendering schools vulnerable. The land donated out of religious merit-earning motives is similarly unsafe.
There are policy gaps regarding safe-school construction, too. The Building Regulations do not require that small buildings secure approval for their construction at the local level even thought the Building Act calls for such approval. Because SMCs and PTAs are not well-informed about, PTA about the provisions of the Building Regulations, schools are almost always constructed on an ad hoc basis.
Since the National Building Codes of the Building Act have been only partially implemented by a small number of municipalities, high-risk school buildings continue to be constructed. Nor is there a system of assessment in place to identify which private buildings (which often house schools) need to be retrofitted for earthquake safety. There is no comprehensive, resourced mechanism to implement the National Building Codes to guard against fire either.
The majority of parents choose a school for their children based on the quality of education it offers in general and its educational performance in particular and accord safety standards little priority. Their relative indifference to safety works against

Plan Nepal
efforts to implement the safe-school approach despite the fact that vulnerability in the education sector is ever increasing.
Building standards for school buildings, both new and existing, must be regulated by the government and relevant to local hazards. However, the gap between policy and practice has seen many schools be renovated without assessing their physical vulnerability or fulfilling the provisions of the National Building Code.
In fact, school buildings are vulnerable despite the National Building Code. Because proper maintenance, inspection and enforcement are lacking, the existing codes do not protect schools. Other weaknesses are that the Codes are too technical for many local communities to understand and that they do not address indigenous knowledge. Simple, inexpensive changes in building practice are needed to save lives during disasters. The use of overly technical jargon in the name of safe schools is often counterproductive.
School infrastructure is vulnerable during disasters due to two main reasons: poor construction and lack of proper maintenance. In addition, the poor selection of sites without testing soils or assessing hazards, particularly seismic fault line is problematic. Too often policies ignore structural safety issues or, if they do consider them, do not make addressing them mandatory.
Transparency is another gap. The quality of school building construction is often sub- standard because of tendering processes are not transparent and there is no mechanism for the mandatory involvement of civil society organizations like Private and Boarding Schools' Organisation, Nepal (PABSON), SMCs, PTAs, and engineering associations, in monitoring construction work, though they could very well act as a watch dog. The poor quality of construction materials is another gap. In the absence of social auditing and public hearings, local- level issues are not disclosed. Instead, a limited number of persons make all the decisions regarding construction without consulting stakeholders. While in theory SMCs and PTAs should be involved in all steps, from site selection to designing and costing to monitoring for quality control, they rarely are.
c. Implications
One reasons guardians and SMCs have little motivation to promote school retrofitting is that this work is both tedious and time- consuming and they prefer the new and the branded rather than the traditional. As a result, community contributions to school retrofitting fall below expectations and trained local masons show little interest in either maintenance or retrofitting.
3.1.2 New school construction
a. Good initiatives
In the last decade or two, many agencies have invested time, energy and resources in making safe schools and people’s knowledge, understanding and awareness about structurally safe schools have increased. Many institutions, including government and UN agencies as well as many international NGOs like Lutheran World federation, Save the Children, ActionAid, Mercy Corps, etc looked into this issue deeply after the 1988 earthquake in Udaypur District. NSET played a crucial role in advocating for structurally safe schools. Many EC-funded DIPECHO projects which ran between 2005 and 2012 looked largely into the non-structural component of school safety.
b. Gaps
For both new schools being constructed and old schools requiring maintenance or retrofitting, it is essential to carry out hazard, vulnerability and capacity analysis (HVCA); unfortunately, such analysis is rarely carried out or taken into consideration. This is a

Plan Nepal
crucial gap without which it is difficult to predict the strength of the site and building strengths and its ability to withstand the likely impacts of disasters. Few new school buildings adhere to building codes and land- use and hazard maps are rarely consulted or hazard safety measures incorporated while constructing a building.
Newly constructed schools and early childhood development centres do not fulfil quality standards as building codes are not upheld during either the design or construction phases. The UN slogan ‘every new school should be a safe school’ is ignored as there is no guideline for developing safety in schools or addressing risks to the right of children, especially girls, to protection.
Early childhood education and development (ECED) centres need to be structurally safe and facilitators should be knowledge about the safe-school approach. In fact, the culture of safety should be inculcated in children right from the very first day of their formal educational experience. However, stakeholders pay little attention to ECED buildings and believe that administrative offices and upper grades are more deserving of being housed in any new buildings constructed. Ironically, children in the lowest grades are most susceptible to disaster impacts but they are less likely to attend classes in safe infrastructures.
c. Implications
If hazard, vulnerability and capacity analysis is not carried out and the provisions of the National Building Code are not upheld during construction, new school buildings will not be able to withstand the impacts of disasters and both teachers and students will always feel a nagging sense of fear that will render children unable to grasp and teachers unable to deliver lessons at their potential. The notion that public schools are not structurally sound precisely because they are public—as if government ownership is somehow innately inferior to private ownership—is an unhealthily fatalistic one which is sadly prevalent. This attitude must change as the future of thousands of children rests on establishing structurally safe schools.
3.1.3 Management of financial resource for structurally safe schools
a. Good initiatives
The continuous efforts of many education stakeholders have been successful in undermining the myth that creating structurally safe school requires a lot of financial resources. Through advocacy, civil society organizations have raised awareness that children’s lives should not be compared to or compromised for the sake of financial resources. Slowly, awareness is being built that structurally safe schools must be built, without being stingy about resources, and, in a positive step, the Department of Education is planning to allocate resources for such construction.
While it is true that budgetary limitations and the absence of a clear policy and governmental guidance have negatively impacted safe-school construction, if the political will to build safe schools truly existed, the government will no doubt take steps to overcome those constraints.
b. Gaps
Even when considerable financial resources are invested in the construction of a particular new school, the National Building Code is not adequately considered while designing, preparing a cost estimate for, gauging the quality of construction materials needed, or actually constructing the building. This fact demonstrates that the lack of resources is not the sole barrier.
The Department of Education (DoE) provides an annual operation and maintenance budget to every school. Because there are no conditions attached to this money, it is not always used as it is intended to. Another

Plan Nepal
problem occurs when the DoE supplies a school undertaking construction or maintenance with less money than it has anticipated, rendering it either unable to complete the work or forcing it to resort to cheaper materials that do not meet the prescribed standards of quality. The DoE neither monitors nor even comments on the quality of construction work, in such a situation.
Recent trends show that while the loss of life during major disasters has decreased significantly, the economic and livelihood losses associated with disasters have increased considerably; thereby putting a drain on already stressed national education budgets. The resultant economizing may decrease children’s access to education and reduce the quality of their learning. To entice parents in a competitive market environment, private boarding schools focus on the strength of their academic achievement, completely ignoring safety factors. When parents visit, they search for evidence of its educational quality, but do not explore physical safety issues like the condition of the playground and physical infrastructure, the presence of fire alarms and extinguishers and first aid kits and the like, policies regarding punishment, evacuation plans for disasters despite the fact that their children will spend long periods in the school environment. The difference in the level of understanding of various stakeholders is another gap. Effective safety requires the commitment and participation of all stakeholders, but in this case some stakeholders namely, parents are often more willing to align themselves with safety policy than others (namely, political leaders and teachers). One common reservation among all stakeholders stems from a lack of appreciation about the need for safety, while teachers may feel safety considerations will increase their workload and parents that it will cost them financially. Since government resources do not suffice and donor agencies have not yet translated their commitment into action, the quality of work is sub-standard and schools did not meet the ideal of structural safety. Because the budget is low, SMCs are tempted to engage in ad hoc construction and maintenance too often awarding the dear and near contractors instead of mobilizing, as makes sense, the members of both the committee itself and the PTAs for additional financial resources. Sometimes the budget for operation and maintenance is not even used for that purpose instead, guided by the political pressure and vested interest, committee use it to pay teacher salaries. The efforts of donor agencies are not systematic; they occur irregularly and are patchy in approach. Donors do engage education stakeholders but channel few resources and are not guiding local players toward a safe landing and a logical end.
c. Implications Financial transparency will foster a culture of trust. Poor transparency regarding the budget received from the government results in confrontations among the members of SMCs and PTAs over resources. When this happens, there is little chance of co-financing or parallel funding from donor agencies, and local stakeholders lose the motivation to share resources and make community contributions.
3.2 Non-structural component
The non-structural component includes school evacuation and safe haven programs and awareness campaigns. It works toward creating a learning environment in which there is zero tolerance for sexual abuse and bullying. Providing for non-structural safety includes incorporating DRR curriculum in school education, running co-curricular activities with DRR messages, organizing capacity-building and engaging in knowledge management. This section briefly

Plan Nepal
discusses good practices, major gaps, and implications.
3.2.1 Curriculum
a. Good initiatives
Approaching school safety through curriculum development is a cost-effective approach that takes advantage of the fact that curriculum is the mainstay of education. Nepal has designed DRR curricula to reduce vulnerability to local hazards for formal, informal and out-of-school education programs. This curriculum was aligned to the existing curriculum and was established only after thoroughly assessing and taking into account children’s aptitude, capacity and level. The government, international agencies, and civil society organizations are all to incorporate more DRR-friendly curriculum so that safe-school initiatives can be channelled from every corner.
Efforts for curriculum development: DRR curriculum is being mainstreamed in formal and informal education. The Department of Education (DoE), through District Education Offices, has been improving school buildings based on the DoE guidelines. The program provided critical inputs like school buildings and textbooks to make an education system functional. For mainstreaming DRR education into Nepal’s school curricula, the UNESCO Office in Kathmandu jointly with the Nepal National Commission for UNESCO and the Curriculum Development Centre of the Ministry of Education based on UNESCO prepared guidelines entitled “Towards the Learning culture of safety and resilience: A Technical Guidance for Integrating DRR in the School Curriculum”. UNDP supported Curriculum Development Centre/DoE for Integration of DRR in School Curriculum for grade 6 to 8. As a scope of the project, school curriculum was drafted, and teachers guide book and student’s resource book were prepared. It has contributed for the integration of DRR in the school curriculum from grade 6 to 8. ActionAid contributed school building structural and non-structural retrofitting, new building construction, training and capacity building on school safety and disaster preparedness and safety drills. In close coordination with MOHA/Disaster Management and MOE/Curriculum Development Centre, curriculum mapping and text revision development of local curriculum was made.
b. Gaps
Most curricula developed so far focuses on educating people on the subject matters but not on developing the real life skills; it discusses ‘symptoms’ but not their ‘consequences’’ and is problem- rather than solution-centric. As a result, these curricula often create havoc and generate ‘fear’. Other limitations are that they do not explicitly address socio-psycho and do not involve people in creative learning.
The existing policy allows teachers to select reference materials to suit their lessons. Such flexibility is a good way to generate innovation but most teachers do not use any reference materials and those who do often do not use materials that suit the Nepali context. To avoid confusion, suitable context- specific materials should be recommended and their use made mandatory.
While the curricula do address the types and nature of natural hazards and the problems and challenges each poses, too little learning is directed disaster prevention and preparedness. Nor do the curricula consider the value of local knowledge to provide physical and environmental protection from these hazards. The effectiveness of the curricula is further reduced because no material has been written in local dialects. Neither the curricula nor the textbooks and teachers’ guides are fully disaster-sensitive. Correlations among the curricula, children’s understandings and teaching methods and processes are weak. In particular, almost same standard curricula are used for each grade despite the fact that the level of understanding of students differs markedly.
Despite the existence of commitment at the policy and institutional levels, there are no guidelines to integrating DRR into curricula, education materials and training. The result

Plan Nepal
is a state of confusion and, despite many efforts, limited inclusion of DRR content and lessons in the education curricula. Even though the government has agreed to provide information on risks and means to protect against them, strengthen networks and promote dialogue and cooperation, DRR has not yet been mainstreamed into the school curricula.
c. Implications
As teachers are not fully trained and do not understand what they are supposed to deliver, they are not enthusiastic about conducting DRR lessons. The fact that reference materials are not provided and are their usage is optional serves as a disincentive to teachers who are not well- informed on the subject matter. No having texts or reference materials in local dialects is a further disincentive for both learners and teachers as is the fact that socio-cultural and economic realities are rapidly changing with time and technological development. In addition, new curriculum is not always welcomed by learners. Given these problems, it is difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the curricula and the learning generating from it. Establishing safe schools by introducing relevant curricula has, thus, been a challenging process.
3.2.2 Co-curricular activities
a. Good initiatives
Co-curricular education retrofits the formal education system by supplying additional and life-skills knowledge simultaneously. Co- curricular activities include assemblies, after- school activities, meetings, special events and Friday drills as well as art, drawing and writing competitions; games, speeches; hands-on activities; and the involvement of mass media. The government of Nepal has allotted at least 25% of the total curriculum in formal schools to co-curricular activities.
b. Gaps
The majority of co-curricular activities are merely fashionable activities rather than those designed to correspond with the themes and objectives of formal education lessons. Instead of co-curricular activities, students participate in extra-curricular activities. Though they do generate knowledge, extra-curricular activities do not directly address the objectives of co- curricular activities. Even when co-curricular activities are organized, too often the DRR and safe-school messages they deliver are not reinforced by the delivery of the same messages in formal education.
For these reasons, co-curricular activities have not really built disaster resilience; they have simply made free time more fun. Another problem is that the large number of unscheduled closures has left teachers unwilling to use school time co-curricular activities. For them, the priority is finishing the formal curriculum, not doing “extras.”
c. Implications
In the absence of appropriate co-curricular activities, children are deprived of opportunities to understand the formal curriculum in a relaxed, easy way. Their understanding is diminished and they do not develop enriching life skills solely through knowledge-based formal education.
3.2.3 Capacity-building
a. Good initiatives
Capacity-building enriches knowledge and skills and, in recent years, has become a cross-cutting themes. Students and teachers have become more aware through a series of capacity-building activities particularly in the areas of emergency management, natural disasters and school safety. They are now more able to take appropriate preventive measures and make informed decisions during emergencies. Many DRR institutions engage school communities in capacity-building disaster prevention and mitigation activities through simulations and

Plan Nepal
drills designed to promote awareness, safety, and response.
The UNDP-assisted Community Owned Primary Education Programme Project (2000) helped build capacity through its innovative approach: it provided equitable and good-quality primary education with a special focus on girls by ensuring that all teachers were female.
Teachers and Resource Centre heads have participated in various capacity-building activities to sharpen their knowledge to work with children from the ECED to secondary level of formal schools as well as non-formal institutions to build disaster resilience and promote safe schools. Teachers and teachers’ unions have been involved in DRR from planning to implementation. Adopting the philosophy of ‘building-back-better’ they have promoted emergency preparedness and risk reduction in the aftermath of disasters and emergencies.
b. Gaps
Despite its importance, the non-structural component is not really an agenda of safe schools in general and capacity-building in particular. Student retention and educational performance are key issues; school safety is not.
Though Nepal has been aware of safe- school issues for 25 years, ever since the Udaypur earthquake in 1988, there is no ‘uniform governmental definition of a safe school’ and no ‘indicators for monitoring’ school safety. As a result, many institutions working in this sector have set their own definitions, which vary widely. Without a common consensus about what constitutes a safe school or which aspects of school safety should be advocated, managed, promoted, and prioritized, stakeholders have found it difficult to standardize capacity-buildings initiatives. Progress, in turn, has been slow.
Inadequate capacity-building and empowerment regarding safe-school issues leave SMCs ill-prepared to provide psychological counselling during disasters. As a result, students and teachers lose hope for the future. School personnel need disaster management plans, emergency response skills, and regular drills to cope with expected disaster impacts. Capacity- building is further constrained by the inadequacy of safe school-related reference materials and by the lack of explicit safe- school curricula in teacher education and training materials.
c. Implications
Institutions working on safe-school initiatives do not share their own ideas or embrace the ideas of others. As a result, coordination is poor and rivalry is high. Capacity-building exercises are rarely followed up with refresher training; instead, each program is a one-time event, an end, rather than a means to an end. As a result, despite the money invested, local resource person are not adequately trained and capacitated.
3.2.4 Knowledge management
a. Good initiatives
Children’s education includes the knowledge they need to keep themselves and future generations safe. As agencies working in the DRR sector acknowledge, knowledge management plays a crucial role in retaining institutional memory and fostering DRR. The documentation of good practices and lessons learnt is a recently adopted practice that successfully manages knowledge. The DoE publishes flash reports about the education scenario of the country, mentioning information such as the numbers of students and teachers, the teacher-student and updates.
National and local governments have created and continue to consolidate a school- safety information base that reflects local physical and socio-

Plan Nepal
cultural realities in order to inform policy and practice. Some rich information is found on the websites of individual institutions but it is not yet consolidated.
Children led DRR and CCA through establishing meteorological station: Under the financial support from Canadian Cooperation Office, NDRC implemented Building Resilience to Disaster and Climate Change Impact on Women and Children Project in Banganga River Basin of Kapilvastu District for reducing natural hazard vulnerability and created a mechanism to support the retrofitting of school buildings. Community and school based climate change adaptation programme was also implemented by establishing a school-based meteorological station.
b. Gaps
There is no provision for collecting DRR information or communicating it to communities. As a result, early warning and DRR communications are very weak. Disseminating public safety messages and bridging the gap between scientific knowledge and people’s science is still a challenge. The DoE’s flash reports contain no information about school facilities, existing infrastructures or the need for a safe-school approach and learning.
Knowledge is fragmented even though many DRR institutions espouse knowledge management and have implemented safe school initiatives for 25 years. Some knowledge documentation is in place but it is at the project not the program level and very patchy. Because information about past learning is fragmented, it is difficult to use it to predict future situation and thereby tailor upcoming initiatives adequately.
Child-friendly school effort: UNICEF initiated child- friendly school effort started in Nepal in 2002 at 45 government-run schools in two districts, Kavre and Sunsari. The initiative has now reached some 1,000 schools across 15 districts of the country.
c. Implications
Progress in the use of knowledge to build a culture of safety and resilience has been slow because of poor knowledge management. In addition, the lack of adequate criteria for monitoring and evaluation has made it is difficult to maintain and update the information base so that it can be used to develop and implement new projects. Poor documentation has resulted in the loss of crucial information and knowledge and each successive safe-school initiative has to start again from scratch.
3.3 Policy (advocacy and campaigning)
Children have the right to learn in a safe and healthy environment, and governments have a clear obligation to provide such environments by adopting and existing policies must address safe-school issues. Political will and commitments, of course, are of great importance in translating words into acts. Policy-related good initiatives, gaps and implications are briefly discussed below.
3.2.1 Mainstreaming DRR into education
a. Good initiatives
Awareness has grown on the significance of climate change, reflecting an increase in knowledge about this phenomenon and the associated increase in the frequency of natural disasters and their implications for children’s education.
DRR and efforts to mainstream it into the education sector became an issue following the 1988 earthquake in Udaypur District, after which JICA contributed a lot to the safe-school approach by constructing many earthquake-resistant schools. Later, in 1996, the United Mission to Nepal ran an DRR and education project, one of whose key components was the construction of safe school buildings. UNDP ran a safe-school initiative in 1995 and NSET has run an earthquake safety program since 1997. Since 2000, Lutheran World Federation has contributed a lot to the safe-school construction sector. Between 2005 and 2008, ActionAid ran a DRR-through-schools project

Plan Nepal
and between 2006 and 2012, EC-funded DIPECHO projects also contributed to safe- school initiatives. The Reaching-Out–to-Asia Project run jointly by the DoE, Mercy Corps and ActionAid from 2010 is another good initiative. The Education Cluster is also active in education during emergencies. In 2010, UNESCO began its 10-year EFA campaign. Save the Children has been aggressively pushing forward its safe-school program since an earthquake struck eastern Nepal in 2011. In 2012, Plan Nepal started a child- centred safe-school project in Makwanpur District. In all these initiatives, agencies have coordinated with the DoE for synergy and sustainability. These projects and programs have directly and indirectly helped mainstream DRR in school curricula.
b. Gaps
The lack of political will, resource constraints and an inappropriate development approach have worked against the safe- school approach. The 2000-2015 MDG framework was risk-blind: it did not take into account the impact of natural hazards, conflict or climate change on sustainable development. There is no education network to advocate for the mainstreaming of DRR into education.
c. Implications
While there are guidelines and frameworks, a comprehensive plan to integrate DRR into education is still lacking. School safety is still not the primary agenda of schools, SMCs, PTAs, Private and Boarding Schools' Organisation, Nepal (PABSON), and or district education offices.
3.3.2 Safe-school provisions are not incorporated in existing policies
a. Good initiatives
The Nepali government has proactively developed many policies as part of its international commitments and begun to focus its efforts on preparedness and mitigation. It has also established a legal and institutional framework for reviewing, monitoring and implementing a school protection program. So far, school safety initiatives have been based on the provisions of various other policies, not on a policy focused on school safety. Even though there is no explicit safe- school policy in Nepal, DRR stakeholders are keen to work in this sector to make schools safe learning centres.
b. Gaps
School safety policies should reflect physical and socio-cultural realities as well as the priorities of state and local entities but they do not. The plethora of policies and provisions has created some confusion and made it difficult to monitor their performance. Collective indigenous knowledge concerning DRR has been diluted or even forgotten while formulating all these policies. Safe-school provisions need to be explicitly stated.
c. Implications
Because school safety is not the main focus of existing policy, school safety and preparedness are optional rather than, as they ought to be, mandatory.
3.3.3 Political will and governmental commitments
a. Good initiatives Nepal government has developed many policies and guidelines, including the Private and Institutional Schools’ Directive, which includes among its provisions that there should be a minimum of 22 students in each grade and a minimum of 110, 165, and 225 students in primary, lower secondary and secondary schools respectively. Schools not meeting these conditions need to merge or shut down. Enforcing such a strict provision will support the safe-school concept by reducing the student pressure in the classrooms.

Plan Nepal
Public consciousness about disaster risk and school protection is accelerating awareness among education stakeholders too. The government has committed itself to seeing schools disaster-free and safe through international protocols. The political will to change commitment into action is slowing growing.
b. Gaps Education stakeholders have a thorough knowledge and understanding about the concept, rationale and consequences of school safety. Even so, the safe-school approach is largely ignored. There is a considerable gap in political will and commitment. Specific school safety policies and guidelines are lacking though safe- school issues are touched on in other policies and guidelines (see Chapter 2). As a result, safe-school initiatives are optional. One crucial challenge is the influence of party politics, which divides SMCs and PTAs and makes it difficult to mobilize them to embark on collaborative efforts to promote school safety. Another problem is that Nepal has produced many policies, regulations, frameworks and plans without assessing the good practices of and gaps in already formulated policies. Thus, these new policies sideline previous policies, some of which were extremely good, and further undermine political will.
Political turmoil, bad governance, and lack of visionary leadership have worked against the safe-school approach. Since government staff is not transferred on the basis of quality, vision and performance but on the basis of seniority and political affiliation, the talents of many progressive human resources are lost, with a negative impact on the education system in general and safe-school initiatives in particular.
c. Implications
The lack of political will, governmental commitments and the escalation of natural hazards pose significant challenges to Nepal in meeting its EFA and MDG goals. Bad governance and a weak political system have discouraged individuals and agencies working in the safe-school sector.
Chapter 4: The way forward
To move Nepal closer to its all-children-in-a- safe-school objective, the good initiatives outlined above under structural, non- structural and policy components must be continued and scaled up, the gaps and their adverse implications addressed and following recommendations taken into consideration.
a. Safe-school construction through retrofitting  To counter the widespread believe that investment in retrofitting is a waste of time, resources and energy, there is a need for building awareness about its rationale. Social engineering is needed to retrofit people’s ideas as well as school buildings.  A safe school covers not only the environment within the school itself but it also the entire catchment area from where students come. To ensure that risk analysis is complete, the risks that exist along the way to and from school must also be assessed.  The safe-school approach should include earthquake-resilience measures, emergency support mechanisms, safe school plans, a protection-from-multiple- hazards perspective, and personal safety and rights.
b. New school construction
 SMCs and PTAs should be involved in all steps of school construction, including the selection of safe school sites; hazard, vulnerability and capacity analysis; design and cost estimation; management of good-quality construction materials;

Plan Nepal
and construction itself. In addition, close follow-up and frequent monitoring will help to ensure that the quality of construction meets or surpasses minimal standards. Local governments and civil society organizations like PABSON and engineers associations should be involved in this process.
 SMCs should provide strategic support for local- level implementation of improved local construction technologies, participatory planning, disaster awareness, and community mobilization.
 Building Codes and Standards should be simplified for the construction of disaster- resistant and child-friendly schools following review and reflection by education stakeholders. The simpler the codes, the more likely it is that they will be employed.
 Improved access to schools and climate- smart interventions has great value for safe schools. Children’s access to schools should be improved through the reduction of physical risks (sidewalks, road and river crossings, ramps for disabled children, etc). Climate-smart interventions like rainwater harvesting and solar panels should be promoted as should health and hygiene. To reduce death and injury, safe schools should have lightening rods and policies to promote safety during thunderstorms.
c. Management of financial resource for structurally safe schools
 Since the government has little money for establishing safe schools, the DoE should develop a new way of thinking about school safety and how best to manage it given that there are significant budgetary constraints. DoE should also facilitate parents and other stakeholders for resource mobilization through growing awareness. Focusing on making a few schools meet ideal standards would be more productive than
increasing the number of schools with half measures.
 The DoE should prepare make it mandatory to consult Building Codes and land-use and hazard maps before it channels any funding. Requiring social auditing and public hearings to be held at different stages of school construction would help to eliminate loophole and financial irregularities.
 The availability of donor money should be explored and what funding can be raised in the name of meeting global commitments to MDG 2 and EFA should be mobilized for constructing new school buildings and retrofitting old ones.
 If hazard, vulnerability and capacity analysis is properly carried out with the active involvement of education stakeholders, more than 50% of the risk would be immediately reduced with just 30% of the available budget. The government should mobilize its District Education Offices and Resource Centres to carry out such analysis and develop complete risk mitigation plans. Such plans would also help to generate external resources.
d. Curriculum
 To address the gap in the existing curriculum, consultations and review-and- reflection exercises with various stakeholders, including students and teachers, are necessary. They should address the relevant issues in a simple and logical way. Relevant reference materials should be developed in native tongues in order to increase understanding. Curricula should be learner-centred and generate life skills. Involving children in the assessment of local risk and vulnerabilities and available resources and capacities will help them understand the situation better than will traditional classroom teaching.
 The Curriculum Development Centre of Nepal should include content related to

Plan Nepal
DRR and the safe-school approach in its existing curricula, textbooks and teacher’s guide to develop common understandings among teachers, students and guardians. It should also provide reference material on disaster prevention and preparedness and the principles of disaster-resilient construction and environmental protection. In the present context of global warming and climate change, issues related to migration, famine and conflicts related issues should also be incorporated in the existing curricula.
 Education should start at the ECED level and grow progressively more complex through the primary and secondary grades and on to adulthood to ensure that learning is lifelong. Information should be delivered through the development of life skills as called for under the Montessori approach and as is increasingly happening in urban areas.
 Curriculum should focus on solutions, not problems. It should be context-specific, and tailor-made but not ad hoc. Only solution-centric curricula foster the life skills of learners as they promote learning by believing. Teaching about the consequences of hazards is more important than identifying what they are.
e. Co-curricular activities
 Cultural shows and art, song, poetry, dance, and theatre activities with DRR messages should be organized as they appeal children. Co-curricular activities should not be optional but mandatory and the members of SMCs and PTAs and Resource Centre heads should ensure they are offered to students. They should also, along with District Education Offices, ensure that schools are open the minimal number of schools days provided for by law.
 To ensure that DRR-related co-curricular activities are effective, multiple strategies, including child-to-child peer
education, songs, electronic and print media, and action learning, should be used.
f. Capacity-building
 The capacity-building component should protect access to education and provide for educational continuity. It should cover children not yet in school, children with disabilities, girls, and children from deprived and marginalized communities.
 Relevant beginning and refresher training session should be conducted for school communities so that they truly understand school safety awareness programs including the need for and nature of preparedness and hazard evacuation plans and the establishment of safe havens. HVCA and contingency and school preparedness plans based on this HVCA should be the outcomes of training.
 Community leaders should be involved in training programs so that they, too, internalize the rationale behind safe schools and therefore provide for their continuity and sustainability. Training should incorporate structural, non- structural and policy issues.
 Integrating DRR and safe-school concept into existing teacher training and school curricula is a must. For this, policymakers, planners, curriculum developers, practitioners working on education in emergencies, and writers of DRR and safety plans at school level should be included in knowledge-sharing and review-and-reflection processes.
 Capacity-building activities should have both a life-skills component (with drills and simulations of practice like duck– cover-and-hold, building evacuation drill, evacuation to safe havens, safe family reunification, and curricula development) as well as a child-friendly schools component (safe construction and school preparedness).

Plan Nepal
 The capacity of teachers in contemporary safe-school issues should be increased through training. The teachers’ selection examination should include a mandatory question on safe schools and at least one session on safe schools should be incorporated into the teachers’ training curricula.
g. Knowledge management
 In addition to the government, universities, NGOs, the private sector and civil society organizations must play a vital role in managing DRR knowledge through research and development and program implementation. Since these organizations, too, have a vested interested in safe school, they should be involved in the generation and proper management of knowledge.
 The role of civil society organizations is crucial because they, by their very nature, are locally based, and have a thorough knowledge and understanding of local conditions. Unfortunately, they tend to be weak in knowledge documentation and need capacity- building.
 Disaster-and-education-related materials, manuals, data, guidelines, minimum standards, good practices and lessons learned should be properly maintained in a knowledge bank. The DoE’s flash reports should address the three safe-school components (structural, non-structural and policy issues), providing updates on progress toward making schools safe.
h. Mainstreaming DRR into education
 To create an integrated and holistic approach to education and child wellbeing, educational materials on DRR and climate change adaptation should be reviewed for gaps, refined, tested, finalized, and shared widely. In addition, DRR initiatives must be climate-smart in order to ensure the sustainability of the
safe-school campaign and the achievement of EFA and MDG 2.
 A safe-school ‘advocacy group’ with clear terms of reference should be made and mobilized through the involvement of individuals and institutions. It should review and reflect on safe-school initiatives, share knowledge and good practice and advocate that concerned agencies mainstreaming DRR and the safe-school concept into education. The periodic review of and reflection on policies, guidelines, and monitoring mechanisms would facilitate the mainstreaming process.
i. Safe-school provisions are not incorporated in existing policies
 As the vast majority of policies have proved confusing, a single comprehensive safe-school policy should be developed. The role of the other policies would then become supplementary and contributory. Clear M&E mechanism with SMART indicators for Safe school must be developed to translate school safety policies into action. Plan Nepal should develop the safe school kit/guideline and safe school assessment tools to measure the level of vulnerability of school in the context of disaster.
 A culture of safety must be multi-faceted and mandatory. Thus, Nepal’s safe- school policy should incorporate non- structural components to prevent death, disability and injury.
 Nepal’s safe-school policy should incorporate the social auditing of new school construction and develop guidance for implementing both non-structural and structural safety measures. It should ensure that DRR issues are incorporated in school improvement plans as well as lay out regulations for constructing disaster-resilient school buildings (design, location, construction materials and methods, inspection, monitoring and maintenance) and develop guidance for

Plan Nepal
the planned use of schools as temporary post-disaster shelters while at the same time protecting the educational rights of the children.
 A series of policy workshops should be organized with education stakeholders to sensitize them to policy-level issues. Along with policy sensitization, some international campaigns like ‘One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals’ and ‘Making Cities Resilient - My City is Getting Ready’ should be celebrated to sensitize Nepalis to international commitments.
 The DoE is currently the only institution that is enforcing safe-school policies. It should mobilize children committees, civil society organizations, local elites, PABSON, engineering associations, district disaster relief committees, and district development committees in its mission to provide good-quality education in safe schools to all children.
k. Political will and governmental commitments
 To translate the safe-school approach into action, the government should prepare a well-articulated plan of action and back it up with strong commitment by all political parties and budget allocations. To foster political will, periodic review and reflection by the government, UN agencies, INGOs, the private sector and civil society organization is necessary.
 Local governments should mobilize themselves to internalize and allocate resources for school safety action plans. They should seek partnerships with private institutions and corporations to get additional support for safe school plans and programs as part of social corporate responsibility.

Plan Nepal
Reference
Altheide, D. (2002). “Children and the Discourse of Fear.” Symbolic Interaction 25(2):229-250. doi: 10.1525/si.2002.25.2.229
Bahadur, Chandrika et al (2005), Preparing National Strategies to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, A Hand Book, Millennium Project, United Nations. Bangalore 2006
Basic and Primary Education Program, (1999). Program Implementation Plan (Main Report). Kathmandu: His Majesty’s Government.
Basic and Primary Education Project, (1992). Master Plan I (1992–97). Ministry of Education. His Majesty’s Government
Bhatta Pramod, (2000). Community Mobilization in Primary Education. Studies in Nepali History and Society 5(2): 201-216. Mandala Book Point
Butcher K. T., Manning M. L. (2005). Creating safe schools. Retrieved from http://www.joannmaher.com/my_documents/courses_hs_english_012/unit_2/sidcra/resources/creatingsafeschools.pdf
Building Regulations, (2009). His Majesty’s Government
Building Act, (1998). His Majesty’s Government
CDC/MOE (2005). National Curriculum Framework for School Education (Pre-primary-12) in Nepal. Sanothimi: Curriculum Development Center
CWIN, (2004). A report on the content analysis of curriculum and textbooks (Grades 1-12) from Rights- based and Child-Centered Perspectives. Kathmandu: Child Workers in Nepal (CWIN).
Department of Education, ActionAid and Mercy Corps. (2012). Guideline to Safe-School Construction for the Tarai Region of Nepal.
Education Regulation, (2002). Ministry of Education. His Majesty’s Government
Education Act, (2001). Education Act. Kathmandu: Ministry of Education.
Education Act, (1971). Ministry of Education. His Majesty’s Government.
EMI Document, (2008). School Safety: Moving Beyond the Rhetoric, International Conference on School Safety, Islamabad, Pakistan, 14-16 may 2008
Flash Reports I, (2008-09), (2009-010) & (2010-011). Department of Education. Government of Nepal.
Gautam, Dhruba. (2012). Real Time Evaluation of Early Recovery and Disaster Risk Reduction Project
Ilam and Taplejung Districts of Nepal. Save the Children.
Gautam, Dhruba. (2010). Contribution of DIPECHO Project’s to the HFA. ActionAid Nepal.

Plan Nepal
Gautam, Dhruba. (2010). Child-led Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation: A toolkit developed by Save the Children Nepal for Field Practitioners. Save the Children.
Gautam, Dhruba. (2010). Good Practice and Lesson Learned. Disaster Risk Reduction through School. ActionAid Nepal and DfID.
Gautam, Dhruba. (2010). Final Evalaution of Disaster Risk Reduction through School. ActionAid Nepal and DfID.
Gautam, Dhruba. (2009). Nepal’s Emergency Preakness and Response System. Good Practices, Lesson Learnt and Gaps. Association of INGOs in Nepal.
Gautam, Dhruba. (2009). Good Practice and Lesson Learned. Disaster Risk Reduction through School. ActionAid Nepal and DfID.
Government of Nepal, (1999). Local Self Governance Act. Kathmandu: Ministry of Local Development.
Government of Nepal, (2000). Local Self Governance Regulations. Kathmandu: Ministry of Local Development.
Government of Nepal, (2003). Education for All Programme (2004-2009): Core Document. Kathmandu: Ministry of Education.
Government of Nepal, (2008). School Sector Reform Programme: Core Document. Kathmandu: Ministry of Education.
Government of Nepal, (2007). Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007. Kathmandu: GON.
Government of Nepal, (2006). Non-formal Education Policy. Sanothimi: Non-formal Education Centre.
Gupta Manu & Sharma Anshu, (2006), Disaster Reduction in Schools, in Real Risk, Tudor Rose, UK.
Hernandez D., Floden L., Bosworth K. (2010). How safe is a school? An exploratory study comparing measures and perceptions of safety. Journal of School Violence, 9, 357-374.
Hull B. (2010). Changing realities in school safety and preparedness. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 5, 440-451.
Inter Agency Network for Education in Emergencies, (2008). INEE Minimum Standards Tool Kit.
ISDR (Ed.), (2006): Let our children teach us! A Review of the Role of Education and Knowledge in Disaster Risk Reduction.
ISDR and UNESCO (Ed.), (2007): Towards a Culture of Prevention: Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School. Good Practices and Lessons Learned. Geneva
MOES, (2003). Education for all: Nepal plan of action Nepal (2001-2015), HMG/N, MOES, Nepal National Commission of UNESCO, Kathmandu: Author
National Curriculum Framework for School Education in Nepal, (2007). Government of Nepal. Ministry of Education and Sports Curriculum Development Centre Sanothimi, Bhaktapur

Plan Nepal
NDF, (2004). Linking Millennium Development Goals and the PRSP, paper presented at pre consultation meeting of Nepal Development Forum, National Planning Commission, Kathmandu, Nepal
NEC, (1992). National education commissions report 1992 (in Nepali). Nepal: National Education Commission
Nepal Planning Commission, (1998). Ninth Five-Year Plan. Kathmandu: National Planning Commission.
Natural Calamity Relief Act, (1982). His Majesty’s Government
National Framework for Child-Friendly Schools, (2010). Government of Nepal
NESP, (1971). National Education System Plan (1971-1976). Nepal: Ministry of Education /His Majesty’s Government
Non-formal Education Policy, (2007). Government of Nepal Ministry of Education and Sports
NPC, (2010). Three-Year Interim Plan. National Planning Commission.
NPC, (2007). Three Year Interim Plan (2007-2009). Kathmandu: Nepal, National Planning Commission, Kathmandu.
NPC, (2005). Millennium Development Goals Progress Report, National Planning Commission, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal
NPC, (2003). Tenth Plan/ PRSP, National Planning Commission, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal
NPC, (1997). Ninth Plan. National Planning Commission, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal
NPC, (1992). Eighth Plan. National Planning Commission, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal
National Curriculum Framework for School Education, (2007). Government of Nepal
Onta-Bhatta, L. and Ghimire-Niraula, P. (2005). Analysis of Curriculum of Grades 1-12 from Gender Perspective. Conducted for Curriculum Development Centre, Sanothimi.
Pandey, M. R., Chitrakar, G. R., Kafle, B., Sapkota, S. N., Rajaure, S. & Gautam, U. P. (2002), Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal, National Seismological Centre, Department of Mines and Geology, His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Kathmandu
Save the Children & UNICEF (2003). The Impact of Participation in ECD Programmes on School Enrolment, Achievement and Retention, an ECD Impact Study. Kathmandu: Save the Children and UNICEF.
School Sector Reform Plan, (2009-2015). Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education Kesharmahal, Kathmandu, August 2009
Sharma Anshu & Gupta Manu, (2007). Building Community Resilience through Education, Regional Development Dialogue, Vol. 28, No. 2. United Nations Centre for Regional Development.
Sharma, G. N. 1980. School curriculum in Nepal. Kathmandu: Hem Kumari Sharma
School Sector Reform Plan, (2009-15). Department of Education/Ministry of Education. Government of Nepal.

Plan Nepal
UN, ISDR & UNESCO, (2007). Towards a Culture of Prevention: Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School, Good Practices and Lesson Learned
UNESCO (2000). Education for All: Framework of Action, Dakar, Senegal. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO, (2010). EFA–striving for equity and quality. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2010 at http://www.unesco.org/en/migrated/beijing/education/
UNICEF, (2006). Situation of children and women in Nepal 2006. Kathmandu: UNICEF.
United Nations, (1990). Convention on the Rights of the Children. New York: United Nations.
United Nations, (2000). Millennium Development Goals. New York: United Nations.
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, (2007). Towards a Culture of Prevention: Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School, Good Practices and Lessons Learned, ISDR.

Plan Nepal
Annex-1: Safe school initiatives in Nepal (1988-2013)
Year Major initiatives
Post 1988 earthquake
Since most public schools were in very poor physical condition, it took about three months to reopen schools because of the massive structural damage incurred.
1988-1995
JICA developed earthquake-resistant technologies for schools.
1994
The GoN formulated a building code for the construction of safe buildings.
1997-1999
The Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project undertaken jointly by NSET and GeoHazards International ran the community-based School Earthquake Safety Programme.
1997
School based disaster preparedness was taken as a part of CBDP in Nepal but, the school safety and disaster risks in education was not observed.
1999
The GoN approved the Building Act.
1999-2000
Many INGOs undertook structural and non-structural vulnerability assessment programmes to update the seismic vulnerability of schools, hospitals, and other key buildings.
1999
The Department of Urban Development and Building Construction, with assistance from the UNDP Earthquake Risk Reduction and Recovery Project and NSET educated the public education about the earthquake risks associated with buildings and organised training for municipality authorities
1999
The School Earthquake Safety Programme retrofitted a few school buildings to make them more resistant to earthquakes.
2003
The GoN approved the National Building Code.
2003
Disaster impact assessments of development projects made mandatory in the Tenth National Plan (2002-2007).
2003-till now
Many INGOs supported safe-school initiatives under DIPECHO with financial assistance from ECHO.
2007-2009
ActionAid Nepal designed and implemented the DRR through Schools Programme. It's safe-school component was central.
2007
The first amendment to the Building Act of 2007 came into force in 58 municipalities, 28 districts and 81 VDCs.
2009
An international consortium to support the GoN of Nepal in developing a long-term DRR action plan for implementing important strategic actions suggested in the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management was formed. NRRC identified five flagship and school safety programme is under flagship one.
2009
The School Sector Reform Plan (2009-2015) will continue on-going programmes such as EFA, Secondary Education Support Programme, Community School Support Programme, and Teacher Education Project in order to foster safer-school initiatives in Nepal.
2012
Mercy corps, Plan Nepal and Save the Children took some of the initiatives to work on school safety programme
2013
Plan Nepal initiated Safe School Project in Makwanpur District.
Annex-2: Major disaster incidence (1992-2012) Year Country Major disaster incidence
2012
Haiti
Earthquake in Haiti left hundreds of teachers and thousands of students dead when
more than 3,000 school buildings in the earthquake
2009
Branigan
Buildings around them stood firm
2008
Myanmar
2,250 schools completely collapsed in Cyclone Nargis. Another 750 were severely damaged
2008
Sichuan,
China
The 2008 earthquake in Sichuan, China, killed around 5,335 children because
school classrooms collapsed
2007
Bangladesh
Cyclone destroyed 496 school buildings and damaged 2,110 more
2006
Philippines
Super Typhoon Durian caused $20m USD damage to schools including 90-100% of
school buildings in three cities and 50-60% of school buildings in two other cities

Plan Nepal
2006
Leyte Island,
Philippines
245 children and their teachers died in a mudslide that buried the village elementary
school after 5 days of rain had ceased
2006
Uganda
13 children died in a school dormitory fire where children were using candles for
Lighting
2005
Northern Pakistan,
Kashmir
17,000 students died at school, and 50,000 were seriously injured, many disabled.
10,000 school buildings destroyed. 300,000 children affected. In some districts 80%
of schools were destroyed
2005
Gulf States, USA
56 schools were destroyed and 1,162 were damaged. 700 schools were closed and
372,000 children displaced. 73,000 college students displaced. $2.8billion was spent to educate displaced students for a year.
2004
Indian Ocean
A tsunami destroyed 750 schools in Indonesia and damaged 2,135 more. 150,000
students without schools. 51 schools were destroyed in Sri Lanka, 44 in Maldives, and
30 in Thailand.
2004
Cambodia
Severe floods directly affected between 500,000 and 1m.students in 1,000 – 2,000
schools in 8 provinces.
2004
Bangladesh
1,259 school buildings were lost to floods and 24,236 were damaged.
2004
Tamil Nadu, India
93 children died in a fire due to explosion of a cooking gas cylinder
2003
Bam, Iran
67 of 131 schools collapsed, the remaining were heavily damaged. (10,000 school
children and 1,200 teachers died and more than 32,000 students were adversely
affected)
2003
Bingol, Turkey
84 children and teachers die in collapsed school building in a moderate earthquake. 4 schools collapsed. 90% of schools were impacted and education disrupted
2003
Xinjiang, China
900 classrooms in dozens of schools collapsed in earthquake 27 minutes before
thousands of children returned to their classrooms. Middle school collapsed killing at
least 20 students
2003
Dominican Republic
18,000 students lost their classrooms
2003
Boumerdes, Algeria
103 schools destroyed, 753 severely damaged. Cost of rehabilitation $79 million
2002
AbGarm
16,500 students education disrupted when 8 schools collapsed and 137 were damaged
2002
Molise, Italy
26 children and 1 teacher died in a school earthquake collapse
2001
Cariaco, Venezuela
2 schools collapsed in an earthquake. 46 students died
2001
El Salvador
85 schools were damaged beyond repair. Replacement and repair cost $114m. 22
preschoolers and their teacher were killed in an aftershock a month later
2001
Arequipa, Peru
98 school buildings seriously damaged by earthquake
2001
Taiwan
A three-story school collapsed in the middle of the night.
2001
Bhuj, India
971 students and 31 teachers were killed by this earthquake, though most children
were outside for Republic Day celebrations. 1,884 schools collapsed, destroying
5,950 classrooms including 78% of public secondary schools. 11,761 school buildings
suffered major damaged with 36,584 classrooms unusable
1999
Pereira, Colombia
74% of schools in 2 cities were damaged (22 in one city alone were destroyed).
Children were outside for lunch
1999
Chi Chi, Taiwan
51 schools collapsed and 786 were damaged. Cost of school reconstruction and repair
was $1.3 billion
1999
Kocaeli, Turkey
43 schools were damaged beyond repair and hundreds more damaged. School was
suspended for hundreds of thousands of children for 4 months
1998
Bangladesh
Flooding destroyed 1,718 school buildings and 12,000 were damaged
1998
Eastern Nepal
1,200 schools destroyed or heavily damaged
1997
Ardakul, Iran
Primary school collapse killed 110 students (earthquake)
1997
Cariaco, Venezuela
2 schools collapsed in earthquake, killing 46 students
1993
Maharashtra,
48% of the 8,311 killed were under the age of 14. Many schools were destroyed by

Plan Nepal
India
Earthquake
1992
Erzincan, Turkey
A 6 story medical school collapsed in moderate earthquake, burying 62 students
1989
El Asnam, Algeria
70-85 schools collapsed or severely damaged in earthquake
1988
Udayapur, Nepal
6,000 schools destroyed in earthquake
1988
Yunan, China
1,300 schools destroyed in earthquake
1988
Spitak, Armenia
2/3 of the 25,000 earthquake deaths were school children killed in their schools.
400 children died in 1 school alone. 32,000 children were evacuated
1985
Mexico City, Mexico
Several schools collapsed in the early morning before school started
1964
Anchorage, Alaska
Half of the city’s schools were severely damaged by an earthquake during school hours, however the school was unoccupied due to the Good Friday holiday
1963
Skopje, Macedonia
44 schools (57% of urban stock) were damaged by earthquake, affecting 50,000
Children
1958
Chicago, USA
92 students and 3 adults died in a fire at Our Lady of the Angels School
1952
Sapporo, Japan
400 schools collapsed in the earthquake

Plan Nepal
Annex-3: Efforts of different agencies in safe school initiatives
Over the years, different agencies have been assisting the Government of Nepal for safe school initiatives through technical and financial supports. These agencies are broadly categorized into three: (i) Bilateral organizations, (ii) UN agencies, and (iii) I/NGOs. Some of the key contributions made by these agencies in safe school initiative are briefly discussed below.
1. Bilateral Organization: DANIDA, European Union, FINIDA, NORAD, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank
2000 onwards: The Government of Nepal has been improving safety of public schools from natural hazards by incorporating mitigation measures into its school programs, promoting research and development and implementing environment-friendly school building programs. DRR curriculum is being mainstreamed in formal and informal education. The Department of Education (DoE), through District Education Offices, has been improving school buildings based on the DoE guidelines. Single/multi storey buildings with CGI sheet roofing have been constructed, and masons and engineers trained to ensure safety standards.
2010–2016: Under the Asian Development Fund, the program provided critical inputs like school buildings and textbooks to make an education system functional. The program is a follow-on to the ongoing Education Sector Program, subprogram III, which supports the Government of Nepal's 7-year (FY2010– FY2016) School Sector Reform Program (SSRP). The SSRP is supported by ADB and eight other development partners - Australia, Denmark, European Union, Finland, Norway, UNICEF, United Kingdom and World Bank - using the sector-wide approach.
2011 to 2014: Under the financial support from ADB and AusAid, DoE is retrofitting 260 public school buildings in the Kathmandu Valley and providing trainings in school safety best practices to around 4,000 teachers and 50,000 students throughout the nation. This initiative also includes safety assessments, training of masons and engineers in safe school construction, and awareness-raising among local communities. Disaster education is also an important element of the program. With AusAid’s support, in the Nepal School Sector Reform Program, 39,729 children have been provided with textbooks; 40,576 children enrolled in basic education, 10,000 enrolled in secondary education; and 40 classrooms have been built or upgraded.
2008-2010: National Society for Earthquake Technologies (NSET) has been implementing a project ‘Developing a Strategy for Improving Seismic Safety of Schools in Nepal’ which covers school vulnerability assessment, implementation of seismic strengthening measures in a few schools together with training and awareness raising activities in two districts of Nepal. All these actions are geared towards assisting the development of a national strategy for improving seismic safety of schools in Nepal. NSET has also developed a Strategy for improving Seismic Safety of Schools in Nepal. As part of this, 38 schools improved their infrastructure and contributed for the capacity building activities. Six schools were physically improved under (SESP/GFDRR World Bank) between 2008 and 2010. Non structural mitigation, training and awareness were imparted in three schools under community based DRM in 2010.
2011-2014: Under the funding support from GFDRR/The World Bank, American Red-cross, Lutheran World Relief, Give to Asia, Global Fund for Children and partnership with Room to Read, Help Nepal, DoE, through its District Education Offices, has been implementing school vulnerability assessment, retrofit/reconstruction of school buildings, training to students, teachers and local masons, preparation of disaster preparedness of schools, and earthquake awareness including shake table demonstration. These initiatives were instrumental in providing technical assistance for making communities safer from earthquake.

Plan Nepal
2005-2008 and 2011-2014: Under the funding support from USAID/OFDA, Nepal Earthquake Risk Management Program II (NERMP 2) improved earthquake safety of Nepal through earthquake vulnerability reduction and preparedness initiatives. The program ameliorated seismic safety of public and private schools, critical facilities, residences and public infrastructures and institutionalized earthquake risk management practices. NERMP is a logical continuation of the long term efforts of NSET in reducing earthquake risk in Kathmandu Valley and Nepal, which OFDA/USAID has been supporting since 1997.
2000-2005: Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Action Plan Implementation Project promoted seismic safety of public schools, residences and public infrastructures and institutionalized earthquake risk management. The project implemented School Earthquake Safety Program (SESP), enhanced structural and non-structural safety of public institutions, provided technical assistance to the municipalities for implementing seismic building code, and conducted training programs for masons, technicians, engineers, business community.
From January 2003-October 2003, Municipal Earthquake Risk Management Project was also implemented in four municipalities of Nepal viz. Banepa, Vyas, Dharan and Pokhara.
2011-2014: Under the funding support from USAID/OFDA, Promoting Public Private Partnership on Earthquake Risk Management program envisions on tapping the vast potentials of private sector for earthquake risk reduction in Kathmandu Valley and Nepal. Capacity development of the stakeholders is also a focus of this program.
2. UN agencies
UNDP/ ERRRP
2009-2010: In partnership with the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Local Development, Department of Urban Development and Building Construction has implemented Earthquake Risk Reduction & Recovery Program for Nepal Project in Kathmandu, Surkhet and Kailali Districts taking one school from each district. The project also included seismic performance improvement of three schools through vulnerable assessment and retrofitting of various public buildings in 5 municipalities viz. Biratnagar, Hetauda, Pokhara, Surkhet and Dhangadhi. Safe schools are critical, not only for children who rely on these structures to learn and develop, but also for society as schools are the doorway to development and social cohesion. Considering this, students and teachers were trained for safe behavior during earthquake. It was learnt that retrofitting works are very challenging and time consuming.
Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC)
2009 onwards: Building on the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management, the NRRC was formed to support the Government of Nepal in developing a long-term action plan for DRR. Based on government priorities and discussions with multi-stakeholder groups, the consortium members and the government identified five flagship areas for immediate action, the first of which is school and hospital safety. First flagship area, lead by ADB, focuses on both structural and non-structural mechanisms for making schools and hospitals earthquake-resilient and is the most relevant initiative for making schools safer.
UNESCO
2011-2013: DRR in the Education Sector in Nepal project builds the capacity of the education sector stakeholders through coordination, supplements existing DRR programs and provides policy advice for GoN. This project has been implementing in close coordination with the Ministry of Education and relevant directories, the Ministry of Home Affairs, OCHA, UN agencies, ADB, and I/NGOs. UNESCO advocates the use and application of the “INEE Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery“, 2010.
For mainstreaming DRR education into Nepal’s school curricula, the UNESCO Office in Kathmandu jointly with the Nepal National Commission for UNESCO and the Curriculum Development Centre of the Ministry

Plan Nepal
of Education based on UNESCO prepared guidelines entitled “Towards the Learning culture of safety and resilience: A Technical Guidance for Integrating DRR in the School Curriculum”.
UNDP
2011: UNDP supported Curriculum Development Centre/DoE for Integration of DRR in School Curriculum for grade 6 to 8. As a scope of the project, school curriculum was drafted, and teachers guide book and student’s resource book were prepared. It has contributed for the integration of DRR in the school curriculum from grade 6 to 8.
2010-2011: In partnership with DUDBC, NSET, and ActionAid Nepal, UNDP provided support for the structural intervention in 7 Schools (Bhaktapur, Banke and Sunsari districts) and earthquake drills in 11 Schools in the same districts. Part of the larger DRK project focusing on policy, capacity development at the central and community, it also contributed for the structural mitigation components. Though learning, retrofitting is very costly and requires a longer time-frame, it can be reduced by proper design and implementation. UNDP is supporting DUDBC and Ministry of Local Development for the implementation of National Building Code, and for training engineers and masons.
UNICEF
2002 onwards: UNICEF through its various interventions improved the learning environment of children and teachers and enhanced their capacity for disaster preparedness by providing both structural and non- structural intervention for government schools. These initiatives have been described as a good practice because they pursued not only the objective of making school buildings safer but also the objective of mainstreaming DRR into school curricula.
The child-friendly school effort started in Nepal in 2002 at 45 government-run schools in two districts, Kavre and Sunsari. The initiative has now reached some 1,000 schools across 15 districts of the country. In close partnership with the DoE, UNICEF provides training on child-friendly teaching and learning to the teachers in the pilot schools. UNICEF has been providing the materials necessary to facilitate child-friendly teaching and learning methods. With the implementation of this initiative, the schools have completely changed their classroom set-up to be more child-friendly. Desks and benches have been replaced with carpets and mats. And the blackboards have been lowered to the children's level, making them more accessible.
World Food Program
2009-2010: In the partnership with Save the children, the mountain Institute, GTZ PASRA, DEPROSC, SAPROS, Mercy Corps, ADRA, GTZ RERE, World Education, Concern Nepal and GTZ ILRA, Protracted Relief and Recovery Operations– Food Assistance for Vulnerable Populations Affected By Conflict and High Food Prices Project was launched in food insecure districts. Part of the funding was used for the construction of 974 units of school under the food/cash for work scheme.
3. International/National Non-Government organizations
ActionAid Nepal
2006-2010: Under the funding support from DFID/ECHO, and as a part of multi country project, ActionAid Nepal implemented Disaster Risk Reduction through School in Rasuwa, Makwanpur, Kathmandu, Udayapur, Sunsari and Banke Districts taking 12 schools. The project contributed school building structural and non- structural retrofitting, new building construction, training and capacity building on school safety and disaster preparedness and safety drills. In close coordination with MOHA/Disaster Management and MOE/Curriculum Development Centre, curriculum mapping and text revision development of local curriculum was made. Project’s key learning related to climate change adaptation were fed into NAPA/COP. Policy and advocacy for DRR mainstreaming in education as part of contributing to the third priority of HFA was one of the endeavors of the project in the partnership with DPNet, Education Network Nepal, CePREC Nepal and NSET.

Plan Nepal
2006-2010: Under the DIPECHO projects, ActionAid Nepal emphasized on retrofitting which is the process of adding extra features to improve the resistance of the unsafe structures. It also involved in activities including awareness raising and developing non-structural mitigation plans besides school building retrofitting.
2010-2012: In collaboration with DoE, MS Nepal, ActionAid Nepal promoted green school model as they are cost effective, climate responsive, ecologically sustainable and earthquake safe considering the extreme weather patterns of hills and Terai.
Green schools are relatively more comfortable in all seasons. The roof is well insulated with low cost locally available insulation materials like rice husk ash. For better shading in summer, the building has a green roof with green grass and creeper plants covering the whole roof and shading it from direct sunlight. It is a thermal asset in the Terai as the temperature a few meters below ground remains constant and comfortable at 25° C in all seasons. When it is 42° C in summer this is a cooling source yet can be a heat source for the winter. Hence to benefit from this treasure, the building has loose earth skirt piled up around it in order to better connect it to the underground. This helps the building to keep cool in summer and warm in winter.
Handicap International
2008 onwards: Handicap International has been promoting disable-friendly schools by introducing modifications into existing school system and also in new building constructions. Assessment of schools in terms of “accessibility” for most vulnerable group of people like persons with disabilities is the key component of the project. These initiatives are under the partnership with NSET, DIPECHO and partners working in disability issues.
Lutheran World Federation
2006-2007: DanChurchAid and LWF Nepal implemented Community Preparedness for Disaster Risk Reduction in Central and Eastern Nepal, a DIPECHO Project, under the funding support from ECHO. This project covered 52 vulnerable communities of Jhapa and Rautahat districts and Kathmandu valley. Under the scope of work, this project trained 150 school teachers from 70 schools in School Earthquake Preparedness from 6 batches, and trained 734 masons/technicians and self-builders in earthquake safety construction.
Mercy Corps
2010 - 2013: Supporting the Role of Schools in Disaster Risk Reduction Project is being implemented as a part of Reach-Out to Asia (ROTA) in the financial assistance from Qatar Foundation. The theme of the project is DRR and youth engagement in Kailali District of Nepal. The project has contributed school level DRR components in 150 schools. The project has enhanced knowledge, capacity and awareness of DRR education for children, parents and teachers; designed and promoted "safe school" standards by training and mobilizing parents, students, and teachers to champion school-based DRR; and advocated for the integration of "safe school" standards and DRR curriculum into district-level education policies. Safe School Construction Guideline for Terai Region of Nepal was developed under the technical support from National Disaster Risk Reduction (NDRC), ActionAid Nepal and Department of Education in 2012 which provided a simple and practical way of reducing school buildings’ vulnerability from multiple hazards.
2007 onwards: Mercy Corps, in cooperation with the Kailali and Kanchanpur District Chapter of the Nepal Red Cross Society, implemented Disaster Risk Reduction Initiatives Terai region of Far-west Nepal. The project was financially supported by the European Commission through its Humanitarian Aid department. The project successfully reduced disaster risks in schools and communities through increased awareness and capacity of vulnerable communities/schools to prepare for and respond to frequent natural disasters.

Plan Nepal
National Disaster Risk Reduction Centre Nepal (NDRC)
2010-11: Under the financial support from Canadian Cooperation Office, NDRC implemented Building Resilience to Disaster and Climate Change Impact on Women and Children Project in Banganga River Basin of Kapilvastu District. One of the themes of the project was school safety program. The project worked for reducing natural hazard vulnerability and created a mechanism to support the retrofitting of school buildings. Community and school based climate change adaptation programme was also implemented by establishing a school-based meteorological station. A model school retrofitting work was carried out in Niglihawa VDC of Kapilvastu District.
National Society for Earthquake Technology- Nepal (NSET)
1999 onwards: School Earthquake Safety Program (SESP) reduced earthquake risk in school buildings by training local masons and students with the means of seismic retrofitting. It demonstrated technical, economical, political and socio-cultural feasibilities of enhancing earthquake performance of about 300 public schools in Nepal located within and outside the Kathmandu Valley. This project set the three sub- components, namely, (i) Training of masons, (ii) Training of teachers, parents and students on earthquake preparedness and preparedness planning, and (iii) seismic retrofit or earthquake-resistant reconstruction of public school buildings. Emergency Response Plan of the schools was developed which supplemented training of teachers, parents, and the community and drills based on the emergency response plan. Within the scope of the project, it has developed “Hand-Book for Seismic Resistant Construction and Retrofitting of School Buildings in Nepal Training Manual for School Based Earthquake Preparedness Program”.
NSET identified and implemented measures to reduce the vulnerability through retrofitting of existing buildings or construction of new buildings; raised awareness of earthquake risks and preparedness of teachers students, local and government officials and the local communities; and trained local masons on earthquake-resistant building construction technology. In this initiatives, the role of OFDA/USAID; UNICEF Give 2 Asia Global Fund for Children; GeoHazards International, USA Maiko High School, Kobe, Japan Support for International Disaster Education, SIDE Kobe; SNV Nepal; Room to Read; Help Nepal; World Bank; Action Aid Nepal; DoE; Save the Children Alliance; World Vision; Lutheran World Federation; Municipalities; different Chapters of Rotary Club and Business Enterprises and Communities of Nepal was crucial.
Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS)
2004-2012: It has implemented School based Disaster Risk Reduction Preparedness Projects in 13 Districts and served to construct more than 120 schools under the funding support from EU, Finish Red Cross, IFRC, and LARC. Capacity building, training, awareness raising, preparedness, small scale mitigation work, support for drinking water facilities, school building reconstruction were the key features of the project.
Oxfam GB Nepal
2006 onwards: Under the River Basin Programme, Oxfam implemented the physical infrastructure improvement (building disaster resistant school buildings) project in 3 schools of Nawalparasi and Kapilvastu districts. The key component of the project was technical support and community mobilization under the partnership with Centre for Disaster Management (Rupandehi) and Indreni Rural Development Centre (Kapilvastu). A major learning from the programme was that awareness of disaster preparedness and response and construction should be done hand in hand.
Save the children
2009-2011: Save the Children provided technical support to District Education Offices through DoE for implementation of School Infrastructure Improvement Programme under EFA/SSR in 21 districts from 2009 to 2010, and 11 districts from 2010 to 2011), covering 844 schools in Doti, Achham, Bajura, Bardia, Mugu, Kalikot, Rukum, Rolpa, Baglung, Sindhupalchowk and Udayapur Districts. The project ensured the quality of the construction work as per design and drawing provided by DoE, incorporation of earthquake resistant elements in the design and estimates. It was learnt that budget allocated by DoE is not enough

Plan Nepal
and hard to get community contribution. Equally, it is difficult to convince community about incorporation of earthquake resistant buildings as people prefer new schools instead of retrofitting works.
2006-2011: The project, in close coordination with NSET Nepal, organized a pilot program on earthquake safety in two schools (in Kathmandu and Lalitpur). School safety related IEC materials were developed in collaboration with NRCS and NSET. Technical support was provided to DoE for implementation of School Infrastructure Improvement Project/EFA. From October 2006 to June 2007, SC Norway provided technical support in 12 districts, and from July 2007 to Dec 2009, supports were provided to additional 23 districts. Since Jan 2010, 21 schools were assisted to make earthquake resistance buildings (different options) and trainings were organized for masons. These initiatives ensured the reinforcement of structural resistance of schools. It was learnt that greater resources are needed to reduce the structural vulnerability of government schools.
2011-2013: Early recovery and DRR project is being run in Ilam and Taplejung Districts, funded by UK Aid through UNDP Nepal. The goal of the project is to build a child-friendly environment in earthquake- affected schools. Its expected outcomes are to re-establish regular education services in community schools and build community capacity to reduce risks from hazards through community- and child- centered early recovery and DRR initiatives. The project has constructed 99 earthquake resilient schools in 24 VDCs of the project districts.

Plan Nepal
Annex-4: Structure of Safe School Toolkit (this is only draft)
Preliminary pages
Chapter 1: Prelude
1.1 Safe school
1.2 Gaps in safe school approach
Chapter 2: Rationale and purpose of Toolkits
2.1 Rational of this Toolkit
2.2 Basic guideline for the Toolkit Users
2.3 Purpose of Toolkit
2.4 Target groups of Toolkit
Chapter 3: Key components of Toolkit
3.1 Structural component
(Each step describes the processes, key issues or potential challenges, and suggests tips)
Key features
 Structural assessment
 School retrofitting
 New school construction (from multi-hazards perspectives)
 Safe structure in and around the school vicinity (from multi-hazards)
 SMART indicators for the purpose of self-monitoring
3.2 Non-structural component (raising awareness and institutional strengthening)
Key features
 Hazard, vulnerability and capacity analysis
 DRR curriculum
 Co-curricular activities
 Capacity building (to change awareness, attitude and behaviors)
 Knowledge management
 Non-structural components: safe location, school facilities, class design and setting, etc)
3.3 Policy and governance
Key features
 Sharing of policy provisions
 Mainstreaming DRR into education
 Advocacy to incorporate safe school in existing policies
 Fostering political will and government commitment
Annexes (forms, template, guidelines)

Safe school policies and practices in Nepal

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Safe school policies and practices in Nepal

More from DPNet

Recently uploaded

Safe school policies and practices in Nepal