DIVISIONS OF RISK AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT

RISK AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT

Education Sector - Contingency Plan for

Disaster Preparedness
(Draft)

May 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1

2. Vision 1

3. Mission 1

4. Overall Objectives 1

5. Scope and Assumptions 2

6. Operational Procedures 2

7. Contingency Plan – Logical Framework Matrix 4

8. Maintaining the Contingency Plan 11

i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DoE - Department of Education

DRDM - Divisions of Risk and Disaster Management

DRR - Disaster Risk Reduction

EDP Plan- Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Plan

RDM - Risk and Disaster Management

ii
GLOSSARY

The definitions below are provided by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Terminology which “aims to promote common understanding and common usage of disaster risk
reduction concepts and to assist the disaster risk reduction efforts of authorities, practitioners and the
public.” (UNISDR, 2009: 1-12).

Capacity: The combination of all the strengths, attributes and resources available within a community,
society or organization that can be used to achieve agreed goals.

Capacity development: The process by which people, organizations and society systematically stimulate
and develop their capacities over time to achieve social and economic goals, including through
improvement of knowledge, skills, systems, and institutions.

Contingency planning: A management process that analyses specific potential events or emerging
situations that might threaten society or the environment and establishes arrangements in advance to
enable timely, effective and appropriate responses to such events and situations.

Disaster: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread

human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the
affected community or society to cope using its own resources.

Disaster risk: The potential disaster losses, in lives, health status, livelihoods, assets and services, which
could occur to a particular community or a society over some specified future time period.

Disaster risk management: The systematic process of using administrative directives, organizations, and
operational skills and capacities to implement strategies, policies and improved coping capacities in
order to lessen the adverse impacts of hazards and the possibility of disaster.

Disaster risk reduction: The concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to
analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards,
lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and
improved preparedness for adverse events.

Emergency management: The organization and management of resources and responsibilities for
addressing all aspects of emergencies, in particular preparedness, response and initial recovery steps.

Emergency services: The set of specialized agencies that have specific responsibilities and objectives in
serving and protecting people and property in emergency situations.

Hazard: A dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life,
injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic
disruption, or environmental damage.

iii
Mitigation: The lessening or limitation of the adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters.

Natural hazards: Natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health
impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or
environmental damage.

Preparedness: The knowledge and capacities developed by governments, professional response and
recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to, and recover
from, the impacts of likely, imminent or current hazard events or conditions.

Prevention: The outright avoidance of adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters.

Recovery: The restoration, and improvement where appropriate, of facilities, livelihoods and living
conditions of disaster-affected communities, including efforts to reduce disaster risk factors.

Resilience: The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb,
accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including
through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions.

Response: The provision of emergency services and public assistance during or immediately after a
disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the basic
subsistence needs of the people affected.

Retrofitting: Reinforcement or upgrading of existing structures to become more resistant and resilient
to the damaging effects of hazards.

Risk: The combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences.

Risk assessment: A methodology to determine the nature and extent of risk by analysing potential
hazards and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability that together could potentially harm exposed
people, property, services, livelihoods and the environment on which they depend.

Risk management: The systematic approach and practice of managing uncertainty to minimize potential
harm and loss.

Vulnerability: The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it
susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard.

iv
 Education Sector
Contingency Plan for Disaster Preparedness

Towards safer schools

The rights of all children to education must go hand in hand with
their right to safety. This Contingency Plan aims to help safeguard
both these rights. It starts from the premise that all disasters can
be mitigated with knowledge and good planning, taking physical
and environmental protection measures and developing response
preparedness at all levels in the education system.

1
1. Introduction

The Seychelles Disaster Management Policy (2010) seeks to mainstream disaster risk reduction at
systemic, institutional and individual levels. Building ‘disaster-resilient communities’ is considered one of
the most important strategies for achieving this. The policy notes that building resilience to disasters at
community, district and national levels is becoming ‘an increasingly important component of the
national pursuit of sustainable development’ (2010:1). Being an isolated small island archipelago adds
to the urgency of taking decisive measures to ‘use knowledge, innovation and education to build a
culture of safety and resilience at all levels’ (the Hyogo Framework Priority for Action (3), 2005-2015).

This Contingency Plan for the Education Sector places emphasis on building resilience at both systemic
and institutional levels by promoting preparedness measures that build on disaster risk reduction
education and it engages all partners in the sector. It aims to empower all persons involved to take
responsibility for risk reduction and preparedness in their daily lives.

The situation analysis carried out in early 2011 indicated flooding (including tsunamis), fire, road safety,
landslides and wind storms as the most likely disaster events that education institutions may face.
however, the actions proposed are, in the main, generic as the same measures may apply in different
circumstances and institutions.

This document presents the Vision, Mission and Strategic Objectives of the Contingency Plan, its scope
and the assumptions on which it is based, its operational procedures and the specific objectives and
activities to be undertaken by the main parties involved. It also outlines a process for monitoring and
periodically reviewing the plan.

2. Vision

Safe school communities that build resilience to disasters in their short and medium term planning, as
well as in their daily practices.

3. Mission

The mission of this five-year Contingency Plan is for:

The Education Sector to develop and maintain a culture of safety and preparedness sector-wide and
thus build resilience to disasters at all levels.

4. Strategic objectives

This Contingency Plan aims to:

 Mainstream disaster risk reduction in the Education Sector to ensure the protection of people,
property and their immediate environment.
 Provide clear guidelines for establishing optimal levels of preparedness at systemic, institutional
and individual levels.

2
5. Scope and Assumptions

This Contingency Plan applies to all educational institutions registered with the DoE, whether they are
managed by the DoE or not. It also includes the University of Seychelles. It deals with issues of disaster
preparedness, risk reduction, response and recovery.

The Plan assumes that the DoE has the capacity to ensure the safety and security of all students and
school personnel under its responsibility, in accordance with existing statutory requirements (Education
Act, 2004, Town and Country Planning Act, 1972 and future versions thereof, and the DoE’s norms as
stated in its ‘Guidelines on Minimum Facility Standards for Education and Training Institutions, 2010). It
is also assumed that the plan will operate within existing national structures for disaster management.

6. Operational Procedures

A multi-level approach is necessary for the implementation of this Plan. The Education Department will
be guided in its policy and planning interventions by the National Disaster Committee and the disaster
management policies of DRDM. At institutional level each school and education institution will develop
its own disaster preparedness plans with the support of various partners, namely: the DoE-based focal
point for disaster management, DRDM, district level DRR mechanisms (such as the district action team
and the Emergency Brigades or ‘Brigad d’irzans’, etc..) where they exist, and the DoE’s planning and
maintenance unit, among others. The diagram overleaf illustrates the operational structure:

3
Education Sector – operational structure

National Disaster
Committee

Divisions of Risk and

Disaster Management

Department of Other Ministries, Departments, Agencies,

Education etc…

DoE Focal Point for Schools’ Safety

RDM Committees

Finance, Planning,
Maintenance,
Curriculum
development units

It is imperative that all partners involved in the implementation of this Contingency Plan are kept
informed of the required procedures in place and the evolution thereof. A programme of training for all
persons involved in the implementation of the Plan must also be put in place.

The Logical Framework matrix that follows outlines the goal, objectives and expected results of the Plan,
along with the main activities to be implemented. It also indicates the means by which the
implementation should be monitored.

4

Goal
Develop and maintain a culture
of safety and preparedness
sector-wide and so build
resilience to disasters at all
levels.
Objectives
1. Mainstream disaster risk
reduction in the Education
Sector to ensure the protection
of people and property.
2. Provide clear guidelines for
establishing optimal levels of
preparedness at systemic,
institutional and individual
levels.
7. Contingency Plan – Logical Framework Matrix
Indicators
DoE and all education
institutions regularly assess risks
and capacities and develop
plans for DRR and disaster
preparedness.
All plans are implemented,
including training and regular
emergency simulation exercises.
All plans are regularly reviewed,
based on evaluation of
simulation exercises and on-
going risk assessment.
Policy framework developed and
implemented.
Funding mobilized to ensure
effective implementation of policy
framework.
Focal Point for disaster
management appointed.
Emergency protocols developed,
including standard operating
procedures manuals and format for
EDP Plans.
Training organized for all
stakeholders in the
Means of Verification Responsible Agencies Timeline
Policy framework for DRR and DoE senior Over the next
disaster preparedness sector- management and three years –
wide. focal point for disaster 2012 to 2015
management
DoE and schools’ Assessment
Reports. All schools and other
education institutions
DoE and schools’ Plans for
DRR, standard operating
procedures manuals; calendar
for drills practice.
Past and new updated plans.
Policy framework. DoE senior management By the end of
and focal point for 2012
disaster management
Funding available in appropriate
budget lines at DoE and school
levels.
Focal Point and its terms of
reference
Contingency plan for Education DRDM, DoE senior By the end of
Sector, standard operating management and focal 2012
procedures (SOP) manuals and point for disaster
planning formats. management
Training program and number of
5

Results
a. Education Sector has a clear
process for mainstreaming DRR
and disaster preparedness.
b. There is heightened
awareness of the importance of
DRR and disaster preparedness.
c. Plans for DRR and disaster
preparedness are developed
and implemented.
d. Standard operating
procedures are in place; they are
understood by all stakeholders,
roles are clear and they are
practiced regularly.
implementation of plans and use of
manuals.
DoE and Schools’ Emergency and
Disaster Preparedness (EDP) Plans
developed.
Training in the implementation of
EDP Plans.
Plans are reviewed after practice.
Policy framework, contingency
plan, SOP manuals, EDP plans and
school practices indicate clear and
linked processes, led by DoE Focal
Point.
Evaluation of training programs
indicate increased awareness at
DoE and school levels.
Increased level of participation in
DRR and disaster preparedness
activities, at central and
institutional levels.
DoE and all education institutions
have EDP plans led and managed
by disaster management
committees.
DoE and all education institutions
have developed emergency
protocols according to agreed
format, and implement them.
sessions organised.
EDP plans
Training program and number of
sessions organised.
Updated EDP Plans
Policy framework, contingency DoE senior management By the end of
plan, SOP manuals, EDP plans, and focal point for 2012
simulation exercise schedules and disaster management
evaluation reports.
Training evaluation reports. From third
quarter of 2011
and on-going
> 50% of staff and increasing
numbers of students volunteer to
participate in DRR and disaster
preparedness activities.
DoE Focal Point terms of DoE and all schools and
reference. other education
DoE and institutions’ EDP plans & institutions
Implementation schedules.
Records of DoE Focal Point and
school safety committee
meetings.
DoE and institutions’ EDP plans. DoE and all schools and
other education
institutions
6
d. All plans are revised in the
light of regular practice and
ongoing risk reduction
assessment.
Activities – related to objective 1
1.1 Develop policy framework for
DRR and disaster preparedness, in
line with national disaster
management policies.
1.2 Set up a disaster management
focal point within the DoE to
oversee implementation of policy
framework.
1.3 Establish disaster
management/ school safety
committee at institution level
1.4 Provide or ensure provision of
appropriate funding for
maintaining safe buildings, related
infrastructure and facilities.
1.5 Mainstream DRR education
and preparedness in the national
curriculum and in teacher training
programmes.
Revised plans incorporate findings
of simulation practice evaluations
and risk reduction assessment.
Indicators
Draft Policy framework that
incorporates national disaster
management policies developed in
collaboration with all stakeholders.
Focal Point for DM, led by a DM
Team, ensures effective co-
ordination and development of
DRR and preparedness strategies
within the education sector.
Disaster management/ school
safety committees established in all
schools and other education
institutions. Agreed terms of
reference and workplans available.
Sufficient funding is available for
DRR and disaster preparedness at
DoE and schools’ levels.
Disbursement mechanism is
responsive, efficient and effective.
Schools’ national curriculum and
teacher training courses include
aspects of DRR and disaster
preparedness education in line
with expectations of DoE’s Policy
Framework.
DoE and institutions’ EDP plans.
Staff and students’ reactions to
simulation exercises.
Means of Verification
Education Sector policy
framework.
Records of meetings and
workshops.
Focal point leader, DM Team
members, their terms of
reference and plans.
Appropriate budget for Focal
Point activities.
Existence of active Committee
with clear terms of reference.
Minutes of meetings.
Necessary funding as specified in
EDP Plans is available under
appropriate budget lines at DoE
and institution levels.
Disbursement mechanism.
Curriculum documents on DRR
and preparedness education.
Training packages and delivery
7
Responsible Agencies Timeline
DoE senior management By end of April
and focal point for 2012
disaster management
DoE senior management By end of 2011
DoE Focal Point for By end of 2011
disaster management
and institution leaders
DoE senior management From July
and focal point for 2011and on-
disaster management in going
liaison with Ministry of
Finance.
DoE curriculum and From Jan to Dec
assessment unit in 2012
collaboration with
education institutions
 Opportunities are provided for schedules.
children and young people to
undergo training and participate in School safety committee reports.
disaster risk reduction efforts as EDP plans.
agents of risk reduction within the
school and their communities.(eg.
training in emergency response
skills such as first aid, etc..).

1.6 Advocate at national level for
preventative maintenance
practices with regard to buildings
and other infrastructure and
facilities.
A program for the maintenance of
safe facilities is developed and
implemented.
Evidence of preventative DoE senior management, From third
maintenance work on buildings Focal Point, school quarter of 2011
and other infrastructure, leaders and parents and on-going
protecting them from damage by
sea salt spray and high humidity.
Contractor payment records and
work assessment records.

Reports of Rescue and Fire

Agency assessment of fire safety
in education institutions.

1.7 Establish an effective system
for informing the DoE of physical
risks posed by infrastructure, their
content and other hazards within
the school boundary; insist on
timely maintenance/ repair
measures being taken, always
acting on the principle of
preventative maintenance.
1.8 locate and/or design new or
retrofitted buildings according to
established building codes and
safety standards.
School and other institution needs
are communicated to the
appropriate DoE units and prompt
action is taken to prevent further
damage and risks.
Safety equipment (including fire
suppression equipment) is
appropriate and regularly
maintained.
All new or retrofitted school
buildings are according to
established codes and safety
standards.
Maintenance program.
School progress reports.
Safe buildings and infrastructure
Building plans checked against
established building codes and
standards.
Schools and other From third
education institutions, quarter of 2011
DoE maintenance units, and on-going
DoE Focal Point, DoE
senior management.
DoE senior management, From third
Focal Point and planning quarter of 2011
unit of DoE and national and on-going
planning authorities

Copies of established building

codes and standards are available

8

1.9 Advocate for safe school
transportation and provide
training in appropriate safety skills
for students and staff.
1.10 Provide appropriate insurance
coverage to mitigate economic
risks.
Activities – related to objective 2
2.1 Carry out assessment of
hazards, vulnerabilities, capacities
and resources
2.2 On the basis of assessment,
develop plans for risk reduction,
maintenance of safe education
facilities, standard operating
procedures and training for
disaster response, in collaboration
with all stakeholders.
and known to DoE staff and school
leaders.
Safety standards for school Safety standards document. DoE senior management, From Jan 2012
transportation developed. Records of meetings with bus Focal Point, schools and and on-going
Negotiations undertaken with bus company. other education
company. Training packages. institutions
Training packages developed and
delivered.
Appropriate insurance cover is Insurance policy DoE senior management By Jan 2012
established.
Budget is made available.
Indicators Means of Verification Responsible Agencies Timeline
Assessments carried out at DoE All schools and other During third and
and institution levels, and reviewed Yearly assessment reports education institutions, fourth quarter
on an annual basis. DoE Focal Point, DRDM. of 2011 and on-
going, on a
Assessment is well-researched and yearly basis
takes into account historical hazard
events known to have happened in
the area.
Plans for physical risk reduction, EDP and other plans (eg schools’ All schools and other From Jan 2012
maintenance of safe facilities, development plans and DoE education institutions, and on-going
standard operating procedures and strategic plans) DoE Focal Point, DRDM.
training for disaster/emergency
response are produced, endorsed
and disseminated.
Action plans for their Action plans and progress
implementation are reports.
developed/updated and targets Evidence of maintenance work
set. done.
Required resources (eg. fire Checklist of all available
extinguishers, water hoses, first aid resources
kits, appropriate number of
9

2.3 Ensure that plans take into
account the needs of vulnerable
groups (such as very young
children, children with physical or
mental impairments, older
members of staff, those who speak
other languages than Kreol, etc..)
2.4 Organise realistic simulation
drills to test disaster preparedness
plans and skills levels regularly
2.5 Revise plans based on
evaluation of the experience and
on further assessment of hazards,
vulnerabilities, capacities and
resources
persons with first response skills)
are available on site.
Indicators
Plans cater for the needs of all
vulnerable groups.
Drills are planned, organized and
evaluated regularly.
Evacuation plans are clear and
realistic.
A “buddy system” for those
needing help is in place.
Parents/guardians are informed of
plans and evacuation locations.
Evacuation plans and procedures
are discussed with the nearest
police, fire and health centre
officials and all necessary
emergency arrangements are made
with them in advance.
Fire drills take place twice yearly
and a full evacuation simulation
exercise is organized once a year.
A full evaluation is done
immediately after each exercise, at
different levels in the school.
Yearly assessment of hazards etc. is
also taken into account.
The EDP plan is reviewed
accordingly.
Means of Verification Responsible Agencies Timeline
EDP and other plans All schools and other From Jan 2012
education institutions, and on-going
DoE Focal Point, DRDM.
Annual drill schedule and All schools and other From Jan 2012
evaluation reports. education institutions, and on-going
DoE Focal Point, DRDM.
EDP plans
School safety committee reports
Labelled building evacuation
routes, marked safe assembly
areas, site and neighbourhood
maps with identified evacuation
routes and locations.
Reports from police, fire and
health centre officials.
Assessment reportsVerbal
reports of students, parents and
staff.
School safety committee DoE Focal Point, all From mid- 2012
evaluation reports schools and other and on-going
education institutions.
Verbal reports of students and
staff.
Revised EDP Plans
10
2.6 Integrate school plans and
disaster management processes
with community plans
2.7 Incorporate national early
warning systems and norms into
school plans
2.8 Establish a communication
system for emergencies, including
warning systems and local media
contacts
2.9 Establish clear criteria (in
consultation with the DoE Focal
Point and DRDM) for activating
emergency plans and share this
information with the whole school
community.
2.10 Develop plans for establishing
alternative locations (post-
disaster) for the continuation of
classes – in cases of serious
damage to school buildings.
2.11 Establish student release
procedures that are approved by
parents/guardians.
Education institutions are
represented on district
administration committees.
Education institution plans are
developed in collaboration with
district administration committee.
Indicators
National and district level warning
systems are known to school safety
committee and communicated to
the whole institution.
Communication system for
emergencies is established
Clear criteria developed
collaboratively and shared with all
stakeholders
Alternative locations identified,
alternative class schedules and
instruction strategies are planned
and secure back-up of educational
records are maintained.
Student release procedures agreed
with parents/ guardians.
Contact details of parents/
guardians available and kept with
up-to-date student registers.
School representative on district
committee.
District EDP plans.
Shared plans.
Means of Verification
School safety committee reports.
Verbal reports of students and
staff.
EDP plans
School safety committee reports.
DoE Focal Point plans and reports
EDP plans
School safety committee reports.
DoE Focal Point plans and reports
Alternative location plans
Provisional timetables and
curriculum outlines
Back-up of educational records
Student registers and release
permissions from parents.
List of parents/ guardians contact
details.
11
DoE Focal Point, all From Jan 2012
schools and other and on-going
education institutions
and district
administration leaders.
Responsible Agencies Timeline
DoE Focal Point, DRDM, From Jan 2012
all schools and other and on-going
education institutions
and district
administration leaders.
DoE Focal Point, DRDM, From Jan 2012
all schools and other and on-going
education institutions.
DoE Focal Point, DRDM, From Jan 2012
all schools and other and on-going
education institutions
DoE senior management, From Jan 2012
Focal Point, planning and on-going
unit, curriculum unit of
DoE and all schools and
other education
institutions
All schools and other From Jan 2012
education institutions and on-going
and DoE Focal Point.
12
8. Maintaining the Contingency Plan

The Plan must be reviewed and updated every five years, based on feedback from all partners, new
knowledge in the area of risk reduction and disaster management and practice.

The DoE Focal Point will have primary responsibility for establishing procedures for obtaining feedback on
the contingency plan, ensuring that it is regularly updated and disseminating the revised plan along with
all other related information to all partners. Feedback should be obtained from students, parents,
teachers, school management teams, relevant DoE staff, other disaster management agencies and
partners, district administrators and other relevant members of the school community.

(Appendix to Plan

DoE policy framework on disaster preparedness once it’s done)

13