Sie sind auf Seite 1von 25

INTRODUCTION

WORKSHOP
ON
SCHOOL
SAFETY
TOOLS
FOR
ASSESSMENT AND DECISION MAKERS

25 SEPTEMBER 2014

WORKSHOP REPORT & PRESENTATIONS


This report is developed from the result of Introduction Workshop
on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers that
was organized by UNESCO Office Jakarta, UNESCO HQ Paris
and University of Udine Italy. The Workshop was held in
Morrissey Hotel, Jakarta-Indonesia on 25 September 2014 and
attended by 60 participants and guest speakers from 39
national, international and UN agencies, universities and
government agencies.

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

Introduction Workshop on School


Safety Tools for Assessment and
Decision Makers
I. BACKGROUND
Disasters have a major impact on children, youth and education systems. Studies of disaster trends and
the likely consequences of climate change suggest that each year 175 million children are likely to be
affected by natural hazard related disasters alone. In January 2010, some 38,000 students and 1,300
teachers and education personnel died in Haiti. The Ministry of Education offices were destroyed along
with 4,000 schools close to 80 % of educational establishments in the Port-au-Prince area. During the
Sichuan earthquake in May 2008, approximately 10,000 students were crushed in their classrooms and
more than 7,000 school rooms collapsed.
During the second session of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR)
Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in June 2009 participating countries expressed commitment to
national assessments of the safety of existing education and health facilities should be undertaken by
2011. During the third session in 2011 the commitment was reiterated: By 2015, concrete action plans
for safer schools and hospitals should be
developed and implemented in all disaster
prone countries.
In order to support different countries in the
development and implementation of
concrete action plans for safer schools,
UNESCO, other major UN agencies and
non-governmental organizations committed
to disaster risk reduction joined the Global
Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and
Resilience in the Education Sector
(GAD3RES). The Alliance promotes a
comprehensive approach to DRR education
based on three overlapping areas of focus
(pillars):
1.
2.
3.

Safe School Facilities


School Disaster Management
Disaster Prevention Education

Page 1

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

The goals of this Comprehensive School Safety (CSS) are:


a. To protect children and education workers from death and injury in schools
b. To plan for educational continuity in the face of expected hazards
c. To strengthen a disaster resilient citizenry through education
d. To safeguard education sector investment
In regards to the CSS above, in particularly Pillar 1: Safe School Facilities, UNESCO HQ in collaboration
with the University of Udine, Italy, developed a school safety assessment methodology called VISUS
(Visual Inspection for defining the Safety Upgrading Strategies), which includes different materials and
ICT tools andwhich provides elements for answering the following questions:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

What are the schools that need priority interventions?


What are the reasons to intervene in those schools?
What types of interventions are needed?
How much could each intervention cost?
How many interventions are possible with the resources available?
How should we communicate the level of risk to the community?

This methodology outlines the safety issues of schools, such as site, structural response (global and local),
non-structural elements and functional aspects in a multi-hazard manner. This methodology has been
successfully tested in 1022 school of the region of Udine, Italy, and in 100 schools of El Salvador and is
expected to start new projects in different countries worldwide with the goal to provide decision makers
and the educational community with tools for assessing the risks affecting the educational infrastructure,
as well as, with practical information - indicators - that allow making decisions on the investment needs
and areas of concern where this investment should be prioritized.
For further adaptation of this methodology, and its related tools and materials, for the potential use and
application in Indonesia by the UNESCO Jakarta Office, the UNESCO HQ Paris Section on Earth Sciences
and Geo-hazards Risk Reduction, and the University of Udine, Italy, held a Workshop on Introduction
Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers inviting universities, research institutions, and other
related agencies to introduce this methodology. The workshop presented technical understanding on the
methodology and the implementation of the safety school assessment methodology. The workshop was
led by Professor Stefano Grimaz, Director of SPRINT-Lab (Safety and Protection Intersectoral
Laboratory at University of Udine) and Mr. Jair Torres, Consultant form the UNESCO HQ Paris Section
on Earth Sciences and Geo-hazards Risk Reduction

Page 2

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

II. PROGRAM AGENDA


A full day workshop began with technical presentations from UNESCO HQ Paris and SPRINT-Lab of
University of Udine Italy. After the technical sessions, several national guest speakers were invited to
present the result of their works and programs. The discussion, including questions and clarifications were
conducted in both sessions.
Time

Activity

09.00-09.05
09.05-09.10

Welcoming remarks
Opening remarks

09.10-09.15

Opening remarks

09.15-09.30
09.30-09.45

Introduction of Participants
Presentation of the Global Alliance for
Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the
Education Sector
Presentation on VISUS

09.45-11.15
11.15-11:30
11.30-12.30

12.30-13.30
13.30-15.00

15.00

Implementation of the Assessment: The case of


El Salvador
PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Introduction on policy and practices on School
Safety Assessment Tool-Application on
Software, Web, and Manual Bases
(20 minutes per agencies)
1. School Safety Assessment
2. Engineering, Construction and Assessment of
Safe School Infrastructure
3. Minimum Standard for Comprehensive Safe
and Health School
Lunch
Discussion:
1. How to adapt VISUS with Indonesia context
and related tools that are available
2. What kind of trainings that need to be
delivered in support the application of
VISUS
3. How to apply VISUS effective and
efficiently, and make it sustains
Closing remarks

Resource Person

Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat UNESCO/DRRTIU Unit


Mrs. Hasnah Gasim/National Coordinator for ASPNET,
Indonesian NatCom for UNESCO
Mr. Gogot Suharwoto/Head of Planning and Budgeting
of Secretary General of MoEC
Each representatives from agencies
Mr. Jair Torres
UNESCO HQ Paris
Prof. Stefano Grimaz
SPRINT University of Udine Italy
Mr. Jair Torres
UNESCO HQ Paris

ITB
Disaster Resource Partnership
Save the Children

UNESCO Jakarta Office/DRR TIU Unit, UNESCO HQ


Paris, SPRINT University of Udine Italy
(Coffee Break)
UNESCO Jakarta Office/DRR TIU Unit

Page 3

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

III. PRESENTATIONS FROM EXPERTS


III.1 Opening Remarks
a. Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat - UNESCO Office, Jakarta
Mr Ardito welcomes the participants and apologize due
to the absent of UNESCO Director and Representative
that unable to open the workshop due to his other
agenda. Mr Ardito highlighted that VISUS as a school
safety assessment methodology as part of the Pillar 1
from the 3 Pillars of Comprehensive School Safety, which
focus on Safe school Facilities. This methodology has been
developed through collaboration of UNESCO HQ Paris
and University of Udine, Italy, and has been tested in
1,022 schools in Italy and 100 schools in El Salvador.
Currently UNESCO will adapt the methodology for
implementation in the Lao People's Democratic Republic in
From L-R: Mr Ardito M.Kodijat/UNESCO
close collaboration with Save the Children, in the
Office Jakarta, Mr Gogot Suharwoto/Ministry
framework of the work of the Global Alliance for Disaster
of Education and Cultural, and Mrs Hasnah
Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector
Gasim/National Commission for UNESCO
(GAD3RES). Previously UNESCO Office Jakarta with the
guest, Jair Torres have met several stakeholders in
Jakarta to discuss the methodology and related tools and its further improvement, and through this
workshop, it is expect to gain inputs for further adaptation in applying the methodology for the Indonesia
context.
b. Mrs. Hasnah Gasim National Coordinator for ASPNET, Indo NatCom for UNESCO
Mrs Hasnah apologize due for the absent of Professor Arif Rachman, Executive Chairperson for the National
Commission for UNESCO that is unable to come today. Yet, she read his opening remarks note for UNESCO
and the participants, as she quoted:
Ass.Wr.Wbr
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
Representative of UNESCO Office Jakarta, represented by Mr Ardito, National Program Officer for Disaster Risk
Reducation
Representative of UNESCO Paris
Representative of University of Udine Italy
Representatives of Indonesian Ministries and Universities
Representatives of UN and Donor Agencies
Representatives of National and International NGOs
Distinguised Guests
Ladies and Genlemen
Good Morning,
First of all I would like to thank God the Almighty that because of His Blessing that we could get together in good
health.
It is quite a great honor for me to say a few words on behalf of the Indonesian National Commission for UNESCO and
the UNESCO ASPnet Indonesia.

Page 4

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

I would like to thank and congratulate UNESCO for initiating this important workshop on Introducing Safety Tools for
Assessment in the framework of Education for Disaster Risk Reducation by bringing together all stakeholders
represented by Government, UN Agencies, NGOS as well as donor agencies because DRR is everybodys business and
inclusive of all concerns and expertise.
Aside from that I would like to thank the resource persons represented by Mr Jair Torres, from UNESCO Paris and
Professor Stefano Grimaz from Udine University,Italy.
I would like to inform you that ASPnet schools, which are used as UNESCO vehicles to carry out UNESCO innovative
experiments in its five sectors, has four themes:
1. The role of UN to address the Worlds Concerns
2. Peace and Human Rights
3. Education for Sustainable Development
4. Intercultural Learning
And as it was agreed during the International Forum for 60th Anniversary of UNESCO Associated School Project di
Suwon, Korea,6-9 September ,2013 that Disaster Risk Reduction is one of the themes of ESD under ASPnet
Programmes, the other two themes are Climate Change and Biodiversity.
However, these three themes under ESD are interdependent since disaster happened because the impact of climate
change and climate change happens among others due to the biodiversity loss.
Because of the importance of these ESD themes, in 2013 ASPnet Indonesia organized three Workshops under these
three themes in cooperation with UNESCO Office Jakarta and especially for Disaster Risk Reduction is an
International Workshop covering countries of different regions.
Therefore, I would like to welcome the the organization of the training of VISUS Visual Inspection for Defining the
Safety Upgrading Strategies in the development of school safety assessment tool, in Indonesia for UNESCO
ASPnet schools the number of which at present covering more than 150 schools from Primary to High Schools
spread all over Indonesia.
I hope this workshop a success.
Thank you.
Wass.Wr.Wbr
Professor Arif Rachman
Executive Chairman Indonesia National Commission for UNESCO

c. Mr. Gogot Suharwoto Head of Planning and Budgeting of Secretary General of MOEC
Mr Gogot explained that there are 3 issues that need to be discussed in DRR in Education Sector, this
includes:
1. The regulation framework that regulates the implementation and the institution of the DRR
2. The budget framework in all education level and in the endowment fund. There are 29 million IDR that is
allocated for rehabilitation, research and scholarship
3. The priority on what the government should do
As 60% of schools in Indonesia (sub-district, district, and provincial level) are vulnerable to natural hazards,
means that there are around 15,000 schools that need to be assisted. MOEC welcomes and supports the
UNESCO-VISUS methodology adaptation process for Indonesia and its further pilots in 6 schools. As per
2014, the MOEC has allocated around 40 million IDR for education that can be used to ensure the school
Page 5

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

safety from disaster. The assessment methodology can help decision makers within the government to adopt
appropriate safety measures and interventions for the particularities of the Indonesian context.
III.2 Presentation of the Global Alliance for DRR and Resilience in the Education Sector Initiatives
for Comprehensive Safe Schools (Jair Torres/UNESCO HQ Paris)
Mr. Jair Torres shared information concerning the negative impact that natural hazard could produce in
the educational sector leding, at the most, to school damages and disruption to educational facilities and
infrastructures and even caused death. He then explained the international framework for school safety
that includes: the HFA 2005-2015 and Post HFA, DESD 2005- 2014, UNISDR, Rio+ 20, HFA2, and the
World Initiative on School Safety (WISS). These frameworks are international agreements on which
governments have committed in order to advance and progress in school safety issues. Mr. Torres also
explained the Comprehensive Safe School Framework (CSS) which underlines the different elments
necessary to achieve school safety. He explained that in the framework of the WISS, a worldwide
campaign which will be launched in the framework of the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in
Sendai, Japan, on 2015, governments are committing to the CSS framework. He also raised the fact that
Indonesia is one of eighteen countries that will commit on this initiative.
The Comprehensive School safety comprises 3
overlapping pillars:
1. Safe Learning Facilities which relates to the
environment of the school (site), the building
itself (structural and non-structural) and the
different elements related to it, such as
maintenance, functionality, guidelines for
construction, building codes, etc. . By 2030, it
is expected that every school, new and old is
Mr Jair Torres explained about the Global Alliance for
a SAFE school. Safe Learning Facilities should
Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education
also have safe access to disable children,
Sector
temporary community shelters, provide water
and sanitation facility, climate smart
interventions and continuously monitoring, financing and oversight the ongoing facilities maintenance
and safety. Governments should implement prioritization scheme for retrofit and replacing, which
normally start by an assessment process for understanding the state of the art of the educational
inventory of the country.
2. School disaster management this pillar shows how the schools are prepared and react to natural or
man-made hazards. These include the development of policies and guidance, contingency plans, and
standard operating procedure, establishment of school committees, early warning and early action
system, construction of temporary shelters, improvement of response preparedness, and link education
sector and disaster management sector.
3. risk reduction and resilience education this pillar includes the preparation for and responding to
hazard impacts as a foundation for formal and non-formal education, engagement of students and
staff in real-life school and community disaster management activities, critical thinking for all hazards,
development of quality teaching and learning materials, infusion risk reduction education throughout
the curriculum and provide guidelines for integration of risk reduction and resilience into carrier
subjects., provision teacher training on risk reduction curriculum materials and methodologies, and
scaling up teacher involvement for effective integration of these topics (curriculum and extracurricular).

Page 6

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

Mr. Torres finalized his presentation by showing how different UN agencies, and major INGOs has
organized themselves in order to support national and local government on achiving their goals and
commitments on School Safety. This institutional structure is known as the Global Alliance for Disaster
Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector (GAD3RES) with the structure as shown in the
picture.
III.3 Presentation on VISUS School Safety Assessment Methodology (Professor Stefano
Grimaz/SPRINT University of Udine Italy)
Professor Stefano Grimaz introduces VISUS clarifying that it is not a software-tool, but an assessment
methodology that uses a multi-hazard approach. At first, VISUS was developed to analyze seismic
scenarios of schools for planning risk mitigation purposes. There are several concerns of administrators
regarding this assessment, which includes questions
such as why, what, how much, how many
interventions are feasible and how to communicate
results to people. Another problem is the rational
use of money balancing the costs of the
preliminary assessment versus the concrete
interventions. It is necessary to take into account
that the final goal is a safety improvement that is
as widespread and effective as possible. Yet, the
approach used for the risk control of new building
cannot directly applied to existing buildings,
Professor Stefano Grimaz explained about the
UNESCO-VISUS methodology
especially if the assessment has to be carried out
on a large number of existing schools.
The VISUS methodology can be used for new schools, assuming that if the building complies the seismic
code, the risk is under control. Existing buildings require a specific assessment. If there is a large number
of schools, it is necessary to prioritize and plan interventions, thus defining a specific strategy of risk
reduction. Usually this is done with the support of experts. In this process the expert investigates, collects
the substantial data for the characterization of the building necessary to formulate judgments on a set of
main issues.
The VISUS idea is the pre-codification of the expert reasoning process, separating the phase of
characterization that is the collection of substantial information, to the phases of evaluation and reporting.
In this way the expert can be substituted by a trained surveyor, able to collect the substantial information.
Then, using pre-codified experts criteria, the evaluation and judgment on specific main issues are
automatically elaborated and a standardized report is produced.
VISUS method follows the reasoning
approach of the expert in assessing the
reality, identifying pre-defined scenarios
of predisposition to critical effect and the
related levels of trigger, and associating
the gravity of potential consequences on
people safety.

Picture 2 Rose of Warning Needles

Furthermore, in VISUS, safety assessment


means to consider every situation that can
Page 7

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

cause specific difficulties, injuries or deaths as consequence of an adverse event (earthquake, flood, etc.).
Therefore there are safety issues which need to be addressed, that are: site, structure (global and local),
non-structural elements and functionality. By understanding these problems in terms of weaknesses of
safety, the intervention needs are identified. All the intervention needs on the different issues are
summarized in the rose of warning needles (see Picture 2). Finally, the global judgment on school facilities
safety is expressed by the safety stars.
The different levels of depth of assessment could be depicted on a pyramid. At the top, the desk analysis
on available documentation and the data-mining of information collected through questionnaires, at the
bottom the detailed analysis and
Picture 3. Levels of Assesment
design. For planning purposes,
the first could be too coarse and
the last too deep and time and
cost consuming. VISUS is inbetween. In fact, it is conceived
as a technical triage which aims
to assess how much is enough
for defining what is necessary to
do in terms of intervention and to
support decision-makers in the
definition of a rational safety
upgrading strategy (see Picture
3).
VISUS was firstly applied for
assessing 1,022 schools in Italy
on the request of the Civil Protection of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region focusing in particular on the seismic
safety. Then the methodology was piloted in El-Salvador through the implementation of surveyor training,
producing a handbook, and a VISUS app for tablet.
There are some final considerations regarding the application of the methodology, include:
1. VISUS can be adapted to the specific needs and peculiarities of the country thanks to the involvement
of a local committee of experts. Working together with specialists, it is possible to define what is
necessary for making an assessment sufficiently pragmatic and objective-oriented, and to valorize the
local knowledge. This adaptation allows to define the right contextualization and customization.
2. The methodology introduces a common language, makes explicit the criteria for reading the reality
and for evaluating the substantial elements characterized. This facilitates the knowledge transfer to
surveyors by short training. Therefore, VISUS can be used as a capacity building tool.
3. The uniformity of the final outcomes permits to obtain products, as reports and maps i.e. Open street
map that are directly usable by decision-makers for defining the safety upgrading strategies.

Page 8

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

III.4 Presentation on the Implementation of the Assessment: The Case of El Salvador (Jair
Torres/UNESCO HQ Paris)
The UNESCO-VISUS methodology was successfully piloted in three geographical departments of El
Salvador (San Salvador, La Paz, and La Libertad). The implementation of the methodology in El
Salvador involved different processes as follows:
1) Identification of local partners. National institutional assessment of different actors related to school
safety issues. For the case of El Salvador, the main identified partners were: 1) Ministry of
Education, and the different departments concerning with educational infrastructure and disaster
risk reduction, 2) Ministry of Environment and the SNET (Servicio Nacional de Estudios Territoriales );
and, 3) the faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture of the University of El Salvador.

2) Conformation of the Scientific Committee and adaptation of the UNESCO-VISUS methodology for El
Salvador context. The Scientific Committee was integrated by the local partners listed above-, the
SPRINT-Lab of the University of Udine Italy, and UNESCO. The Committee had as a major task to
analyze the different aspects and elements of the VISUS methodology in order to adapt them to
the local reality of El Salvador (e.g. typology of buildings, typical materials, geomorphology of
the country, hazard identification maps and data collection-, etc.,)
3) Preparation of tools. Based on the adaptation process developed by the Scientific Committee, a
handbook for training of trainers and a handbook for training surveyors, on the general idea of
the methodology, the characterizations, and the different elements to be assessed, were produced.
Also, a mobile application for data collection, and the elaboration of logic and mathematical
algorithms, completely adapted for the El Salvador context were developed in order to facilitate
the data processing and the automatized reports.
4) Training of Trainers (ToT). A three days training of trainers on the use of the methodology, involved
about 60 people, including university professors, engineering associations and Ministry of Education
personnel.
5) Training of Surveyors. In close cooperation with the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture of
the University of El Salvador, it was decided that the students from the last year of academic
formation of the faculty will participate in the training, and will act as a surveyors in close
coordination with the Dean of the faculty. 15 students were trained in the different aspects of the
VISUS methodology and in the data collection.
6) Development of the Assessment on the field. 100 schools were assessed in a period of 10 days in
three geographical departments of El Salvador (San Salvador, La Paz and La Libertad). 5 groups
of 3 surveyors were visiting one school in the morning and another one in the afternoon. The data
collection was done off-line and after the work in the field was completed the surveyors were
sending the collected information via internet to the servers of UNESCO and the SPRINT-Lab.
7) Production of Individual Reports (100). Based on the information collected by the surveyors, the
SPRINT-Lab in close coordination with the University of El Salvador and UNESCO, double check the
congruence of the collected data. After this process was finalized, automatic reporting was
produced. 100 reports are today online and accessible to the educational community related to
the school and also to the general public in OpenStreetMap. The reports (4 to 6 pages) resumes in
a coherent way the different elements analyzed during the assessment. Mainly related to

Page 9

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

weakness found in the five areas of analysis (site, global and local structure, non-structural
elements and functionality). It finalizes with a series of recommendations/interventions that will
allow upgrading the level of safety of the school. The report includes photographic evidence and
three indicators that summarize the state of the school vis-a-vis the potential hazards.
8) Production of a collective report. The collective report is mainly addresses to the national and local
authorities. It provides decision makers and the educational community with practical information
that allow making evidence based decisions on the related investment needs and areas of concern
where this investment should be prioritized. The collective report includes the 100 individual
reports, a general report of the 100 schools assessed and an estimation of the cost of every
proposed recommendation/intervention, stating also the area of focus of that intervention and the
schools that should be prioritized.

IV. DISCUSSION SESSION 1-PRESENTATIONS FROM EXPERTS

a. Mrs Irina Rafliana from the Indonesia Scientific Institute (LIPI)


Mrs. Irina hares the same feeling and excitement towards the initiative. She said
that Indonesia today needs to assessment the national inventory of school in the
form of a triage, that will allow to understand the actual situation in a very
efficient (related to resources human and economic-) and rapid way. Then, it
would be more easy for planning. She asked about, the lack or the insufficient data
available in Indonesia to produce a sufficient scenario for adopting the UNESCOVISUS assessment methodology. She also asked how to incorporate the social
factor to judgment since physical and social factors are very different. Finally, she
asked whether or not it is possible to convert that into a more conventional original
risk profile that incorporates other existing tools.
Professor Stefano Grimaz says that if there are no desk-data, the answer is inside the procedures. The basic
data are collected on site as an expert does when no desk-data are available. The VISUS procedure helps
surveyors in order to start checking the situation.

Mr. Jair Torres said that focus will be mainly on providing decision makers with information related to the
actual situation of the schools in Indonesia. As for social factors, tools that have been developed in
Indonesia as well as other colleagues who are more knowledgeable or experienced in these areas can help
in the management of these conditions. These tools try to see just one of the elements in order to provide a
specific result or indicator for decision making to see the inventory of the school at the moment. Focusing
on how to present the results to decision makers and policy makers can act as further recommendation to
action.
b. Mr Andy Wahyu Widayat from Save the Children
Mr Andy asked for more information on the involvement of children and the
community in using this methodology or conducting this assessment. He also asks if
they have attempted to adapt this methodology to the local context, infrastructure
and design.
Mr. Jair Torres shared that in El Salvador, the surveyors that carry out the assessment
explain to the school children why they were there and this generates interest to them.

Page 10

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

Parents and community members also came to support and accompany the process in the assessment. He
welcomes this support but also mentions that it is important to overcome the technicalities first. As for the
local design context, technical committee involvement is important also as there are certain typologies that
are specific to Indonesia. Thus, he invites local experts to be part of this technical committee for the case
of Indonesia.
Professor Stefano Grimaz underlines the importance of local experts role in this initiative. He remarks that
VISUS is not a closed tool but a methodology that takes into account the local experience and previous
applications. It is possible to work together with stakeholders in order to define what to consider in the
assessment. Furthermore, the training of VISUS surveyors can be implemented at different levels, in El
Salvador we worked with university students and professors. Community and students of the schools assessed
may also be involved in the surveyors activities.

c. Mr. Billy Sumuan from World Vision

Mr Billy commented that this methodology and related


tools is a good complement to the existing tools in
Indonesia. He asked about the expectations from the
involvement of NGOs and the endorsement from the
local government. He also asked about enumerators; in
the case of El Salvador they were students from
universities. He mentioned that university students would
be easy to find in urban but not rural areas and asks
what the minimum criteria is and whether ordinary
community members can be enumerators for this
project.

Mr. Jair Torres says that NGOS can be involved by being part of the technical advisory group to help
adapt this to the Indonesian context, through training of trainers and surveyors, and or to help implement
further VISUS and the pilot methodology in respective areas of influence
Professor Stefano Grimaz said that the enumerators need a minimum of technical skills for understanding the
concept of VISUS through a specific training. This allows involving not only university students, but also, for
instance, students of technical secondary schools or technicians. The best way to get started with this
methodology is to have a database of pictures of buildings before and after an adverse event as this helps to
recognize situations of predisposition to critical effects and the associate critical effect. This facilitates the
training on how to recognize a critical situation also for lower levels of knowledge background.

d. Mr Guru Naik from Childfund

He was interested in knowing the details of timeline of this


project so that they would be in a position to plan better
if they would like to be involved
Mr. Jair Torres shares that the plan is to start by getting
the interest of stakeholders on the 1st or 2nd week of
October and it is estimated to take 3 to 4 months to
analyze every single part of the methodology to
determine which information is needed in the Indonesian
context; which type of typology should be included, check
how to do adaptation, pass to the development of
Page 11

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

handbook and materials, prepare for the application for data collection. This could take another 3to 4
months. Then there is also the training of trainers and the training of surveyors and finalize with the
application of methodology by assessing the schools. A one year timeline is estimated.
e. Mr. Noviar from Indonesia Business Links
He mentioned that he did not see any private sector involvement from this tools
assessment. He asks how UNESCO sees private sector involvement in terms of creating
leverage to make this tool to be carried out to broader stakeholders, especially to the
private sector who have concerns for CSR programs.
Mr. Jair Torres shared that they have been discussing with different private sector
actors to get comments on how to improve this application and get more precision in
the results.
f. Mr. Jason Brown from DFAT

Mr Jason explained that Australia has been working with


Indonesia on InaSAFE. It is also a tool or methodology
that takes hazard layers and information and produces a
scenario that provides indicators or potential action plans.
He mentioned about synergies and the role of civil society
and identifying some of the key areas where the
government should consider starting or prioritizing the
process.

Mr. Jair Torres says that many things have been


developed and they would like to build on these, adapt it
as well and incorporate the methodology and work together because the goal is the same, which is to
support the local government in achieving school safety. He shared that one of the problems faced is
focusing only on vulnerable areas and when disasters occur, the schools that are affected are in other
areas. He emphasizes that it is important to go in a fast way and a triage way in order to identify where
to go technical deeper.
g. Mr Krishna Pribadi from Bandung Technology Institute (ITB)
Mr Krishna appreciates the concept and systematic
approach and talks about the common issues faced and the
differences in approach they are considering, a bottom up
process instead of a top down process. He asks what the
common adopted policy for criteria of structural
performance is and the level of risk that can be accepted,
whether or not there should be very strict national policy or
if it is up to the local government to decide depending upon
their capacity.

Professor Stefano Grimaz says that the definition of goals of assessment and criteria is the first task of the
steering committee in the country. It is necessary to define the performance levels and associate the related

Page 12

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

judgments obtained as outcomes from the visual inspection. Since VISUS is a triage, engineering-quantitative
parameters are not required; anyway, the discovered scenarios are used with specific roles for defining the
performance level considering all the assessed elements and issues. Anyway, it is important to split the
predisposition to produce some critical effects and their effective activation. A global strategy requires that all
experts involved for the different hazards define together a matrix of criteria for satisfying the different levels
of performance.

V. PANEL PRESENTATIONS-PRACTICES ON INDONESIA SCHOOL SAFETY


ASSESSMENT

V.1 Presentation on the School Safety Assessment Tool in Indonesia- Research Center for Disaster
Mitigation (Krishna Pribadi/ITB)
Mr Krishna explained that Indonesia is exposed to various natural hazards and there are around
185.146 of elementary and secondary schools and 25.621 High Schools in Indonesia. These schools
are divided into 4 categories, which are: 1) public schools that are funded by the National and Local
Government-Ministry of Education and Cultural-Community, 2) private schools that are managed and
funded by the Non-Government Social Organizations, 3) public religious schools that are funded by
National and Local Government-Ministry of Religion Affairs-Community, and 4) Non-government
religious sc hools/informal boarding sc hools that are funded by the Non-Government Social (Religious)
Organizations.
In term of school vulnerability to disasters in
Indonesia, as an example the impacts of earthquake
on schools, there have been many disaster events
that caused many schools are damaged and
destroyed. These happened due to many schools
that are vulnerable to earthquake due to
substandard design and construction practice. Thus
need to reduce school vulnerability in Indonesia,
Mr Krishna Pribadi presented his work in
through strengthening/retrofitting programs. In order
developing the school safety assessment
to implement this program, an assessment must be
tool in Indonesia
conducted to analyze the condition of the
susceptibility of the site, a building, people and
operations that may be affected or exposed to a
natural hazard. It provides for a statement needed by stakeholders to do action, such as: to prepare,
to allocate resources, organization, and provide mitigation. This assessment can have 2 levels, which
are: the preliminary assessment that requires simple and quick approaches such as conducting
compliance checklists, qualitative inspection or rapid visual screening, and a detailed assessment, on
the other hand, entails more detailed quantitative tasks.
For the building vulnerability, the assessment is categorized into: functional, non-structural, and
structural assessments. These assessments may be visual, quick (or rapid) or preliminary and serves as
a first step for prioritizing buildings towards a more detailed assessment. The school assessment tool is
developed by ITB in 2010. It is a combination of non-structural and structural assessment for multi
hazards and consists of three parts:
Assessment by school (principal/teacher)

Page 13

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

Assessment by authority (Local education office, community etc.)


Assessment by technical staffs/expert
The difference between each part of the assessment tool is that the tool that is used by the school and
authority concerns more on infrastructure, facilities, and social environment. Meanwhile for the tool for
the technical staff/expert focuses on timber, masonry, concrete building frame, structural, Location,
function and safety features. The tool is developed with the support from Save the Children, Plan
International, WB/BNPB and endorsed by Head of BNPB Regulation (Perka No.4/2012). As for the
implementation of the tool, the Plan International has used it in some districts in Central Java and East
Nusa Tenggara schools through its safer school program.
In the end, I would like to highlight the principle for tsunami safe school assessment, which is:
1. Make sure first that the school building is earthquake safe
2. Check the latest tsunami hazard map for run up and inundation level
3. Check whether school is located within or outside tsunami hazardous zone
4. If school is exposed to tsunami run up, check the orientation of the school, faade materials, school
building strength against tsunami forces
5. Check the highest level of school floor to be safe from highest run up and inundation level (expect
the unexpected, worst case tsunami)
6. Make sure that school has alternate evacuation route/path toward higher ground/hills

Page 14

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

V.2 Presentation on the Engineering, Construction and Assessment of Safe School Infrastructure
(Victor Rembeth/Disaster Resource Partnership)
The Disaster Resource Partnership (DRP) is an international alliance of
Engineering & Construction community companies support by the World
Economic Forum. Its objective is to develop a cross-sector, professional and
accountable humanitarian response to disasters that has the ability.
The vision of the E&C Disaster Resource Partnership is to form an ongoing
collaboration with the humanitarian community at the global level and
government and other key humanitarian actors at the national level in order
to leverage the core strengths and existing capacities of the E&C community
before, during and after natural rapid-onset disasters to reduce suffering
and save lives.
At global level, it provides multi skill or services in assessment-monitoringevaluation, strategic planning, technical expertise, project/program
management, safety management, physical planning, Infrastructure design (shelter, roads, water
sanitation, power, facilities), local knowledge and network, local knowledge and network, logistics / supply
chain management, and site supervision. In Indonesia, it provides services in assessment-monitoringevaluation, strategic planning, technical expertise, project/program management, safety
management. The principles in delivering these services are:
Focus on natural rapid-onset disasters, particularly extreme major events.
Using disaster prevention as an entry point, create partnerships that can be leveraged in the event of a
disaster.
Build Back Better
Mobilization of construction equipment dependent upon the proximity of equipment to a disaster zone
and the availability of existing capacity.
Multiple modalities of delivery
Partnership networks will be mobilized through multiple entry points, through pre-formed relationships
with relevant post-disaster actors.
The modalities in delivering the services can be done through direct actions, secondment, local and global
technical services. The typical services of DRP in Indonesia, include
1) Pre-disaster
Provide training, developing disaster response/contingency plans
Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction Programmes around project sites (mapping hazards and
critical infrastructure, developing response plans)
2) Immediately after a disaster (72 hours 2 weeks)
Temporary repairs to critical infrastructure, provide emergency shelter, engineering first responder,
Strategic technical assistance (e.g. advice on rubble clearance, building safety assessment)
3) Relief (2 12 weeks)
Temporary repairs to critical infrastructure, provide emergency shelter, secondments of staff
Needs assessment (leads to implementing programmes)
4) Recovery (12 weeks 3 years)

Page 15

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

DRP Indonesia helps to facilitate activities such as building permanent housing (through company
fundraising/CSR programmes), implementing recovery programmes
5) Ongoing
Building relationships,
Strategic technical expertise to inform decision making
Attending fora/ coordination mechanisms,
Acting as an honest partner
Project management
It delivers are in the form of:
Public building safety assessments in emergency : reduce ongoing risks, provide recommendations of
recovery and reconstruction
Capacity building to local builders and Partner NGOs to build back better
Provide recommendation for proper plan of rebuilding public facilities
As for the way forward, we expect that:
1. Proper Construction Technology should be applied in relevant disaster prone areas, in order to support
the structural mitigation of the community by adapting/integrating local resources
2. Private sectors should share the existing technology to all, that multi stakeholders could benefit from the
resources they have
3. Capacity building to all, as to apply relevant technology that is crucial to provide awareness and skills
of the communities and relevant government authorities
4. Using existing technologies to strengthen vocational schools and community practitioners to build
resiliency

V.3 Presentation on the Minimum Standard for Comprehensive Safe and Healthy School (Andy
Wahyu Widayat/Save the Children)
Since most of the safety school project
only concerns in dealing with the
disasters itself, Save the Children in
Indonesia develops a program called
Comprehensive School Health and
Safety (CSHS). The reason for
implementing this program is due to
several reasons as following:
The children are not only victims
directly, but in many cases lose
their right to education because
learning activities disrupted or
cannot take place for a very long
time
Children who are victims of many who experience psychological stress such as feelings of fear,
stress and trauma of prolonged

Page 16

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

School became a "supporting" the situation of many children consume foods and beverages that
are not healthy
Many catastrophic events took place when the children are following the teaching and learning
activities
This program is implemented from July 2013 July 2017, integrated with 2 other programs, which are:
the ECCE (in Belu, NTT-eastern region) and the Literacy BoostCilincing, North Jakarta. The objective of
this program is to improve health aspects and disaster preparedness knowledge and behavior among
students 3-5 SD / SDS / MI in Cilincing, North Jakarta. in order to monitor and evaluate the
implementation of the program, Save the Children developed 2 tools, which are the Monitoring Form of
SETARA Project, and the Standard Minimum for Comprehensive School Health and Safety. The difference
between SETARA Monitoring Form and Standard Minimum Form associated with the Project implementation
needs is described in the following table:

In addition to both tools, Save the Children is developed a School Based Assessment Tool. This tool tries to
address the needs of assessment regarding to the 3 pillars of Comprehensive School Safety, include Safe
School Facilities, School Management, and Risk Reduction Resilience Education. As a reflection the tools that
have been developed by Save the Children, we concluded that:

There is a need to have a School Based Assessment tool which is able to see the components of health
and Disaster Risk Reduction in a more complete

School members, especially children, could participate actively in doing monitoring and daily
assessment regarding to the target achievement in Standard Minimum

The selection and the frequency of the monitoring process give different results and explanations
related to the achievement of programs output indicators

Independent monitoring by the school have an impact on the sense of belonging of the school
regarding to the program implementation at the school level

There is a need to be monitored regularly to check if the progress of the program through
performance indicators actually happened and there in school

Page 17

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

Therefore, we recommended that


There is a need to make an assessment tool that provides the same measurement and assessment for
health and DRR components, because the assessment tools that exist today tend to measure only one
program need to involve school committee as well as the students to monitor and to evaluate the
process and results of the activities and impact of the changes that stated on the standard minimum
checklist
There is a need to accommodate and involving children to promote child's participation (at least until
collaboration joint making decision) level) in the process of monitoring and evaluation in the form of
monitoring program on any school based assessment tool.
There is a need to emphasize on the importance of the process of achieving output indicators related
to the parameters had been set, not only just on the results of the output indicators, because the most
important thing is a sense of ownership of the program into a school needs to be completed and
fulfilled for the best interest of the child

VI. DISCUSSION SESSION 2-PANEL PRESENTATIONS FROM INDONESIA


PRACTITIONERS
a.

Mr Susetyo Kurniawan from Save the Children

Mr Tyo said that since the 2004 earthquake and


tsunami response, many schools are designed to
become shelters. The function of the building
changes and construction standards become less
safe. He asks if VISUS will take this functional
change into account. We should add the functional
and structure of the building as shelter. Whereby
when a disaster strikes, the school building are
taken over by the community and the education is
disrupted and this cause problem to the people and
children. The VISUS assessment tool is specific to
the hazard and location. He says that Save the
Children has realized a gap, and conduct the capacity building and awareness rising in North Jakarta
as a respond to the situation. Furthermore the impact of disaster in urban schools that have multi
storey can impact to other neighboring buildings therefore the standard needs to be improved.
Furthermore in BNPB, there is socialization on the evacuation site as part of the building standard.
We need to raise awareness on using the school as the last option for evacuation site.
Mr Andy Wahyu Widayat answered by referring to BNPB Regulation No. 4 Year 2012 that
mentioned that schools are not supposed to be used as shelter, but if there are no other options for
safe sites, the schools can be used as shelter. As additional he mentioned that the school program in
North Jakarta is involving the community in developing the plan.
Mr Krishna Pribadi, we must differ the concept of evacuation and shelter. Shelter is to be used for
IDPs, meanwhile the evacuation is only temporary used. As for the building code for school, is the
most importance part. It has to be safe, especially if it is used as shelter, yet it is supposed to be
disturbed the educational activities.

Page 18

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

Mr Victor Rembeth said that DRP has been asked for its advice for the school as shelter. It supposed
to be based on building code plus, based on the California Building Authority. It is important to also
involve the community, as they have an important role.
b. Ms Yuko Chiba from Hope World Wide Indonesia
Ms Yuko shares that Hope World Wide has two disaster
risk reduction programs and they have worked with around
1500 schools in Indonesia, mainly in Eastern Indonesia and
they have trained thousands of teachers who in turn train
children. They wish to maintain their relationship and
training quality; however limited manpower has hindered
them. She asks for suggestions for maintaining the existing
relationships and quality of training in order that they may
continue to train children.
Mr Andy Wahyu Widayat answered based on the experience, they need to empower the community
and school members by improving them as facilitators then as planners. Because we cannot give the
responsibility to other people outside the communities, thus local wisdom and tradition approach
becomes an effective ways. Yet how to synergize modern way and tradition approach can be used as
an effective way to solve the community problems and also coordination with the local government
and communities are important to improve the system to become sustain due to time constraint of the
project and availability of funding.
c.

Mr Jair Torres from UNESCO HQ Paris


Congratulates for the presentation from the University, Private Sector and also Save the Children.
He mentioned that UNESCO is working closely with Save the Children in different scenarios. He
stated that UNESCO is very happy to extend the partnership with the private sector. He
mentioned also the work that UNESCO and UNICEF has developed concerning mapping and
guidelines for mainstreaming DRR into the school curriculum. Mr. Torres also mentioned about the
need to support principals and teachers, instead of demanding too much from them. Nowadays,
practitioners request too much from school teachers and principals. Governments, NGOs, and the
international community would like that teachers will be specialist in climate change, biodiversity,
peace, aids, sanitation, etc, and also that they became more trained in order to increase the
quality of the education in the traditional areas, such as mathematics, natural and social science,
etc. In his opinion this is too much. Therefore he proposed that as practitioners we join efforts to
support the educational community, and to stop requesting to much from them. He also mentioned
about a methodology tool that was developed by UNESCO in Peru which had approximately 70
pages of information to be assessed by the principal or a teachear in the school without any
technical assistance to do so. Even if the methodology had honorable purposes the outcomes of
the assessment were very weak due to the lack of technical support. Therefore, he thinks that it
would be very difficult for the schools to apply the VISUS methodology without any kind of
support.

d. Mr Krishna Pribadi from ITB


We are aware that the teachers have too much responsibility nowadays. The other stakeholders
that we must to consider are the local education office, due to in many district/city in Indonesia is
under staffs, therefore we must also include them in the assessment.

Page 19

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

e.

Mr Victor Rembeth from DRP


In Indonesia, we are quite new in involving the private sector on DRR. As for the company, the CSR
is cost us too much, and it stakes reputation if we give wrong advice, since it is related to our
capacity, network and future. Hopefully we can explore more opportunity with UNESCO and
other parties, not just in Indonesia, but also in other countries. We also want to learn more from
you to do more with cost effective.

f.

Mr Andy Wahyu Widayat from Save the Children


We will test the methodology in our schools; it will be a good study for our knowledge and
understanding for the safety school, just contact us for further collaboration

Page 20

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

g.

Professor Stefano Grimaz from University of Udine, Italy


Thank you for the presentation, they are all very good and informative. I would like to underline that it is
important, not just the methodology, but also the involvement of different actors, even the private sector,
for instance in order to define the criteria for a quick estimation of the cost of intervention starting from
the results of the assessment. We can work and organize plans with more experts. The contribute in terms
of knowledge and expertise that you all could offer is very important for us. Furthermore, I think that we
need to plan and manage the implementation of VISUS methodology starting from the knowledge that is
already available in the country.

VII. WAY FORWARD ON VISUS ADAPTATION AND APPLICATION IN


INDONESIA
This session discuss in specific how to operationally adapt and implement the VISUS methodology and on
how the stakeholders can work together in sharing resources for wider targets.
a.

Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat from UNESCO Office Jakarta says that further technical overview needs to be
undertaken. It is necessary to engage with experts with the most appropriate knowledge and
expertise. In addition, it is necessary to develop the application and associated materials and conduct
training of trainers. The approximate timeline for this is one year.
Mr. Jair Torres from UNESCO HQ Paris comments that those interested to collaborate should express
their interest to Mr. Ardito M Kodijat. The first step would be to organize meetings, and discuss
hazard by hazard, component by component the different levels of the triage process.

b. Mr Krishna Pribadi from Bandung Technology Institute suggests that a roadmap for this initiative is
needed. He says that it is important to decide what is needed in terms of school safety, and then
decide how this can be done. Major stakeholders such as the MOEC should be involved in this long
term methodology that can be used at national to local level. Leadership is needed; though experts
can provide valuable input, political willingness is also necessary in order to benefit in the future.
Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat from UNESCO Office Jakarta agrees with the statement made by Mr. Krishna
Pribadi that ownership of the project is needed in order to move forward. Plans have been made to
meet and discuss this with the relevant directorate and authorities, include the Ministry of Education
and Cultural, and scheduled to meet with the Vice of Ministry of Education and Cultural (MoEC). We
have planned to meet with different directorates in the MoEC to ask for their ownership before we
continue with the technical meeting.
c. Mr Ronald Sianipar from Save the Children brought up the topic of piloting and asks about the result
or outcome of the project of 6 schools in Pandeglang. He also mentions about disaster prone areas
and how most school buildings in these areas are vulnerable in the event of tsunamis or earthquakes
as they are built back in the 80s. He suggests more areas for piloting and that quality and current
conditions be checked to see if retrofitting is necessary.
Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat from UNESCO Office Jakarta responds by saying that UNESCO at present is
assisting six schools in Pandeglang and is planning to use this methodology. However, the pilot can
only be done after the adaptation to local context is done. He adds that UNESCO hopes to pilot this
project in different areas and not limited to the areas where the work is currently being carried out.

Page 21

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

The more it is being piloted the more the identified issues can be resolved in the adaptation
methodology.
d. Mr Guru Naik from Child Fund Indonesia asks if youth centers and early childhood centers are also
included or considered in this project.
Mr Jair Torres from UNESCO HQ Paris said that every learning facility is included. At the beginning, it
is easier to start with public schools but the idea is that this could then be used in a broader area,
and ultimately even influence policy that can in the future demand private schools to be necessarily
assessed using this methodology or even other methodologies. This is not a question of supporting
government schools but rather supporting general policy for the whole education sector.
e. Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat from UNESCO Office Jakarta mentions the shortage of funding resources and
calls for the support of colleagues in terms of budget and financing. It is not necessary for this
budget to be transferred to UNESCO but can also be useful to support the project when the need
arises. It can be used for coordination meetings or pilot testing, for example. Yet we not only expect
budget, but other resources, for instance for accommodating meeting or training. This might the ideas
that the participants can think over
Mr. Jair Torres from UNESCO HQ Paris agrees with Mr. Ardito M Kodijat and explained that the
technical support has been provided by the University of Udine and UNESCO has invested some
funding, if possible if the participants can communicate with their organizations in term of resources,
we can improve better handbook, training and data collection and faster implementation of the
project. If there is no resources available in your organization, your time and technical support are
also important. Consider this as an opportunity for collaboration for everyone, not as UNESCO
Project and all of your contributions will be acknowledged and recognized.

VIII. CLOSING REMARKS


Mr Ardito M. Kodijat appreciates for the participants to attend the workshop and also for the contribution
from Professor Stefano Grimaz and the guest speakers. This is show that there is a continuation of
addressing safe school in Indonesia and he hopes to hear any response soon.

Page 22

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

LIST OF COMMITTEE/SPEAKERS/PARTICIPANTS
NO
NAME
ORGANIZER COMMITTEE
1
Mr Ardito M. Kodijat
2
Mr Bustamam
Koetapangwa
3
Mrs Yuniarti
Wahyuningtyas
4
Ms Rebecca Sinaga
5
Ms Sella Octavia
6
Ms Adeline Liew
SPEAKERS
7
Professor Stefano Grimaz
8
Mr Jair Torres
9
Mr Krishna Pribadi
10 Mr Victor Rembeth
11 Mr Andy Wahyu Widayat
12
Mr Gogot Suharwoto
13
Ms Hasnah Gasim
PARTICIPANTS
14
Mr Jason Brown
15
Mr Alex Robinson
16
Ms Yuko Chiba
17
Mr Ahmad Noviar
18
Mr Wahyu Cahyono
19

Ms Martina Estrely

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

Mr Arif Nur Cholis


Ms Vera California
Mr irfan Anom
Mr Michael
Mr Guru Naik
Ms Yanti Sriyulianti
Mr Amin
Mr Lutfi Prabowo
Ms Erita Nurhalim
Mr Victorious Siahaan
Mr Arifan Jaya
Mr Hadi Sutjipto
Ms Annisa Puji
Ms Claire Gaulin
Ms Mika Aono
Mr Asmoro
Mr Narwawi
Mr Jaswadi
Mr jusaini
Mr Rinsan Tobing
Ms Rosalyn Wijaya
Mr Anton
Mr Soesatyo Budi K.

ORGANIZATION

E-MAIL/PHONE

UNESCO Office Jakarta


UNESCO Office Jakarta

a.kodijat@unesco.org/+62816971196
b.koetapangwa@unesco.org/+6282166465019

UNESCO Office Jakarta

y.wahyuningtyas@unesco.org/+6281281842508

UNESCO Office Jakarta


UNESCO Office Jakarta
UNESCO Office Jakarta

r.sinaga@unesco.org/+6287823556705
s.octavia@unesco.org/+6281298921111
adelineliew21@gmail.com/+6282231845454

University of Udine
UNESCO HQ Paris
ITB
DRP
Save the Children
Ministry of Education
NatCom for UNESCO

stefano.grimaz@uniud.it
j.torres@unesco.org
kspribadi@gmail.com/+62811217666
vrembeth@gmail.com/+6281213865028
andy.widayat@savethechildren.org/+6281392376645
gurugogot@gmail.com/+6287886701662
hasnah.gasim@yahoo.com/+62818154227

DFAT
ASB
Hope Worldwide
Indonesia Business Link
Crisis Centre
Univ.Indonesia
Crisis Centre
Univ.Indonesia
Muhammadiyah
Hope Worldwide
Islamic Relief
Hope Worldwide
Child Fund
KerLip
BNPB
Telapak
World Bank
Ministry of Social
Geo-technology LIIPI
Care
NatCom for UNESCO
UN OCHA
Japan Heart
Dompet Dhuafa
UNFPA
Ministry of Social
Ministry of Religion
World Bank
Kuark
Save the Children
Save the Children

jason.brown@dfat.gov.au/+62811924535
alex.robinson@asbindonesia.org/+6281392378440
yuko@hopeindonesia.org/+6282291575079
noviarax@gmail.com/+628111048853
hanyasatukata@yahoo.com/+6281314023148
martina.estrely@gmail.com/+6281311469366
arif@mdmc.or.id/+6281392285384
vera@hopeindonesia.org
anom@islamic-relief.or.id/+6281298582793
handing.6@gmail.com/+6281919001111
gnaik@indonesia.childfund.org/+628111680511
yantikerlip@gmail.com/+62817625001
aminxch@yahoo.com/+6285217129038
+6282311625119
erita.nurhalim@gmail.com/+628119216504
n/a
arifanjaya@yahoo.co.id/+6281904194895
hadi_sutjipto@careind.or.id/ +628161876665
annisa.pujilestari@hotmail.com/+6285717376856
claire_gaulin@hotmail.fr/ +62812 9106 3020
mika.jh.aono@gmail.com
asmoro.pnpm@gmail.com/+87872304632
pramudhiarta@unfpa.org/+628121584656
jjaswadi@gmail.com/+6281392460132
jusaini.kamal@hotmail.com/+6282123024449
rtobing@worldbank.org/+6281320713741
rosalyn.wijaya@komikuark.net/+6287710188183
anton.purnomo@savethechildren.org/+6285294463660
soesatyo.kurniawan@savethechildren.org/+6281328359389

Page 23

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59

Mr Ronald Sianipar
Mr Ivan Tagor
Ms Dear Sinandang
Mr Surya R.M
Mr Billy Sumuan
Mr Marlon Lukman
Ms Sun Wook Jung
Ms Irina Rafliana
Ms Deva Rachman
Ms Widyasari L.
Mr Leonardus Depa D.
Mr Petrasa Wacana
Ms Sudarwati
Mr Jazziray Hartoyo
Mr Zamzam M
Mr Samino
Mr Sutadji

60

Ms Octavina TW

Save the Children


Child Fund
HFI
HFI
World Vision
YTBI
UNICEF
LIPI
Intel
Intel
Karina
Oxfam
Data Statistic MoEC
SecDitGen MoEC
KerLip
Basic Edu MoEC
RIHS Ministry of Public
Work
IBL

ronald.sianipar@savethechildren.org/+628119401636
itagor@indonesia.childfund.org/+6281315159510
dear@humanitarianforumindonesia.org/+628174926247
surya.rahman.muhammad@gmail.com/+6281360469344
billy_sumuan@wvi.org/+62811569913
marlonlukman@gmail.com/+6281210221969
swjung@unicef.org
irina_rafliana@hotmail.com
deva.rachman@intel.com/+6281380796477
widyasari.listyowulan@intel.com/+6287886102029
depadey@gmail.com/+628111700798
pwacana@oxfam.org/+6281227836239
sudarwattie@yahoo.com/+628128328041
jhartoyo@hotmail.com/+628551070271
zamzam.muzaki@gmail.com/+6281221766512
+62818703571
sutadji_ywdiki@yahoo.com/+6281320651331
wiwin@ibl.or.id/+6281219787827

Page 24