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
Education
DoE Focal Point for
RDM
Other Ministries, Departments, Agencies,
etc…
Schools’ Safety
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
7. Contingency Plan – Logical Framework Matrix
Goal
Develop and maintain a culture
of safety and preparedness
sector-wide and so build
resilience to disasters at all
levels.
Indicators
Means of Verification
Responsible Agencies
Timeline
DoE and all education
institutions regularly assess risks
and capacities and develop
plans for DRR and disaster
preparedness.
Policy framework for DRR and
disaster preparedness sectorwide.
DoE senior
management and
focal point for disaster
management
Over the next
three years –
2012 to 2015
All plans are implemented,
including training and regular
emergency simulation
exercises.
All plans are regularly reviewed,
based on evaluation of
simulation exercises and ongoing risk assessment.
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.
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 developed and
implemented.
Policy framework.
Funding mobilized to ensure
effective implementation of policy
framework.
Funding available in appropriate
budget lines at DoE and school
levels.
Focal Point for disaster
management appointed.
Focal Point and its terms of
reference
Emergency protocols developed,
including standard operating
procedures manuals and format for
EDP Plans.
Training organized for all
Contingency plan for Education
Sector, standard operating
procedures (SOP) manuals and
planning formats.
5
DoE senior management
and focal point for
disaster management
By the end of
2012
DRDM, DoE senior
management and focal
point for disaster
management
By the end of
2012
stakeholders in the
implementation of plans and use of
manuals.
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.
Training program and number of
sessions organised.
DoE and Schools’ Emergency and
Disaster Preparedness (EDP) Plans
developed.
EDP plans
Training in the implementation of
EDP Plans.
Training program and number of
sessions organised.
Plans are reviewed after practice.
Updated EDP Plans
Policy framework, contingency
plan, SOP manuals, EDP plans and
school practices indicate clear and
linked processes, led by DoE Focal
Point.
Policy framework, contingency
plan, SOP manuals, EDP plans,
simulation exercise schedules
and evaluation reports.
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.
Training evaluation reports.
DoE and all education institutions
have EDP plans led and managed
by disaster management
committees.
DoE Focal Point terms of
reference.
DoE and institutions’ EDP plans &
Implementation schedules.
DoE and all education institutions
have developed emergency
protocols according to agreed
format, and implement them.
Records of DoE Focal Point and
school safety committee
meetings.
DoE and institutions’ EDP plans.
DoE senior management
and focal point for
disaster management
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.
6
By the end of
2012
DoE and all schools and
other education
institutions
DoE and all schools and
other education
institutions
d. All plans are revised in the
light of regular practice and
ongoing risk reduction
assessment.
Revised plans incorporate findings
of simulation practice evaluations
and risk reduction assessment.
DoE and institutions’ EDP plans.
Staff and students’ reactions to
simulation exercises.
Activities – related to objective 1
Indicators
1.1 Develop policy framework for
DRR and disaster preparedness, in
line with national disaster
management policies.
Draft Policy framework that
incorporates national disaster
management policies developed in
collaboration with all stakeholders.
Education Sector policy
framework.
Records of meetings and
workshops.
DoE senior management
and focal point for
disaster management
By end of April
2012
1.2 Set up a disaster management
focal point within the DoE to
oversee implementation of policy
framework.
Focal Point for DM, led by a DM
Team, ensures effective coordination and development of
DRR and preparedness strategies
within the education sector.
Focal point leader, DM Team
members, their terms of
reference and plans.
Appropriate budget for Focal
Point activities.
DoE senior management
By end of 2011
1.3 Establish disaster
management/ school safety
committee at institution level
Disaster management/ school
safety committees established in
all schools and other education
institutions. Agreed terms of
reference and workplans available.
Existence of active Committee
with clear terms of reference.
Minutes of meetings.
DoE Focal Point for
disaster management
and institution leaders
By end of 2011
1.4 Provide or ensure provision of
appropriate funding for
maintaining safe buildings, related
infrastructure and facilities.
Sufficient funding is available for
DRR and disaster preparedness at
DoE and schools’ levels.
Necessary funding as specified in
EDP Plans is available under
appropriate budget lines at DoE
and institution levels.
DoE senior management
and focal point for
disaster management in
liaison with Ministry of
Finance.
From July
2011and ongoing
DoE curriculum and
assessment unit in
collaboration with
education institutions
From Jan to Dec
2012
Disbursement mechanism is
responsive, efficient and effective.
1.5 Mainstream DRR education
and preparedness in the national
curriculum and in teacher training
programmes.
Schools’ national curriculum and
teacher training courses include
aspects of DRR and disaster
preparedness education in line
with expectations of DoE’s Policy
Framework.
Means of Verification
Responsible Agencies
Timeline
Disbursement mechanism.
Curriculum documents on DRR
and preparedness education.
7
Opportunities are provided for
children and young people to
undergo training and participate in
disaster risk reduction efforts as
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.
Training packages and delivery
schedules.
School safety committee reports.
EDP plans.
Evidence of preventative
maintenance work on buildings
and other infrastructure,
protecting them from damage by
sea salt spray and high humidity.
Contractor payment records and
work assessment records.
DoE senior management,
Focal Point, school
leaders and parents
From third
quarter of 2011
and on-going
Schools and other
education institutions,
DoE maintenance units,
DoE Focal Point, DoE
senior management.
From third
quarter of 2011
and on-going
DoE senior management,
Focal Point and planning
unit of DoE and national
planning authorities
From third
quarter of 2011
and on-going
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.
Copies of established building
8
codes and standards are available
and known to DoE staff and school
leaders.
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.
Safety standards for school
transportation developed.
Negotiations undertaken with bus
company.
Training packages developed and
delivered.
Appropriate insurance cover is
established.
Budget is made available.
Activities – related to objective 2
Indicators
2.1 Carry out assessment of
hazards, vulnerabilities, capacities
and resources
Assessments carried out at DoE
and institution levels, and reviewed
on an annual basis.
Safety standards document.
Records of meetings with bus
company.
Training packages.
DoE senior management,
Focal Point, schools and
other education
institutions
From Jan 2012
and on-going
Insurance policy
DoE senior management
By Jan 2012
Means of Verification
Responsible Agencies
Timeline
Yearly assessment reports
All schools and other
education institutions,
DoE Focal Point, DRDM.
During third and
fourth quarter
of 2011 and ongoing, on a
yearly basis
Plans for physical risk reduction,
maintenance of safe facilities,
standard operating procedures and
training for disaster/emergency
response are produced, endorsed
and disseminated.
EDP and other plans (eg schools’
development plans and DoE
strategic plans)
All schools and other
education institutions,
DoE Focal Point, DRDM.
From Jan 2012
and on-going
Action plans for their
implementation are
developed/updated and targets
set.
Action plans and progress
reports.
Evidence of maintenance work
done.
Required resources (eg. fire
extinguishers, water hoses, first aid
Checklist of all available
resources
Assessment is well-researched and
takes into account historical hazard
events known to have happened in
the area.
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.
9
kits, appropriate number of
persons with first response skills)
are available on site.
Indicators
Means of Verification
Responsible Agencies
Timeline
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..)
Plans cater for the needs of all
vulnerable groups.
EDP and other plans
All schools and other
education institutions,
DoE Focal Point, DRDM.
From Jan 2012
and on-going
2.4 Organise realistic simulation
drills to test disaster preparedness
plans and skills levels regularly
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.
Annual drill schedule and
evaluation reports.
All schools and other
education institutions,
DoE Focal Point, DRDM.
From Jan 2012
and on-going
DoE Focal Point, all
schools and other
education institutions.
From mid- 2012
and on-going
Fire drills take place twice yearly
and a full evacuation simulation
exercise is organized once a year.
2.5 Revise plans based on
evaluation of the experience and
on further assessment of hazards,
vulnerabilities, capacities and
resources
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
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
evaluation reports
Verbal reports of students and
staff.
10
2.6 Integrate school plans and
disaster management processes
with community plans
accordingly.
Education institutions are
represented on district
administration committees.
Education institution plans are
developed in collaboration with
district administration committee.
Revised EDP Plans
School representative on district
committee.
District EDP plans.
Shared plans.
DoE Focal Point, all
schools and other
education institutions
and district
administration leaders.
From Jan 2012
and on-going
Indicators
Means of Verification
Responsible Agencies
2.7 Incorporate national early
warning systems and norms into
school plans
National and district level warning
systems are known to school safety
committee and communicated to
the whole institution.
School safety committee reports.
Verbal reports of students and
staff.
From Jan 2012
and on-going
2.8 Establish a communication
system for emergencies, including
warning systems and local media
contacts
Communication system for
emergencies is established
EDP plans
School safety committee reports.
DoE Focal Point plans and reports
DoE Focal Point, DRDM,
all schools and other
education institutions
and district
administration leaders.
DoE Focal Point, DRDM,
all schools and other
education institutions.
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.
Clear criteria developed
collaboratively and shared with all
stakeholders
EDP plans
School safety committee reports.
DoE Focal Point plans and reports
DoE Focal Point, DRDM,
all schools and other
education institutions
From Jan 2012
and on-going
2.10 Develop plans for establishing
alternative locations (postdisaster) for the continuation of
classes – in cases of serious
damage to school buildings.
Alternative locations identified,
alternative class schedules and
instruction strategies are planned
and secure back-up of educational
records are maintained.
Alternative location plans
From Jan 2012
and on-going
2.11 Establish student release
procedures that are approved by
parents/guardians.
Student release procedures agreed
with parents/ guardians.
Contact details of parents/
guardians available and kept with
up-to-date student registers.
DoE senior management,
Focal Point, planning
unit, curriculum unit of
DoE and all schools and
other education
institutions
All schools and other
education institutions
and DoE Focal Point.
Provisional timetables and
curriculum outlines
Back-up of educational records
Student registers and release
permissions from parents.
List of parents/ guardians contact
details.
11
Timeline
From Jan 2012
and on-going
From Jan 2012
and on-going
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)
12