IPRCC Seminar on Disaster Risk Management & Poverty Reduction

for Asian Countries

20thSept to 29thSept Chengdu

----------------------------------
Session 4:
Core strategies of Disaster Risk Management and Poverty Reduction
Topic 1. Resilient Restoration and Reconstruction and disadvantaged groups development

-------------
Presentation Paper
“Developing ownership of a sustainable Community Disaster Reduction Culture
to enhance the resilience of the vulnerable poor against natural disaster risks”
author: Garry de la Pomerai

----------------------------------

The use of the words ‘poor’ and ‘poverty’ are both relative terms. Relative to the coexistence of the
diversity of a nation. For the purposes of this paper i will refer to ‘the Poor’ as those who have limited
ability to improve their wealth and are basically existing on the minimal resources of food and shelter.
I do not suggest that this spectrum of peoples are necessarily unhappy nor starving. However they
remain highly vulnerable to the plethora of hazards from natural geological and meteorological events
to famine and disease and the effects of conflict. They are for all intense and purposes purely
existing. Consequently they remain very reliant upon ‘our’ leadership to improve sustainability and
survival. However, much of this paper will also address your own community approach to developing
and enhancing their own resilience. There can not be one rule for one and another rule for others. It
has been globally accepted that the vulnerable poor require direct assistance, not by handouts, but by
empowering them with the skills and understanding of developing resilience.

As an example: Bhutan lies in one of the most seismically active zones in the world and the 2009
earthquake was the most damaging natural disaster the country has experienced in recent times, with
12 people killed and thousands left without proper shelter. Among the worst hit areas were the
districts of Mongar and Trashigang, two of the most remote and impoverished areas in the country.
The Government of Bhutan and development partners provided swift assistance in the immediate
aftermath of the calamity but without longer term support, including the rebuilding of damaged
schools and other public facilities, there are concerns that already poor communities will be plunged
even deeper into poverty.

The project is taking a ‘build back better’ approach which will see the four target schools restored
using earthquake-resilient materials and design. Where possible, local materials will be sourced while
private contractors doing the construction work will be encouraged to hire members of the affected
communities, including women. Participating community members will also be taught earthquake
resilient construction techniques that could potentially be applied to communal buildings or their own
homes. Disaster risk management skills will be taught to district government officials and teachers
and school administrators, who will in turn provide community training aimed at increasing awareness
and ensuring effective responses to calamities.[1] (see appendix 1)
Within the published ‘Implementation Plan’ [2] for this seminar I have identified two of the objectives
very relevant to this paper
Objective 1. To analyze the impact of natural disasters on the poverty and poverty reduction in
global and Asian countries;
Objective 4. To explore ways of further optimizing disaster risk management to promote poverty
reduction.
This paper will review the challenges and attempt to address some of the essential ingredients of
potential solutions. I will refer to the perception of risk; existing community knowledge; assessments;
DRR education both formal and informal; the empowering of the children to develop long term
sustainability; Advocacy; capacity building; clustering; and empowering the people by enhancing their
Local Indigenous knowledge to have some control of their own destiny.
I have addressed these subjects, along side many colleagues during numerous international
meetings and conferences over the past years. I draw upon those words to amalgamate the topics to
address this sessions title within this paper.

We firstly need to ask ourselves why do some communities survive well and others not. Why is it that
some are resilient, prepared and able to recover relatively quickly but others take years, in fact some
fail to ever fully recover.
I turn to our understanding of the ‘perception of risk’ realising that our vulnerability to the numerous
potential hazards is complex, which might affect a global region, an individual mainland country or
Island, a region within a country, a single community or simply for example, one school within a
community. This has been recognised recently within the region of Sichuan.

Quoting from the final report of the recent 1st Dujiangyan International Forum for Education for
Sustainable Development held in July 2010.[3].
“The underlying causes for increasing disaster vulnerability, both in pre and post disaster situation
are essentially linked to the existing social, economic and political context and existing policy
approaches for managing disasters. This in many instances is a result of existing development
processes, whose implications on rural communities in the region are in the form of social and
economic poverty and inequity, market economy and lack of proper education. Five main issues and
challenges are evident in the context of rural communities of some countries in Asia and the Pacific
for reducing their disaster vulnerability through building local knowledge and capacities. These are: 1)
Loss of material and land resources (from rural communities); 2) Loss of Traditional Skills; 3) Cultural
Incompatibility of external interventions; 4) Increasing Social and Economic inequity; and 5)
Weakening of Local Governance.” (see appendix2 for the Dujiangyan Forum Understanding
Statement)

To understand the potential risks, we need to make ourselves aware of the differing types of hazards
likely to affect us. Often these are passed down between generations within the collective indigenous
or as some prefer, local knowledge. During more recent decades this knowledge has been reinforced
by formal Disaster Reduction education within schools and communities introduced by specialist
advocators, constantly encouraging the inclusion of DR within Education for all. referring to an
initiative held in April 2009, during which ‘Teachers without Borders’, the Dujiangyan Bureau of
Education and the Teacher Training School in Dujiangyan, China, conducted a 10-day earthquake
emergency education workshop for over 200 teachers and school administrators in Dujiangyan,
heavily damaged by the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake [4] (See appendix 3.for full report and link)

Our challenge is that In an era of mobility collective indigenous knowledge concerning disasters
becomes diluted. This reality propels us to look for new solutions and policies amongst which schools
become a proper nexus.
I cite the Simeulue Island as an example, back in the 2004 Tsunami where the 70,000 inhabitants
survived. Why did they? Because years ago similar events occurred and consequently over the
generations the stories were handed down, “when you see the fish walk, you must go to the hills”. A
well established culture of survival by a relatively stable indigenous population. [5] (See appendix 4
for the full story.)
However within our modern society we have the more transient population due to economic
migration, sometimes conflict and sometimes due to environmental change altering our agricultural
patterns and not to forget for reasons of relocation post disaster. Consequently collective indigenous
knowledge, so vital to ensure sustainable communities by creating the necessary resilience, becomes
diluted and often forgotten.
Is this news to us? I believe not, however I think that it is necessary that we remind ourselves of these
following facts prior to establishing and implementing new policies.
Assessments of risk and contingency; Informed management development to address resilience;
Capacity building of stakeholders to enhance sustainability; The involvement of the children within the
decision making process within a community; Community perception of risk and vulnerability to be
a managed cycle, continually reviewed. Consequently when a Disaster Management cycle is put
in place incorporating these facets, pressures can be released from the Administration because
communities can begin to help themselves.

Let us review some of these ingredients. Assessments are a key factor. Assessments should not
simply be generated from scientific studies but should include bottom up realisation, developing a
realistic perception of vulnerability within the communities. Assessment is a continuous cycle
contributed to from the scientist to the observant individual. This approach therefore potentially
develops ownership for an educated community to decide its destiny. Consequently it is through
education that we best stand a chance to raise Disaster Reduction awareness to develop a ‘DR
Culture’ which enhances Regional and National strategies for improving sustainability and resilience
to the many threatening events to a community. My long time philosophy is that ‘by starting with
today’s children, you then convince tomorrow’s decision makers from Shop Keeper to President’.

“The sooner that you can generate the children’s thought processes as to the challenges, the sooner
they will develop and assist in the ownership of the solutions, thus providing this much sought after
sustainability”.

(see Appendix 5 for working example of Children taking ownership through Clustering during
the Indonesia floods)

If DRR within Schools is approached using a comprehensive strategic plan, with mapped and
monitored progress fortified by collaboration, proper assessment, transparency of agenda and
inclusiveness of all stakeholders, then it is potentially possible to create continuity of Education
through any crisis, generating fast track recovery, developing sustainability within all communities and
encouraging ownership of Pledges made within the International Agenda not only of making safer
schools and hospitals in post disaster but also proactively in DRR strategies for all vulnerable
communities

Importantly Within our DRR strategies we need to address: awareness, strategic planning, community
involvement, resourcing, assessment of need and of vulnerability, mapping of promise and of
commitment and mapping of progress of the physical implementation.
In order to generate the ‘desired pace’ during any recovery or contingency plan, we need to consider
the development of: a defined national policy and the responsibility of its implementation through
ownership of the policy at National, Regional and local level; we need to consider the development of
legislated Building Codes for new build, relocation with a build back better philosophy; we need to
ensure the development of the optimum design principles supported by legislation within Policy by
Governments for retrofitting and maintenance; we need to address the challenges of establishing a
compliance policy and more importantly a ‘compliance culture’ within communities; and we need to
consider the resources for stable project management and comprehensive capacity build
programmes.
As a suggestion I recommend that we consider developing school clusters to aid the limited
resources available to the management of DR initiatives and to aid the capacity limitation of teachers
and planning management. This approach not only combines the strengths of differing communities
but also allows the sharing of resources enabling communities to develop a dynamic approach of
communication and reaction to potential hazards (see appendix 6 for Clustering briefing)
19,000 students killed in Three minutes in the 2005 Pakistan Earthquake, 7000+ here in China whilst
all sitting in their classrooms, wanting to learn for their future, to the benefit of their families,
communities and for their country. These tragedies did not separate the poor from the rich children.
They sat together as equals within the education system.

Consequently to address long term sustainability within all level of our society, I recommend we
should start with the children and students, a collective and captive audience who are naturally at
their learning stage, are open to new ideas, able to disseminate the information back into the
community through parents and friends and have time to develop projects, not only for their class but
also within their community.
Case study France:
Cities and students are brought together in a program called “Memo’Risks”. Called upon by their Mayor,
students 11 years and older lead an inquiry about a natural hazard that concerns their city. The project is a trans-
disciplinary school project anchored locally and in daily life. Students are invited to start simple actions such as
drawing risk maps, uncovering memories by interviewing the elderly, questioning the population about its level
of information and preparation, asking local workers, businessmen and shop-keepers about the possible
consequences of a disaster. Adult awareness is
raised at the same time. The finished work is present at the city-hall open to the public, and recognized in local
newspapers and radio. [6] ( http://www.prevention2000.org/memorisks/i
ndex.htm ) Source: UNISDR 2008

I reemphasise Children, students are the very future of a developing sustainable community, a region,
a country, of our world. Influence them and you influence tomorrows Politician, doctor, nurse, parent,
teacher, trader and industrialist, consequently changing the DR culture from fatalistic, from helpless,
to a sustainable, hopeful, capable and responsible resilient series of communities, regions and
countries and…. in doing so, reverting a potential 'Human Disaster' back into purely a 'Natural Event'.
This is not to say that events will not have enormous economic effects, such is developing within
Pakistan at present. However miraculously there has been less than 2000 lives lost with an event
larger than the great Tsunami of 2004.

If we are to accept that education can play the great role within developing ‘Core strategies of
Disaster Risk Management and Poverty Reduction’ then we must review Globally the approach to
ESD Education for Sustainable Development and integration of DR within ESD.
I quote from ‘The Concept Note’ document prepared by members of the UN ISDR TPKE for the
WCESD 2008 in Bonn [6]

“Education for Disaster Risk Reduction (EDRR) - as part of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) - has to
be inherent with Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), and supports the frameworks of ESD
in three important ways:
> Education for disaster risk reduction is interdisciplinary. Therefore, important consideration is given
to the impacts on, and relationship between, society, the environment, economy and culture.
> Education for disaster risk reduction promotes critical thinking and problem solving and other social
and emotional life skills that are essential to the empowerment of stakeholder groups threatened or
affected by disasters.
> Education for disaster risk reduction supports the Millennium Development Goals. Without
considering Disaster Risk Reduction in development planning, all efforts including, decades of
development initiatives could be destroyed in seconds.”

“While in the past a strong focus has been given to disaster response during or in the immediate
aftermath of a disaster; disaster risk reduction measures require solid actions based on policies,
which target mitigation effectively to reduce the growing vulnerability of communities and assets. The
five strategic themes are based on examples and worldwide best practices and involve elements that
need to be taken into account to effectively integrate Disaster Risk Reduction into policies, plans and
programmes supporting the basic vision of the Decade for ESD, “a world where everyone has the
opportunity to benefit from education and learn the values, behaviour and lifestyle required for a
sustainable future and for positive societal transformation”.

Strategic Theme 1:‘Advocacy to policy makers’

A public policy is required to incorporate Disaster Risk Reduction within the framework of education
for sustainable development, and this must start with political commitment and high-level
authority and be rooted in the coordination of various agencies and sectors and their participation in
policy-making. Therefore the availability of a political framework for Disaster Risk Reduction on
national level is a precondition. While decisions will depend on authorities and institutions at the
national level, local government, local institutions and communities must be empowered to participate
in the entire policy making process, so that they are fully aware and prepared to incorporate Disaster
Risk Reduction within policies targeting education.
Strategic Theme 2:‘Capacity Building’
Capacity building and training for Disaster Risk Reduction Education can be applied at three different
levels.
1. At the individual level, capacity building refers to the process of changing attitudes and developing
skills while maximizing the benefits of participation and knowledge exchange.
2. At the institutional level, capacity building concentrates on organizational performance
and functioning capabilities.
3. In recent years, increased emphasis has also been placed on the systemic dimension of capacity
development with emphasis on the overall policy framework.
Again, the Agenda 21 (Chapter 7) incorporates specific recommendations related to capacity
building in disaster-prone urban areas6. Within the ESD capacity building and training is one of the
seven interlinked strategies that are proposed for the Decade.
The aim of Education for Disaster Risk Reduction is to build the human capacities to understand the
most likely risks, likelihood of disasters and their potential consequences. Policy decisions to
reduce disasters should be based on a sound assessment of risk. However, it takes educated people
- at whatever stage of life or age they are – to identify the risks, both in terms of the hazards and
vulnerabilities. A challenge is before building the capacities, key persons in the education system
have to be sensitised and motivated to engage themselves for disaster prevention.
Institutions and communities which execute policy decisions must be educated and trained
concerning how to locally optimize disaster risk reduction measures, enabling such risks to be dealt
with. Education is essential to ensure that people in such institutions and communities understand
the severity of the risks they are facing, and have the capacity to implement measures required
to manage such risks properly. Experiences of professionals and practitioners are vital
resources that must be cultivated, engaged and sustained at local and national levels. Vulnerable
communities should be duly empowered with valuable knowledge, education and skills, to take well-
informed decisions and actions at times of emergencies.
Strategic Theme 3: ‘Formal education’
To create a culture of safety, disaster risk reduction and environmental issues have to be integrated
within all levels of education, from the pre-primary to the advanced university levels. Tertiary
education makes a substantial contribution towards supporting the reform processes for Disaster
Risk Reduction necessary for successful sustainable development. Universities are teaching the
leaders of tomorrow and are seen as „intellectual goldmines“.
The following three complementary elements are important for long-term sustainability in
mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in formal education:
(1) Curricula and school integration, (2) Teacher training, (3) Assessment of learning.
These three elements furthermore also need to be aligned to ensure coherency. One of the major
challenges relies on making the complex cause-effect chains between human behaviour and
environment comprehensible to children and youth, and ensuring that they, as future citizens, are and
will be able to make sound decisions and act upon these in their lives through increased life skills and
knowledge.
Disaster Risk Reduction can be integrated into formal school curricula, either as stand-alone courses
or modules designed for infusion into existing courses. The most comprehensive approach is a mix
between integration and infusion. Disaster Risk Reduction benefits from being integrated into a main
topic that already deals with resilience and prevention skills, such as Education for Sustainable
Development or life skills education. This allows for better monitoring of outputs and outcomes, and
alignment with teacher training and assessments. Enriching the remaining curriculum through
infusion of related knowledge matter, allows reinforcement of learning through repetition. Additionally
co-curricular activities like school safety programmes should be promoted. The programmes include
the whole school and reach out to the community, and the activities cut across subjects and classes.
However, what is critical to ensure is that the content of the curricula guarantees that it includes more
than just the imparting of information on evacuation drills or first-aid attempts. Education for Disaster
Risk Reduction aims at building safety and resilience at all levels. To ensure this, desired and
measurable knowledge, attitudes and skills learning outcomes that contribute to decreasing risk and
increasing protection in situations of natural disasters need to be established. It is also critical to
ensure the relationship between the hazardous phenomenon and human interaction and the many
practical countermeasures that can be implemented to reduce the risk. Therefore, curricula in primary
and also in higher education should introduce principles of, and positive attitudes towards, long-term
disaster preventive measures such as safe construction, appropriate land-use planning, contingency
planning and effective early warning communication systems.
Concept Note
Strategic Theme 4: ‘Non-formal education’
Non-formal education can be the rapid entry point for Disaster Risk Reduction Education. This can
take many forms, offering fun and engaging ways to introduce important knowledge, skills and
competencies for students of all ages. Some examples are creative educational material, such as
games, comic books, posters and videos. The use of all forms of arts, like music, street theatre and
dance, to transmit essential knowledge to parents and to the wider community is especially
appreciated in the non-formal settings of assemblies and special events. An important aspect is to
bring together students, parents, the local community and the local government by, for instance,
staging after school ‘safety clubs’, parent-teacher association or school welfare committee meetings.
The wealth of expertise and experience encompassed as part of indigenous knowledge, acquired
and passed from one generation to another has developed more interest in recent years in the area
of disaster management. Indigenous knowledge has the potential to improve Disaster Risk Reduction
policies through the integration of disaster education and early warning systems. An incorporation of
indigenous or local knowledge in existing practices and policies as well as its recognition within
formal education processes should also encourage the participation of the affected community and
empower its members to take the leading role in all Disaster Risk Reduction activities. Further project
implementation can certainly be improved by obtaining valuable information about the local context.
Strategic Theme 5: ‘Educational infrastructure’
A safe and disaster resistant educational infrastructure is important to reduce the number of students and
teacher casualties. A safe education facility is that which is either located in a danger free zone or has been
built to be resilient to an extreme natural event. Older school buildings should also be made resilient and to
that end, should benefit from effective retrofitting programmes. In the long run, improving quality and
constructing new, safe education buildings should make up part of national development planning. Educational
infrastructure can be made resilient through measures such as ‘land use’ planning, structural reinforcement
and emergency plans. In addition, schools are generally regarded as potential shelters during and after a
disaster. During the present floods in Pakistan over 5000 schools have been hosting 1,155,981
individuals. Therefore explicit account must be taken of these so-called safe havens in disaster management.
Nevertheless, it is important to resume school operations as fast as possible after a disaster. Education
buildings are a large investment for a municipality, so they should be built to last and that also means they
need to be disaster-resilient, because building/ rebuilding an education centre always incurs heavy costs and
these place an additional burden on scarce budget funds in times of emergency. During the present Pakistan
floods over 7500 schools have been damaged which presents an enormous challenge to the Administration if
education classes are to be quickly resumed.

However in the pursuit of ESD..........if we are to concentrate DRRE on the Learning establishments
educating and training collectively, THEN I emphasise that we must make the Schools, Universities
and all training and learning establishments a safer and resilient environment. Why teach the children
one day to potentially lose them all the next day under a pile of rubble, destroying the sustainability
we strive for along with the whole influential next generation of the educated and the trained
craftsmen and women, the future pillars of Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development.
School vulnerability strongly affects a country’s ability to achieve the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) of the universal right to primary education and the eradication of poverty, and the UNESCO
led “Education for All” initiative, both ‘only’ attainable when principles of resilient environments and
school safety are made a priority.
Much can be done to guide future educational infrastructure planning and construction and to reduce
the vulnerability of schools and educational buildings through proactive mitigation programs.
The safety of educational infrastructure needs to become a national priority and an essential part of
the Ministries of Education’s role must be in making it imperative to ensure that policies, guidelines,
implementation and monitoring mechanisms are needed. The following conditions have to be met to
ensure safe education centres:
(1) Safe sites are defined in a detailed risk analysis.
(2) New education centres are built for disaster resistance in compliance with building regulations.
(3) Existing education centres are assessed and brought up to regulation standards through
structural reinforcement and retrofitting as appropriate.
(4) Minimum standards for regional building regulations are developed and applied.
(5) Special attention is paid to educational infrastructure in land use and development planning.
Consequently there derived the prioritised collective series of 'global safe schools' and 'DR education'
projects and initiatives. In 2005 the Coalition for Global School Safety established an international
network of advocates and activists; 2007 saw the Ahmedabad Action Agenda adopted at the first
pure International Conference on School Safety organised by SEEDS, identifying the need for:
immediate and midterm priorities; Disaster Reduction Education in Schools; Disaster Resilient School
Infrastructure; Safe School and Community Environment; Advocacy and government Policy on
School Safety. It also identified stakeholder roles and responsibilities; This was followed by the 2008
International School Safety Conference in Pakistan organised by the Aga Khan Foundation with the
‘Islamabad Declaration on School Safety’
prioritising DRR Education and the creation of resilient school buildings through new build coded
implementation and retrofit and the use of PPPs Private Public Partnerships.

Again referring back specifically to this Seminars Session and this Papers title, there are enormous
advantages of using the school as a nexus within the community, be it poor or rich. New Zealand
recently experience considerable damage by an earthquake, many buildings failing to achieve the
necessary resilient expectations. I have been a strong advocate to make the school a nexus, the
central focal point to a community, not only to learn within but equally to visually learn from.
Education establishments should be used as an example of resilient construction methods for the
communities to follow within their own homes, villages and towns and equally, to ensure sustainable
DRR, implemented into the environments of Hospitals, strategic logistical infrastructure,
Administration, and Industry.
In order to aid and commence the facilitation of this strategy The INEE with International partners has
initiated a Global project producing the Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction, launched at
the ISDR Global Platform in Geneva 2009. A tremendous DRR asset tool strengthening ESD within
vulnerable, poor and developing communities.
We should remember that Resilient constructed learning establishments can also offer a place of
refuge during and post disaster or during continued extreme climatic conditions as experienced within
Pakistan recently and then equally as a focal point for community activities and ESD for adults during
passive times. So a very useful asset to a whole community , not just the students, and needing to be
protected.
It is agreed that any life lost is a tragedy, a disaster to an individual family, but we cant do it all at
once; so by commencing with DRRE in support of ESD aimed primarily at the children and students
of all ages, we have immediately initiated ownership, awareness and responsibility within a
community for the future, creating the enormous necessary sustainable resource for everyone
working within the many aspects of Disaster Risk Reduction to the benefit and survival of all those
within potentially vulnerable developing environments. The UNISDR initiated from 2006-07 the two
year campaign “Disaster risk reduction begins at school”, from which the ‘Thematic Platform for
Knowledge and Education’ was formed, now chaired by UNESCO establishing ongoing multi agency
collaboration for DRRE and resilient environments for education and capacity build. Assisting this
collaboration COGSS The Coalition for Global School Safety was established to ensure inclusion of
individuals within the forum of Agencies and Community initiatives for DRR and has now expanded to
include DPE Disaster Prevention Education, COGSS DPE, an essential combination for ESD.
A series of pilot projects have been commenced within many countries, but as an example I refer to
the UNCRD SESI project initiated within the four pilot countries of Fiji, Indonesia, India and
Uzbekistan as representatives of the four regions within the ASIA Pacific region. The “School
Earthquake Safety Initiative” stands to be a model for not only Seismic mitigation but for all DRR with
a format that enhances ESD. The outcome document is available on line.
http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/school%20project/schoolindex.htm
So, what would we like to see as an outcome of this approach;
1. A realisation that DRRE and building a resilient infrastructure to multiple hazards within
learning establishments is an essential component of ESD, if we are to ensure a continuity of
education and that sustainability is not to be fragmented by ill preparedness and continued
vulnerability of the poor to multiple hazards.
2. A realisation that DRRE is an investment at all levels of education, from primary school to
‘capacity build training establishments’, requiring ongoing assessments of the infrastructure,
prioritisation of retrofits not just of schools but equally the domestic housing.
3. A realisation that this is not a competition between agencies, concepts of ideas or between
DRR and ESD; it should be a collaboration of efforts between everyone. After all, we are all
striving to build a Sustainable and importantly, a Resilient world in which we all can live with
equal opportunities of survival, whether rich or poor.

I now revert back to addressing the concept of using, enhancing and developing Local Knowledge.
This one key aspect of a DR strategy is essential if we are to tackle the challenges and develop
resilience within vulnerable poor communities and thus optimizing disaster risk management
promoting poverty reduction.

Since evolution indigenous knowledge has been the means of community sustainability and survival.
It has provided the community with ownership, responsibility and self destiny. Indigenous knowledge
is gained through experience; be it cultural development, economic growth, crisis or disaster. It can
be developed through sharing with other communities and cultures. However, it can be lost if it is not
embraced between generations via education, storytelling and counselling, incorporating Parents and
Grandparents as teachers within the formal and non formal education. During recent centuries
Indigenous knowledge has diminished and in some cases totally dissolved for a variety of reasons
including; the introduction of modern construction materials and international build techniques;
populations becoming more transient with the youth seeking improved lifestyles and better education
away from their communities; plus the general economic migration from the countryside to the towns
and cities. Consequently within vulnerable communities and indeed modern communities, without
indigenous knowledge, communities lose responsibility for proactive strategies during crisis or in
contingency planning for multiple known hazards, creating an over reliance upon centralised
governance for their sustainability and survival. Maybe it is time that indigenous knowledge is once
again encouraged to be developed and disseminated within communities, throughout the world,
including developed and economically developing regions, teaching people the need to become
aware of their environments and consequences of actions, learning the ‘early warning’ signs of
growing vulnerability, understanding risk and preparing their communities for crisis and potential
disaster, taking on responsibility and ownership for their own destiny , becoming less reliant upon
purely centralised systems in developing community emergency preparedness and personal
response strategies.
However.....
Dr. Ben Wisner quotes a very relevant word of warning: [7]
“Much of what was “traditional” may not be applicable in a changing climate. Maybe the approach
should be CRITICAL CO-PRODUCTION of knowledge in which grand and great grand parents,
archives and histories are taken as sources of warning signs and practices that are then
SUBJECTED TO CRITICAL DISCUSSION by the current generation and outside specialists.
Likewise, the offering of outside specialists should be subjected to critical discussion and scrutiny.”
What is Local Knowledge [7]
“Local knowledge comprises the totality of perceptions, beliefs, understandings, and skills that one or
more members of a community uses or potentially uses to communicate about and manipulate the
world. “World” in this sense is made up of the physical and built environment and also the social,
economic and political environment that affect production and consumption at the local scale.
That is a formal definition for the sake of clarity. In simpler terms, it is what people living in an urban
or rural locality know that is useful to them in sustaining their existence.” Ben Wisner

In order to understand the importance of this approach i further quote from an international source,
from the UNISDR Global Platform meeting Special Event 2009 (SE 21) Indigenous Knowledge
for Disaster Risk Reduction. [8]
“Diverse communities in hazard prone areas around the world have traditionally learnt to cope with
and reduce the risks of natural disasters through the indigenous knowledge they have inherited from
the time tested experiences of generations. Contextualized within the local geo‐climatic conditions,
natural resources and social and cultural practices, indigenous knowledge has been an integral
component of human and social capital of the communities, which is often not recognized. On the
contrary, it is under continuous threats of becoming extinct by the onslaught of the so‐called modern
and quick fix solutions. It is therefore important to document, learn, revive and replicate wherever
possible such knowledge and practices and further synergize this with modern scientific knowledge,
especially in the context of promoting community based disaster risk management (CBDRM) and
Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) strategies.”

Ben Wisner suggests that: [7]

“Within a community, Ten important features of local knowledge are critical to their use in DRR
1. Local knowledge, like all knowledge, is social. Just as there can be no private language that
only one person understands, there can be no knowledge that is completely separate from
what others know and have known in the past.
2. Local knowledge is not entirely “traditional” (passed on by generations). It is more.
3. Local knowledge may opportunistically incorporate versions of outside specialist knowledge.
For instance, weather or climate forecasts listened to on the radio may be interpreted and
modified according to local weather signs and past experience.
4. Given that mobility is important to human beings and that family members may migrate and
send or bring knowledge home as well as money and goods, the tendency to mix or hybridize
knowledge is increasing.
5. For all these reasons, the notion of “indigenous” or “traditional” knowledge is quite limited and
only part of the picture. It is better to refer to the broader notion of “local” knowledge.
6. knowledge is not uniformly distributed. Not everyone has access to secret knowledge or
knowledge associated with local skills such as building, finding water, or midwifery.
Occupations and special skills come with sub-sets of local knowledge that may not be widely
distributed in a locality.
7. Local knowledge is gendered and age graded, and moreover it varies according to the
standpoints of people in different (and to some extent dynamic and changeable) life situations:
for example, local knowledge of people living with disabilities, knowledge of people with
chronic health problems, knowledge of people who constitute an ethnic or caste minority in a
community, etc.
8. Local knowledge may be a source of power and status. For example, in Sierra Leone, rice
farmers have been known to compete with each other in breeding new varieties of rice, some
simply for the beauty of plant. This is a source of praise and prestige.
9. Local knowledge may not appear to Western trained or oriented specialists to have any
physical or biological basis or effectiveness. This is because local knowledge often bridges
physical and social functions and realities. Thus some women in Africa boil stones during a
hunger period. “But stones have no nutritional value”, the outside observer would object.
However, anthropologist, Paul Richards, was told that by executing this practice, the women
signal a stage at which the community must consider the hunger serious and activate coping
measures. The community is also reassured by the ritual which reminds them that they have
 survived in the past and that control and unity are still possible.
10.Local knowledge may not be explicitly spoken about by those who have it. It is sometimes
tacit or implicit in their practices and acts – for instance, where on a slope with different soil
characteristics to plant different plants. Western trained or oriented experts find the idea that
knowledge is tacit hard to accept, yet it can be made explicit through patient discussion.”

I have concentrated considerably on Local Indigenous Knowledge…Why?

Again words of wisdom from Ben Wisner: [7]

“Science and technology can deliver perfectly adequate hazard maps, resilient structures, crops
and livestock that are hardy and that have whatever characteristic is needed: drought resistance,
salt tolerance, what have you. Science and technology from the outside can do all this and
provide warnings as well. All that is needed is delivery!
Ah, that magical word: “delivery”.
This is not the place to discuss in detail why knowledge based diffusion of innovation is
proceeding so slowly. There are many factors highlighted by GAR(Hyogo Framework Global
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2009) and VFL (‘Views from the Frontline’
publication). Amongst these one might single out in the context of knowledge management the
following:
• Top down diffusion of knowledge and practice require fine tuning to local conditions. Diffusion
“by the book” seldom works.
• At the local scale people experience threats in a more holistic way that specialists who design
practices focused on one hazard or another. Poverty, violence, climate change, and many
different natural and other hazards confront people at the scale of 1:1 where they live, work,
raise children, celebrate, and suffer. Local efforts to deal with one of these challenges
generally involve dealing with the others. Fine tuning takes such experience into account.
• There is sometimes a lack of trust between communities and governments or outside/ non-
local institutions. Trust and partnership must be built; it cannot be assumed. Without trust
and mutual respect, the exchange of knowledge and production of a useful hybrid of outside
and local knowledge is not possible.
• So, rejecting the position of the devil’s advocate, I think the answer is that local knowledge is
important for Disaster Risk Reduction because it is the lens through which people perceive
and understand the world and their work within the world. All innovation including risk
reduction will have to be carried out ultimately by people in places. But apart from this
sociological and geographical reality, there is even a more important reason why local
knowledge is important.
• People are constantly coping with dynamic risk. They share knowledge with neighbors, may
draw knowledge in from far away, boil it down and work out ways to apply it locally. Local
communities are workshops of knowledge production, not just museums of tradition. Thus for
the outside specialist, the village, hamlet, town and city neighborhood are as much sources of
new ideas to be tested, refined, and shared as is the outside specialists skill a source of
knowledge for local people. There is a potential broad and deep partnership in knowledge
production for DRR in the world that is very seldom actually achieved.”

The potential is there, however with the international UN and Civil Society having spent five years
since the inception of the Hyogo Framework for Action, developing institutions, laws, and policies in
support of the HFA at the national level, now is the time to push ahead in a massive and global way
from the other end: serious support has to be given to putting the known tools and methods to work at
local level so that local knowledge and outside specialist knowledge come together in ways that bring
safety to all levels of society including the vulnerable poor.

I support this paper with this last statement taken from ‘The Indigenous Knowledge Policy Note’
discussed at the International Workshop in Kyoto in July 2008 [9]
“While the recognition and incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge in Disaster Risk Reduction efforts
has been dismally insufficient, there is compelling evidence that Indigenous Knowledge has the
potential to provide solutions for reducing disasters at many levels. Recognized in a scientific
approach, such knowledge unravels a vast domain of approaches and tools that can be applied in the
current context with appropriate adaptation and adjustments.
The Disaster Reduction Hyperbase initiative (http://drh.edm.bosai.go.jp/) has given due importance to
Indigenous Knowledge, and has elaborated the concept of Transferable Indigenous Knowledge
(Transferable Indigenous Knowledge), as the traditional art of disaster reduction that is indigenous to
specific region(s) but having potential to be applied to other regions and having time-tested reliability.
In addition, The Disaster Reduction Hyperbase identifies the following criteria for Transferable
Indigenous Knowledge:
• To be Understandable to users
• To be Implementable (usable, feasible)
• Originated within communities, based on local needs, and specific to culture and context
(including the environment and economy)
• Provides core knowledge with flexibility for local adaptation for implementation
• Uses local knowledge and skills, and materials based on local ecology
• Has been proven to be time tested and useful in disasters
• Is applied or applicable in other communities or Generations”

In summary, I hope that this paper demonstrates that it is not sufficient to impose knowledge upon
communities through the text books only; we need to transfer knowledge ownership of the solution
through a broader resilient culture development, especially within the most vulnerable and poorer
communities. We must offer them some degree of understanding that through their own informed
initiative they can claim back some control of their destiny creating a safer resilient future for their
children, family and community which includes their surrounding physical environment.
This paper has reviewed some of the ingredients necessary for such an approach; Assessments;
Perception; Education; Advocacy; Capacity; Clustering; and Empowerment. It is understood that
within some Nations empowerment of the communities maybe a challenge; however without
empowerment we can not rebuild local indigenous knowledge which is the vital organ of
sustainability. And without sustainability, Nations can not develop resilience within the most
vulnerable and poor Communities. Consequently without resilience, Governments, along with the
International Donors, are consequently forced to take on the responsibility to commit enormous
resources to repeatedly rebuilding whole communities after every Disaster, sentencing many to
unnecessary death and suffering and ultimately committing the poor to become poorer.
Therefore we must all realise that within our fast expanding materialistic world, ‘that option’ is not only
unsustainable but equally unacceptable, plus importantly, it will never solve the challenges of this
forum in addressing Disaster Risk Management and the much sought after Poverty Reduction

Author Garry de la Pomerai

Chengdu Sept 2010

Seminar on Disaster Risk Management & Poverty Reduction

for Asian Countries

Bibliography / References:
[1] News Release 25 August 2010 ADB, Japan Extend $3 Million to Support Earthquake Resilient Schools in
Bhutan Asian Development Bank

[2] Implementation Plan of the Seminar on Disaster Risk Management & Poverty Reduction
for Asian Countries Chengdu China Sept 2010

[3] 1st Dujiangyan International Forum for Education for Sustainable Development held in July 2010

[4] TWB Earthquake Emergency Education Workshop - Dujiangyan, China

[5] Islanders survived tsunami thanks to elders SIMEULUE ISLAND, Indonesia (AP)

[6] Concept Note Prepared by the German Committee for Disaster Reduction (DKKV) and the UN ISDR
Thematic Platform on Knowledge and Education (TPK&E) World Conference on Education for Sustainable
Development (WCESD) 31 March – 2 April 2009, Bonn

[7] Dr. Ben Wisner Local Knowledge and Disaster Risk Reduction Keynote Side Meeting on Indigenous
Knowledge Global Platform for Disaster Reduction Geneva, 17 June 2009

[8] SE21: Indigenous Knowledge for Disaster Risk Reduction Global Platform 2nd Session Geneva June 2009
http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform/2009/programme/special-events/v.php?id=61

[9] ‘The Indigenous Knowledge Policy Note’ International Workshop in Kyoto in July 2008

Appendix Documents
Seminar on Disaster Risk Management & Poverty Reduction
 for Asian Countries
20thSept to 29th sept Chengdu
----------------------------------
Session 4:
Core strategies of Disaster Risk Management and Poverty Reduction
Topic 1. Resilient Restoration and Reconstruction and disadvantaged groups development
-------------
“Developing ownership of a sustainable Community Disaster Reduction Culture
to enhance the resilience of the vulnerable poor against natural disaster risks”
Resilient Restoration and Reconstruction through Education for Sustainable Development

Appendix 1:
Posted by Solmaz Mohadjer on the COGSS DPE website
News Release
25 August 2010
ADB, Japan Extend $3 Million to Support Earthquake Resilient Schools in Bhutan

MANILA, PHILIPPINES - The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Japan are extending a $3 million
grant to Bhutan to rebuild damaged schools using earthquake-resilient materials and designs which
could potentially be replicated around the country.
The grant from the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction for the Upgrading Schools and Integrated
Disaster Education Project will be used to reconstruct four primary schools which were severely
damaged in a devastating earthquake that struck the country in September 2009. Funds will also be
used to train district engineers in earthquake-resilient building design and construction quality
management, and to teach disaster risk management skills to community members.
“By introducing a seismic resistant structural design into the Ministry of Education’s standard school
design, the project will enable the Government to easily replicate it when building other schools,” said
Makiko Watanabe, Rural Development Specialist in ADB’s South Asia Department
Bhutan lies in one of the most seismically active zones in the world and the 2009 earthquake was the
most damaging natural disaster the country has experienced in recent times, with 12 people killed
and thousands left without proper shelter. Among the worst hit areas were the districts of Mongar and
Trashigang, two of the most remote and impoverished areas in the country. The Government of
Bhutan and development partners provided swift assistance in the immediate aftermath of the
calamity but without longer term support, including the rebuilding of damaged schools and other
public facilities, there are concerns that already poor communities will be plunged even deeper into
poverty.
The project is taking a ‘build back better’ approach which will see the four target schools restored
using earthquake-resilient materials and design. Where possible, local materials will be sourced while
private contractors doing the construction work will be encouraged to hire members of the affected
communities, including women. Participating community members will also be taught earthquake
resilient construction techniques that could potentially be applied to communal buildings or their own
homes. Disaster risk management skills will be taught to district government officials and teachers
and school administrators, who will in turn provide community training aimed at increasing awareness
and ensuring effective responses to calamities.
“By providing disaster risk management training, communities will be prepared to proactively cope
with future disasters,” Ms. Watanabe said.
The project is expected to benefit about 880 students and teachers at the affected schools and
around 9,000 residents of neighboring communities.
Along with the ADB-administered grant, the Government of Bhutan will make an in-kind contribution
of almost $824,000 with target communities providing $14,400 in-kind, for an overall investment cost
of almost $3.84 million. The Ministry of Education is the executing agency for the project which is
expected to be completed by August 2013. http://bit.ly/8ZfFHw
Appendix: 2
[ref:1st Dujiangyan International Forum Education for Sustainable Development]
Dujiangyan Chengdu China May 29, 2010
Dujiangyan Understanding
Preamble
We, the participants and organizers of the first Dujiangyan International Forum on
Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Education for Sustainable Development, gathered in
Dujiangyan City, Chengdu City, People’s Republic of China on May 28 and 29, 2010
contributed to strengthen international collaboration on disaster preparedness, risk
reduction and humanitarian response. We recognize the important and the lead role of
the governments to prepare and empower communities to deal with disasters and help
build sustainable societies.
The FORUM provided an excellent opportunity to share values, practical lessons,
good practices and contributed to develop a better understanding to optimize the
impact of our work on the affected people and vulnerable communities. The FORUM
recognizes the importance of various factors that amplify vulnerabilities, suffering and
misery during post disaster situations. We reiterate our commitment to place the most
vulnerable including children as a priority and education and sustainable development
as a means to achieve lasting solutions.
We extend our sincere gratitude to organisers of the FORUM, the Chinese National
Commission for UNESCO, Chengdu Municipal Government ,INRULED, UNESCO,
Chengdu Municipal Bureau of Education, Dujiangyan Government, Beijing Normal
University and Southwest University of Finance and Economics for their outstanding
efforts and contribution to the success of this Forum. We also extend our appreciation
to all participants, international and domestic, for their active participation, and
many-fold contributions.
Our shared understanding:
1) It is necessary to have a holistic and inter-sectoral multiple- stakeholders approach
to disasters. Preparedness, mitigation and disaster risk reduction are integral aspects of
this. Inter-sectoral coordination and inter-governmental cooperation are necessary to
make this happen.
2) Governments play crucial roles in stakeholders’ coordination and resources
mobilization while local community participation and international organizations’
support are also essential.
3) Immediate life-saving humanitarian assistance is key. Speed, appropriateness and
active ownership of the community are crucial to make this a reality.
4) Recovery needs to be integral to overall development policy and plans.
5) It is necessary to share good practice and experience that the world is gaining,
especially in developing countries, which are the predominant flashpoints of disasters
29
and conflicts. Networking between governments, civil society actors, UN agencies,
professional bodies and other interested parties will serve as a catalyst.
6) Education and all aspects of capacity building (including research, documentation,
knowledge management and dissemination) are significant building blocks in
preparing communities to face the onslaught of future disasters and conflicts. Synergy
between developing countries (with their immense practical experiences) and the
developed world and international community (with their valuable knowledge
resource) can strengthen this process. Integration between traditional knowledge and
appropriate development and application of modern technology is crucial.
Action Plan/Recommendations:
The FORUM participants commit to take the key understanding forward and
undertake the following actions.
1) Develop mechanism for documentation, research, dissemination and share
learning and good practices from Dujiangyan and experiences elsewhere.
2) Organize collaborative exchange programmes to share experiences from
communities and develop a better understanding of people-centered approaches. This
serves as a catalyst to educate and empower communities and thus encourage them to
take up disaster issues in local planning and development.
3) Encourage the development of community-centric disaster response contingency
plans.
4) We also appeal the governments, especially the government of People’s Republic
of China, Chengdu Municipal Government and UNESCO to sustain the great
beginning that is being made here and continue to contribute to implement the
following above.

Appendix 3
In April 2009, Teachers without Borders, the Dujiangyan Bureau of Education and the Teacher
Training School in Dujiangyan, China, conducted a 10-day earthquake emergency education
workshop for over 200 teachers and school administrators in Dujiangyan, a city heavily damaged by
the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake.

The workshop key components included pre- and post-assessment sessions, earthquake science,
earthquake hazards, and mitigation strategies. The workshop participants used scientific data to learn
about what happens at or near tectonic plate boundaries; used simple items such as silly putty and
rubber bands to learn why and how rocks deform at or near plate boundaries; built and operated a
simple model to learn about stick-slip motion along faults; and explored seismic waves using slinky
toys and ropes. Participants learned about liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, structural and
non-structural hazards by designing and conducting experiments, data collection and data analysis.
They discussed several mitigation strategies and tested their effectiveness with their models.
Furthermore, the participants developed, practiced, and improved their earthquake emergency
response plan, and discussed how they could incorporate what they learned into their existing
school’s curricula.

The workshop lessons can be viewed and downloaded in English and Chinese:
http://dotsub.com/view/1104503a-f5bd-4392-ab9e-86a74246a471

Appendix 4:

Islanders survived tsunami thanks to elders

SIMEULUE ISLAND, Indonesia (AP) — The ground shook so hard, people couldn't stand up when
the massive earthquake rattled this remote Indonesian island — the closest inhabited land to the
epicenter of the devastating temblor.
But unlike hundreds of thousands of others who thought the worst was over when the shuddering
stopped, the islanders remembered their grandparents' warnings and fled to higher ground in fear of
giant waves known locally as "semong."
Within 30 minutes, Simeulue became the first coastline in the world to experience the awesome force
of the Dec. 26 tsunami. But only seven of the island's 75,000 people died — saved by the stories
passed down over the generations.
"After the earthquake, I looked for the water to suck out," said Kiro, 50, who like many Indonesians
uses one name. "I remember the story of the 'semong' and I ran to the hill."
Simeulue's northern coast is about 40 miles from the spot where the magnitude 9.0 earthquake
shifted the ocean floor along a fault line west of Sumatra Island with enough force to send waves
racing across the Indian Ocean.
Waves as high as 33 feet smacked ashore here, but most people had fled because of the stories
about the "semong" that killed thousands in 1907.
"Everyone ran to the hills," said Randa Wilkinson of the aid agency Save the Children. "They took
bicycles and motorbikes and wheelbarrows and piled the kids in whatever they could get them in."
Suhardin, 33, said that when the quake struck he didn't think about his grandmother's stories about
the 1907 disaster because nothing happened when another big temblor shook the island three years
ago. It was only when a man from another village ran past shouting "Semong! Semong!" that
Suhardin and others from Laayon village fled.
"We were just thinking that God was doing this," he said. "This is because God is angry."
The power of the waves is visible all along Simeulue's picturesque coast: Huge cracks and gashes
scar the remains of thick concrete walls that once supported village mosques, bridges lie crumbled in
streams running to the ocean and deep fissures split roadways.
The island's northern shore took a direct hit from the waves, which left little standing. Along the
western shore, the tsunami spared some villages and destroyed others, leaving a path of snapped
palm trees, flattened houses and power poles dangling over roads.
The earthquake tipped the island up 4 feet on one side, exposing rugged blocks of coral reef along
parts of the northern coast, said Taufik, an Indonesian official who surveyed the island for the
government's meteorological and geophysical agency. Palm trees that once shaded white-sand
beaches are now partially submerged on the southern end of the island, which sank 12 inches.
"You can't imagine this and only seven people died," he said. "It's amazing."
He agreed the island's oral history saved countless lives, but noted its lush hills are close to the coast,
allowing people to get to safety. In many other places with broader coastal plains, people had few
places to run.
But tsunamis are rare in the Indian Ocean and many people in the dozen countries hit by the waves
did not know about their potential to swallow tens of thousands of lives in seconds. When the
inrushing waves sucked shallow coastal waters out to sea, many people stood on beaches watching
or collecting fish flopping on the sand instead of fleeing.
On Simeulue's western coast, survivors stood helplessly on hillsides looking down on the wall of
water sweeping entire villages out to sea.
"We watched what we had — everything — was gone," said Sukirno, 50. "We stayed in the hills for
one week because we were scared."
Some are so traumatized they have gathered planks of wood and built shanties along a road high on
a hill overlooking what is left of their seaside village. As aftershocks continue — some registering
magnitude 6.0 — they say they are in no hurry to return to the lowlands.
But many people have begun rebuilding along the shore, starting with crude wooden shacks on what
is left of concrete foundations.
They say they will pass the story of the semong down to future generations, even if another disaster
never happens.
"I don't want to see a lot of people die," said Siti Marwani, 25, balancing a child on her hip. "I have to
talk about it with my grandchildren."
http://www.5min.com/Video/How-the-Simeulue-Island-Survived-a-Tsunami-416308690

Appendix:5
Indonesia Clustering of Schools for flood mitigation
See:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/08/08/ngos-prepare-students-face
-floods.html  
NGOs prepare students to face floods
Prodita Sabarini , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta, Bandung | Sat, 08/08/2009
1:42 PM | City
Ten-year-old Melyana Nurainni said she was submerged under water during the massive flooding
that hit Jakarta in 2007 and with the help of her parents she waded her way through the flowing water
that was higher than her.
The curly-haired-girl was sitting on the floor with her friends at her school, SDN Manggarai 03, in East
Jakarta. The girl, who lives by the Ciliwung river fork, remembered the flooding that happened two
years ago with a grin.
"The water was so high, my head was underneath it and bobbed up and down," she said giving a little
chuckle.
Mely, as she is popularly known, said at that time she was scared but now she was more prepared if
another flood happened.
Two years after the deadly flood in Jakarta, Mely is now part of an evacuation team at her school.
Last year, she was among 30 students at her school that took part in a five-month disaster- risk-
reduction training organized by children's NGO Plan Indonesia and The Indonesian Disaster
Prevention Foundation (YTBI).
"I know where the safe areas to go when there's flooding. Its at SMP 3 *Junior High School* and the
Manggarai Train station."
Plan Indonesia has held similar programs, collaborating with YTBI and Center for Indonesian
Environment Information (PILI) , an environmental organization, as well as five elementary schools in
Jakarta and Bogor.
Students from the six schools are now connected in a communication network, where students from
Bogor whose schools are at Ciliwung's upstream can warn students in Jakarta of possible flooding.
Plan Indonesia Disaster Risk Reduction Manager Vanda Lengkong said they wanted to show that
children could be part of adaptation efforts in facing climate change.
"We want to prove and show to the general public and to the government that children who are
usually classified as a vulnerable group who are viewed as victims or objects can actually do
something significant and
even have a great role," she said.
Mely said during the training, she learned about climate change, first aid, and how to identify the risks
of disaster around her school. With
her friends, she participated in a simulation of safety precautions during a disaster.
Her cousin, Dwi Ratmono, 11, said he was part of the communications team. He said his task was to
inform the school principal if a possible flood was coming. He said that if he saw that the water in the
Ciliwung River near their school had risen above normal or if he received information from students
from other school about rain in their area he would inform the principal.
The problem now however was to extend the knowledge and skills that Mely and Dwi have gained to
the younger students in school as some students that had received training had already graduated
and entered secondary school.
Mely said of the three members of the evacuation team, one had graduated.
SDN Manggarai 3 principal Maryati said the school hopes the training for children will continue,
however, she said she has yet to discuss on how it would be done.
Teacher Rice Nurrahma said the teachers needed training as well.
"We asked the people from YTBI, *Why is it only the kids who gets training?' and asked them to train
us as well so that we can be prepared when children ask us question about flood and climate
change," she said.
Vanda said Plan was now focusing on increasing teacher's capacity by involving the School
Committee, an organization in each school that includes teachers, parents, and government officials,
in the program.
"We provide them with manual books that are important to keep the program continuous."
Teacher Rita Vandawari, who has served in the school since 1994 said that the training was very
important for the children. Many children lived near the river. She noted that along the years, flooding
in Jakarta has been worse every year.
"Usually, the water only reached the ankle of an adult's foot, but in 2007, the flood reached more than
a meter."
Scientists said one of the effects of global warming was increased storms and floods. In a report
issued in November, 1999 the Britain's Meteorological Office warned flooding in Asia and Southeast
Asia would increase more than ninefold over the coming decades.
The impact of climate change, compounded with results of poor urban management makes Jakarta
more prone to floods.
Mely said now every time the rain falls, she worried about floods. She also worried about global
warming.
"I know that the ice in the North Pole will melt and the world will sink. That scares me."
Mely and Dwi said anytime they try to tell adults about the situation, they were silenced.
"They would say, *Shut up, what do kids know?'" Mely said.
Some things they do know are that cutting down trees, littering, and settlements by the riverbanks can
increase the risk of flooding. They listed those as causes of flooding.
Just next to their school, slum houses made of bamboo stilts and scrap plywood and metal stood by
the Ciliwung River Crook. Piles of plastic garbage float above the water.
Rice said that people living in the stilt houses were yet to be educated about sanitation and the
environment.
"We can see them throw garbage and they don't seem to be ashamed of it."
Vanda said that was why children were important to the program. The children are taught about
reuse-reduce-recycle garbage through the program and to plant trees in the schools garden, in the
hope that they would share the knowledge with their families.
"They can be agents of change," Vanda said. --

Appendix:6
Clusters Strategy:

The challenge is how to expand within the pilot scheme, still using the centrally chosen school as the
pilot but from which a coordinated group of schools are involved with and learn from. Clustering can
occasionally be seen as naturally occurring within the field. During recent floods in Indonesia within
the Jakarta region, schools and school children communicated between schools within a flooding
zone, which the children at the higher end of the flood zone monitoring rising waters and rainfalls so
when the waters reached a certain level a warning was sent to the schools in the lower flood zone
most likely to be affected. Meanwhile all of the schools within the communication cluster engaged a
common DR strategy of preparedness including, communication within the community, drills for
evacuation and infrastructure preparedness Consequently this case study identifies that the concept
remains feasible for the following reasons.

Share resources. Individual schools within remote country regions or towns and city districts can, by
clustering on a day to day basis in small groups of three to five, share resources be it with
administration, personnel, materials purchase or technical expertise and skilled workforce or simply
communication. One this will improve ‘purchasing power’ and by sharing central ‘resource’ control, be
it with personnel or materials will avoid wastage and enable continued constant coverage within
management or supply or communication.

Sharing of knowledge. More importantly for the purpose of this document if we address Disaster
Risk Reduction strategies, then clustering also comes to the fore enabling sharing of knowledge,
experience, design integration, maintenance scheduling and initiative / project administration.

Capacity Build. There is a need to ensure that at policy implementation level, capacity build is
properly resourced and given a full agenda with action plan to encompass all aspects of training the
Trainers and teaching the Teacher which ensure dissemination throughout the professional
community. This approach is far more easily achieved within the clustering of schools and
communities, quickening the process of dissemination into the wider region, creating self support
between communities experiencing similar challenges and hazard vulnerabilities.

Cost effective. The cluster offers the opportunity to create a fuller business plan for developing pilot
projects enabling the incorporation of a capacity building strategy. Clustering is cost effective by
requiring only one set of craftsmen within the cluster, but doesn’t neglect dissemination of skills into
the community.

Efficiency. Project management becomes more efficient creating a project team from all of the
schools within the cluster; as it is unlikely that one community around a school will have all the
necessary expertise, momentum or enthusiasm to cover all basis thoroughly.

Plan and prioritise. Clustering also allows at strategic level the opportunity for Governance to plan
and prioritise within multiple hazard environments far more quickly; clustering also allows for the ‘pilot’
process to develop systematically from the initial ‘test case’ to all within the cluster and will encourage
the development of ownership.

Early warnings. Also clustering as identified within the field example, can encourage communities to
incorporate a proactive strategy of early warnings, coordinated DR preparedness and community
ownership and awareness within multiple hazard environments.
During recovery from crisis there will be an immediate affiliation within the clustered communities to
share resources, recovery support and communicate with and assist those most in need.

(author: de la Pomerai)