Aga Khan Safe School Conference Islamabad 2008 Garry de la Pomerai Theme 2 Key Note presentation

Theme 2 Technical Aspects of Seismically Safer Schools This theme will focus on sharing, understanding and using of engineering designs/structural solutions for safer seismic resistant constructions schools, including school sites, especially in the mountain terrains. Issues related to design and construction codes and guidelines, options for designs, and appropriate construction materials for school construction in varying terrain, as well as physical planning elements of hazard mitigation for critical infrastructure, will be brought forward. Issue of insufficient and inefficient use of materials and building technologies will also be included. Models and good practices for safe school construction, prioritization of school retrofitting, cost-effective retrofit techniques, etc. will be part of this theme

[boxed text to be displayed on power-point slides]

[Remainder is the text of the key note speech]

The very first priority for school building safety is for every new school to be a safe school. This is inexpensive when implemented consciously and diligently during design and construction of each new school.

Uniform building codes provide a higher standard for the performance of school buildings than for normal buildings. An international rule of thumb is that school buildings be normally designed to be 1.5 x the strength of regular buildings. Engineered buildings can be designed for higher standards of performance such as being able to be immediately occupied after a severe earthquake to be used for shelter or emergency operations. Whether new schools are built by local communities, through projects or programs of government agencies, and/or with support from external donors, there is a need for clear and comprehensible building guidelines provided with support from relevant government authorities. This usually requires cooperation between ministries of education and a public works or construction standards authority.

The broader policy context for disaster-resistant construction involves: standard building codes relative to hazard conditions a transparent process for planning, design, regulation and enforcement decisions qualification requirements for professionals engaged in engineering and design and construction of school facilities independent assessment of design, construction and maintenance of school facilities technical support for all phases, and skill training for builders where needed. active public stand against corruption, and liability for all contractors. This may include a zero tolerance policy, well-publicized campaign, and severe penalties for infraction. independent ombudsman program for investigation of citizen concerns. public awareness and consumer/community involvement in monitoring

Physical Statistics: o In 2005 over 8,000 out of 9,000 schools were either destroyed or damaged beyond repair by the earthquake. o Over 80% of schools in Pakistan remain unprotected from similar risks.

A PARTIAL LIST OF PHYSICAL IMPACTS OF DISASTERS ON SCHOOLS, SCHOOL-CHILDREN & TEACHERS

(deaths in schools shown in bold)

2007 2006 Bangladesh Philippines Cyclone destroyed 496 school buildings and damaged 2,110 more Super Typhoon Durian caused $20m USD damage to schools including 90100% of school buildings in three cities and 50-60% of school buildings in two other cities. more than 200 children died in a mudslide 13 children died in a school dormitory fire where children were using candles for lighting. 17,000 students died at school, and 50,000 were seriously injured, many disabled. 10,000 school buildings destroyed. 300,000 children affected. In some districts 80% of schools were destroyed. 56 schools were destroyed and 1,162 were damaged. 700 schools were closed and 372,000 children displaced. 73,000 college students displaced. $2.8billion was spent to educate displaced students for a year. Tsunami destroyed 750 schools in Indonesia and damaged 2,135 more. 150,000 students without schools. 51 schools destroyed in Sri Lanka, 44 Maldives, 30 Thailand. Severe floods directly affected between 500,000 and 1m students in 1,000 2,000 schools in 8 provinces. 67 of 131 schools collapsed, the remaining were heavily damaged. 32,843 students were affected. 1,259 school buildings were lost to floods and 24,236 were damaged. 93 children died in a fire due to explosion of a cooking gas cylinder 84 children and teachers die in collapsed school building in a moderate earthquake. 4 schools collapsed. 90% of schools were impacted and education disrupted. 900 classrooms in dozens of schools collapsed in earthquake 27 minutes before thousands of children returned to their classrooms. Middle school collapsed killing at least 20 students. 18,000 students lost their classrooms. 103 schools destroyed, 753 severely damaged. Cost of rehabilitation $79 million. 16,500 students education disrupted when 8 schools collapsed and 137 were damaged. 26 children and 1 teacher died in a school earthquake collapse 2 schools collapsed in an earthquake. 46 students died 85 schools were damaged beyond repair. Replacement and repair cost $114m. 22 preschoolers and their teacher were killed in an aftershock a month later. 98 school buildings seriously damaged by earthquake A three-story school collapsed in the middle of the night. 971 students and 31 teachers killed by earthquake, though most children were outside for Republic Day celebrations. 1,884 collapsed and 5,950 classrooms were destroyed including 78% of public secondary schools. 11,761 school buildings suffered major damaged with 36,584 classrooms unusable. 74% of schools om 2 cities damaged (22 in one city alone were destroyed). Children were outside for lunch. 51 schools collapsed and 786 were damaged. Cost of school reconstruction and repair was $1.3billion 43 schools were damaged beyond repair and hundreds more damaged. School was suspended for hundreds of thousands of children for 4 months. Flooding destroyed 1,718 school buildings and 12,000 were damaged. 1,200 schools destroyed or heavily damaged Primary school collapse killed 110 students (earthquake) 2 schools collapsed in earthquake, killing 46 students 48% of the 8,311 killed were under the age of 14. Many schools were destroyed

2006 2006 2005

Leyte Island, Philippines Uganda Northern Pakistan

2005

Gulf States, USA

2004

Indian Ocean

2000 2005 2004 2004 2003

Cambodia Bam, Iran Bangladesh Tamilnadu, India Bingol, Turkey

2003

Xinjiang, China

2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001

Dominican Republic Boumerdes, Algeria Ab Garm Molise, Italy Cariaco, Venezuela El Salvadaor

2001 2001 2001

Arequipa, Peru Taiwan Bhuj, India

1999 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997 1993

Pereira, Colombia Chi Chi, Taiwan Kocaeli, Turkey Bangladesh East Nepal, Ardakul, Iran Cariaco, Venezuela Maharashtra, India

1992 1989 1988 1988 1988 1985 1964 1963 1952

Erzincan, Turkey El Asnam, Algeria Udayapur, Nepal Yunan, China Spitak, Armenia Mexico City, Mexico Anchorage, Alaska Skopje, Macedonia Sapporo, Japan

by earthquake a 6 story medical school collapsed in moderate earthquake, burying 62 students 70-85 schools collapsed or severely damaged in earthquake 6,000 schools destroyed in earthquake. 1,300 schools destroyed in earthquake 2/3 of the 55,000 earthquake deaths were school children killed in their schools. 400 children died in 1 school alone. 32,000 children were evacuated Several schools collapsed in the early morning before school started. Half of the citys schools were severely damaged by an earthquake during school hours, but on the Good Friday holiday 44 schools (57% of urban stock) damaged by earthquake, affecting 50,000 children. 400 schools collapsed in the earthquake

What causes structural vulnerability? o Multiple hazards and reoccurring individual hazard events upon a community o Poor building design and development planning with substandard construction methods and use of substandard materials o Deterioration of buildings due to poor maintenance or accumulative minor structural traumas o Lack of training for the builders and inspectors along with poor technical communication and liaison When it comes to school safety, there are several basic assessment questions to be asked: o Is the site itself safe, or can bit be made safe? o Are the school buildings themselves safe, or can they be made safe? What is the construction type? Is the building designed to withstand the expected hazards (eg. elevated for flood, resistant to shaking by earthquake or wind, roof to hold or deflect snow, insulated from cold and heat)? Do the construction materials and the construction quality ensure the integrity of the building? Are temperature, air circulation and noise-control accounted for? o How safe are the buildings contents and non-structural building elements: Do the doors open outwards for safe evacuation? Does each room have two ways in and out? Is the roof fastened securely to the building? Is large and heavy furniture fastened to the structure to prevent falling or sliding in wind or earthquake? Are utility pipes and wires flexible and secure with accessible cut off points? ASSESSING SCHOOL SEISMIC SAFETY Global examples Kathmandu, Nepal: The 1988 6.6 M earthquake in Udayapur destroyed 6000 schools. Throughout Nepal.Today more than 6 million children and 140,00 teachers are at risk. (Alam, K., 2007) Possible scenario of earthquake impact on school in Kathmandu Valley: In a nointervention scenario the expected loss is more than 29,000 school children dead or injured, and more than 77% school buildings lost (est USD $7 million.) With intervention 24,000 lives can be saved and the buildings protected. (Bothara, J. et. al. 2007) Bogot, Colombia: In 2000 the Directorate of Prevention and Attention of Emergencies in Bogot, Colombia commissioned a study that identified that 434 of 710 schools were vulnerable to earthquake damage, 3 were in flood areas and 20 prone to being affected by landslides In 2004 the 201 most critical were prioritized and structural reinforcement incorporated into 2004-2008 the Development Plan of the city (Coco, 2007). Republic of Uzbekistan: An assessment of 1,000 school buildings revealed that 51% were require demolition and replacement with earthquake resistant buildings. 26% of the buildings require capital repair and reinforcement 27% are life-safe and required no intervention. (Khakimov, S. et. al. 2007)

School physical safety is not continuously assured, by design and construction alone. Once a school building is in use, it falls to staff, students and communities to accept responsibility for ongoing and preventative maintenance and to regularly monitor safety conditions. A chain of command, adequate budget, and training are all important in facilitating this. (For example, users may be unaware that the single most damaging element causing degradation of buildings is moisture and therefore that keeping the 3

building in good repair and preventing moisture accumulation is a significant priority). Users may also be unaware that the most common hazard in schools is fire. The most common hazard in schools is fire o Fire prevention measures include: elimination and prevention of fire hazards; maintenance of electrical equipment; standard fire prevention through awareness; smoke detectors, sprinkler systems, o Important measures to mitigating fire risk are: doors of classrooms and buildings open outwards for safe evacuation; exit doors are clearly marked (above and below); exit route maps are posted on each corridor and in each classroom ; fire suppression equipment is available on each corridor ; fire suppression equipment is maintained regularly (eg. annual testing) ; staff and older students receive fire suppression training (use of fire extinguishers, blanket, bucket, sand, hose); schools conduct regular fire drills Structural Technical considerations o Transferable design between regions and communities must take into account material availability and the logistics of acquiring the materials to site and they must be appropriate to the environment and to the expected multiple hazards, not just to the predominant hazard. o Good structural designs alone are insufficient without adequate quality control. This poses one of the biggest challenges for all communities. We would all like a solution to this Global problem. o Periodic visual inspections by busy and possibly inadequately trained inspectors are not sufficient. There has to be a working team of quality control to include the builder, site foreman, project manager, project engineer, project architect and all in conjunction with building control officer. All of them must want to comply with the set codes and necessary construction standards to ensure survivability for the children and teachers. o Ignorance, time constraints, inadequate training, substandard materials and corruption are the common enemies of building codes throughout the world. As an accumulative effect they spell disaster and death. o We must all want to alter our culture and approach to these problems. Without the will there is no solution. o Some suggestions might include external inspecting project managers, independent of all others provided by international agencies, but this has to be in cooperation with the local governance. Codes to include: training / proof of competence for the responsible site workers to ensure their awareness o Certification of o for reinforced key pointsthe Rheology of fresh concrete within foundations and of pillars with roof slabs that there are buildings requiring expertise understanding during installation to comply and acceptable Including Admixtures, Cement replacement, Accelerators/ Retarders, Plasticizers Durability and codes: degradation, Corrosion of embedded steel, Column buckling and Fracture mechanics, plus the correct installation of reinforcing within concrete including confinement by stirrups and ties; beam column joints; structural diaphragms, foundation and grade beams; o Isolation pads and platforms, Bracing, and Joint mechanics within steel framed designs; o Then bracing and joint ties and embedded timber floor lacing within Vernacular buildings. See http://www.traditional-is-modern.net/KASHMIR.html o Seismic bands at plinth lintel and roof level plus vertical reinforcement plus confining meshed plaster on walls within adobe constructions o Non destructive testing, including simple slump tests of concrete, ensuring acceptable material properties; o such as for concrete minimum compressive cylinder strength at 28days for high seismic zones equals 3000psi and maximum compressive strength for light weight concrete equaling 5000psi; o for steel ASTM A615, grades 40 and 60 reinforcement, permitted if the actual yield strength based on mill tests doe not exceed more than 124 Mpa (18000psi) and the ration of the actual tensile strength to the actual yield strength is not less than 1.25 and the value within transverse reinforcement including spiral reinforcement shall not exceed 420 MPa (60,000 psi) o Cover to steel reinforcement guidelines include: o in normal conditions o 1 for exposed weather conditions o 2 for exposed to soil conditions 4 Minimum compressive strengths of; Brick to be 1250psi; blocks at 1700psi; and mortar at 350psi

Global References to Codes A Caribbean States Model Code was prepared by:

Prof. Ezio Faccioli Politecnico di Milano Italy & Prof. Gian Michele Calvi Universit di Pavia Italy With the assistance of: Prof. Jorge Gutirrez & Prof. Guillermo Santana Universidad de Costa Rica Dr. Myron W. Chin & Prof. Winston Suite The University of the West Indies Trinidad and Tobago Prof. Dr. Carlos Llanes Burn Instituto Superior Politecnico Jos Antonio Echeverra Cuba Earthquake Hazard Centre Newsletter, Vol. 10 No. 3, January 2007 E includes Produced for the Association of Caribbean States 2003 5-7 Sweet Briar Road, St. Clair, P.O. Box Virtual Site Visit No. 7. Reinforced concrete masonry podium structure, 660 Wellington, New Zealand. Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies Tel: (868) 622 9575 + http://www.acs-aec.org -- mail@acs-aec.org Summary of Building Codes for (www.acs-aec.org/Documents/Disasters/Projects/ACS_ND_001/SeismCod.pdf) Earthen Buildings in Seismic Areas + Summary of Seismic Safety Strategies in Gujurat, India, by A. R. + Sheth and V. Thiruppugazh, Proceedings of the 8th U. S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, April 18 - 22, 2006, San Francisco, California, USA. (www.victoria.ac.nz/architecture/research/ehc/ehc-newletters/2007/2007_January.pdf) + SEISMIC RESISTANT REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES-DESIGN PRINCIPLES Paper by UGUR ERSOY Published by Seismology Civil Engineering. A Journal of Islamic Academy of Sciences 1:1, 2026, 1988 (www.medicaljournal-ias.org/1_1/Ersoy.pdf) + What are5building codes Published by FEMA (www.cusec.org/Library/cusec/Phamplet/buildingcodes.pdf)

Lateral thinking o Schools are a community asset and as such require that their development, maintenance and expansion be carried out to an acceptable standard to reduce their vulnerabilities and increase their resilience to earthquakes and other hazards. o Engineers and Architects including those who own, operate, maintain and repair schools should be constantly thinking outside of their comfort zone to address the DRR challenges within Schools including: o addressing multiple hazard vulnerability; o to design the School as an post disaster community assembly safe building; o to design to include future school expansion or alteration without threat to integral existing strength; o to design as a transparent example of construction codes and safe practices for future hazard resilient buildings within the community; o Community Engineers, Architects and Project/ Construction Managers should prioritise the need for greater site liaison between each other and with local building control along with improved global networking in order to develop researched safe practices of resilient design and implementation, not necessarily embraced by codes, being discussed in Theme 1, especially for retrofitting; o External Engineers, Architects and Project/ Construction Managers need to ensure a good understanding of a communitys physical challenges to vulnerability reduction in addition to areas discussed in Theme 3: o Care must be given to review foundations proposals, especially within mountainous regions. Determining if the land is liable to slippage or vulnerable to landslides during seismic activity, winters snows or heavy rains and if possibly affected by flash flood subsidence or snow avalanches. o Reviewing location of a school within the surrounding geology and geographic features; considering relocation maybe the only safe alternative

RELOCATION Moving the footprint Global Examples

Philippines, Sta. Paz Sur; In the barangays (villages) of San Francisco municipality, when school-children learned in 2006 that their high school was located in a landslide risk area they debated whether and how to relocate the school. The headmaster opened the decision to a community-wide referendum. The students were in favor of relocation, though parents were concerned about the extra travel time and loss of lunch business for local shops. Student organizations in the high school developed an education campaign and their proposal won the vote by 101 to 49. Students and parents constructed a temporary tent school with support from International. The new permanent school will incorporate earthquake mitigation measures and 6 preparation for use as an emergency shelter (Action Aid, 2007).

On site challenges o Reviewing a the schools location in respect of surrounding buildings, industry and future development o Understanding construction challenges including the quality of available materials and a limited skilled workforce; investigating the opportunity of personnel training prior to construction or retrofitting o The need to review the qualifications and training of building Inspectors and ensuring their supervision o The need to implement and enforce design construction codes and safe practices; o To promote maintenance schedules, scheduled building inspections identifying building deterioration including consideration of the accumulative affects of periodic minor quake and environment damages; o To raise awareness of the affects of architectural facia/venacular development, potentially threatening the integral engineering design strength;

Successful structural DRR developments Global examples

o

Uttar Pradesh, India: There are 23.5 million children attending school in this moderate to severe seismic risk zone. 21,00 new school buildings (30 per day) have been completed in the past two years. In 2006-7 the Elementary Education Department proposed to integrate earthquake resistant design into all new school buildings. To prepare for this, one design of primary school buildings, two upper primary and three additional classroom designs were prepared with detailed construction manuals. The disaster resistant measures added 8% to the construction costs. To cope with massive scale of the project a cascading approach prepared 4 master trainers for each of 70 districts. These individuals in turn conducted trainings for 1,100 fellow Junior Engineers and Education Officers. 10,000 masons were also trained. This program means that every new school will be a safe school. Within a relatively short period, most children will be attending safe schools. However, the preexisting stock of 125,000 school buildings remains unsafe and in need of retrofit (Bhattia, 2007).

Nepal, Kathmandu: A vulnerability assessment of 1,100 buildings in 643 public schools revealed that an alarming 60% of buildings are highly vulnerable even under normal conditions. A rolling demonstration project is underway that undertakes retrofit of a school while simultaneously training local builders in techniques of disaster-resistant construction and training teachers, students and parents the basics of risk mitigation and preparedness. Protection of Educational Buildings against Earthquakes: A Manual for Designers and Builders documents the rich experiences gained during implementation. Extensive public participation through a district level advisory committee, school management committee and school earthquake safety committee and student club, created a replicable model. This o now requires resourcing to implement comprehensively (UNISDR, UNESCO, 2007).
o

7 Peru: One particular structural weakness, short columns are a common design fault that compromise the safety of many school buildings. A retrofit solution was developed to partially mitigate this potentially devastating structural defect. (UNISDR, UNESCO, 2007).

School Retrofit and Replacement o Tackling the strengthening or replacement of existing buildings to resist recurring hazards requires a careful and scientific strategy for prioritization, both to target efforts for maximum effectiveness, and to manage costs. o For most authorities, detailed assessment of a large number of buildings is not practical. A prioritization scheme, using a filtering method needed to identify the highest risk buildings for retrofit or replacement. o A general model for prioritization is based on the vulnerability of the buildings, the existing hazards, and building occupancy; using a transparent and technically based schema, beginning with a paper review of existing school building stock, selecting those for sidewalk survey, using sidewalk assessment of existing buildings (using, for example the ATC 21 survey or modification of this) to select high priority buildings for detailed assessment, using detailed assessment of these buildings to identify those for priority retrofit (Grant et. al, 2007)

School retrofit demonstration models Global examples India, Shimla: Structural assessment of school buildings was carried out using a filtering method: The first step was low-cost mass scale Rapid Visual Assessment Survey of school buildings for potential seismic hazards. Based on these surveys a smaller number were selected for Simplified Vulnerability Recent proactive commitments to School retrofitand the highest risk Assessment based on limited engineering analysis, identified for Detailed Vulnerability Analysis. Following this retrofitting designs were drawn up for Global examples 20 schools and implementation of 1999 Kocaeli earthquake, schools 60km away in Istanbul were of retrofit carried out in 8 schools. Program includes development Turkey, Istanbul: Following the guidelines820 of 1,651and training of local masons andThirteen were immediately,skill-training. assessed; for retrofit schools had sustained damage. engineers, and delivery of identified for Non-structural mitigation plans have also been carried out in 20 schools. An awareness campaign replacement. When retrofit proved too costly 22 more were added to this list. 59 schools were is designed to reach all 750 schools in the region including nearly 100,000 students, 7,500 teachers strengthened, and 59 repaired. (Wisner, et. al. 2004). and local builders, engineers and officials. (SEEDS, 2006). Uzbekistan: Eleven Design Institutes participated in building codes revision for school building construction. Typical designs were created for new schools with different capacities. A database of typical construction and technical decisions for anti-seismic reinforcement were developed. UNCRD provided financial and technical support for demonstration projects on reinforced concrete frame, masonry and frame panel buildings. The incremental cost of seismic reinforcement was shown to be between 3-14% depending on intensity zone, type of construction, number of floors, capacity and ground conditions. (Khakimov et. al. 2007). Colombia, Bogot: 47% of school infrastructure benefitting 300,000 students is being improved or replaced in Bogot with $162.7m USD for structural reinforcement of 172 schools and nonstructural risk reduction in 326 schools (Coca, 2007). Central America: The Organization of American States began its commitment to school safety in 1992. A coordinated regional action plan has been developed to benefit Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama has created a mechanism to combine the contributions of development assistance donors with contributions from local organizations to develop strategies, and capacity to carry out retrofitting of educational facilities. School infrastructure experts from each 8 country are being trained Canada, British Colombia: Responding to advocacy efforts of the local Families for School Seismic Safety, in 2004 the provincial government committed $1.5 billion Canadian to ensure that
o

Community ownership is the Communities first step to structural Disaster Risk Reduction o Commencing by raising fundamental awareness questions within hazard vulnerable Communities aimed at ensuring continuity of service of the school infrastructure through the development and inclusion of DRR within education as discussed in Theme 4 o Is there a hazard vulnerability history within your community or region? o Do you know which schools are vulnerable, and to what, why and how did they get that way? o Who is responsible and accountable and who will pay? o Have you investigated the costs of retrofitting the school? o Are your local builders trained correctly? o Do you have building codes, permits and /or licences to work to? o Do you have readily available trained inspectors and supervisors? o Are all necessary recommended materials available to your community? o Do you have a successful example of retrofitting within your region? o Do you understand Non-structural mitigation within your school buildings? o Do you have the support of the community and local government Administration? And have you considered your community resource mobilization? By taking ownership through the parents and teachers and community themselves as stakeholders as discussed in Theme 6, requiring no administrative input nor financial commitment, by starting with the basic non-structural internal and external mitigation considering specifically designed DRR fixtures and fittings and reviewing safe positioning and fixings and their effect upon structural design functionality PHYSICAL PROTECTION Community check list
Our building has been located appropriately, designed and built according to current building codes/safety standards for disaster safety, and inspected by a qualified structural engineer. If our school required repair or retrofit, this has been completed without minimal disruption of students's education. We practice preventative maintenance on our buildings, protecting them from damp and other damage, and repairing damage when it occurs. Earthquake, windstorm: We have fastened tall and heavy furniture, secured computers, televisions and other electronic equipment, hazardous materials, supplies, propane gas tanks, water tanks, lighting fixtures, roof elements, railings and parapets, heating and cooling devices, storage tanks and other items that could kill, injure, or impair educational continuity. Earthquake, windstorm: We have put latches on cabinets, and hung pictures securely on closed hooks to protect ourselves from things that could injure us, or would be expensive to replace. Flood, storm, tornado: We know about early warning systems and have plans to respond to these to move people and assets to safety. We have smoke detectors, fire alarms, automatic sprinkler systems, fire hoses, fire extinguishers, and automatic emergency lighting, and maintain these. Our building exit routes are marked.

We have limited, isolated, and secured any hazardous materials to prevent spill or release. We have off-site back up of critical information. (including student emergency contacts and release permissions.) School transportation is inspected for safety, drivers and students are trained in respective safety skills. Seat belts, helmets and other transportation safety measures are advocated and promoted.

Finally in addition to coded design principles, a Community must not forget to address DRR through the enhancement of escape routes , reviewing existing, creating new, including establishing safer assembly areas and potential internal safe havens, all in conjunction with Theme 5 addressing drills and preparedness training.

NON-STRUCTURAL RISK REDUCTION Practical Examples (Fastening building contents and building non-structural elements to avoid deaths, injuries and material losses in earthquakes and other hazards.) tall and heavy furnishings, bookshelves, cabinets and similar items that may topple and fall, must not block exits, and should be moved to a place where it will not hit anyone, or be fastened to the building so that it moves with it. water tanks, heating, ventilating and air cooling units should be secured to the building to prevent toppling hazardous materials in labs should be limited, isolated, eliminated or separated and stabilized. computers and other equipment should be secured to stable flat surface and NON-STRUCTURAL RISK REDUCTION Global Examples USA, California: The 1994 Northridge earthquake happened at night when no children were in school, but the damage caused by fallen cabinets, bookcases, equipment, lighting fixtures and broken glass made it clear that during a school day, children, teachers and staff would have been injured and killed by falling, sliding and colliding objects. The Los Angeles Unified School District amongst others, embarked on a project of non-structural mitigation of school classrooms, fastening furnishings to prevent both injuries and to preserve school assets. This effort continues today and is the responsibility of each school and school maintenance personnel. India, Delhi: NGO partners SEEDS and GeoHazards International, working with the Government of Delhi, have demonstrated non-structural risk reduction in a public school. The school welfare committee comprised of faculty, staff and local community members learned to identify the non-structural building elements and building contents that could fall, slide or collide during a likely Delhi earthquake, as well as fire and evacuation hazards. They were exposed to simple low-costs techniques for reducing these risks (moving some items, fastening others) and came up with innovative solutions of their own. The logic of regular fire and earthquake drills became readily apparent to these new stakeholders. A handbook for schools on Non-Structural Risk Reduction provides a new resource for generalizing these lessons (UNISDR, UNESCO 2007). To assist your communities COGSS Coalition for Global School Safety internationally fosters dialogue and collaboration between advisory groups of local scientific and field practitioner experts for development and localization of Disaster Risk Reduction strategies through the use of educational materials and structural resilient design. 10

Finally, considering the continuing challenges in the creation and more importantly the enforcement of Coded designs and construction standards within vulnerable multiple hazard communities, and in support of the Aga Khan Planning and Building Service and this Conference I am pleased to announce an intended new initiative, that global technical networking is to be assisted by the proposed creation of SSSAFE School Structural Safety Advisory Forum Executive made up of invited globally recognised Engineers, Architects and field Project Managers. The role of the executive is to act as a discrete global forum and focal point to review and discuss codes and good practices, raise issues, and introduce and encourage specific research, individual ideas and methodologies, administered through COGSS. The objectives are to assist creating a coherent globally coordinated strategy in developing safer resilient designs and retrofit procedures for all new and existing schools within vulnerable and hazardous environments. Acknowledgements: Paper Compiled and presented by Garry de la Pomerai COGSS Substantive sections researched and produced by Marla Petal -Risk Red for the UN-ISDR Structural facts and figures extracted from the proposed Code of Practice for use within Pakistan A big thanks to all those working in the field producing excellent project examples and for their perseverance

11