Regional Consultation - SEAMEO INNOTECH on Education...Regional Consultation ... LTLT Learning to...

Regional Consultation

Meeting on Education

and Resilience in East

Asia and the Pacific Developing Guidance for

Programmes and Policies That

Promote Social Cohesion and

Comprehensive School Safety

DOCUMENTATION REPORT

November 4–7, 2014 Pearl Hall, SEAMEO INNOTECH Quezon City, Philippines

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| i

CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. iii

Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................................................ 1

Consultation Meeting Objectives ........................................................................................... 3

Consultation Meeting Framework ......................................................................................... 3

Consultation Meeting Outcomes............................................................................................ 4

Consultation Meeting Participants ......................................................................................... 5

Regional Focus on Linkages Between Education and Social Cohesion,

School Safety, and Resilience ............................................................................................ 6

Consultation Meeting Highlights ............................................................................................. 12

Welcome Remarks ............................................................................................................... 12

Opening Remarks................................................................................................................. 15

Plenary Sessions................................................................................................................... 18

SESSION 1: Education and Resilience: Conflict and Social Cohesion .......................... 18

SESSION 2:Education and Resilience: Natural Disasters, Climate Change, and

Comprehensive School Safety ......................................................................................... 26

SESSION 3: Mainstreaming Conflict and Disaster Risk Reduction into the

Education Sector .............................................................................................................. 38

SESSION 4: Strengthening Networks, Partnerships, and Information Platforms

in East Asia and the Pacific ............................................................................................. 47

GROUP WORK SESSION 5: Synthesis and Final Recommendations for

Regional Guidance ........................................................................................................... 51

Final Guidance Presentation ................................................................................................ 52

Closing Sessions .................................................................................................................. 57

Closing Remarks .............................................................................................................. 57

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| ii

Meeting Evaluation Summary ................................................................................................. 63

Statements Related to the Consultation Meeting‘s Outcomes ............................................. 63

Statements Related to the Consultation Meeting Processes and Logistics .......................... 64

Photo Documentation............................................................................................................... 67

Annexes.................................................................................................................................. viii

Agenda ............................................................................................................................... viii

List of Participants ............................................................................................................... xv

Regional Guidance on Policies and Programmes that Promote Social Cohesion ........... xxxi

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AADMER Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Agreement on Disaster Management and

Emergency Response

AADMERPG Association of Southeast Asian Nations


Emergency Response Partnership Group

ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre

APCSS Asia Pacific Coalition for School Safety

ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim

Mindanao

ARNEC Asia Pacific Regional Network for Early

Childhood

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ASSI Association of Southeast Asian Nations

School Safety Initiatives

CCA Climate Change Adaptation

CGSS Coalition for Global School Safety

CSO Civil Society Organization

CSS Comprehensive School Safety

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

EAP East Asia and the Pacific

EFA Education for All

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| iv

EiE Education in Emergencies

EMIS Education Management Information

System

EPR Emergency Preparedness and Response

ESD Education for Sustainable Development

ESP Education Sector Plan

GADRRRES Global Alliance for Disaster Risk

Reduction and Resilience in the

Education Sector

GCE Global Citizenship Education

GDP Gross Domestic Product

ICE International Commission on Education

for the Twenty-First Century

ICT Information and Communication

Technology

IFRC International Federation of Red Cross

and Red Crescent Societies

JFIT Japan Funds-in-Trust

LEADeXCELS Excellence in Leading Education in

Emergency Situations for Southeast

Asian School Heads

LIPAD Literacy for Peace and Development

LTLT Learning to Live Together

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| v

MEXT Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,

Science, and Technology

MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front

MTBMLE Mother-tongue-based multi-lingual

education

NGO Non-governmental organization

OOSC Out-of-school children

OSY Out-of-school youth

PBEA Peace Building, Education, and

Advocacy

PDR People‘s Democratic Republic

SEAeXCELS Excellence in School Leadership for

Southeast Asia: Promoting an

Understanding of the Southeast Asian

Community

SEAMEO Southeast Asian Ministers of Education

Organization

SEAMEO INNOTECH Southeast Asian Ministers of Education

Organization Regional Centre for

Educational Innovation and Technology

SEAMEO RECSAM Southeast Asian Ministers of Education

Organization Regional Centre for

Education in Science and Mathematics

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development

Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific,

and Cultural Organization

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| vi

UNESCO IIEP United Nations Educational, Scientific,

and Cultural Organization International

Institute for Educational Planning

UNICEF United Nations Children‘s Fund

UNICEF EAPRO United Nations Children‘s Fund

Regional Office for East Asia and the

Pacific

UNICEF ESARO United Nations Children‘s Fund Eastern

and Southern Africa Regional Office

UNICEF WCARO United Nations Children‘s Fund West

and Central Africa Regional Office

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific | 1

OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

The East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) is the most natural hazard-and

disaster-affected region in the world, threatening human lives, health,

livelihoods, and security in many of its countries. In 2013 alone,

several countries have been affected by cyclones, earthquakes, and

floods. The Philippines, for instance, was struck by Super Typhoon

Haiyan/Yolanda in November 2013. The Pacific Islands, however, are

most affected by natural disasters in the world, with average annual

losses estimated for Vanuatu and Tonga at 6.6% and 4.4% of their

respective gross domestic product (GDP) rates.1 These disasters

disproportionately affect the poor, the vulnerable, and the most

marginalized, especially children and women.

Natural hazards and disasters not only lead to the loss of human lives

but also to setbacks in achieving Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs) and Education for All (EFA). Considerable evidence show

that natural hazards and disasters tend to further exacerbate or increase

risks of conflict or inter-communal violence. Environmentally-stressed

countries are at risk of political instability and many lack the capacity

to meet challenges presented by conflicts, natural disasters, and climate

change. Conflict and environmental stress contribute to fragility and

insufficient government capacity to respond to challenges, and have a

disproportionate impact on the poorest and the most vulnerable

populations.

Intra-state conflicts or serious inter-communal violence have affected a

number of countries in EAP. Such instances include the 29-year-long

separatist conflict in Aceh, Indonesia, which ended in 2007 with a

settlement that granted the region greater autonomy. Myanmar has also

been slowly recovering after four decades of suffering insurgency after

agreements were reached with nine insurgent groups. In the

Philippines, two longstanding conflicts over land-related and autonomy

issues continue to persist in Mindanao even though an agreement with

the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) was recently made.

1 World Bank, 2013

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| 2

Thailand and Papua New Guinea suffered from protracted separatist

conflicts while countries in the Pacific Islands such as the Solomon

Islands, Vanuatu, and Fiji battled civic and inter-communal conflicts.

Political unrest is also a common occurrence in many EAP countries,

including Cambodia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon

Islands, Timor-Leste, and, most recently, Thailand.

Despite developments in recent years, not all of the counties in EAP

enjoy the benefits of rapid economic growth. Problems such as

poverty, income inequality, unemployment, social exclusion, and

marginalization, particularly among ethnic minorities and the rural

population, still persist in many countries. It does not help that EAP is

under overwhelming pressure to adapt to new challenges caused by

rapid urbanization and migration. As a result, many countries are at

risk of instability and social unrest, if not outright violent conflicts.

Governance and political issues play a key role in countries in EAP

contributing to social exclusion, marginalization, and lack of capacity

to deal with natural hazards and conflict. Discriminatory legislation,

lack of transparency, inadequate political participation, and inequitable

resource distribution and economic opportunity contribute to conflict.

Myanmar, for instance, has not been able to reach its utmost potential

despite its rich natural and human resources. The same is true for the

southern parts of Thailand and the Philippines where options for

peaceful redress remain complex.

This documentation report summarizes the presentations made and

workshops held as part of the ―Regional Consultation Meeting on

Education and Resilience in EAP: Developing Guidance for

Programmes and Policies That Promote Social Cohesion and

Comprehensive Safety‖ held at the Southeast Asian Ministers of

Education Organization Regional Centre for Educational Innovation

and Technology (SEAMEO INNOTECH) on November 4–7, 2014.

The consultation meeting jointly organized by UNICEF EAPRO,

UNESCO Bangkok, SEAMEO Secretariat and SEAMEO INNOTECH

was a result of concerted efforts of key agencies and actors to

demonstrate how education policies and programmes can strengthen

the resilience of children, schools, communities, and educational

systems through comprehensive school safety (CSS) and social

cohesion approaches amidst challenges. Participants from the EAP

countries‘ educational ministries and other agencies, and various

meeting stakeholders provided recommendations to guide the region in

advancing the role of education with the aid of existing and new

networks, platforms, and tools to strengthen resilience.


CONSULTATION MEETING OBJECTIVES

The ―Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in

EAP: Developing Guidance for Programmes and Policies That

Promote Social Cohesion and Comprehensive Safety‖ primarily aimed

to accomplish the following:

Provide experts a platform to exchange ideas on appropriate and

effective ways to equip countries in EAP, particularly their

educational systems, with the capacity to address any risk children

face, including natural hazards and conflicts

Provide experts a platform to assess the extent to which

governments and communities, and their partners have established

effective systems, policies, and programmes to address all kinds of

risk; identify best practices at the policy and programme levels; and

identify the merits and limitations of existing strategies

Provide experts a means to strengthen their regional knowledge

networks and to gain a better understanding of the role played by

education and related concepts (e.g., conflict sensitivity, ―doing no

harm,‖ social cohesion, peacebuilding, Global Citizenship

Education [GCE], Comprehensive School Safety [CSS], Disaster

Risk Reduction [DRR], and Climate Change Adaptation [CCA]) in

strengthening resilience through sharing their experiences and best

practices, paying particular attention to potentially enhancing

south-south collaboration and horizontal learning

Provide experts a platform to contribute to regional guidance that

can assist governments and educational ministries, agencies, and

communities to operationalize the concepts of social cohesion and

CSS to form strategies, policies, and programmes.

CONSULTATION MEETING FRAMEWORK



Promote Social Cohesion and Comprehensive Safety‖ brought together

practitioners, academics, educational leaders, and policymakers to

enhance their understanding of the role that education plays in

strengthening resilience and social cohesion. The presentations and


panel discussions focused on the complexities of education and

resilience, which included analyses-, research-, and evidence-based

practices, policies, and planning approaches. A wide range of

interactive methods was used throughout the consultation meeting,

including group exercises, mapping, dialogues, and panel presentations

to highlight and build on existing experiences from within the EAP

region and beyond.

The consultation meeting focused on the most fundamental aspects of

education in order to equip children and their families and

communities with skills that can help them better prevent, cope with,

mitigate, and respond to emergency situations such as natural disasters

or violent conflicts. It aimed to emphasize the crucial role that

government officials and educators play in fostering a safe and secure

environment for children and their families and communities. It also

explored the relationship between education and social cohesion to

address how the former can contribute to and mitigate problems related

to the latter.

Key ideas in education for peace were explored, including conflict

sensitivity; ―doing no harm‖; educational access, delivery, content, and

governance; GCE; and ―Learning to Live Together (LTLT).‖ Topics

related to DRR and CSS were also covered, along with a review of

existing regional guidelines and recommendations for establishing

educational policies and programmes. Multi-sectoral approaches were

examined and capacities and limitations of educational sectors to build

resilience, reduce risks, and contribute to sustainability were explored.

The roles of the civil society, communities, families, the private sector,

and other stakeholders in protecting the most vulnerable and in

building social cohesion and resilience were also highlighted.

CONSULTATION MEETING OUTCOMES



Promote Social Cohesion and Comprehensive Safety‖ achieved the

following outcomes:


New knowledge, tools, and platforms. Governments, United

Nations Children‘s Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Country Offices, SEAMEO Centers, MOEs, NGOs/INGOs/IFRC,

academia and practitioners were equipped with new knowledge,

perspectives, tools, and platforms to better address risks and

vulnerabilities that challenge the youth in EAP. These can help the

participants strengthen their regional knowledge networks in

relevant thematic areas.

Regional guidance. An initial outline for high-quality Regional

Guidance on Education and Resilience was drafted, which includes

recommendations for education planning strategies in relation to

disaster prevention and mitigation and responding to conflict and

post-conflict situations.

CONSULTATION MEETING PARTICIPANTS

A total of 89 participants from governments, particularly Ministries of

Education and National Disaster Management Offices; UNICEF and

UNESCO Country Offices and their counterparts; UNICEF Regional

Offices; SEAMEO Center representatives, the Peace Building,

Education, and Advocacy (PBEA) Programme Management Team

from UNICEF Headquarters; other United Nations (UN) agencies;

non-governmental organizations (NGOs); International Federation of

Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC),research institutions;

and the Asia Pacific Coalition for School Safety (APCSS) took part in

the ―Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in


Promote Social Cohesion and Comprehensive Safety.‖

Moreover, representatives from Ministries of Education from twelve

countries in EAP were among the participants. Countries represented

include Cambodia, Indonesia, Fiji, Lao PDR, Mongolia, Myanmar,

Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Timor

Leste, and Vietnam.


Regional Focus on Linkages Between Education

and Social Cohesion, School Safety, and

Resilience

Recognizing the inter-connected risks that impact the lives of children,

UNICEF, UNESCO, and the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education

Organization (SEAMEO) have given growing attention to the need to

incorporate considerations for all kinds of risks in their programme and

strategic plans, particularly in the education sector. Such risks include

urbanization, climate change, natural disasters, conflicts, and economic

volatility. The overall aim is to strengthen the resilience of children,

their families and communities, and existing systems to protect them

against any risk.

Resilience, according to UNICEF, is defined as ―the ability of children,

households, communities, and systems to anticipate, prevent, adapt to,

withstand, and overcome stresses and shocks in ways, which advance

the rights of every child with special attention to the most vulnerable

and disadvantaged.‖ Social cohesion, meanwhile, has been described

by the World Bank as ―the glue that bonds society together, promoting

harmony, a sense of community, and a degree of commitment to

promoting the common good.‖2 In addition, the Council of Europe

defines social cohesion as ―the capacity of a society to ensure the

welfare of all of its members, minimizing disparities and avoiding

polarization.‖ Similarly, United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) in 2014 describes a cohesive society as ―a mutually

supportive community of free individuals pursuing common goals by

democratic means.‖

According to the World Bank, the stronger social cohesion is, the more

likely a society is to become resilient and possess the inclusive

mechanisms necessary for mediating and managing conflict.3

Education can play a very significant role in fostering resilience,

strengthening social cohesion, and building peace. Given its

transformative role, education can touch every child and citizen, male

and female, when it is equitable, available, of good quality, relevant,

and conflict-sensitive. Evidence also showed that education can help

societies transform and rebuild or ―build back better‖ after a crisis or

an emergency.

2 Colleta, et al., 2012: 2

3 World Bank, 2000: 4


On the other hand, education can also become a force behind social

exclusion and conflict. Inequitable provision of services or biased

curricula and teaching methods can reinforce existing exclusions and

stereotypes. Education can manipulate history and textbook content for

political purposes or inculcate attitudes of superiority on the part of

elite groups. Moreover, equal access to education can be denied

through unequal funding mechanisms and discrimination or as a

weapon of war, which can fuel grievances and lead to conflict.

As such, education needs to be effectively and equitably delivered in a

conflict-sensitive manner to ensure that it becomes a driver of peace

rather than of war. Educational systems and learning environments that

are enabling, resilient and peaceful will help children have a chance to

thrive instead of just survive.

UNESCO has implemented a wide range of curricular and

programmatic initiatives collectively called Learning to Live Together

(LTLT).4 LTLT addressed the relationship between education and

social cohesion, attempted to validate current approaches that countries

use to implement programme models, and set forth guidelines to

design and evaluate programmes. In 1996, the International

Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century (ICE)

identified LTLT as one of the four pillars of education, defining it as

―the development of an understanding of other people in a spirit of

pluralism, respect for differences, and peace. Its principal focus is the

development of an appreciation of the growing interdependence

(ecological, economic, and social) of individuals, communities, and

nations in a small, fragile and connected world.‖

While educational approaches to conflict and natural hazards are quite

distinct, responses to these events have many common features. Within

this context, UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office

(EAPRO), UNESCO Bangkok, and SEAMEO are collaborating to

develop ―Regional Guidelines for Educational Programmes and

Policies That Promote Social Cohesion and CSS.‖ This initiative is

being supported by UNICEF‘s Peace Building Education and

Advocacy (PBEA) Global Programme, also known as the ―Learning

for Peace‖ initiative. This programme, funded by the government of

the Netherlands, aims to provide a more systematic approach to

addressing all kinds of risk that children face, including natural hazards

and violent conflicts.

4 UNESCO, 2003: 28


The recent response to typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines provides best

practices in this regard. Typhoon Haiyan displaced over 1.7 million

children and left more than 3,200 schools and day care centers

damaged or destroyed. Other schools became evacuation centers for

the displaced. UNICEF adhered to the CCC (core commitments for

children) which span the continuum from preparedness to response to

recovery and the Minimum Standards of the International Network for

Education in Emergencies (INEE). UNICEF Strategic Response Plan

which targeted 500,000 preschool and school-age children (3-17) was

aligned to the Government 4 phase plan. The joint efforts of UNICEF

with other partners brought the following results in support of

Government‘s plan:

Access to quality education

Since Haiyan, 624,783 preschool and school-age children (3 to 17

years) benefited from the distribution of learning and recreational

materials and supplies to schools.5

Schools received 7,894 teacher‘s kits, 24,227 chairs and tables,

165,850 learning materials, 1,225 bookcase with library sets

and 1,602 blackboards;

213,200 children accessed education in 2,132 Temporary

Learning Spaces;

1,706 makeshift solutions and repairs for classrooms and day

care centers were completed: and

A UNICEF humanitarian performance monitoring (HPM)

survey in September 2014 found that 88.9% of children had

returned to school and 94% of household beneficiaries were

satisfied with the learning and recreational materials received.

Back to learning

Over 129,000 children reached with education promotion activities and

over 28,000 community members have been mobilized to support

children returning to school and oriented on DRR.6

5 UNICEF Philippines, 2014, ―One Year After Typhoon Haiyan, Philippines

Progress Report‖ 6 Ibid.


UNICEF and UNESCO have also been supporting countries in EAP to

map natural disasters and their vulnerability to these, and helping them

integrate DRR and Education in Emergencies (EiE) components with

their educational systems. UNICEF‘s ―Strategic Plan (2014–2017),‖

for instance, prioritized strengthening the organization‘s involvement

in systemically reducing countries‘ vulnerability to natural disasters

and conflict through risk-informed programmes that help build up

resilience. To ensure that all children have access to safe learning

facilities in the face of humanitarian crises, the plan also emphasized

the importance of mainstreaming DRR and disaster management in

educational development plans and planning processes.

Consistent with UNESCO‘s ―Medium-Term Strategy (2014–2021),‖

the organization has been implementing activities to promote DRR in

education in the Asia Pacific region through the Japanese Funds-in-

Trust (JFIT)‘s ―EiE for Sustainable Development Project Phases I and

II.‖ To date, the project has helped build UNESCO member states‘

capacity to deal with emergencies, manage hazards and risks, and build

up resilience to natural disasters by targeting educational

policymakers, civil society organizations (CSOs), NGOs, and other

relevant stakeholders. UNESCO also works with some of its member

states in EAP as part of its EiE project to implement a self-monitoring

and reporting mechanism. This mechanism was jointly developed with

UNESCO‘s International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) in

order to assess the degree and progress of states‘ development of

educational planning strategies for disaster and conflict prevention and

mitigation.

SEAMEO, meanwhile, through its various centres across Southeast

Asia, has been implementing DRR- and Education for Sustainable

Development (ESD)-related activities. From 2012 to 2014, for

instance, the organization has been giving out the SEAMEO-Japan

ESD Award to schools that carried out the best activities in relation to

themes such as ―Education for DRR‖ and ―Values Education.‖7 The

aim of this project is to promote and share best practices in ESD in

schools and to raise awareness and promote positive human values

among teachers and students across the Southeast Asian region.

7 This project was jointly supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,

Science, and Technology (MEXT), Japan; UNESCO Asia and the Pacific

Regional Bureau for Education, and the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.


SEAMEO INNOTECH developed the ―Toolkit for Building Disaster-

Resilient School Communities in Southeast Asia,‖ while SEAMEO

RECSAM (Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organisation

Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics) produced

a guidebook on integrating climate change education in basic curricula

for school heads, teachers, and other stakeholders. These were created

to help educational stakeholders develop and manage a comprehensive

school-based response programme for highly disaster-prone

communities in Southeast Asia. The projects aim to empower teachers,

and students and their families, and communities to prepare for natural

disasters and prevent, minimize, or respond to their immediate impact

on their lives. SEAMEO INNOTECH also offers the online training

program, ―Excellence in Leading Education in Emergency Situations

(LEADeXCELS)‖ for school heads and those concerned about school

safety in Southeast Asia. LEADeXCELS aims to strengthen the

capacity of SEA school heads in preparing for and responding to

natural and man-made disasters and ensuring that education and

learning continue even in emergency situations. This two-module

course was developed in consultation with experts and school heads of

Southeast Asian countries. The first module, Lead in Building a More

Resilient School, capacitates school heads to assess the capacity of

schools to develop a resiliency plan and to integrate DRM in the school

curriculum. The second module, Manage Continuing Learning, aims to

develop the competence of school heads in keeping stakeholders safe

during disasters in school and managing schools that serve as

evacuation centers. It provides instruction on how to set up temporary

learning spaces and continue the education of children.

The ―CSS Framework‖ and its three pillars, which include safe

learning facility provision, school disaster management, and risk

reduction and resilience education, also serve as a bridge between

developmental and humanitarian actions in the education sector.8

UNICEF attempts to more strongly link social cohesion with quality or

child-friendly education across the sector in hopes of building peace. It

is also pursuing ways to integrate resilience with its programmes by

focusing on strengthening capacities in all levels—from child-centred

to system-wide. This represents a shift in focus from vulnerability to

natural disasters, climate change, and conflict towards strengthening

human capacity across levels.

8 The ―CSS Framework‖ was cooperatively developed by school safety advocates

worldwide and is being endorsed by UNESCO, UNICEF, Save the Children,

Plan International, World Vision, the Asian Disaster-Preparedness Centre

(ADPC), and the Coalition for Global School Safety (CGSS), among others. It

aims to protect learners and educational workers from death, injury, and harm in

school; to plan for educational continuity in the face of expected hazards; to

safeguard educational sector investments; and to strengthen climate-smart

disaster resilience through education.


Since 2012, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has

been leading the development of the ―ASEAN School Safety Initiative

(ASSI),‖ as part of the ―ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management

and Emergency Response (AADMER) Work Programme (2012–

2015).‖ An AADMER Partnership Group (APG) was formed to

support ASEAN and its member states to implement the ―CSS

Framework.‖9 The APG aims to ensure children‘s safety by making

schools a safe place.

A technical group known as the Asia Pacific Coalition for School

Safety (APCSS) was also established in 2012. It comprises

representatives from various NGOs, IFRC and UN agencies with

regional presence and provides technical support to country offices

implementing the ―CSS Framework.‖10

It aims to create space at the

regional level for discussion and sharing of technical resources, best

practices, lessons learned, and model policies on school safety to

minimize the impact of natural disasters on children‘s education. It

also aims to coordinate and promote advocacy for CSS.


East Asia and the Pacific: Developing Guidance for Programmes and

Policies That Promote Social Cohesion and Comprehensive School

Safety,‖ jointly organized by UNICEF EAPRO, UNESCO Bangkok,

and SEAMEO, is part of this broader regional initiative. It was

designed to strengthen awareness and the institutional capacity of

countries in EAP towards developing and adopting a more systematic

approach to address the risks and vulnerabilities that children in EAP

face in a comprehensive and holistic manner.

9 The APG comprises Child Fund International, Help Age International, Mercy

Malaysia, Oxfam, Plan International, Save the Children, and World Vision. 10

The ACSS comprises UNESCO, UNICEF, SEAMEO, the International

Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Save the Children,

Plan International, World Vision, and the ADPC.


CONSULTATION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

WELCOME REMARKS

SEAMEO INNOTECH Centre Director, Dr. Ramon C. Bacani,

delivered the welcome remarks to kick off the ―Regional Consultation

Meeting on Education and Resilience in EAP: Developing Guidance

for Programmes and Policies That Promote Social Cohesion and

Comprehensive Safety.‖ He discussed the relevance of the consultation

meeting‘s objectives to SEAMEO INNOTECH‘s major thematic thrust

of providing platforms for advocating social cohesion and school

safety. He spoke of the centre‘s major programmes such as Excellence

in School Leadership for Southeast Asian School Heads

(SEAeXCELS), which promotes regional understanding and peace,

and cultivates regional awareness; and Excellence in Leading

Education in Emergency Situations for Southeast Asian School Heads

(LEADeXCELS), which strengthens the capacity of Southeast Asian

school heads to prepare for and respond to natural and man-made

disasters, and ensure that education and learning would continue even

amidst emergency situations.


According to Dr. Bacani, man-made and natural disasters can derail a

country‘s economic development because a substantial portion of the

government‘s budget needs to be appropriated for relief and

rehabilitation efforts. But these, he explained, also allow national and

local governments to establish more resilient systems in disaster-prone

areas. In such cases, experience can be a great teacher but only if

governments and communities are prepared for risks brought about by

natural disasters and conflict. He pointed out LEADeXCELS as a good

example of a programme that can help prepare educational

stakeholders to deal with the challenge of providing continuous

education to children, especially in disaster-prone or even conflict-

inflicted areas such as countries in EAP, including the Philippines. In

fact, he said, according to the ―SEAMEO Strategic Dialogue of

Education Ministers,‖ which was held on September 13, 2014 in

Vientiane, Lao People‘s Democratic Republic (PDR), initiatives that

enhance resilience in the face of emergencies and drafting guidelines

on resiliency systems for member countries should be prioritized so

that affected children will not suffer even more by losing access to

education amidst tragedies.


Deputy Director for Administration

and Communications of the SEAMEO

Secretariat, Dr. Tinsiri Siribodhi, shared

that her own work experiences related to

education and resilience gave her a new

perspective on how educators can promote

resilience and human development at the

grassroots level and why it is important

for community members to actively participate in making their

communities more resilient.

Dr. Siribodhi highlighted why it was time for educators to work

together in efforts to promote human development. She believes that

schools should spearhead the development of human resources so they

can achieve social cohesion, safety, disaster management, and

resilience against any kind of risk. She also emphasized the importance

of partnerships and gathering collective wisdom to develop guidelines

on education resilience.

We are all

ordinary people,

but by working

together, we can all

be extraordinary.”


OPENING REMARKS

UNESCO Regional Science

Bureau for Asia and the Pacific

Director, Dr. Hubert Gijzen,

described EAP as a region that is

very prone to natural disasters and

issues that require resilience. He

commended the organizers for

bringing together a pool of

educational experts to create partnerships among international

organizations and governments in order to achieve a common goal—to

foster resilience in education. He also noted this consultation meeting

among members of UNICEF, UNESCO, SEAMEO, and other

organizations was indeed a huge step towards this direction.

Dr. Gijzen pointed out the timeliness of this platform for discussions

on a wide range of topics affecting the education sector—DRR

management, climate change, peaceful co-existence, conflict

resolution, and human rights. He then underscored how great these

concepts can affect human lives in today‘s and future generations. He

also reminded the participants of the rapidly changing and increasingly

complex and interdependent world that will shape sustainable

development goals amidst twenty-first century challenges such as

EAP is the

supermarket of disasters

that need concerted efforts

from all of us; inaction is

not an option.”


poverty, security, disease control, disaster mitigation, peace building,

and climate change from 2015 and beyond. These challenges, he said,

require collective action and accountability.

Dr. Gijzen mentioned that education and training for human resources,

curricular resilience, school management, and infrastructural planning

were key responses to challenges. Smart education programmes, for

instance, reduce the vulnerability of communities and improve their

adaptive capacity, he added.

Dr. Gijzen also challenged the participants to operationalize various

guidelines and frameworks on ESD, DRR management, resilience and

social cohesion, and human rights using an integrated approach. He

then gave credit to the experts for spending time to share their ideas,

knowledge, and experiences with their peers. After all, he said, only

collective wisdom can ensure that education becomes resilient to all

kinds of risk, quoting, ―Prevention is better than cure.‖


UNICEF Deputy Representative,

Mr. Abdul Alim, shared his personal

experience on how education helped

children in Tacloban bounce back

after the devastation that Typhoon

Haiyan/Yolanda brought about. He

also expressed his admiration for the resilience demonstrated by the

teachers amidst the ruins. He shared their insights on coping after

disaster struck, stating that the best way to get their community and

children back to normal and quickly recover is for them to go back to

school.

Mr. Alim also mentioned that EAP is a disaster-prone region, which is

why its population knows a lot about resilience. He challenged the

participants to provide evidence and share their experiences to develop

guidelines and adopt the most useful tools. He highlighted how

important being a good neighbor is in achieving community resilience

because your neighbors may be the first people to rescue and care for

you in times of difficulty.

Mr. Alim pointed out hindrances to achieving MDGs, referring to the

vicious cycle of poverty, inequity, low human development, and risks

to marginalized or vulnerable groups. He stated that UNICEF focuses

on building risk programmes to break the vicious cycle and bring about

community resilience.

Children are the

cornerstone in building

community resilience.”


PLENARY SESSIONS

SESSION 1: Education and Resilience: Conflict

and Social Cohesion

UNESCO Chair in Pluralism, Human Rights, and Democracy in the

University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, Prof. Alan Smith, opened the

first set of sessions with a thought-provoking question on how children

should be educated to prepare for global challenges in the future while

learning to face issues such as an even wider worldwide economic gap,

poverty, deforestation, migration, environmental problems, and

conflict. Educators are being moved to reform education so that it can

produce students with the skills to address current local and

international challenges and adapt to the issues brought about by global

citizenship. Amidst multiple theories on and interpretations of

resilience, social cohesion, and conflict transformation, one thing is

certain, these concepts are immeasurable. As such, advocates will find

it more challenging to use them to identify and resolve key issues in

educational reform.

To confront global challenges, education and development emerged in

three inter-related discourses—EiE, which is associated with the

concept of resilience; conflict sensitivity, which supports social

cohesion; and education and peace building, which is related to the

concept of social justice.

Global challenges drive policymakers to lead countries in producing

resilient citizens and in promoting social cohesion. Prof. Smith also

presented a sustainable approach to promoting education for

sustainable peacebuilding and introduced the ―4R Framework:

Redistribution, Reconciliation, Recognition, and Representation,‖

which lists potential indicators for education towards sustainable

peacebuilding.

Education is an effective way for countries to produce a resilient

citizenry and to promote social cohesion. As national policymakers

learn about various global challenges, the education sector and its

stakeholders will be called upon to integrate policies into their daily

operations.


Dr. Smith shared that national policies and programmes that

directly affect children such as those on freedom of religion,

gender and developmental issues, protection, education, curricular

contextualization and localization, and mother tongue-based multi-

lingual education (MTBMLE)are already being implemented although

challenges such as implementation in remote areas and translation for

marginalized groups are being encountered.

EAP is known for its diverse, multi-cultural environment, which also

breeds conflict and communication difficulties. However, one strategy

that effectively promotes social cohesion and quality education in such

an environment is MTBMLE, which entails using children‘s first or

dominant language as the primary medium of instruction in school.

This approach also promotes cultural identity and preserves cultural

heritage.

Education, language, and culture are related to one another. Language

is an essential component of inter-cultural education, encouraging

understanding between different populations and ensuring respect for

fundamental rights.11

Educational authorities also advocate child-

centered learning while most stakeholders do their share to educate

communities. Because the community has an essential role to play in

achieving social cohesion, adult literacy is crucial. An educated

community can create a peaceful environment and can contribute to

development. A culture of peace can also be achieved by promoting

understanding and respect, and encouraging active community

participation and commitment.

Session speakers, Ms. Amina Rasul-Bernardo from the Philippine

Centre for Islam and Democracy, Dr. Padtheera Narkurairattana of the

Mahidol University, and Mr. Ernesto Anasarias from the Balay

Rehabilitation Centre also highlighted the power of education and

working together to bring about social cohesion.

11

UNESCO Bangkok, 2007, ―Advocacy Kit for Promoting Multi-Lingual

Education: Including the Excluded‖; UNESCO, 2003, ―Education in a Multi-

Lingual World‖


SESSION 1-A

Session 1-A: Education, Conflict, and Resilience: Lessons from

Theory and Practice sought to examine the relationship among

education, conflict, and social cohesion; present the results of research

on the role of education in conflict; and describe how a systemic

conflict analysis of an educational system can be used to develop inter-

related initiatives to promote social cohesion through various entry

points, including sector planning, educational governance, curricular

reform, and funding for increased access to education.

Session 1-A began with a presentation by Prof. Alan Smith who

discussed global challenges such as wide economic and technological

gaps, poverty, deforestation, migration, and conflict, and other key

concepts and theoretical frameworks related to the term ―social

cohesion.‖ According to him, most of today‘s citizens are no longer

monolithic. As such, nations no longer share a common set of ethics.

Supra-national and regional entities are emerging and redefining the

relationship between the church and the state.

Prof. Smith said we should produce citizens who have the capacity to

think of problems not just in local but also in global context. They

should be able to cooperate with, understand, accept, and respect

others, regardless of culture, to resolve conflict in a non-violent way.

When discussing education, cohesion, and resilience, three inter-

related discourses come into play—EiE or responding to any kind of

conflict or disaster; conflict-sensitive education, which teaches learners

not to harm others no matter how different they may be; and education

and peace building, the belief that education can bring about peace.

These are not mutually exclusive, he said, each one affects the others.

Prof. Smith said we should develop citizens who know their rights and

responsibilities. They should strive to bring about conflict

transformation and social justice, especially since conflicts can greatly

impact education. In the same way, education can bring about conflict

resolution. Educational systems should promote assimilation or focus

on teaching dominant values; separate development or the plurality of

institutions focusing on essential identities; and cohesion and

integration or conservative pluralism.


Prof. Smith also identified the components of a conflict-sensitive-

education checklist—governance, access to education, and identity. To

ensure equity, peacebuilding is a must. Systems within the current

education sector must change. Stakeholder participation and self-

analytic tools are required.

After Prof. Alan Smith‘s presentation, session chair, Ms. Teija

Vallandingham, hosted an open forum where the following topics were

discussed:

Promoting peace building and social cohesion among ethnic

minorities

NGOs‘ role in peace-building initiatives

Addressing macro-level issues

Ambiguities with the conceptual definition of the term ―social

cohesion‖

Arguments that can be used to convince finance ministries to

support resilience-building initiatives

The open forum brought to light that language differences may not be a

major factor in conflict building but can mobilize violence if not kept

in check. But partnerships between governments, NGOs, and

communities can help resolve this issue. Change, however, has to

come from within. Addressing macro-level issues with regard to

security, politics, economies, and the environment should also be done.

But apart from these, underlying issues should also be considered. It is

not enough for the major stakeholders‘ mindset to change even that of

the donors should, especially if this could affect funding. And when it

comes to soliciting financial aid, arguments should focus on the

destruction and damage that inaction can cause.


SESSION 1-B

Session 1-B: Panel on Educational Policies and Planning That Promote

Social Cohesion in EAP sought to obtain educational sector actors‘

thoughts on good examples of conflict-sensitive policy and planning

approaches designed to promote social cohesion and provide evidence,

if any, of their impact.

Three case studies—in the Philippines, Vietnam, and the Solomon

Islands—were presented by Mr. Roger Masapol, Ms. Nguyen Ngoc

Yen, and Ms. Frances Revo, respectively.

Mr. Roger Masapol, Chief of the Planning and Programming Division

of the Department of Education, discussed the policies and systems

that promoted social cohesion in the Philippines. He discussed how the

new Philippine educational system—K to 12—could enhance the

learners‘ basic education performance and help them better survive

after school and achieve their goals in life.

Mr. Masapol defined social cohesion as the ability of the members of

the society to work together to promote the well-being of all of its

members. It had three components—social inclusion, social capital,

and social mobility. In line with this, the Philippine Department of

Education came up with its new vision—to enhance learners‘ values

and competence. Education should, after all, be learner-centered. The

department thus hopes to promote the rights of learners with the help

of their educators—administrators, teachers, families, and

communities. Teachers should facilitate learning; administrators,

meanwhile, should ensure that all children get access to quality

education. Families should instill core values in children while

communities should encourage lifelong learning. Only by

implementing rights-based policies can social cohesion be achieved.

Mr. Masapol added that policies providing free access to quality

education and assistance to private schools, the disabled, and the

indigenous as well as promoting basic human rights help enhance

educational systems. He also pointed out that policies such as those on

grassroots participatory budget planning and implementation not only

enhance social cohesion but also deepen democracy and empower

citizens, civil society participation in budget planning and

implementation, public-private partnerships, transparency in

governance, the use of advanced information systems, religious

freedom, and child protection Programmes on MTBMLE, Muslim


education, indigenous education, open high schools, and the K to 12

Framework recognize learner diversity. These encourage lesson

contextualization that, in turn, leads to social cohesion.

Ms. Nguyen Ngoc Yen, Senior Expert from the Primary Education

Department of the Ministry of Education and Training, discussed the

policies and systems that promoted social cohesion in Vietnam. She

described how the use of the mother tongue has improved learning

outcomes among ethnic minorities in the country. This programme was

supported by UNICEF and has been in place since 2008. It was

especially beneficial to Vietnam, which has 54 ethnic groups and 53

ethnic minority groups with each having its own language. According

to law, although Vietnamese is the main language used in schools, the

use of other languages is also encouraged to preserve culture.

Ms. Yen explained the difficulties that members of ethnic minority

groups had. Those in remote areas lacked means of transportation and

were poverty stricken. They were also hindered by language barriers,

which affected their comprehension and educational engagement. As a

result, several failed to complete their education. In response, schools

implemented the use of both the national language and the mother

tongue for instruction. This resulted in better learning outcomes.

Vietnam learned that helping children participate in the learning

process allowed them to become comfortable in expressing themselves

and enhanced their learning capacity and communication skills. Using

the mother tongue also helped them not only preserve their cultural

identities but also learn to respect cultural diversity.

Ms. Frances Revo, EiE Focal Point for the Ministry of Education and

Human Resource Development of the Solomon Islands, presented the

policy and planning process for the whole-school development

initiative in the Solomon Islands. She provided an overview of the

country‘s geography, educational governance, and educational system.

She also briefly described its education sector plans.

Ms. Revo said the Solomon Islands aimed to provide equitable access

to quality education. That is why they are implementing a three-year

whole-school development plan to guide schools in effectively

managing their resources in order to achieve three goals: to set up a

management committee, to analyze the situation in order to assess gaps

and identify priorities, and to draft the actual development plan. School

improvement, educational funding provision, and the establishment of

an evaluation committee are part of this plan. She believes the

successful attainment of these goals can lead the country towards

achieving social cohesion.


Session Chair, Prof. Alan Smith, then facilitated an open forum where

the following were discussed:

Deciding which mother tongues to support in MTBMLE

Programmes that responded to the learning needs of out-of-school

youth (OSY)

Feature countries‘ emergency and social cohesion plans

Barriers to social cohesion

The open forum brought to light that if a country has many mother

tongues, it can begin promoting MTBMLE by focusing on what is

most widely spoken. The session speakers also shed light on

programmes specifically catering to OSY and adults. Apart from

MTBMLE, the speakers encouraged schools to make disaster

management planning a part of development and improvement plans.

SESSION 1-C

Session 1-C: Education Programmes and Community-Based Initiatives

That Promote Social Cohesion sought to discuss the initiatives of

NGOs, UN agencies, and other organizations that promote cohesion,

along with their impact. Four speakers presented case studies in their

countries—Mr. Danilo Padilla, Mr. Ernesto Anasarias, Ms. Amina

Rasul-Bernardo, and Dr. Padtheera Narkurairattana.

Mr. Danilo Padilla, ESD Programme Coordinator and Liaison Officer

from UNESCO Bangkok, said that Thailand focused on Learning to

Live Together (LTLT). He mapped out the country‘s implementation

of the four pillars of learning to promote social cohesion. He described

it as a work in progress.


Mr. Ernesto Anasarias, Executive

Director of the Balay Rehabilitation

Centre of the Philippines, meanwhile,

defined the relationship between

peace building and social cohesion in

line with the goals of their organization. He iterated the role that

learning institutions played in strengthening communities so they can

protect children and provide them quality education. He believes it

takes a whole village to raise a child. Differences in villagers‘

principles can teach children to become open to and respect others‘

views, thus promoting social cohesion. Women and children should

voice out their views, too. Everyone should be trained to prepare for

emergencies. Disaster preparedness should be a common aim, a norm.

Ms. Amina Rasul-Bernardo, President

of the Philippine Centre for Islam and

Democracy, discussed the potential

benefits of implementing peace

education curricula that incorporate

Islamic and democratic values to

promote social cohesion. She cited as an example the Literacy for

Peace and Development (LIPAD) Project, so named because she and

the project proponents believe education is the wind that allows people

to fly. This is especially true in conflict-affected areas such as the

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), which is poverty

stricken and suffers from illiteracy. Their project, she said, aims to

teach children not just to read, write, and compute but also to

comprehend. They employ phono-syllabic and MTBMLE that is

culturally sensitive; made for adults; and uses reading and writing to

inculcate peace and development, health, and nutrition. This began in

Sulu and has since proven to be a sustainable solution to poverty by

promoting inclusive growth. Only such growth can bring about lasting

peace and literacy is key. To date, LIPAD has had more than 63,000

graduates but they aim to further develop Islam-based peace education

by teaching authentic Islamic and Bangsamoro values in the future.

Dr. Padtheera Narkurairattana, Lecturer at the Institute of Human

Rights and Peace Studies in Mahidol University of Thailand, spoke

about educational programmes for non-violence and strengthening

relationships across the ethnic and religious divide in Southern

Thailand. He began his talk by stating statistics pertaining to school

fires in the region, then described the ongoing religious conflict. He

said multi-cultural education no longer exists in Thailand, and this

could have contributed to the societal divide. To restore social

cohesion, he said, peace building must be done. One step they can take

is to bring back multi-cultural education to teach learners to respect

religious and cultural diversity.

It takes a whole

village to raise a child.”

Education is the

wind that allows

people to fly.”


After the presentations, the session was synthesized by SEAMEO

INNOTECH Senior Specialist Mr. Pierangelo Alejo, who also chaired

the session. Mr. Alejo pointed out that the presentation of Mr. Padilla

grounded the participants on the four pillars of the ―Learning to Live

Together‖ program. Meanwhile, Mr. Anasarias introduced the group to

peace-building initiatives conducted in southern Philippines to counter

man-made disasters such as hostage taking, particularly because

children are the most vulnerable in these situations. He also mentioned

Ms. Rasul-Bernardo‘s formula for lasting peace and inclusive growth

which puts premium on achieving child and adult literacy in conflict

areas. Lastly, he mentioned Dr. Narkurairattana‘s interesting study on

promoting non-violence especially when it involves minorities under

fire or conflict and introducing certain ideas on culture and religious

diversity.

In closing, Mr. Alejo said that the session on education programs and

community-based initiatives touched on the following important

points:

The power of ―we‖ - the state, the community, the international

community, the region, and citizens acting together

The value of collective wisdom and solidarity

The nature of current efforts aimed at fortifying the link

between education and resilience

SESSION 2: Education and Resilience: Natural

Disasters, Climate Change, and Comprehensive

School Safety

The second set of sessions was dedicated to exploring

various efforts within EAP to strengthen the educational sector‘s

resilience to natural disasters and climate change as reflected in

national policies, educational programmes, and community-based

initiatives. Representatives from educational ministries, international

organizations, and NGOs presented the work they have done in the

region to foster resilience in individuals, communities, and systems.

Speakers from the government sector—Mr. Nandhana Bhaswara from

the Ministry of Education and Culture in Indonesia; Dr. Daravone

Kittipanh from the Ministry of Education and Sports in Lao PDR;


Dr. Ton Sa Im from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport in

Cambodia; and Mr. Tran Anh Truong from the Ministry of Education

and Training in Vietnam—reiterated EAP‘s vulnerability to geological,

climatological, hydrological, and meteorological hazards, paying

particular attention to their impact on schools and educational systems.

The representatives from educational ministries discussed the cost of

earthquakes, floods, windstorms, and storm surges, particularly in

terms of damaged infrastructure and class disruption. Developing

countries in EAP are also finding it more difficult to immediately and

adequately mitigate the impact of disasters on schools and

communities amidst the fact that the region is home to an immense

number of schoolchildren.

Fortunately, the session speakers generally revealed that efforts across

the region have been intensified to make individuals, communities, and

systems more resilient. Most of the initiatives were anchored on the

―CSS Framework‖ and its three pillars. Most of the educational

policies and frameworks, meanwhile, were influenced by discussions

and developments on CSS, DRR, and CCA.

In Vietnam‘s case, a comprehensive DRR and CCA framework that is

backed by solid leadership at the ministerial level helped clarify its

objectives and priorities and provided guided support for local and

international partner contributions. Other best practices include

promulgating action plans and guidance related to CSS and DRR;

establishing temporary learning spaces when calamities strike;

adopting a decentralized, flexible school calendar; and integrating

DRR and CCA into the formal school curriculum.

A key theme that emerged from the presentations was the importance

of ensuring that DRR and CCA efforts take a child-centered approach

and that children are given opportunities to participate in and

contribute to discussions on DRR and CCA not only in their own

communities but also in the international arena. An invitation to go

beyond DRR and CCA was also put forward in one of the sessions as

children need to face daily risks that have nothing to do with natural

disasters and climate change. Organizations should shift their focus on

strengthening resilience, reducing vulnerability, and advocating multi-

culturalism.

Despite the many DRR- and CCA-related challenges covered in the

sessions, it was clear that EAP has made substantial progress in terms

of policies, programmes, and strategies.


SESSION 2-A

Session 2-A: Country Good Practice Policies for Resilience to Natural

Disasters and Climate Change sought to provide examples of policies

and planning approaches that have been implemented in educational

ministries and at the local level to strengthen resilience in the

education sector against disasters and climate change, and provide

evidence of their impact. Four speakers—Dr. Marla Petal, Mr.

Nandhana Bhaswara, Dr. Daravone Kittipanh, and Dr. Ton Sa Im—

presented case studies in their respective countries.

Session Chair, Mr. Anthony Spalton, DRR Specialist from UNICEF

Headquarters in New York, provided a brief introduction of the session

before introducing the speakers.

Dr. Marla Petal, Senior Advisor for Education

and DRR from Save the Children in Australia,

provided a brief introduction of the Worldwide

Initiatives for Safe Schools. Dr Petal discussed

the goals of comprehensive school safety,

namely: 1) to protect the learners and

education workers from death, injury, and

harm in school; 2) to plan for educational

continuity in the face of expected hazards; 3) to safeguard education

sectors investment; and 4) to strengthen climate-smart disaster

resilience through education. Moreover, Dr Petal shared the three

pillars of Comprehensive School Safety: Safe Learning Facilities;

School Disaster Management; and Risk Reduction and Resilience

Education.

Dr. Petal shared that when talking about post-disaster response, one

should keep in mind that risks are always there. Risk assessment in a

multi-hazard context must be done. Educational sector policies and

plans should provide safe learning facilities that do not only include

buildings and other infrastructures but also access to school grounds.

Hazards may be

natural but they only turn

into disasters because of

vulnerability.”


School disaster management should be implemented as well. Planning

and not just responding to disasters is crucial. This should involve the

children. Risk reduction and resilience education through extra-

curricular and community activities can also help. Dr Petal finally

closed her presentation with the discussion of the Strategic Goals for

the Education Sector to complement the Hyogo Framework for Action,

Dr. Ton Sa Im, Undersecretary of State

for the Ministry of Education, Youth and

Sport of Cambodia, provided an overview

of the country‘s educational system. She

described its curriculum, strategic plan,

and strategies. She said that the country

often suffered from disasters such as

storms and droughts, as evidenced by a

timeline of disasters from 2000 to 2013. Throughout history, she said,

the country suffered the most after a 2013 flooding that damaged 1,280

schools, which increased the number of dropouts and repeaters. Since

then, it has been drafting strategies for educational resilience. So far,

they have come up with guidelines on disaster preparedness, recovery,

and rehabilitation. They have been met by challenges along the way

such as lack of more detailed plans at the local level. Minimum

standards of preparedness for each scenario need to be identified.

Instructional capacity should be developed though a technical

committee has yet to be established. Clear identification of

responsibilities must also be done, along with better resource

allocation, she added.

Dr. Daravone Kittipanh, Director of the

General Division of the Cabinet of the

Ministry of Education and Sports in Lao

PDR, spoke about the hazards and disasters

in the country. She believes that compared

with other countries in EAP, Lao PDR has

not recently suffered from disasters, natural

or otherwise. As such, the educational ministry‘s budget did not

increase. Policies for risk reduction, school construction guidelines,

and a ―CSS Framework,‖ on the other hand, exist. The government

formed a disaster risk management committee that is currently drafting

a new decree for the implementation of a ―Disaster Risk Management

Framework.‖ It has also recorded progress in improving the

educational system with the help of the finance ministry. This funding

supplied roofing material to damaged schools, helped create new DRR


textbooks, and aided in auditing school safety and quality in adherence

to school construction guidelines. Challenges were, of course, met

along the way. The ministry, for instance, had limited resources due to

the lack of emergency funds and insufficient DRR and management

knowledge at the community level.

Mr. Nandhana Bhaswara of the Ministry

of Education and Culture of Indonesia

cited the country‘s achievements in CSS

implementation. Among its total 252 million

population are 60.9 million students. He said

that 70% of the country‘s provinces are

disaster-prone. In fact, more than 2,000

schools were destroyed or damaged from 2004

to 2013 alone. He believes that attaining CSS is founded on three

pillars—providing safe learning facilities, implementing effective

school disaster management, and DRR education integrating into

curricula. Indonesia has begun implementing a national DRR action

plan that uses a community-based model. Part of this required

reconstructing and rehabilitating damaged schools. It also has a set of

infrastructure standards based on the results of a national conference

on school safety. Schools were mapped to determine how vulnerable

they were to disasters in order to come up with the right contingency

plans. The educational ministry has also sponsored a series of seminars

and training sessions on CSS. As in any other country, however, they

also faced challenges such as lack of coordination and partnerships,

especially since most of the schools in the country lie in disaster-prone

areas. In the future, the government hopes to institutionalize and

strengthen inter-agency coordination, improve monitoring, disseminate

regulations, and utilize existing extra-curricular organizations to better

promote DRR and management.

Mr. Anthony Spalton shared his reflections after each presentation,

highlighting good points that were raised. He then led an open forum

where the following were discussed:

What community-based construction is

Elaboration on coordination issues


The session speakers defined community-based construction as

knowing what materials to use and how to use them to construct safe

schools. It requires providing the necessary technical support to

prevent risks that can come with physically unsound infrastructure use.

Coordination is hard to achieve because every government level has its

own way of managing things. And when that has been attained,

dissemination down to the grassroots level can also be challenging.

Committees to help manage resources, projects, and programmes need

to be established to attain CSS. Support from NGOs and the other

sectors is also a must, they said.

SESSION 2-B

SESSION 2-B: Vietnam Case Study: Comprehensive Government

Policy in DRR and CCA sought to describe the policies that certain

countries developed to ensure that DRR and CCA are incorporated into

their educational systems; demonstrate how educational ministries

collaborate with other agencies to achieve DRR and CCA; describe the

collaboration among educational ministries, UNICEF, and Save the

Children; and describe the impact of policies and evaluation methods

to assess their effectiveness. Two case studies—in Vietnam and

Myanmar—were presented in this session. Session Chair, Dr. Sharon

Berlin-Chao, Manager of the Learning Management Office of

SEAMEO INNOTECH, began the session by introducing the topic and

the speakers—Mr. Tran Anh Truong from the Infrastructure

Department of the Ministry of Education and Training in Vietnam and

Dr. Zaw Win, Deputy Director-General of the Ministry of Education in

Myanmar.


Mr. Tran Anh Truong said the Vietnamese

government has been implementing DRR and

CSS policies and programmes since 2011. It has

appointed the Department of Infrastructure of

the educational ministry as the focal point for

DRR. He gave an overview of the country‘s

DRR and CCA policies that have been in place

since 1993. These comprised an ordinance on

flood control; a strategy for the prevention, control, and mitigation of

natural disasters; a community-based DRR and awareness programme;

a climate change adaptation model; and a DRM law that has been

integrated with existing curricula. He revealed that the educational

ministry closely involved with the drafting of these policies and

programmes. He stressed the importance of research on survival.

Because people know how to respond to disasters and help and rescue

others, the country has remained steadfast against threats.

Vietnam is also drafting two more policies—a national action plan for

CCA for the education sector and for operationalizing the strategy to

prevent and mitigate natural disasters. The main goal of this national

action plan is to enhance the educational sector‘s DRR knowledge and

skills so they can easily be mobilized in case of emergency. His

department has been tasked to accomplish the following: review legal

documents and policies related to DRR; communicate DRR policies to

stakeholders; develop educators‘ capacity; integrate DRR into

curricula; provide human resources when disasters strike; design and

pilot programme models; strengthen international cooperation; monitor

and evaluate DRR and CCA education; and establish contingency

funds for emergency response. To attain these goals, the department

has been raising awareness about DRR and CCA throughout the

education sector. They have created a management system and a

database for human resource development and allocation in times of

disaster. They have also built model hazard-resistant schools in various

areas. As presented by Mr. Trung, UNICEF helped improve their

management system, along with a disaster assessment tool. They plan

to standardize DRR tools next to assist schools in the future. They

work with other departments and ministries for designing hazard-

resistance schools. UNICEF and Save the Children, along with others,

also help them operationalize coordination mechanisms during

emergencies. All of these efforts have resulted in enhanced

coordination, capacity development, improved project planning and

field implementation, and better situation-monitoring assessment and

response. He also stressed that a national strategy is very important.

Proactive results are crucial. Partner engagement is also very important

if plans are to succeed and maximize results. Key flagship programs

and government support are also a must, he added.


Dr. Zaw Win, meanwhile, discussed

Myanmar‘s resilience to natural disasters. He

said Cyclone Nargis, which hit the country in

2008, led to integrating DRR into education.

The government has since been implementing

the ―Hyogo Framework,‖ the ASEAN


Emergency Response, an environmental conservation law, and a

disaster management law. He then showed sample guidebooks on DRR

used in the educational sector. He also mentioned that the country has

national disaster risk management mechanisms in place, which is

handled by a national disaster-preparedness committee chaired by their

vice president. The educational sector underwent a comprehensive

reform, which used a three-phased approach—assessment and in-depth

analysis of key areas, development of key point, and drafting of a

national education sector plan. All of these efforts have led to the

creation of a manual for school safety, establishment of safe learning

facilities, distribution of DRR resource packs, implementation of

regular emergency drills in schools, creation of teacher-training

modules, and integration of DRR and CCA into curricula. Like

Thailand, they also faced challenges such as lack of technical know-

how and insufficient relief provision coordination. In the future, they

hope to see more political reforms in the country due to its recent

change of governance system. Decentralization can lead to more

educational sector reforms that can, in turn, result in the development

of more CSS guidelines, the establishment of a DRR work group,

better implementation of the ASSI, and nationwide peace.

Dr. Sharon Berlin-Chao then conducted an open forum where the

following were discussed:

Contributing factors to goal attainment

Curricular inclusion of lessons on climate change

NGO support for policy and programme implementation


The open forum shed light on the educational ministry‘s role in coming

up with a good policy framework. It is, in fact, in the best position to

set up, lead, and promote DRR and CCA initiatives to stakeholders and

partners. Management can largely be aided by the development of a

management system. Lessons on environmental conservation should be

taken up in school to raise CCA awareness and knowledge. Projects

similar to SEAMEO INNOTECH‘s LEADeXCELS can also aid in

cases such as Tacloban‘s, reiterating that actions do not have to be

initiated by governments. Organizations can jumpstart projects as well.

And when challenges arise, it is always best to seek partners who not

only have the technical expertise but also the resources to aid nations

in achieving their DRR and CCA goals.

SESSION 2-C

Session 2-C: Country Good Practices on Educational Programmes and

Community-Based Initiatives for Resilience to Natural Hazards and

Climate Change sought to describe chosen countries‘ experiences with

natural disasters and climate change and provide evidence, if any, of

their impact.


The session began with Session Chair, Dr. Ethel Agnes P. Valenzuela,

Senior Specialist from SEAMEO INNOTECH, introducing the

speakers—Dr. Srisompob Jitpiromsri, Executive Director of the Deep

South Watch Centre at the Prince of Songkla University of Thailand;

Ms. Caroline Zastiral, Regional Climate Change Coordinator of Plan

International, Asia Regional Office; Ms. Indira Kulenovic, Coordinator

and Head of Community Safety and Resilience Unit of IFRC; and Mr.

Ramon Mapa, Executive Director of the People‘s Initiative for

Learning and Community Development.

Dr. Srisompob Jitpiromsri discussed the

programmes that bridge the ethno-religious

divide in Thailand through community-based

environmental education. His organization,

Deep South Watch Centre at the Prince of

Songkla University of Thailand, aims to

encourage multi-cultural dialogues among

the youth. He began his presentation with a

brief overview of the country‘s history. He

described it as the ―patani or center of Islam in Southeast Asia.‖ He

then discussed the cases of violence and conflicts being seen

throughout the country for some time now. Politics, ethnicity, local

history, and religion could be considered main contributors to these, he

observed. Lack of respect for the central government could be another

factor, especially among citizens in far-flung regions. A possible

solution for this is fostering multi-culturalism. Thais should learn to

accept and respect others‘ cultures. Promoting equality and

equitability, regardless of religion and ethnicity, is a must. Local

communities should be consulted if their cooperation in a project is

needed. Institutions such as the Prince of Songkla University of

Thailand can become instruments of peace-building initiatives by

teaching students to respect cultural diversity. Student camps that

encourage building multi-cultural relationships can also help, he added.

Ms. Caroline Zastiral of Plan International Asia

Regional Office, meanwhile talked about how

ESD encourages children to participate in

community-based CCA initiatives in Thailand.

She defined climate change as a set of risks that

can affect children‘s development. Her

organization seeks to build safe and resilient

communities where children and the youth

contribute and participate. They use games, encourage peer-to-peer


education, use learning-by-doing approaches, and advocate change. As

a result of their efforts, children have now become more aware,

knowledgeable, and understanding of working with their schools to

achieve goals. Because they are still in the testing stage, they have yet

to evaluate the impact of ESD on community building. To date,

however, people are seeing the project‘s value. The number of children

concerned about climate change has increased. For learning to become

effective, it has to be experienced, she said. She presented a video of

the project and its impact.

Ms. Indira Kulenovic of the International

Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent

Societies (IFRC) provided a brief introduction of

her organization. Ms Kulenovic introduced IFRC

as an organization committed to achieving global

and regional resilience and school safety. She

revealed that half of their budget is spent on the

Asia Pacific Region or given to auxiliaries to national governments on

programs and commitments that are youth- and child-centered DRR

and CCA activities. Moreover, IFRC‘s vast network of volunteers in

Asia and the Pacific Region hope to enhance resilience at the

community level focusing on child protection. Resilience, she believes,

requires going beyond disaster management. She cited recent disasters

such as the Japan earthquake and the floods in the Philippines and

Thailand as evidence. From the data presented, it appeared that

disasters are getting worse. That is why community-based risk

reduction can make a huge difference.

Ms Kulenovic emphasized that building resilience is a process and it is

not absolute. IFRC has been continuing engagements with

communities to enhance school safety. They have been raising public

awareness of DRR. To attain DRR and CCA goals, governments can

use existing commitments and already-developed tools; forge

partnerships; contribute to harmonization; and develop comprehensive

models.

Mr. Ramon Mapa of People‘s Initiative

for Learning and Community Development

(PILCD) shared good practices on involving the

youth in DRR initiatives through community

development in the Philippines. He introduced his

organization, one, he said, that focuses on adult

education and community development. Their


projects have been implemented in landslide-prone areas in the

Cordillera region of northern Luzon.. They teach the youth and train

educators about DRR and CCA. Their DRR functional literacy project,

for instance, provided related education via alternative learning

systems to OSY and community-based learning activities to adults.

They have also been advocating the integration of DRR into the

national education system, strengthening ESD in formal and non-

formal schools, and encouraging community participation in DRR

education. He believes in active citizenship, that active citizens build

united communities. As such, training school heads and teachers to

foster creativity and innovation in teaching can lead to change.

Mr Mapa emphasized that we need to go beyond building resilience

and we must fully realize that the children are our future leaders. That

is why we should teach them to value sustainable development,

especially amid climatic changes and natural hazards. We should also

re-orient our institutions that disasters are complex issues requiring

inter-disciplinary and multi-level approaches to resolve them.

After the presentations, Dr. Ethel Agnes Valenzuela conducted an open

forum where the following were discussed:

Effects of governance on projects

How scalable are the projects presented?

The open forum shed light on the importance of government

involvement for proper project planning and implementation. Like the

session presenters of good practices, almost all participants have

worked in one way or another with government authorities. The forum

also surfaced the fact that effective project implementation must

always involve the appropriate government agencies. In some ways,

they provide funding and they can readily scale up promising projects.

The forum further emphasized that scalability is still an issue in many

project implementation. Panel speakers suggested the need to look at

the ultimate project beneficiaries, which are the youth of today who are

not simply recipients of projects but also actors who can help the NGO

and governments to implement fully the DRR or CCA projects.


SESSION 3: Mainstreaming Conflict and Disaster

Risk Reduction into the Education Sector

The third set of sessions focused

on the collaborative efforts of

UNICEF, UN organizations, and

other advocates to mainstream

Conflict and Disaster Risk

Reduction (C/DRR) into the

education sector. On behalf of UNICEF, which invests 70% of its

programme resources in conflict-affected areas, one speaker pointed

out that investing in education addresses the root cause of conflict and

contributes to peacebuilding, social cohesion, and resilience.12

One of

its global initiatives is Peacebuilding, Education, and Advocacy

(PBEA)—a four-year advocacy programme funded by the government

of the Netherlands and implemented in partnership with participating

national governments and key partners. It was designed to strengthen

resilience, social cohesion, and human security in conflict-affected

contexts and aspires to strengthen UNICEF‘s approach to resilience

across sectors, including education, and to continuously support efforts

in protecting education from attacks.

SESSION 3-A

Session 3-A: Lessons Learned from the

UNICEF PBEA Programme on Mainstreaming

Conflict and DRR into the Education Sector

sought to share UNICEF staff‘s learning to

participants from all over EAP. Dr. Brenda

Haiplik, Senior Education Advisor for

Emergencies of UNICEF, and the Chair of the

session, introduced herself and the session. She

shared about lessons learned in strengthening social cohesion,

resilience and human security in conflict-affected countries. She

explained that the overall vision of UNICEF‘s Peacebuilding,

Education and Advocacy (PBEA) Programme is to strengthen

resilience, social cohesion, and human security in conflict-affected

countries and region. The programme was established to support

12

http://learningforpeace.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Learning-for-

Peace-Programme-Brief-En.pdf

http://learningforpeace.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Learning-for-Peace-Programme-Brief-En.pdf

http://learningforpeace.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Learning-for-Peace-Programme-Brief-En.pdf


better, longer term, and more sustainable results for children in the face

of shocks related to conflict, climate change, and disasters and natural

hazards. She then showed how many disasters the world has seen from

1980 to 2008. She stressed that insecurity is a primary developmental

challenge and that there is a correlation between conflict and

education. Dr Haiplik said that more than half of the out-of-school

children live in a conflict-affected areas and more than half are girls.

Children in conflict-affected countries are three times more likely to

miss primary school. Dr. Haiplik shared UNICEF‘s strategic plan from

2014 to 2017 in which 70% of the program resources are invested in

conflict-affected countries. The organization hopes to strengthen the

resilience of children, communities, and systems through teaching two

opposing concepts—conflict and peace. UNICEF wishes to stop

schools from being used as military bases or for military purposes. To

do this, she said, UNICEF works with various partners to create

guidelines, programmes, and policies, and to build capacities. UNICEF

has been analyzing entry points and conducting conflict analyses to

determine participating nations‘ strengths and challenges. Finally, Dr

Haiplik shared the vision, strategic result and five outcomes of the

Learning for Peace/Peacebuilding Education and Advocacy Program.

Ms. Jennifer Hofmann, Education Specialist

for Peace Building from UNICEF West and

Central Africa (WCARO), talked about

strategies for integrating conflict and DRR into

the education sector plans in West and Central

Africa. She began her talk by providing an

overview of the region—that it is comprised of

24 countries and 14 fragile states. The region also faces food and

nutrition crisis, floods, epidemics, armed and community-based

conflicts, political instability, and displacement due to inequality and

social injustice as well as ethnic and religious differences. She added

that the region has low primary enrolment rates due to lack of access to

basic education and gender disparity. She pointed out that 36% of the

world‘s out-of-school children are in the West and Central Africa

Region. Ms Hoffman shared that conflict and risk analysis as part of

the education sector analysis consideration is not part of educational

sector planning. In sum, the educational systems in the region are weak

and they are being threatened by conflict and disasters. Tools and

resources may even exist but there is no education blueprint. Concrete

guidelines, programmes, and activities, in the region‘s case, will be

more helpful than policies. The first step to make things better is to

integrate risk and conflict analysis into educational planning. Capacity


needs to be built before development can take place and partnerships

are absolutely necessary. Education and resilience, she added, can be

related in a lot of ways. Resilience could mean continuing education

even amidst emergencies and risks. Education can contribute to

community resilience by giving children the knowledge and skills to

become agents of change.

Mr. Benoit d‘Ansembourg, Education Specialist

for EiE from UNICEF Eastern and Southern

African Regional Office, meanwhile, discussed

conflict and DRR (C/DRR) in the education

sector mainstreaming in East and South Africa.

He provided an overview of the region, which is

made up of 21 countries and 12 fragile states. It

has a young population with a large number of out-of-school children.

He said experts predict that the region will be most affected by climate

change. It is frequently visited by natural hazards and children suffer

from conflicts, complex emergencies, and cross-border regional issues

such as mass displacement..

Mr. d‘Ansembourg shared that UNICEF has been helping the region to

become prepared for emergencies via education and training through a

holistic approach. UNICEF ESARO tries to mainstream C/DRR by

doing the following: 1) identify hazards affecting countries and

education system; 2) identify how the education system itself might

contribute to mitigating and exacerbating conflict; 3) identify existing

education policies in respective country context that address reducing

risks of disaster and various forms of violence; 4) draw up Education

Sector Plans, EMIS and budget; and 5) include cross border issues.

Finally, Mr. d‘Ansembourg said that the key to success lies in

identifying conflict and DRR champions who will harmonize tools and

streamline approaches. Questions such as these need to be answered:

Who will drive mainstreaming? Who will provide technical assistance?

Who will advocate? and Who will fund programmes?.

After the presentations, Dr. Brenda Haiplik facilitated an open forum

which primarily centered on the following:

Addressing diversity to find a holistic approach

Obtaining more substantive information to implement EiE


The open forum revealed that finding a holistic approach to

mainstreaming is a step-by-step process. Very few people in Africa

know what school safety means. Streamlining all of the C/DRR to only

what is needed is important. The ―CSS Framework‖ is a good start but

it could be further strengthened with conflict risk analyses. Moreover,

building educational system resilience does not only require looking at

root causes, but also to gain more insights into EiE. Both UNICEF and

its partners need data which take time to develop.

SESSION 3-B

SESSION 3-B: Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge and Values in

Mainstreaming Conflict and DRR (C/DRR) in Education sought to

address the relationship between indigenous communities and conflict;

the importance of drawing on indigenous knowledge and practices, and

values, including religious values and traditions, in sustaining social

cohesion and environmental protection; and ways of incorporating

indigenous knowledge and values into educational policies and

programmes to increase resilience and reduce risks of conflict and

disasters.

Dr. Tinsiri Siribodhi, Deputy Director of the

SEAMEO Secretariat and the Session Chair,

first introduced the panel of speakers — Dr.

Srisompob Jitpiromsri, Executive Director of

the Deep South Watch Centre at the Prince of

Songkla University, Thailand; Dr. Cresantia

Koya-Vaka‘uta, Associate Dean for Research

and Internationalization of the Faculty of Arts,

Law, and Education at the University of the South Pacific; and Dr.

Noor Mohammad D. Saada, Assistant Secretary of the Department of

Education (DepEd) of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

(ARMM), Philippines.


Dr. Srisompob Jitpiromsri, Executive

Director of the Deep South Watch Centre at

Prince Songkla University in Southern

Thailand, talked about the programmes that

bridge the ethno-linguistic divide utilizing

community-based environmental education.

He shared that the DSWC was established in

2006 based as an academic center for

conflict studies and cultural diversity, a civil society and media

network based on concepts such as social space and peace-building

initiative processes. Dr Srisompob explained the generations-old

subnational conflict which re-erupted in the Deep South of Thailand.

With almost 7,000 people killed in the past decade, in a region that is

home to less than 3% of Thailand‘s population, the conflict is currently

the most deadly in Southeast Asia. He shared that their Centre supports

peace-building efforts through a discursive process engaging in

knowledge formation and civil society activities via data analyses.

DSWC believes in discourse formation and engages in various

awareness and monitoring activities.

Dr. Cresantia Frances Koya-Vaka‘uta,

Associate Dean at the Research and

International Faculty of Arts, Law and Education of the University of

the South Pacific, Fiji Island, gave a presentation on Indigenous

Knowledge and Values: From Resilience to Sustainability Education.

Dr Vaka‘uta talked about the culture gaps in education and the

rationale for indigenous knowledge and sustainability. She emphasized

the meaning of education and teaching in the Pacific which respect

local community traditions and indigenous knowledge. She discussed

the efforts of the University of the South Pacific in re-thinking the

foundations of education. There is a need to rethink teacher education

and consider teachers as key players in the politics of education. She

shared the Indigenous Pacific Response to Sustainability and

Resilience and the Resilience Literacies Framework. To show an

example, she discussed Tuli- A transformational cultural learning

theory which has four components: 1) Knowing, 2) Learning, 3) Being,

and 4) Belonging. Finally, she posted a challenge on what really

We need to think

globally even if we want to

act locally.”


matters in the pursuit of Indigenous Pacific, i.e., What is education for?

What is quality education? Education for what and for whom? What

does a sustainable future look like? and How do we develop and

nurture resilient individuals and societies?

Assistant Secretary Dr. Noor Mohammad

Saada, the last speaker, provided an overview

of the Autonomous Region in Muslim

Mindanao (ARMM) located in Southern

Philippines. The ARMM Region suffered

from both natural and man-made hazards such

as floods, landslides, volcanic eruptions,

earthquakes and culturally-entrenched Rido or

feuding between families and clans. ARMM has a fragile environment

in terms of security due to poor governance. Dr. Saada shared that the

region is working with UNICEF to develop a Regional Policy on EiE.

Some education response and programmes include: Indigenous

Knowledge Integration into EiE /CSS Framework.; Learning from

Local DRMM and CCCA and EC Experiences; and Enhancement of

SBM concept and practice and skills-based education. There is also

operational mainstreaming within the Department of Education –

ARMM bureaucracy. Moving forward, the ARMM, Dr. Saada said,

continues to work with UNICEF to help the region develop a sound

EiE policy.

The Chair, Dr. Tinsiri Siribodhi shared her reflections for each

presentation. From the presentations, she said that the media‘s

involvement in EiE, DRR projects in education can be both good and

bad. She emphasized the need for networking in education. More

importantly, she reaffirmed the need for indigenous knowledge which

preserves family ties and this should be considered in educating

children. She then opened the floor for questions and a discussion of

the following ensued:

Integrating indigenous knowledge into education

Major challenges with regard to indigenous education integration


The open forum revealed that the ARMM is looking at cultural and

religious values to promote educational continuity. Meaningful

engagements begin with taking the right entry points, and networking

facilitates a lot of responses in EiE and DRR. As for her

recommendation, she said that it would be a good regional strategy to

incorporate indigenous knowledge with formal education to achieve

continuity and establish an effective political framework.

SESSION 3-C

Session 3-C: Monitoring and Evaluating Conflict and Disaster Risk

Reduction (C/DRR)—Tools and Strategies sought to review tools on

conflict and DRR tools, assess their utility, and give countries an

opportunity to describe other methods they have used and/or planned

to use to evaluate their existing strategies.

Mr. Danilo Padilla, ESD Programme

Coordinator and Liaison Officer for UNESCO,

facilitated the session and introduced the

speakers—Ms. Leonora MacEwen, Assistant

Programme Specialist from IIEP; Dr. Zenaida T.

Domingo, Interim Director of the Southeast

Asia Centre of Lifelong Learning for

Sustainable Development; Mr. Chiranjibi

Poudel, Section Officer of the Ministry of Education of Nepal; and Dr.

Marla Petal, Senior Advisor for Education and DRR from Save the

Children.


Ms. Leonora MacEwen of UNESCO

International Institute for Education Planning

(IIEP) introduced the IIEP‘s self-monitoring

tool.. She then shared IIEP‘s task in providing

resource packages and technical assistance to

educational ministries on integrating safety,

resilience and social cohesion in education

sector planning and with UNESCO International

Bureau of Education (IBE) through its 10-week distance course on

educational planning, and training programmes in educational planning

and management, maintaining online resource databases and website,

and disseminating booklets. Ms McEwen shared UNESCO IIEP‘s five-

step approach to the educational planning process on conflict and

disaster aspects. It involves diagnosis, policy formulation,

identification of priority programs, integration of conflict and disaster

indicators into data collection and EMIS review, and drawing up of an

adequate financing framework. A focal point to implement

programmes, she added, should also be identified. Finally, Ms

MacEwen said that the capacities of participating countries should be

developed.

Dr. Zenaida T. Domingo, Director of

UNESCO South-East Asian Centre for

Lifelong Learning for Sustainable

Development (SEA-CLLSD) talked about the

Philippine participation in the Conflict and

DRR Self-Monitoring and Reporting

Mechanism on Education Policies and Plans

for Conflict and Disaster Risk Reduction for

Sustainable Development. She discussed the Self-Monitoring and

Reporting Questionnaire which has seven thematic concerns:

1) conflict and disaster risk assessment; 2) policies for risk reduction;

3) education sector plans for risk reduction, implementation priority,

and teaching and learning; 4) organizational arrangements and

coordination; 5) costing and financing; 6) monitoring and evaluation;

and 7) capacity development. She shared that SEA CLLSD worked

with the Department of Education in answering the questionnaire.

UNESCO and UNICEF provided technical guidance for integrating

DRR in the school curriculum. At the national level, a set of guidelines

can be used to measure, develop, and build a national framework.

Disaster preparedness and response and prevention should be

integrated with basic education. The Philippines has developed a

resource manual, is continuously orienting teachers, and building

capacity to attain its C/DRR objectives.


Mr. Chiranjibi Poudel, Section Officer of the

Ministry of Education of Nepal, provided an

overview of Nepal and its educational system

within the context of C/DRR. Mr Poudel said

that C/DRR evaluation and monitoring in the

country are done through delivery mechanisms

such as mobilizing cluster agencies, giving

technical support for partners, and working

with community groups. Nepal is expected to gain the following

outcomes: 1) integrate C/DRR into educational sector plan; 2) develop

a national DRR framework, 3) establish Education Cluster Groups for

Education in Emergencies and 4) invest on capacity building of

different stakeholders. At the moment, the Ministry of Education of

Nepal is still in the process of reviewing curricula, textbooks and

teacher guides. The Ministry is also setting the DRR competencies, and

developing the C/DRR resource book for teachers. Mr Poudel shared

that the only challenge at this time is limited financial resources,

inadequate capacity, unavailable data, and gap in existing law and

regulations.

Dr. Marla Petal presented the work of the

Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction

and Resilience in the Education Sector

(GADRRRES). Dr Petal explained how many

partners jointly developed a hierarchy of

indicators for Comprehensive School Safety

(CSS) to support the Worldwide Initiative for

School Safety in the hope of developing an

International Decade for Comprehensive School Safety. She shared

that the worldwide initiative for school safety was convened in

Australia just a week ago. Every founding member of the initiative was

invited to the launch slated for March 2015. The CSS primary goals

are to prevent deaths and injuries and ensure educational continuity; its

secondary goals are to safeguard school infrastructure and build a

culture of safety and resilience. Dr. Petal also shared the indicators for

CSS as well as the risk reduction and resilience targets, indicators, and

technical guidelines in the education sector. Some examples of CSS

indicators were discussed such as safe school facilities at the national

and school levels.


After the panel presentations, Mr. Danilo Padilla conducted an open

forum where the following were discussed:

Benchmarking

Disaster versus conflict assessment

Tool inclusion in UNESCO C/DRRM action plan

The open forum revealed that the UNESCO Self-Monitoring Tool on

Education Policies and Plans for Conflict and Disaster Risk Reduction

has been tried by some countries in the region. As a result, the

countries which utilized the Self-Monitoring Tool shared the strengths

and weaknesses in the UNESCO IIEP survey questionnaire. The key

findings of the analysis of the questionnaire revealed the need for

greater advocacy on C/DRR. The speakers suggested generating more

indicators to cover all the issues and that the tool‘s initial implication

feedback can be a basis for UNESCO C/DRR action planning

especially on capacity building, monitoring systems, and

organizational arrangements.

SESSION 4: Strengthening Networks,

Partnerships, and Information Platforms in East

Asia and the Pacific

The speakers in the fourth session—Ms. Ronilda Co from the World

Vision, Mr. Olle Castell from the ASEAN Safe School Initiative, Dr.

Marilyn Manuel from the Asia Pacific Regional Network for Early

Childhood (ARNEC) Secretariat, and Dr. Ethel Agnes P. Valenzuela

from SEAMEO INNOTECH—shared information on the role,

services, programmes, and initiatives of regional networks on

education and resilience.

According to the speakers, partnerships play a strong role in sharing

resources and filling in gaps to promote educational resilience, social

cohesion, and school safety. The current trend is, in fact, to establish

relationships with international agencies and governments to scale up

programmes and projects that address various educational issues.

Because collaboration is a key, regional organizations in EAP are

increasingly teaming up to accelerate development. The Asia Pacific

Coalition for School Safety (APCSS) has been tasked to promote CSS


in collaboration with national governments, international partners, civil

societies, and ―safe school‖ advocates. The ASEAN Safe Schools

Initiative (ASSI) also works on the regional priorities of ASEAN

member states in partnership with international agencies with

Southeast Asian presence. Such partnerships are characterized by

country-level consultations and are supported by neighboring countries

and community partners working to speed up the implementation of

safe school programmes. Meanwhile, SEAMEO‘s ―Project 10‖ is an

initiative to introduce collaborative projects to improve the quality and

relevance of education and, more importantly, to integrate principles of

DRR and sustainable development with the learning experiences of

young people among member states. Forging partnerships with

countries that are facing similar challenges can help the afflicted

establish common mechanisms and adopt educational system

approaches to build up capacity. They can share knowledge and best

practices with one another to achieve a common goal.

Session 4: Strengthening Regional Networks: Sharing Resources and

Filling in Gaps to Build Capacity at the Regional and Country Levels

was facilitated by Mr. Ralf Panse, Consultant at SEAMEO

INNOTECH. Mr. Panse began the session by introducing the

speakers—Ms. Ronilda Co, DRR and CCA Specialist at World Vision;

Mr. Olle Castell, Regional DRM Manager for Plan Asia; Dr. Marilyn

Manuel, Steering Committee Member of the ARNEC Secretariat; and

Dr. Ethel Agnes P. Valenzuela, Senior Specialist at SEAMEO

INNOTECH.

Ms. Ronilda Co, DRR Specialist of the

World Vision Foundation of Thailand,

introduced the Asia Pacific Coalition for School

Safety (APCSS). The founders of APCSS are

Plan International, UNICEF, UNESCO, IFRC,

World Vision International, Save the Children,

and Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

(ADPC). APCSS aims to create a space at the

regional level for discussion and sharing of technical resources, good

practices/lessons learned and model policies on Safe Schools to

minimize the impacts of disasters on children‘s education and to

coordinate and promote advocacy for Comprehensive School Safety.

APCSS, she said, is a means for regional collaboration. Presently, the

APCSS‘ main focus is on CSS and it aims to help countries reduce

death and injuries by having the right information on school safety.

She believes that progress starts with advocating children‘s rights and


participating in policy dialogues. APCSS is developing a three-year

strategic plan to standardize school safety toolkits, develop a website,

strengthen advocacy at the national level, and increase meaningful

project participation and engagement.

Mr. Olle Castell, Regional Disaster Risk

Management Manager of Plan International

Asia Regional Office and Plan International

Philippines informed the participants of the

ASEAN Safe School Initiative (ASSI). He

shared that ASSI was one of the fastest

projects endorsed by ACDM through formal

process which was recognized as one of the

priority projects of AADMER. ASSI program supports the

implementation of AADMER Work Programme 2010-2015,

specifically on the components of Disaster Safety of Educational

Facilities and Integrating DRR into the Curriculum under the strategic

components of Prevention and Mitigation. Mr. Castell emphasized that

governments can help out with DRR issues and problems but they need

support. ASSI is a three-year program to accelerate school safety

initiatives. There is a need to strengthen regional collaboration;

increase partnerships; and develop policies, tools, and capacities. A

common framework, increased resources through partnerships, and

enhanced guides and standards with hazard-specific models of Safe

School at country level should be in place, he added.

Dr. Marilyn Manuel, ARNEC Steering

Committee Member, meanwhile, talked

about ECD and peacebuilding. She

described ARNEC as one of the most

extensive and fastest growing professional

networks of early childhood development in

the Asia Pacific Region. ARNEC ensures

that the rights of every child are protected.

Its most extensive ECD network spans the Asia Pacific region. It has

five action pillars—knowledge generation, advocacy, information

management and dissemination, capacity building, and partnership

building. ARNEC believes ECD is crucial, especially in conflict-

stricken areas. Presently ARNEC is conducting a literature review of

existing ECD research to identify gaps, summarize key findings, and

suggest corrections. The key findings are related to concepts,

interventions, and advocacies. For ECD to succeed, she said, the public

needs to be informed and children should be involved in activities.


Finally, Dr. Ethel Agnes Valenzuela, Senior

Specialist of SEAMEO INNOTECH,

shared information about SEAMEO‘s

Project 10: Collaborative projects under

―Reaching the Unreached‖ Agenda. The goal of project 10 is to

improve quality and relevance of education and more importantly to

inculcate principles of DRR and sustainable development into learning

experiences of young people. She provided a brief background of

SEAMEO and introduced the project‘s components. Project 10 is

specifically developed to address education in emergencies and

disaster preparedness in the Region. Some of the accomplishments of

Project 10 were delivered by the Philippine Department of Education

and Indonesia. SEAMEO INNOTECH also contributed in achieving

the goals of Project 10. A national DRR framework, which promotes

climate change adaptation and disaster management for educators,

policy makers and stakeholders has been adopted. She also said an

Education cluster has been put up to ensure continuity of education in

disaster. Project 10 seeks to review EiE strategies, train teachers, and

draft laws on as well as establish a sector that ensures continued

education even when disasters strike. It spans prevention,

rehabilitation, and response. It plans to integrate climate change-related

issues into the guidebook. SEAMEO INNOTECH developed an ESD

Toolkit for Social Studies teachers as a tool to understand ESD.

Another SEAMEO member country, Indonesia, got involved in Project

10 by mainstreaming DRR in school and community programs. Both

countries learned that forging and strengthening networks and

partnerships are crucial. Moving forward, they will continue

discussions and work together to make the Project 10 activities that the

SEAMEO Council approved a reality, she concluded.

In unity, there is strength.”


After the presentations, Mr. Ralf Panse, the Chair of the session,

stressed the role of research in mainstreaming DRR. Without evidence,

he said, it would be difficult to convince policymakers about anything.

He then started an open forum, which discussed how networking could

succeed at mainstreaming DRR. The speakers believed different

organizations could work together to promote DRR; they agreed just

have to reach out to them.

GROUP WORK SESSION 5: Synthesis and Final

Recommendations for Regional Guidance

The fifth set of sessions presented the outputs of four group work

sessions—Session A: Education Policies and Programmes for Social

Cohesion and Conflict Risk Reduction, Session B: Policies and

Programmes for CSS and Climate Change Education, Session C:

Mainstream Conflict and DRR, and Session D: Synthesis and Final

Recommendations for Regional Guidance. The experts were grouped

into seven groups to come up with recommendations for regional

guidance on policies and programmes that promote social cohesion and

CSS.

The various group work sessions were facilitated by Ms. Melinda

Smith, Ms. Vilasa Phongsathorn and Ms. Teija Vallandingham and

within the groups by seven technical resource persons selected from

the participants. The group work process was guided by Handouts and

background resource materials.


In the end, the recommendations from all the groups were processed,

consolidated and summarized by the facilitators— Ms. Melinda Smith,

Ms. Teija Vallandingham and Ms. Vilasa Phongsathorn.

FINAL GUIDANCE PRESENTATION

The consolidated recommendations were presented to the meeting in

the final session by Ms. Teija Vallandingham and Ms. Melinda Smith.

The purpose of the Regional Guidance:

The Regional Guidance is intended to assist governments, Ministries

of Education (MOEs), education agencies and communities in East

Asia and the Pacific to develop policies and programmes to strengthen

resilience of the education systems in promoting social cohesion and

comprehensive school safety, The Guidance is a set of

recommendations from which the education sector actors can select

those approaches and strategies that best serve their unique contexts.

The intended audience for the Guidance includes the following:

Government/MOEs,

Technical partners, including UN Agencies, NGOs IFRC,

community-based organizations and academia

Education practitioners and communities

A consensus emerged from the participants on the need for expansion

of access to quality education, curriculum, and textbook reform. It

should incorporate content that would promote both social cohesion

and school safety, and include communities and youth in the process of

planning, policy formulation, and programme development.

The following sections present the recommendations that were

identified and incorporated into the final ―Regional Guidance for

Education and Resilience.‖


RISK/ HAZARD ASSESSMENT; CONFLICT/

SITUATION ANALYSIS

Adapt a prototype to country-level context and ensure

prioritization and implementation in partnership among

government, NGOs, UN, communities and CBOs

Provide budget allocations at the local level to provide national

governments information on natural disasters and other

emergencies

Provide technical and other kinds of support from UN and NGOs

Provide community inputs on risks and hazards

Align with the ASSI

INTEGRATION OF CONFLICT AND DISASTER

RISK REDUCTION INTO EDUCATION SECTOR

PLAN AND BUDGET

Adopt the ―CSS Framework‖ aligned with access, quality, and

management and adjust it to local context, including all kinds of

hazards and risks

Identify a full range of targets and indicators for CSS

implementation

Ensure government involvement in the ―World Initiative for School

Safety‖

Create an integrated set of tools for mainstreaming conflict and

disaster risk reduction (C/DRR) into sector planning using a

consultative and participatory approach facilitated by educational

ministries

Ensure participation of youth organizations in policy talks or

forums


ADOPTION OF THE “COMPREHENSIVE

SCHOOL SAFETY FRAMEWORK”

Create an effective implementation plan and monitoring framework

Commit to the implementation of educational ministry policies,

including school safety components, and inclusion in national plans

and budgets

Ensure meaningful participation of local communities and children

in school-safety-related activities

COMPREHENSIVE CURRICULUM AND

TEXTBOOKS REFORM

Implement a participatory consultation process to determine what

and how to integrate social cohesion and DRR into curricula

Generate community buy-in and demand for more relevant

curricula to satisfy local contexts and needs

ACCESS TO SAFE AND EQUITABLE EDUCATION

Address inequities and disparities facing the poor, ethnic

minorities, migrants out-of-school children, children with

disabilities, and risk-affected children by having specific solutions

for certain problems

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Develop, consolidate, and synchronize monitoring and evaluation

frameworks

Include conflict and disaster risk reduction (C/DRR) indicators in

the Education Management and Information System (EMIS)


Provide technical assistance or expertise and funds by UN and

NGOs to pilot scalable models

Map schools with C/DRR

COORDINATION AND NETWORKS

Coordinate at the national level between educational ministries and

national disaster management authorities or organizations

Ensure participation of different ministries, including Disaster

Management (DM) and Health, to coordinate activities related to

DRR and emergency response

Implement vertical (inter-sectoral) and horizontal (ministerial and

school-level) coordination

Form partnerships among governments, international

organizations, CBOs and NGOs

Create permanent positions for conflict and disaster risk reduction

(C/DRR)

Ensure that conflict and disaster risk reduction (C/DRR) is cross-

cutting in all sectoral initiatives

Ensure participation of disaster management and health authorities

in various activities related to school safety, especially in the ASSI

programme

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

Ensure long-term and strategic reform of pre- and in-service

teacher development systems to promote the teaching of social

cohesion, peace building, and DRR

Provide technical expertise by SEAMEO, UNICEF, and UNESCO

Develop distance-learning self-study materials for mass

dissemination


Dedicate resources to build the capacity of pre-service training

institutions

Implement a gradual plan to use annual in-service training

MOTHER TONGUE EDUCATION

Ensure protection of the constitutional right and education law in

the country to support language diversity

Implement pilot tests for multi-lingual education

Facilitate community participation in developing curricula and

materials and in supporting teacher mobilization

LUCENS GUIDELINES

Translate the guidelines into relevant local languages by UN and

NGOs

Conduct awareness-raising sessions for military and non-state

actors


CLOSING SESSIONS

Closing Remarks

Philippines Department of Education, Assistant Secretary for Planning

and Service, Mr. Jesus Mateo, first thanked all of the participants for

their cooperation in the insightful and meaningful consultation

meeting. He also expressed gratitude for the support that the

representatives‘ countries extended to the Philippines when Typhoon

Haiyan/Yolanda hit the country. He emphasized that the end of the

consultation meeting signifies the beginning of achieving inclusive,

quality, and accessible EFA.

Mr. Mateo shared his personal thoughts on how such a gathering of

minds allowed him to learn new things and shed enlightenment on the

experts‘ varying concerns and experiences. He pointed out that as

education evolves, some things are resolved while new issues arise. He

valued the experts‘ inputs, ideas, and suggestions, especially on the K

to 12 educational reforms in the Philippines. He said that

transformative efforts, best practices, innovative methods, and

community-based initiatives could be best gleaned in such a meeting of

the minds. Fruitful discussions served as opportunities to voice out

thoughts and express support for others in creating possibilities and

developing solutions.


Mr. Mateo then congratulated the organizers for a job well done and

for taking the participants a huge step closer to achieving common

goals and aspirations. He reminded the participants to translate their

commitments to reality, sharing that stakeholder cooperation and

collaboration are ideal and essential in ensuring productive outcomes

and pointing out that better outcomes come with cooperation.

Engagement and partnerships strengthen capacities and expertise to

have a wider reach and a more powerful impact.

The consultation meeting, he added, was particularly rewarding

because it gave him an opportunity to be surrounded by extraordinary

professionals who have a burning desire for a better tomorrow for

learners. He stated that education advocates are a great source of light

and inspiration.

UNICEF EAPRO Advisor, Dr. Jim Ackers, valued the consultation

meeting consensus and its potential to deliver equitable, inclusive, and

relevant education. He pointed out that education can transform

societies; help them build better after crises; and distinctively bring

normalcy, dignity and hope for children amidst crises. He recalled the

inspirational story that Mr. Alim shared on the resilience of teachers in

Tacloban who managed to reconvene classes and bring a sense of

optimism to the children despite the losses they themselves incurred

due to Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan.


Dr. Ackers also recognized the collaborative work that teachers in

conflict-afflicted areas in the ARMM are doing to bring about peace

and social cohesion. He also highlighted the importance of CSS

addressing the needs of out-of-school children and youth. The ―Zones

of Peace‖ Project, for instance, he said, protected education from

attacks while the LIPAD Project promoted inclusive and equitable

literacy as a means to break the vicious cycle of poverty,

marginalization, and conflict.

Dr. Ackers then acknowledged the encouraging developments in

national policies and plans in EAP that strengthen the resilience of the

education sector against climate change and emergencies, especially

since hazards are a reality in the region. He said that the consultation

meeting provided experts an opportunity to exchange best practices,

lessons learned, experiences, and challenges. He also expressed

gratitude in learning that most countries in EAP have policy and

programme recommendations to promote social cohesion and CSS. He

said he would look forward to their transformation into action.

Dr. Ackers mentioned that a policy that is transformed into action

really makes a big difference. For this to happen, he said, he identified

what he thought were various challenges that must be addressed.

Coordination: Ensuring that efforts and priorities in addressing

emergencies are systematized, and that there is horizontal and

vertical coordination in all levels—from national agencies down to

communities and from schools to households—in delivering

human necessities such as water, health, and sanitation.

Implementation: Ensuring that commitments translate to policies

and actual practice.

Evidence: Pointing out critical factors to attract funding and, more

importantly, to better understand if and how systems work.

Clarity and coherence: Provide a better understanding of the

purpose of development and humanitarian work, which is also a

current priority of UNICEF.


Dr. Ackers also reminded participants to keep the purpose of education

for resilience simple by focusing on the context of children in countries

that are most in need rather than the disadvantaged out-of-school

children and youth in stable countries. He further explored the impact

of development work and the implication of the sustainability of

projects. He also identified competing paradigms that have evolved

and overlapped such as the benefits of life-skills education, which is a

prerequisite to DRR. Education for resilience, social and emotional

learning, character education, and resilience, according to him, share

similar shocks with DRR and peace education.

Dr. Ackers then invited participants to read the ―Asia Pacific Regional

Education Conference Report‖, to obtain a regional perspective on the

collective commitment of regional ministries and stakeholders in

developing holistic and transformative approaches to lifelong learning

and explicitly addressing all forms of exclusion threats or natural

disasters. He also cited Global Citizenship Education (GCE) as a new

priority. He also discussed an innovative and divergent approach to

reach out to out-of-school children and its impact. He also stressed the

potential use of information and communication technology (ICT) in

emergency settings or contexts.

Dr. Ackers said the regional guidelines developed from the

consultation meeting will assist policymakers and stakeholders in

institutionalizing and operationalizing social cohesion and CSS.

Finally, Dr. Ackers thanked the government of the Netherlands for the

funding support and the organizers and participants for their valuable

insights and courageous work to not only make the world a safer place

for children but also to protect and ensure their development.


SEAMEO Secretariat Director, Dr. Witaya Jeradechakul, began by

thanking all of the organizers for the success of the consultation

meeting. He then highlighted the participants‘ numerous insights and

achievements. He pointed out that the discussions covered various

themes and extensively focused on education and resilience, conflict

resolution, social cohesion, natural disaster preparedness, CSS, and

climate change. The consultation meeting, he said, also paid particular

attention to mainstreaming conflict and DRR into education sector

planning in order to develop regional guidance and resilience, and

strengthen partnerships to promote conflict and DRR awareness.

Dr. Jeradechakul emphasized the timely meeting, considering the

various calamities EAP has been through in the past few years. These

catastrophes hugely affected the region, especially the education

sector. Fortunately, he added, the region has been coping and learning

to become more resilient and prepared at all times.

SEAMEO, Dr. Jeradechakul shared, will continuously advocate school

safety, DRR, and resilience in its post-2015 agenda. He also mentioned

that most of the countries in EAP have already created policies and

recommendations even though they have yet to take action. As such,

policy discussions could provide opportunities for key actors and

implementers to create actionable plans. He said that the consultation

meeting‘s output would be valuable in elevating the guidelines to

become part of the SEAMEO Council Ministerial Meeting agenda.


Dr. Jeradechakul stated that within its 49 years of service, SEAMEO

has been faithfully upholding its commitment, continuing its tradition

of cooperation, and creating the kind of cooperation that benefits both

the region and the world. He highlighted efforts to promote

cooperation, seek partners, work together, and help each other. He then

expressed gratitude for having been given an opportunity to share his

ideas with other experts. He summed up the consultation meeting‘s

achievements as ―ABC: Learning to Accept, Belong, and Contribute.‖

SEAMEO INNOTECH Centre Director, Dr. Ramon C. Bacani, was

the last person to deliver his closing remarks. He first thanked the

centre‘s partners—UNICEF, UNESCO, and SEAMEO Secretariat—

for trusting SEAMEO INNOTECH to host and manage the

consultation meeting. He then thanked the participants for generously

sharing their rich experiences, lessons learned, and valuable insights on

various issues related to social cohesion and CSS. He said past and

current initiatives on social cohesion and CSS will serve as an

important foundation for building future initiatives.

Dr. Bacani expressed hope that EAP country representatives will value

conflict and DRR principles, take advantage of their peers‘ insights,

and consider adopting their recommendations.


MEETING EVALUATION SUMMARY


EAP: Developing Guidelines for Programmes and Policies That

Promote Social Cohesion and CSS‖ documentation report summarizes

the participants‘ feedback on the consultation meeting held at the

SEAMEO INNOTECH Compound in the Philippines on November 4–

7, 2014. A total of 43 participants from across EAP and beyond

provided their opinions with regard to the statements related to the

meeting‘s outcomes, processes, and logistics. The following sections

provide some details on their responses.

STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE

CONSULTATION MEETING’S OUTCOMES

The weighted average was used in calculating the outcomes for each

question. Responses are based on a Likert Scale ranging from 1 (i.e.,

strongly disagree) to 5 (i.e., strongly agree). On average, the

participants tended to rather strongly agree with the statements related

to the meeting‘s outcomes. The weighted average scores for each of

the statements are as follows:

4.23 for the statement ―You have a better understanding and have

gained new knowledge on the risks and vulnerabilities faced by

children and youth in EAP and in your country.‖

4.14 for the statement ―You have a better understanding about the

relationship among education, conflict, and social cohesion.‖

4.05 for the statement ―You have gained new knowledge on

policies and programmes that promote social cohesion.‖

4.05 for the statement ―You have gained new knowledge about

policies, programmes, and strategies for CSS, DRR, and Climate

Change ESD through the education sector.‖


3.84 for the statement ―You have gained new knowledge on how to

mainstream conflict and DRR into education sector planning,

policies, and delivery.‖

3.79 for the statement ―You have gained new knowledge on how to

incorporate indigenous knowledge and values into educational

policies and programmes to promote resilience and reduce risks of

conflict and disasters.‖

3.63 for the statement ―You have gained new knowledge on the

tools and strategies for monitoring and evaluating conflict and

DRR in the education sector.‖

3.95 for the statement ―The regional guidance developed from this

meeting will help educational stakeholders in your country

implement policies and programmes to promote social cohesion

and CSS.‖

3.93 for the statement ―You have gained new knowledge on how

regional networks, organizations, and resources can help your

country strengthen the education sector‘s role to promote social

cohesion and CSS.‖

STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE

CONSULTATION MEETING PROCESSES AND

LOGISTICS

On average, the participants strongly agreed with most of the

statements related to the meeting‘s processes and logistics. The

weighted average scores for each of the statements are as follows:

4.14 for the statement ―The presentations were clear and

understandable.‖

3.56 for the statement ―There was enough time for discussions,

questions, and comments.‖

4.40 for the statement ―The overall facilitation of sessions was well

done.‖

4.28 for the statement ―The group work sessions were useful and

well-organized.‖


4.77 for the statement ―The logistical arrangements were well-

organized.‖

4.41 for the statement ―The hotel facilities were suitable.‖

The participants were also asked to rank the three sessions they found

most useful and the three sessions they found least useful. Based on

their responses, the session‘s were identified by the participants as

most useful:

PART 3: Mainstreaming Conflict and DRR Into the Education

Sector, especially Sessions 3-B: Incorporating Indigenous

Knowledge and Values in Mainstreaming Conflict and DRR into

Education and 3-C: Monitoring and Evaluation of Conflict and

DRR—Tools and Strategies

SESSION 2-A: The ―CSS Framework‖ and Country Best Practices

SESSION 1-A: Education, Conflict, and Resilience: Lessons from

Theory and Practice (by Prof. Alan Smith)

Experience sharing and case studies, especially Sessions 1-C:

Education Programmes and Community-Based Initiatives That

Promote Social Cohesion; 2-B: Vietnam Case Study on Resilience

Building Through DRR and CCA Education as Part of CSS; and 2-

C: Country Best Practice Educational Programmes and

Community-Based Initiatives for Resilience to Natural Disasters

and Climate Change

With regard to sessions considered as least useful, only three out of the

43 respondents provided answers and identified them as those not

considered directly relevant to the participants‘ contexts.

In sum, the participants were generally satisfied with the meeting and

found the sessions useful and informative, especially those featuring

practical examples from different countries. They also found the group

work sessions beneficial. In fact, quite a number of participants

commented that they wished there was more time for group

discussions and exchange of ideas. Some even suggested that for future

meetings, field visits and on-site community engagement should also

be organized so that they could explore issues and challenges on the

ground and learn about actual programmes and policy practices. It was

also noted that such opportunities would help the participants better

understand and operationalize the concept of resilience, which may

have seemed vague in theory.


However, some participants commented that the three-and-a-half-day-

long meeting was rather intense and that there were too many

presentations, despite their usefulness. It was further noted that budget

and funding issues should have been discussed as these carried crucial

implications for the development and formulation of new policies and

programmes. One suggestion was to organize a similar meeting

specifically for policymakers and actors (both state and non-state) who

have a key role to play in the development of educational policies and

programmes in order to generate buy-in.

In addition, participants from the Pacific suggested that a similar

consultation meeting be held specifically for Pacific Island countries,

as their contexts were rather different from countries in East Asia. It

was recommended that that a true regional strategy for EAP, regional

bodies from the Pacific Islands such as the Pacific Islands Forum

Secretariat and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, must be

meaningfully engaged.

Finally, some participants noted that before creating new regional

guidance or framework, they must first look into existing systems,

strategies, and policies, and more broadly validate their outcomes.


PHOTO DOCUMENTATION

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| vii

ANNEXES

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| viii

ANNEXES

AGENDA

DAY 1: Tuesday, November 4, 2014

VENUE: Pearl Hall

8:00–9:00 A.M. Registration (Hernandez Hall)

9:00–10:30 A.M. OPENING SESSION

MASTER OF CEREMONIES: Dr. Dave Catanyag, Fellow, SEAMEO

INNOTECH

WELCOME REMARKS:

Dr. Ramon C. Bacani, Centre Director, SEAMEO INNOTECH

Dr. Tinsiri Siribodhi, Deputy Director, SEAMEO Secretariat

OPENING REMARKS:

Dr. Hubert Gijzen, Director, UNESCO Regional Science Bureau for

Asia and the Pacific

Mr. Abdul Alim, Deputy Representative, UNICEF

INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION OF GOALS: Ms. Teija

Vallandingham, Regional Education Specialist, Emergencies and Peace Building,

UNICEF EAPRO

GROUP PHOTO

10:30–10:45 A.M. Coffee/Tea Break

PART 1: Education and Resilience: Conflict and Social Cohesion

10:45 A.M.–12:00 P.M. SESSION 1-A: Education, Conflict, and Resilience: Lessons from Theory

and Practice

CHAIR: Ms. Teija Vallandingham, Regional Education Specialist, Emergencies

and Peace Building, UNICEF EAPRO

GOAL: Education sector actors in conflict-afflicted countries are challenged with

developing policies and programmes that promote social cohesion and reduce

conflict. Research conducted by UNICEF and other organizations showed that the

evidence base for the linkage between education interventions, peace building,

and social cohesion remains weak. This session examines the relationship among

education, conflict, and social cohesion; presents the results of research on the

role of education in conflicts; and describes how a systemic conflict analysis of

an educational system can be used to develop inter-related initiatives to promote

social cohesion through various entry points, including sector planning,

educational governance, curricular reform, and funding for increased access to

education.

PRESENTATION: Prof. Alan Smith, UNESCO Chair in Pluralism, Human

Rights, and Democracy, Director of the UNESCO Centre, University of Ulster

Q&A: Participants will be invited to identify risks and challenges related to

conflict and social cohesion based on their responses to the pre-conference

questionnaire and comment on Prof. Smith‘s presentation.

12:00–1:00 P.M. Lunch (L.B. Soriano Hall Conference Room 2—Dignitaries and Steering

Committee)

1:00–2:15 P.M. SESSION 1-B: Panel on Educational Policies and Planning That Promote

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| ix

Social Cohesion in EAP

CHAIR: Prof. Alan Smith, UNESCO Chair in Pluralism, Human Rights, and

Democracy, Director of the UNESCO Centre, University of Ulster

GOAL: Educational sector actors from governments provide examples of

policies and planning approaches that are conflict sensitive or designed to

promote social cohesion and provide evidence, if it exists, of the impact of these

policy reforms.

PRESENTATIONS:

PHILIPPINES: Policies that promote social cohesion: Access to

secondary education, MTBMLE, protecting schools from military use,

curricular reform, Mr. Roger Masapol, Chief of the Planning and

Programming Division, Department of Education

VIETNAM: Policies that promote social cohesion related to equity in

educational planning and MTBMLE, Ms. Nguyen Ngoc Yen, Senior

Expert, Primary Education Department, Ministry of Education and

Training

SOLOMON ISLANDS: Policy and planning process for whole-school

development initiative, Ms. Frances Revo, EiE Focal Point, Ministry of

Education and Human Resource Development

Q&A

2:15–2:30 P.M. Coffee/Tea Break

2:30–4:00 P.M. SESSION 1-C: Education Programmes and Community-Based Initiatives

That Promote Social Cohesion

CHAIR: Mr. Pierangelo B. Alejo, Senior Specialist, SEAMEO INNOTECH

GOAL: Educational programmes initiated by NGOs, UN agencies, and others

that promote cohesion will be described, and evidence of their impact, if any, will

be provided.

PRESENTATIONS:

UNESCO: LTLT, Mr. Danilo Padilla, ESD Programme Coordinator

and Liaison Officer, UNESCO

PHILIPPINES: Protection against attacks on education, Mr. Ernesto

Anasarias, Executive Director, Balay Rehabilitation Centre

PHILIPPINES: Peace education curricula incorporating Islamic and

democratic values to promote social cohesion, Ms. Amina Rasul-

Bernardo, President, Philippine Centre for Islam and Democracy

THAILAND: Educational programmes for non-violence and

strengthening relationships across the ethnic and religious divide in

Southern Thailand, Dr. PadtheeraNarkurairattana, Lecturer, Institute of

Human Rights and Peace Studies, Mahidol University

Q&A

4:00–5:30 P.M. GROUP WORK SESSION A: Education and Social Cohesion

FACILITATORS:

Ms. Melinda Smith, Education Consultant, UNICEF EAPRO

Ms. Vilasa Phongsathorn, Education Consultant, Emergencies and Peace

Building, UNICEF EAPRO

INTRODUCTION OF GROUP WORK SESSION PROCESS AND

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

GOAL: Develop a preliminary list of recommendations for policies,

programmes, and strategies for education and social cohesion to be incorporated

into regional guidance.

TASKS:

Review recommendations in Work Session A Handout for educational

policies and programmes for education and social cohesion.

Review policies and programmes described in Sessions 1-A, 1-B, and 1-

C.

Identify five priorities in educational policies and programmes that

would make the most impact on social cohesion.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| x

Identify gaps and challenges in implementing these priorities.

List your recommendations for overcoming the gaps and challenges.

PROCESS: Groups of up to 10 people each will identify a facilitator and a note

taker. Resource people are assigned to the groups. Groups can work on sheets of

chart paper or a laptop but they must electronically record their responses.

Participants will be part of the same groups for Work Sessions A, B, and D.

REPORTING: Each group should summaries their charts. Groups need to

electronically save their work for subsequent sessions.

6:30–8:00 P.M. Reception and Dinner

DAY 2: Wednesday, November 5, 2014

VENUE: Pearl Hall

8:45–9:00 A.M. WELCOME REMARKS


INNOTECH

REVIEW OF DAY 1, PREVIEW OF DAY 2, AND ANOUNCEMENTS: Dr.

Ethel Agnes P. Valenzuela, Senior Specialist, SEAMEO INNOTECH

PART 2: Education and Resilience: Natural Disasters, Climate Change, and CSS

9:00–10:30 A.M. SESSION 2-A: Country Good Practice Policies for Resilience to Natural

Disasters and Climate Change

CHAIR: Mr. Anthony Spalton, DRR Specialist, UNICEF Headquarters

GOAL: This session will provide examples of policies and planning approaches

that have been implemented in educational ministries and at the local level to

strengthen resilience in the education sector against disasters and climate change,

and provide evidence of impacts or methodologies for monitoring the impact of

policies.

PRESENTATIONS:

APCSS:―CSS Framework,‖ Dr. Marla Petal, Senior Advisor for

Education and DRR, Save the Children

INDONESIA: Description of country policies in place for the ―CSS

Framework‖ and DRR, Mr. Nandhana Bhaswara, Ministry of Education

and Culture

LAO PDR: Description of country policies in place for the ―CSS

Framework‖ and DRR, Dr. Daravone Kittipanh, Director, General

Division, Cabinet, Ministry of Education and Sports

CAMBODIA: Description of country policies in place for the ―CSS

Framework‖ and DRR, Dr. Ton Sa Im, Undersecretary of State, Ministry

of Education

Q&A


10:45 A.M.–12:00 P.M. SESSION 2-B: Vietnam Case Study: Comprehensive Government Policy in

DRR and CCA

CHAIR: Dr. Sharon Berlin-Chao, Manager, Learning Management Office,

SEAMEO INNOTECH

GOAL: Countries with strong agenda and government leadership for DRR, CCA,

safe schools, including curricula that are well-aligned with the policy framework

at the national and sub-national levels. This session will describe the policies that

one country has developed to ensure that DRR and CCA are incorporated into the

Ministry of Education; demonstrate how the Ministry of Education collaborates

with other agencies in DRR and CCA, including the Ministry of Agriculture and

Rural Development; describe the collaboration among the Ministry of Education,

UNICEF, and Save the Children; and describe the impact of the policies and

evaluation methods for assessing their effectiveness.

PRESENTATIONS: Resilience building through DRR and CCA education as

part of CSS

VIETNAM: Mr. Tran Anh Truong, Infrastructure Department, Ministry

of Education and Training

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xi

MYANMAR: Dr. Zaw Win, Deputy Director-General, Ministry of

Education

Q&A: Representatives of educational ministries will respond to policies

presented in the case study, comments, and comparisons with other country

policies, questions, and answers. Participants should be seated in country teams.

12:00–1:00 P.M. Lunch (L.B. Soriano Hall)

1:00–2:30 P.M. SESSION 2-C: Country Good Practice Educational Programmes and

Community-Based Initiatives for Resilience to Natural Disasters and Climate

Change

CHAIR: Dr. Ethel Agnes P. Valenzuela, Senior Specialist, SEAMEO

INNOTECH

GOAL: Educational programmes initiated by governments, NGOs, UN agencies,

and others that strengthen resilience to natural disasters and climate change will

be described, and evidence of their impact, if any, will be provided. These

initiatives also include multi-sectoral and agency initiatives.

PRESENTATIONS:

THAILAND: Programmes that bridge ethno-religious divide:

Community-based environmental education, Dr. Srisompob Jitpiromsri,

Executive Director, Deep South Watch Centre, Prince of Songkla

University

Plan International:: ESD, Ms. Caroline Zastiral, Regional Climate

Change Coordinator, Plan International, Asia Regional Office

IFRC and Red Crescent Programme on DRR, Ms. Indira Kulenovic,

Coordinator and Head of Community Safety and Resilience Unit

PHILIPPINES: Good practices on Youth Involvement through

community development on DRR, Mr. Ramon Mapa, Executive

Director, People‘s Initiative for Learning and Community Development

Q&A


2:45–4:15 P.M. GROUP WORK SESSION B: CSS and Climate Change ESD

FACILITATORS:


Mr. Danilo Padilla, ESD Programme Coordinator and Liaison Officer,

UNESCO

GOAL: Develop a preliminary list of recommendations for policies,

programmes, and strategies for CSS and climate change ESD to be incorporated

into regional guidance.

TASKS:

Review recommendations in Handouts B-1 and B-2 for educational

policies and programmes for CSS and climate change ESD.

Review policies and programmes presented on CSS and climate change

ESD in Sessions 2-A, 2-B, and 2-C.

Identify five priorities in educational policies and programmes that

would make the most impact on CSS and climate change ESD.

Identify gaps and challenges in implementing these priorities.


Q&A: Participants should remain in the same groups as in Work Session A, led

by a facilitator and a note taker. Resource people are assigned to groups.

PROCESS: Groups can work on flip charts or laptops but they must

electronically record their responses.

REPORTING: Each group summarises their charts. Groups need to


DAY 3: Thursday, November 6, 2014

VENUE: Pearl Hall



Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xii

INNOTECH

REVIEW OF DAY 2, PREVIEW OF DAY 3, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Ms. Donna Lampa, Research Consultant, Research Studies Unit, SEAMEO

INNOTECH

PART 3: Mainstreaming Conflict and DRR into the Education Sector

9:00–10:15 A.M. SESSION 3-A: Lessons Learned from UNICEF PBEA Programme in

Mainstreaming C/DRR into the Education Sector

GOAL: Lessons learned on mainstreaming conflict and DRR into the education

sector from UNICEF‘s PBEA Programme will be shared by UNICEF staff

outside EAP

PRESENTATIONS:

PBEA and mainstreaming conflict and DRR from a global perspective,

Dr. Brenda Haiplik, Senior Education Advisor, Emergencies, UNICEF

Headquarters

WCARO, Ms. Jennifer Hofmann, Education Specialist, Peace Buidling,

UNICEF WCARO

ESARO, Mr. Benoit d’Ansembourg, Education Specialist, EiE, UNICEF

ESARO

Q&A


10:30–11:45 A.M. SESSION 3-B: Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge and Values in

Mainstreaming C/DRR in Education

CHAIR: Dr. Tinsiri Siribodhi, Deputy Director, SEAMEO Secretariat

GOAL: Integration of conflict and DRR into educational policy and delivery

requires the inclusion of knowledge, values, and participation of indigenous

populations. This session will address the relationship between indigenous

communities and conflict; the importance of drawing on indigenous knowledge

and practices, and values, including religious values and traditions, in sustaining

social cohesion and environmental protection; and ways of incorporating

indigenous knowledge and values into educational policies and programmes to

increase resilience and reduce risks of conflict and disasters.

PRESENTATIONS:

THAILAND: Dr. Srisompob Jitpiromsri, Executive Director, Deep

South Watch Centre, Prince of Songkla University

FIJI: Dr. Cresantia Koya-Vakauta, Associate Dean, Research and

Internationalisation, Faculty of Arts, Law, and Education, University of

the South Pacific

PHILIPPINES: Dr. Noor Mohammad D. Saada, RN, MPA, Assistant

Secretary, Department of Education

Q&A: Participants will be invited to share the ways in which indigenous

knowledge and values have been incorporated into the process of policy and

programme development at the national and local levels and the gaps that exist in

this approach. Participants and speakers will make recommendations for regional

guidance in incorporating indigenous knowledge and values in conflict and DRR.

11:45 A.M.–12:45 P.M. Lunch (L.B. Soriano Hall)

12:45–2:00 P.M. SESSION 3-C: Monitoring and Evaluation of C/DRR—Tools and Strategies

CHAIR: Mr. Danilo Padilla, ESD Programme Coordinator and Liaison Officer,

UNESCO

GOAL: A number of tools are being developed to assist governments in

measuring their progress in developing and implementing conflict and DRR

policies, plans, and programmes. This session will review these tools, assess their

utility, and give countries an opportunity to describe other methods they have

used and/or planned to use to evaluate their conflict and DRR strategies.

PRESENTATIONS:

IIEP: IIEP/UNESCO conflict and DRR capacity assessment survey

tool, Ms. Leonora MacEwen, Assistant Programme Specialist, IIEP

PHILIPPINES: Country presentations on using the IIEP/UNESCO

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xiii

conflict and DRR tool, Dr. Zenaida T. Domingo, Interim Director,

Southeast Asia Centre of Lifelong Learning for Sustainable

Development

NEPAL: Country presentation on using the IIEP/UNESCO conflict and

DRR tool, Mr. Chiranjibi Poudel, Section Officer, Ministry of

Education

GADDRESS and APCSS:: GADRRRES indicators on school safety,

Dr. Marla Petal, Senior Advisor for Education and DRR, Save the

Children

Q&A

2:00–3:15 P.M. GROUP WORK SESSION C: Mainstreaming C/DRR into the Education

Sector

FACILITATORS:


Ms. HyunKyung Lee, Programme Assistant, ESD, UNESCO

GOAL: Develop a list of recommendations for mainstreaming conflict and DRR

into the education sector.

TASKS:

Review the components of mainstreaming conflict and DRR in Handout

for Work Session C.

Review the content presented in Sessions 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C.

Identify gaps and challenges in mainstreaming conflict and DRR into the

education sector.


Q&A: Participants will meet in assigned country teams for Work Session C.

PROCESS: Groups can work on sheets of chart paper or laptops but they must

electronically record their responses.

REPORTING: Each group summarizes their charts. Groups need to



PART 4: Strengthening Networks, Partnerships, and Information Platforms in EAP

3:30–4:30 P.M. SESSION 4: Strengthening Regional Networks: Sharing Resources and

Filling in Gaps to Build Capacity at the Regional and Country Levels

CHAIR: Mr. Ralf Panse, Consultant, SEAMEO INNOTECH

GOAL: This session will share information on the roles and services of key

regional networks for education and resilience, identify country needs from the

networks or platforms, suggest ways that countries can better access existing

information and tools, and make recommendations for strengthening the

networks.

PRESENTATIONS: Representatives from regional networks, programmes, and

platforms will provide brief descriptions of their services and how countries or

educational ministries can benefit from them.

ACSS, Ms. Ronilda Co, DRR/CCA Specialist, World Vision

PHILIPPINES: ASSI Programme, Mr. Olle Castell, Regional DRM

Manager for Plan Asia

ARNEC (ECD and Peace Building), Dr. Marilyn Manuel, Steering

Committee Member, ARNEC Secretariat

PHILIPPINES: Project 10, SEAMEO, Dr. Ethel Agnes P. Valenzuela,

Senior Specialist, SEAMEO INNOTECH

Q&A

PART 5: Developing Regional Guidance for Education and Resilience

4:30–5:45 P.M. GROUP WORK SESSION D: Synthesis and Final Recommendations for

Regional Guidance

FACILITATORS:


Ms. Teija Vallandingham, Regional Education Specialist, Emergencies

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xiv

and Peace Building, UNICEF EAPRO

Ms. Vilasa Phongsathorn, Education Consultant, Emergencies and Peace

Building, UNICEF EAPRO

GOAL: Develop synthesis and final recommendations for regional guidance,

with action steps for appropriate bodies.

TASKS:

List final recommendations for regional guidance drawn from priorities

identified in Work Sessions A, B, and C.

Incorporate recommendations drawn from Lucens Guidelines (Handout

D-1) and Handout D-2: Sample Action Steps for Regional Guidance as

appropriate.

Develop set of action steps for recommendations, including which

bodies, governments, and organisations are responsible. All work

submitted for final synthesis and presentation on Day 4.

Q&A: Participants will return to the same groups from Work Sessions A and B

and finalise recommendations for guidance.

PROCESS: Work groups will complete a chart of final recommendations for

regional guidance and action steps for appropriate bodies (governments, UN,

NGOs, and communities).

REPORTING: Each group summarises their charts. Groups need to

electronically save their work for submission to facilitators.

DAY 4: Friday, November 7, 2014

VENUE: Pearl Hall



INNOTECH

REVIEW OF DAY 3, PREVIEW OF DAY 4, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Ms. Lauren Bautista, Senior Associate, SEAMEO INNOTECH

9:00–10:30 A.M. CLOSING SESSION


INNOTECH

GOAL: Provide a synthesis of the recommendations for the EAP guidance

document and enable key stakeholders to comment on priorities, operationalizing

the guidance, and soliciting commitments from stakeholders.

PRESENTATION: EAP recommendations for regional guidance on education

and resilience 2015: Summary of recommendations for guidance and action steps,

commitments of stakeholders, follow-up meeting in 2015, Ms. Teija

Vallandingham, Regional Education Specialist, Emergencies and Peace Building,

UNICEF EAPRO and Ms. Melinda Smith, Education Consultant, UNICEF

EAPRO

Q&A: Participants will have an opportunity to respond with priority actions at

the regional and country levels.

10:30–11:00 A.M. Coffee/Tea Break and Networking

11:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. CLOSING CEREMONY

INSIGHTS AND REFLECTIONS

CLOSING MESSAGES:

Mr. Jesus Lorenzo Mateo, Assistant Secretary, Department of Education

Dr. Jim Ackers, Regional Education Advisor, UNICEF EAPRO

Dr. Witaya Jeradechakul, Director, SEAMEO Secretariat

Dr. Ramon C. Bacani, Centre Director, SEAMEO INNOTECH

MEETING HIGHLIGHTS: Video presentation

EVALUATION OF THE MEETING

12:00–1:00 P.M. Lunch (L.B. Soriano Hall)

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xv

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Cambodia

1. Mr. Masahiro Kato

Education Specialist

UNICEF Cambodia

Email: [email protected]

2. Ms. Theavy Leng

Education Officer

UNICEF Zonal Office (Siem Reap)

Building 0048, Street 7, Makara, Sangkat Sala Komreuk,

Cambodia

Phone: (+855) 63763505


3. Mr. Prak Kosal

Director

Early Child Education Department

Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports

# 201, Preah Norodom Blvd., PhomPenh, Kingdom of Cambodia

Phone: (+85512) 824256


Indonesia

4. Mr. Widodo Suhartoyo


UNICEF Indonesia

WTC 6, 10/F JL Sudirman Kav 31, Jakarta 12920 Indonesia

Phone: (+62) 2287522604


5. Ms. Sun Wook Jung

Education Officer

UNICEF Indonesia

WTC JL, Jenderal SudirmanKav 31 Jakarta, Indonesia

Phone:(+62) 212996 8061


6. Ms. Novi Kumalasari Muhadi

Section Head of Risk Management

Directorate of DRR National Agency for Disaster Management

INA DRTG Building, IPSC (Indonesia Peace and Security Centre)

Sentul-West Java, Indonesia

Phone: (+622) 296 18776

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xvi

7. Ms. Mariana Pardede

Programme Manager

Member of the Education Cluster

Komite Yogyakarta Untuk Pemulihan Ache, Kresna Street, Sub-

Village Gentan, Sinduharjo Village, Ngaglik, Sleman, Yogyakarta,

Indonesia

Phone: (+62) 85766195789


Mongolia

8. Mrs. Bolorchimeg Bor


UNICEF Mongolia


9. Mrs. Myagmar Jadamba

Officer

Department of Coordination of Policy Implementation, Ministry of

Education and Science

Government Building – 3Ulaanbaatar 210620A, Mongolia

Phone: (+976) 51 99094743

Fax: (+976) 11323158


10. Ms. Dulamkhand Bayartogtokh

Officer

Department of Coordination of Policy Implementation, Ministry of

Education and Science

Government Building – 3BagaToiruu 44, #212Ulaanbaatar,

Mongolia

Phone: (+976) 99014846

Fax: (+976) 11 323158


11. Mr. Darisuren Dandar

Major Officer

Training Division, National Emergency Management Agency

Partizan‘s Street – 6, Sukhbaatar District, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Phone: (+976) 62263005

Fax: (+976) 62263005


12. Mr. Gendenkhuu Baatar

Colonel, Head, Inspection, Assessment, and Internal Auditing

Division National Emergency Management Agency

Partizan‘s Street – 6, Sukhbaatar District, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Phone: (+976) 99160852










Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xvii

Myanmar

13. Ms. Jessica Chaix

DRR Specialist

UNICEF Myanmar

Yangon Country OfficeMyanmar


14. Dr. Khin Mon Nyein


UNICEF Myanmar

No. 23 A Inya Myring Road Shwe ThungGyar Ward, Bahan

Township Yangon, Myanmar

Phone:(+95) 1230396069


15. Mr. Thein Than Tun

Education Field Officer

UNICEF Myanmar

No. 23 A Inya Myring Road Shwe Thung Gyar Ward, Bahan

Township Yangon, Myanmar

Phone:(+95) 98610102


16. Dr. Soe Win

Director-General

Department of Higher Education (Upper Myanmar)

Ministry of Education

80 Street, Between 34 & 35 Street, Mandalay, Republic of the

Union of Myanmar

Phone:(+952) 39315

Fax:(+95) 0231699


17. Dr. Htay Linn Maung

Rector

Maubin University

Department of Higher Education (Lower Myanmar)Ministry of

Education

Maubin Township, Myanmar

Phone:(+959) 8586909

Fax:(+95) 4530145







Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xviii

Papua New Guinea

18. Ms. Mary Tvara Remi

Acting Secretary

Autonomous Government of Bougainville, Department of

Education

P.O. Box 59Buka, Arob, Papua New Guinea


Philippines

19. Ms. Anna Liza Laylo


UNICEF Philippines

31st Floor, Yuchengco Tower, Rizal Commercial Banking

Corporation Plaza6819 Ayala Avenue corner Gil Puyat Avenue,

Makati City, Philippines 1200

Phone:(+632) 9010196


20. Ms. Ma. Cecilia Arcadio

ECD Officer

UNICEF Philippines




Phone:(+632) 9010196


21. Mr. Fernando Balmaceda

Emergency Education Specialist

UNICEF Philippines





22. Ms. Mariel Bayangos

Head of DRR Management Office

Department of Education

DepEd Complex, Pasig City, Philippines

Phone:(+632) 6374933








Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xix

23. Mr. Jose Gabriel Noveno

Project Development Officer

DRR Management Office, Department of Education


Phone: (+632) 6374933

Email: [email protected],

[email protected]

24. Ms. Harpy Valence Valerio

Project Development Officer II



Phone: (+632) 6374933


25. Ms. Rose Jane Dela Cruz

Project Development Officer II



Phone: (+632) 6374933


26. Mr. Cecilio Peralta

DRR Management Office



Phone: (+632) 6374933

27. Ms. Marian Aniban

DRR Management Office



Phone: (+632) 6374933

28. Mr. Byrone David Fabiosa

Technical Assistant

Office of the Secretary, Department of Education


Phone: (+632) 6388642, (+632) 6337266


29. Ms. Raquel Castillo

Lead Convenor

Stakeholder Partnership for Education and Lifelong Learning


30. Mr. Edmundo Rosales

Science Specialist

Foundation for Upgrading the Standards of Education

12 A. Pearl of the Orient Tower Condominium1240 Roxas Blvd.,

Ermita 1000, Philippines









Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xx

31. Mr. Rex Ubac

Development Management Officer

UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines

G/F Department of Foreign Affairs Bldg.2330 Roxas Blvd., Pasay

City, Philippines

Phone:(+632) 8344887

32. Ms. Pilar Bautista

Project Director

Literacy for Peace Development, Magbassa Kita Foundation

MCPAG Annex Bldg., UP Campus, Diliman, Quezon City,

Philippines

Phone:(+632) 4265886


SolomonIslands

33. Mr. Sipuru Rove

Principal Programme Officer

Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management,

and Meteorology

P.O. Box 21, Honiara, Solomon Islands

Phone: (+677) 27937

Fax: (+677) 27060

Mobile: (+677) 7424603


Thailand

34. Dr. Saipan Sripongpankul

Senior Educator/Education Specialist (Focal Point for CSS)

Office of Basic Education Commission, Ministry of Education

Thailand

Phone:(+662) 2885751


35. Mrs. Kornkeaw Tanomklang

Senior Educator

Office of Basic Education Commission

Bangkok, Thailand

Phone: (+662) 2885752






Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxi

Timor-Leste

36. Mr. Vicente Lopes

Education Officer

UNICEF Timor-Leste

Caicoli Street, Dili Timor-Leste

Phone:(+670) 3313535


37. Mr. Adolfo da Costa

Chief

Department for Preparation and Training National Directorate of

Disaster Management Ministry of Social Solidarity

Bemori, Dili, Timor-Leste

Phone: (+670) 78141714

38. Mr. Marito Vicente da Costa

Focal Point for DRR in School

Basic Education Directorate Ministry of Education

Vila-Verde, Dili, Timor-Leste

Phone: (+670) 77840498


Vietnam

39. Ms. Le Thi Minh Chau


UNICEF Vietnam

81A Tran QuocToan, Hanoi, Vietnam

Phone:(+84) 439425706


40. Ms. Nguyen Anh Son

Head

Division of Disaster Management Partnership Disaster

Management Centre, Water Resource Department, Ministry of

Agricultural and Rural Development

02 Ngoc Ha, Ba Dinh, Hanoi, Vietnam

Phone: (+84) 437335686 ext. 106






Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxii

41. Ms. Bui Thi Cay

Emergency Response and DRR/EiE Program Officer

Save the Children in Vietnam

Building E3, TrungTu Diplomatic Compound6 Dang Van Ngu,

Dong Da District, Hanoi, Vietnam

Phone: (+84) 435735050


RESOURCEPERSONS

42. Dr. Hubert Gijzen

Director

UNESCO Office, Jakarta

UNESCO House JI Galuh (II) No. 5, Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta

12110, Indonesia


43. Mr. Abdul Alim

Deputy Representative

UNICEF Philippines

31st Floor, Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza6819 Ayala Avenue

corner Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City, Philippines 1200


44. Dr. Ramon C. Bacani

Director

SEAMEO INNOTECH

Commonwealth Ave. Quezon City, Philippines

Phone: (+632) 9247681, (+632) 9247682, (+632) 9247683, (+632)

9247684


45. Dr. Tinsiri Siribodhi

Deputy Director

SEAMEO Secretariat

920 Mom Luang Pin Malakul Centenary Building920 Sukhumvit

Rd., Klongtoey, Bangkok 10110

Phone: (+660) 23910144

Fax: (+660) 23812587


46. Mr. Jim Ackers

Regional Education Advisor

UNICEF ESARO

Nairobi, Kenya








Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxiii

47. Dr. Witaya Jeradechkul

Director, SEAMEO Secretariat

920 Mom Luang Pin Malakul Centenary Building Sukhumvit Rd.,

Klongtoey, Bangkok 10110, Thailand


48. Dr. Virginia Miralao

Secretary-General

UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines

Department of Foreign Affairs Building Roxas Blvd., Philippines

49. Ms. Teija Vallandingham

Regional Education Specialist, Emergencies and Peace Building

UNICEF EAPRO


50. Ms. Carmen van Heese

Regional Emergency Adviser

UNICEF EAPRO

Bangkok, Thailand


51. Dr. Alan Smith

UNESCO Chair in Pluralism, Human Rights, and Democracy

Director of the UNESCO Centre

University of Ulster Co Londonderry, BT52 ISA Northern Ireland

Phone:(+44) 287032 4137


52. Mr. Roger Masapol

Chief of Planning and Programming Division

Office of Planning Services


Dep.Ed. Complex Pasig City, Philippines


53. Ms. Nguyen Ngoc Yen

Senior Expert

Primary Education Department

Ministry of Education and Training

49 Dai Co Viet Street, Hanoi, Vietnam

Phone: (+84) 38684157


54. Ms. Frances Papabatu Revo

Education in Emergency Focal Point

Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development

P.O. Box G28, Honiara, Solomon Islands

Phone: (+677) 21034

Fax: (+677) 22042









Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxiv

55. Mr. Pierangelo Alejo

Senior Specialist

SEAMEO INNOTECH

Commonwealth Ave., Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines


56. Mr. Ernesto A. Anasarias

Executive Director

Balay Rehabilitation Centre

25 Maalindog Street, UP Village, Diliman Quezon City 1011

Philippines

Phone: (+632) 9216301, (+632) 9298054


57. Dr. Amina Rasul-Bernardo

President

Philippine Centre for Islam and Democracy

NCPAG Annex Bldg. R.P. De Guzman Street University of the

Philippines Diliman, Quezon City

Phone: (+632) 4265886

Fax: (+632) 4269972


58. Former Senator Santanina Rasul

Chairman

Magbassa Kita Foundation

NCPAG Annex Bldg.R.P. De Guzman Street University of the

Philippines Diliman, Quezon City


59. Dr. Padtheera Narkurairattana

Lecturer

The Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies, Mahidol

University

999 Panyaphipat Building Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170Thailand

Phone: (+662) 4410813, (+662) 4410814, (+662) 4410815


60. Ms. Melinda Smith

Education Consultant

UNICEF EAPRO

Bangkok, Thailand


61. Ms. Vilasa Phongsathorn

Education Consultant

UNICEF EAPRO

Bangkok, Thailand











Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxv

62. Mr. Anthony Spalton

DRR Specialist

UNICEF HQ, New York, USA


63. Dr. Marla Petal

Senior Advisor for Education and DRR

Save the Children

Level 6, 250 Victoria Parade East Melbourne VIC 3002, Australia


64. Mr. Nandana Bhaswara

Analyst for Program Planning and Budget Division

Bureau of Planning and International Cooperation Ministry of

Education and Culture, Indonesia

Mobile: (+62) 81286343150, (+62) 85286148263


65. Dr. Daravone Kittipanh

Director

Research and General Division

Cabinet Office Ministry of Education and Sports

Lanxang Ave. Chanthboury District P.O. Box 67, Vientiane Capital

Lao PDR

Phone: (+85621) 254702


66. Dr. Ton Sa Im

Undersecretary of State and Deputy Chair of the Education in

Emergency Working Group

Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports

#80, Norodom Blvd. Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia

Phone: (+855) 11918873


67. Dr. Sharon Joy Chao

Manager

Learning Management Office

SEAMEO INNOTECH


68. Mr. Tran Anh Truong

Head of the Secretariat

Steering Committee for Flood and Storm Control and

Implementation of MOET Action Plan for DRR in Education,

Ministry of Education and Training

49 Dai Co Viet, Hanoi, Vietnam

Phone: (+844) 38693383










Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxvi

69. Dr. Zaw Win

Deputy Director-General

Department of Higher Education (Upper Myanmar)

Ministry of Education, Republic of the Union of Myanmar

80 Street, Between 34 & 35 Street, Mandalay

Phone:(+959) 2056081

Fax:(+95) 0231699


70. Dr. Ethel Agnes P. Valenzuela

Senior Specialist

Research Studies Unit

SEAMEO INNOTECH

Commonwealth Ave., Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines


71. Dr. Srisompob Jitpiromsri

Director, Deep South Watch and Centre for Conflict Studies and

Cultural Diversity

Prince of Songkla Univeristy, Pattani

181 Charoenpradit Rd., MuangPattani, Thailand 94000

Phone: (+6673) 350433


72. Mrs. Caroline Borchard Zastiral

Climate Change Specialist Asia

Plan International Asia Regional Office

14th Floor, 253 Building (Asoke), Sukhumvit 21 Road

Klongtoey Nua, Wattana, Bangkok 10110, Thailand

Phone: (+662) 204206304


73. Ms. Indira Kulenovic

Resilience Coordinator/Head of Community Safety and Resilience

Unit

IFRC

5/F Ocean Tower I170/11-12 Sukhumvit Soi 16Ratchadapisek Rd.,

Klongtoey, Bangkok 10110, Thailand

Phone:(+66) 26618201


74. Mr. Ramon Mapa

Executive Director

People‘s Initiative for Learning and Community Development

162 BPI Compound, Friendly Homes Subdivision, BPI Compound,

Guisad, 2600 Baguio City P.O. Box 1057, Philippines








Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxvii

75. Mr. Danilo Padilla

ESD Programme Coordinator and Liaison Officer

UNESCO Bangkok

920 Sukhumvit Road, Prakanong, Klongtoey, Bangkok 10110,

Thailand

Phone:(+662) 3910577


76. Dr. Brenda Haiplik

Senior Education Advisor

UNICEF HQ, New York, USA

Phone: (+1212) 3267409


77. Mrs. Jennifer Hofmann

Education Specialist, Peace Building

UNICEF WCARO

Dakar, Senegal


78. Mr. Benoit d‘Ansembourg

Education Specialist, EiE

UNICEF ESARO

Nairobi, Kenya

Phone:(+254) 708989220


79. Dr. Cresantia Koya-Vakauta

Associate Dean

Research and Internationalisation, Faculty of Arts, Law, and

Education, The University of the South Pacific

Suva, Fiji Island

Phone:(+679) 323296


80. Dr. Noor Mohammad D. Saada

Assistant Regional Secretary

Department of Education, ARMM

Cotabato City, Philippines


81. Ms. Leonora MacEwen

Assistant Programme Specialist

IIEP-UNESCO

7-9 rue Eugène Delacroix, 75016 Paris, France

Phone: (+331) 45037768










Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxviii

82. Dr. Zenaida T. Domingo

Interim Director

Southeast Asia Centre of Lifelong Learning for Sustainable

Development, c/o UNESCO National Commission of the

Philippines

Ground Floor Department of Foreign Affairs2330 Roxas

Boulevard, Pasay City, Philippines 1300

Phone: (+632) 8343447

Fax: (+632) 8318873


83. Mr. ChiranjobPoudel

Section Officer

Ministry of Education

Lubhoo-4, Lalitpur, Nepal

Phone: (+97701) 5582500


84. Ms. HyunKyung Lee

Programme Assistant

UNESCO Bangkok

Mom Luang Pin Malakul Centenary Building 920, Sukhumvit

Road, Prakanong, Klongtoey, Bangkok 10110 Thailand


85. Mr. Ralf Panse

Consultant

SEAMEO INNOTECH/GIZ

Commonwealth Ave. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

Phone: (+632) 9247681, (+632) 9247682, (+632) 9247683,(+632)

9247684


86. Mrs. Ronilda Co

DRR Specialist

World Vision Foundation of Thailand

809 SoiSuphanimit, Pracha Uthit Road, SamsenNok, Huai

Khwang, Bangkok 10310 Thailand


87. Mr. Olle Castell

Regional Disaster Risk Management Manager

Plan International Asia Regional Office

Plan International Philippines

4th Floor Bloomingdale Building, 205 Salcedo St., Legaspi

Village, Makati City, Philippines

Phone: (+632) 8130030, (+632) 8130031, (+632) 8130032, (+632)

8130033








Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxix

88. Dr. Marilyn Manuel

Steering Committee Member

ARNEC

Phone: (+632) 8263418


89. Dr. Dave Catanyag

Fellow

SEAMEO INNOTECH


SEAMEO INNOTECH

Management Team

1. Mr. Philip J. Purnell

Manager

Educational Research and Innovation Office


2. Mr. Benito Benoza

Manager

Knowledge Management Networking Office


Media and Communication

3. Mr. Jesse Tuason

Senior Officer

Knowledge Management Networking Office


Documentation, Registration, and Logistics

4. Ms. Cristina Moreno

Senior Associate



5. Ms. Donalyne Cielo R. Lampa

Research Consultant











Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxx

6. Ms. Lauren Nerisse Bautista

Senior Associate

Solution Evaluation and Adaptation Unit


7. Ms. Cecilia Andres

Project Assistant



8. Ms. Rhea Christina Rabin

Research Consultant



9. Ms. May Ann Garay

Project Assistant



IT Technician, Video, and Photo Documentation

10. Mr. Mark John Antido

Technical Associate

Educational Media Unit


11. Mr. Ermann Montealto

Video Consultant


12. Mr. Allan Rivera

Audio Consultant







Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxxi

REGIONAL GUIDANCE ON POLICIES AND

PROGRAMMES THAT PROMOTE SOCIAL

COHESION

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE REGIONAL GUIDANCE

Purpose of the Regional Guidance

Process of Development of the Regional Guidance

Summary of Recommendations

2. REGIONAL GUIDANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

1: Risk/Hazard Assessment; Conflict/Situation Analysis

2: Education Sector Planning and Budgeting

3: Comprehensive School Safety Framework

4: Comprehensive Curriculum and Textbook Reform

5: Access to Safe and Equitable Education

6: Monitoring and Evaluation

7: Coordination and Networks

8: Education Governance and Local Participation

9: Capacity Development

3. CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Key Concepts/Definition of Terms

Appendix B: Synthesis of Group Work Recommendations for

Regional Guidance from Regional Consultation

Meeting

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxxii

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE REGIONAL GUIDANCE

Purpose of the Regional Guidance

The Regional Guidance presented in this document is intended to assist

governments, Ministries of Education (MoEs), education agencies and

communities in East Asia and the Pacific to develop policies and

programmes to strengthen resilience of their education systems in

promoting social cohesion and comprehensive school safety. The

Guidance is a set of recommendations from which education sector

actors can select those approaches and strategies that best serve their

unique contexts.

The intended audience for the Guidance includes the following:

Governments/MoEs

Technical partners, including UN agencies, NGOs, IFRC,

community based organizations (CSOs) and academia

Education practitioners and communities

Many countries of East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) are facing

significant challenges of reducing intrastate conflicts and building

peace, while at the same time having to address the effects of climate

change and the ever more frequent natural hazards. Ministries of

Education and other education agencies and stakeholders have a

central role to play in helping prevent and reduce the impact of these

challenges. Environmentally stressed countries are at risk for political

instability; and many countries lack the capacity to meet the challenges

of conflicts, natural hazards and climate change. Conflict and

environmental stresses contribute to fragility, lack of capacity of

governments to respond, and the disproportionate impact on the

poorest and most vulnerable populations.

While educational approaches to conflicts and natural hazards and

disasters are quite distinct, the processes of planning, policy

development and programming to strengthen resilience to these risks in

children, schools, communities, and the education systems have much

in common. Comprehensive school safety and social cohesion

approaches require risk assessments, inclusive planning and budgeting,

curriculum reform processes, community involvement, and evidence-

based programming.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxxiii

Within this context, UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office

(EAPRO), UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education

(UNESCO Bangkok), the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education

Organization Secretariat (SEAMEO) and the SEAMEO Regional

Center for Educational Innovation and Technology (SEAMEO

INNOTECH) have collaborated to develop recommendations for this

Regional Guidance through a consultative process involving a diverse

range of education stakeholders in the region. At a Regional

Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience held in Quezon

City, Manila in November 2014, sponsored by UNICEF EAPRO and

co-organised by the three organizations, regional experts from

governments, regional organizations, NGOs, UN agencies, IFRC,

universities/research organizations, and community based

organizations gathered to share good practices in policies and

programmes that promote social cohesion and comprehensive school

safety. This initiative is supported by a UNICEF‘s Peacebuilding,

Education and Advocacy (PBEA) global programme, also known as

the ‗Learning for Peace‘ initiative. This programme, funded by the

Government of the Netherlands, aims to strengthen resilience, social

cohesion and human security in conflict-affected contexts, including

countries at risk of or are experiencing and recovering from conflict;

and accordingly to provide a more systematic approach to addressing

all risks faced by children, both natural hazards as well as violent

conflict risks.

Process of Development of the Regional Guidance

At the Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in

East Asia and the Pacific, participants worked in small groups to 1)

prioritize education sector policies and approaches to promote social

cohesion and comprehensive school safety; 2) identify action steps to

implement the priorities, including which education sector actors are

responsible; 3) identify challenges and gaps in policies and

programmes; and 4) identify strategies to overcome the challenges.

The Guidance presented in this document incorporates the

recommendations of the experts at the consultation meeting and

amplifies them with recommendations drawn from other regional

meetings and policy guidelines, including the following:

Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development in

Asia and the Pacific, Report and Recommendations, UNESCO

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxxiv

Experts Meeting on Climate Change Education for Sustainable

Development in Asia the Pacific, 10-12 February, 2014

Comprehensive School Safety, Recommended Actions for

Policy from DRR, CSS: An Imperative for Education Policy

Makers, UNESCO, UNICEF, Save the Children

Working Paper: Asia-Pacific Regional Strategy for Education

for Sustainable Development, UNESCO, 2005

Regional Conference on Education in Emergencies and

Disaster Preparedness, December 10-12, 2013, Department of

Education, Philippines

Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy, East Asia and Pacific

Desk Review and Situation Analysis, UNICEF East Asia and

Pacific Regional Office, 2014

Peace-promoting Education Reform in Southeast Asia and the

South Pacific, UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office,

2014

Integrating Conflict and Disaster Risk Reduction into

Education Sector Planning, UNESCO, Global Education

Cluster and UNICEF, 2012

Lucens Guidelines, Global Coalition to Protect Education from

Attack, 2014

While the regional recommendations presented in this document are

not unique to the Asia-Pacific region, they do represent the best

thinking of a representative group of education stakeholders in the

region. Moreover, representatives from Ministries of Education from

twelve countries in EAP were among the participants. Countries

represented include Cambodia, Indonesia, Fiji, Lao PDR, Mongolia,

Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Thailand,

Timor Leste, and Vietnam. Participants identified priorities based on

their own country contexts, underscoring the fact that priorities will

differ from country to country. The process of developing and

synthesizing the recommendations was iterative in that working groups

were given a chance to share their recommendations, integrate input

from resource people attending the meeting, and revise and synthesize

their priorities. Groups amended their priorities based on discussions in

plenary sessions and with resource people. All groups prioritized the

need for assessment and analysis processes to inform policy planning

for both social cohesion and comprehensive school safety, but only

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxxv

after plenary discussions and input from resource people. For conflict-

affected countries, participants recognized a need for a situation

analysis to address not only the consequences of tension and violence

but also the underlying causes in order to prevent violence and increase

safety and social cohesion.13

A consensus emerged from participants on the need for expansion of

access to quality education, curriculum and textbook reform to

incorporate content to promote both social cohesion and school safety,

and the inclusion of communities and youth in the process of planning,

policy formation and programme development. Evidence suggests that

addressing inequalities should be a high priority to promote social

cohesion. Evidence also suggests that large populations of

disillusioned, unengaged and unemployed youth provide a threat to

social cohesion. Consequently the involvement of youth in policy and

programme development, and expanding opportunities for youth to

promote social cohesion and comprehensive school safety is

essential.14

Most groups prioritised curriculum reform related to language of

instruction and identity, which is understandable given the diversity in

the East Asia Pacific region. Research suggests that addressing issues

of recognition and representation are extremely important to address

perceived and real inequalities, intolerance and discrimination. Mother

tongue and multilingual education (MLE) requires a complex set of

planning and reform processes, including collection of disaggregated

data on education inputs and outcomes and other issues such as trust

and discrimination.15

Another priority area identified is coordination, not just among

education sector actors, but across governmental agencies and at the

grass roots level. Policy reforms such as preventing military use of

schools require not only the engagement of government agencies that

control military and security forces, but also advocacy to effect

changes at the systemic level. Coordination and consultation with

community groups is also essential to incorporate into policies and

programmes reforms that address grievances, incorporate indigenous

knowledge, and allocate resources at the local level.

13

Drawn from comments provided by Prof. Alan Smith, University of Ulster, at

the Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia

and the Pacific, November 5, 2014 14

Ibid 15

Ibid

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxxvi

Summary of the Regional Guidance

The following is a summary of the recommendations for education

policies and programmes that strengthen social cohesion and

comprehensive school safety that were generated at the regional

consultation meeting. A full description of the recommendations, with

action steps and suggested education actors to implement the measures,

is provided in the next section. The recommendations have been

organized in categories starting with items related to education policy

reform, followed by curriculum reform and finally coordination and

capacity development. The order does not necessarily reflect the order

of prioritization of recommendations made by the participants at the

meeting. The action steps are drawn from the suggestions generated by

the participants of the meeting, amplified by regional and global

guidance documents. The results of the group work process in

identifying recommendations for social cohesion, comprehensive

school safety, and final synthesis recommendations that combine the

two areas are provided in Appendix B.

Education sector leaders, MoEs, development partners, NGOs, UN

agencies, IFRC, education practitioners, and local communities can

identify and adapt those priorities in action plans that align with their

country contexts and needs.

Regional Guidance on Education and Resilience Programmes and

Policies That Promote Social Cohesion and Comprehensive School

Safety

1. Risk assessment/conflict/situation analysis. Conduct a

risk/hazard assessment and a conflict analysis as appropriate for

the country context, including a review of existing policies, and

involving an inclusive and representative group of education

actors at all levels, to inform planning, policy and budgeting.

2. Education sector planning and budgeting. Integrate conflict

and disaster risk reduction policies and programmes into

education sector planning and budgeting as appropriate for the

country context.

3. Comprehensive school safety framework. Review the

Comprehensive School Safety framework as part of the

education sector planning process, and integrate relevant

policies and programmatic approaches to ensure safe learning

facilities, school disaster management, and risk reduction and

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxxvii

resilience education. This includes a review of current national

policies on military use of schools and the Lucens Guidelines,

as part of the sector planning process, to integrate relevant

policies as appropriate to country context to ensure safe

learning facilities.

4. Comprehensive curriculum and textbook reform. Establish

a national advisory commission through an inclusive process to

review curriculum and textbooks to assess the gaps in content

and skills that promote social cohesion, school safety and

education for sustainable development. Design processes over

the cycle of curriculum/textbook reform that integrate content

and skills prioritized by stakeholders, including, as appropriate,

the integration of education for disaster risk reduction and

climate change education for sustainable development; mother

tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE); life skills

education; and conflict-sensitive textbook revision to reflect the

historical narratives of diverse groups.

5. Access to safe and equitable education. Based on assessments

and Education Management Information System (EMIS),

develop a plan for equitable access to education, including

secondary education to ensure that rural and underserved

marginalized groups have increased access to quality education.

Develop polices and preparedness plans at national and local

levels to ensure that access to education is not threatened by

violence, conflict or disasters.

6. Monitoring and evaluation. Develop a system for monitoring

the implementation of new policies and programmes,

integrating conflict/disaster risk reduction (C/DRR) indicators

and monitoring tools into the M&E approach, developed

through an inclusive process.

7. Coordination and networks. Build and strengthen

coordination among education sector actors and other agencies

in policy and programme reform, and networks at all levels,

including local, national, and regional.

8. Education governance and local participation. Ensure

participation of local communities in the development of

national policies and programmes, including policies for

decentralized management and programme implementation.

9. Capacity development. Build capacity of education sector

actors at all levels to implement policies and programmes in

social cohesion and comprehensive school safety.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxxviii

2. REGIONAL GUIDANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Risk/Hazard Assessment; Conflict/Situation Analysis

Conduct a risk/hazard assessment and a conflict analysis as appropriate

for the country context, involving an inclusive and representative

group of education actors at all levels, to inform planning, policy and

budgeting. Assess what risks and vulnerabilities from conflict, natural

hazards, and climate change exist and how they are likely to impact the

education system, to implement risk-informed education sector

planning and programmes.

Priorities for action:

Government:

Inclusive assessment process. Involve an inclusive group of

education stakeholders at all levels, community representatives

and stakeholders from other relevant sectors in appropriate

assessment of ―all risks‖ and situation analysis processes.

Budget for local input. Allocate a budget at local levels to

provide the national government with information on disasters

and emergencies.

Vulnerability mapping. Undertake vulnerability mapping of

education facilities in cooperation with district education

offices and communities; and hazard mapping to identify the

most vulnerable groups likely to be affected by natural hazards

and disasters.

System resilience analysis. Analyze resilience factors in the

education system, including how conflict or disaster has

affected the education system in the past, organizationally,

institutionally and in delivery capacity. Analyze education

system performance, including access, quality of environment,

quality of education materials, quality of curriculum, efficiency

and equity.

Cost analysis. Analyze the cost and financing available as part

of the overall budget framework in order to prepare for,

mitigate, or respond to conflict and disaster.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xxxix

Disparity analysis. Analyze the political economy, disparities

in resource allocation, degree of inequity for marginalized

groups, to progress through the education system. Identify

regional disparities, e.g., urban/rural, ethnic/tribal/religious

differences. Analyze population groups by region, ethnic group,

gender, income, and participation rates, recognizing that lack of

education can lead to grievance and potential conflict.

The ASEAN School Safety Initiative (ASSI) assessment process.

Align assessment process with existing initiatives/frameworks

including the ASSI and the Hyogo Framework for Action on

Disaster Risk Reduction (HFA).

UN/NGOs/INGOs/IFRC:

Technical assistance. Provide technical assistance in adapting

appropriate risk assessment and situation analysis models to the

country context and prioritizing and implementing the planning

process in partnership among the government, NGOs, IFRC,

UN agencies, communities and CBOs.

Funding and resources. UN/NGOs/IFRC provide funding and

other support for the process as needed.

Communities/Schools/CBOs:

Local involvement in assessment. Children, youth,

parents/teacher organizations, provide inputs on risks and

hazards to be incorporated into the risk assessment process.

Education facilities mapping. Communities participate in

vulnerability mapping of education facilities in cooperation

with district and national education authorities. Analyze the

resilience of physical infrastructure to natural hazard and

conflict, including siting, education facilities and safety.

Policy analysis. Analyze the policy and management

environment and ways it may contribute to conflict and access

to education.

Population vulnerability analysis. Participate in hazard

mapping that identifies the most vulnerable groups likely to be

affected by disaster.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xl

2. Integration of Conflict and Disaster Risk Reduction into

Education Sector Plan and Budget

The increased importance of mainstreaming conflict and disaster risk

reduction (C/DRR) measures into education policies, planning and

programming has been recognized by many education sector actors.

Ministries of education and the organizations and communities that

support them should engage in an inclusive, sector-planning process to

support preparedness and response interventions that reduce the risk of

conflict and disaster and make countries more resilient.


Government:

Horizontal coordination in planning process. Establish an

inclusive steering committee or commission within the MoE for

C/DRR, including MoE staff; representatives of ministries of

planning and finance, and other relevant ministries; and an

education sector working group that includes development

partners, NGOs, and communities.

Vertical coordination in planning process. Consult with

stakeholders at all levels when developing policies and

programmes, including local communities, children and youth,

development agencies, and education officials from different

regions. Incorporate children and youth participation into the

planning process.

Policy review. Map and document issues/problems, current

policies and good practices and make accessible to all sectors,

particularly the government for review of plans and budget

allocation. Review comprehensive school safety policies and

approaches aligned to: access, quality, management and

formulate policies appropriate to the country context.

Cost analysis. Cost the overall education sector plan, calculate

additional C/DRR costs, and identify potential funding sources

to pay for the likely financing gap. Costs may include school

infrastructure and retrofitting, curriculum revision/reform,

salaries and other incentives, textbooks, monitoring and

evaluation (M&E), and capacity development.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xli

Targets and indicators. Develop full range of targets and

indicators for implementation of comprehensive school safety

and social cohesion.

Integrate indigenous knowledge. Ensure that indigenous

knowledge, values, local wisdom and skills are integrated in

C/DRR policies and programmes.

Tools. Integrate a set of tools for mainstreaming C/DRR into

sector planning through a consultative and participatory

approach.

UN/NGOs/INGOs/IFRC:

Technical assistance. Provide assistance in integrating a set of

tools for mainstreaming C/DRR into sector planning through a

consultative and participatory approach facilitated by the

Ministry of Education.

Resources. Partners and donors align and coordinate support

strategy and provide resources and funding and other support as

needed.

Communities/Schools/CBOs/IFRC:

Indigenous knowledge. Provide input to integrate indigenous

knowledge, values and local wisdom and skills in C/DRR

initiatives.

Youth involvement. Youth organizations provide inputs and

participate in the planning process, such as policy forums and

other youth participatory processes.

Local coordination of social cohesion and comprehensive

school safety strategies. Joint commitment between school,

community and local government on issues that affect social

cohesion and school safety, including monitoring mechanism.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xlii

3. Adoption of the Comprehensive School Safety Framework

Review the Comprehensive School Safety framework as part of the

education sector planning process, and integrate relevant policies and

programmatic approaches to ensure safe learning facilities, school

disaster management, and risk reduction and resilience education. This

includes a review of current national policies on military use of schools

and the Lucens Guidelines,16

as part of the sector planning process, to

integrate relevant policies as appropriate to country context to ensure

safe learning facilities.


Government:

Commitment to implement CSS. Translate commitment into

policies and an effective implementation plan of the Ministry of

Education, including school safety components17

within the

national plan and budget allocation accordingly. Ensure

commitment to implementing the post-2015 HFA.

Contingency plans. Establish national and sub-national

contingency plans, based on the Interagency Network for

Education in Emergencies (INEE) Minimum Standards (2010),

to support educational continuity, including plans and criteria

to limit the use of schools as temporary shelters.

Building code and retrofitting policies. Enact policies and

procedures to ensure that every new school is a safe school and

identify and prioritize unsafe schools for retrofit or

replacement.

National/local coordination. Ensure meaningful participation

of local community and children and youth in school safety

activities.

16

The Lucens Guidelines were developed by the Global Coalition to Protect

Education from Attack to reduce the use of schools and universities by parties to

armed conflict in support of their military effort, and to minimise the negative

impact of armed conflict on students‘ safety and education. They are intended to

serve as guidance for those involved in the planning and execution of military

operations, in relation to decisions over the use and targeting of institutions

dedicated to education. 17

The Comprehensive School Safety framework rests on 3 pillars: Safe Learning

Facilities; School Disaster Management and Risk Reduction and Resilience

Education (CSS Framework, 2014).

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xliii

Facilities monitoring within EMIS. Incorporate safe facilities

monitoring into Education Management Information Systems.

Have an effective implementation plan and monitoring

framework.

Prevent military use of schools. With input from inclusive

national advisory group, including education sector actors as

well as representatives of the military and security forces,

assess current national policies on military use of schools

against the policies recommended in the Lucens Guidelines.

Conduct awareness raising sessions for governmental military

and non-state actors.

Culture of safety and resilience. Use knowledge, innovation

and education to build a culture of safety and resilience through

curricular and co-curricular activities in schools and

communities.

UN/NGOs/INGOs/IFRC:

Resources. Partners and donors align and coordinate support

strategy and provide technical assistance, training, tools,

funding and other support as needed.

Advocacy. Advocate for educational continuity during disasters

and emergencies and use social media to raise awareness.

Ensure that DRR and resilience are priorities with a strong

institutional basis with education authorities nationwide.

Technical assistance. Provide technical support to strengthen

disaster preparedness for effective response in learning

environments.

Prevention of military use of schools. Translate the Lucens

Guidelines into relevant local languages and distribute to

relevant agencies and affected communities. Provide technical

support to government and communities on children‘s rights

and international humanitarian law related to military use of

schools. Conduct advocacy across sectors in support of

adaptation of the Guidelines as appropriate to the country

context.

Advocacy for horizontal coordination of CSS. Advocate for and

ensure participation of different ministries in coordinating

forums related to DRR and emergencies.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xliv


School-based management. Have policies, guidance at sub-

national and school-site levels for ongoing site-based

assessment and planning, risk reduction, and response

preparedness as part of normal school management and

improvement. Develop, train, institutionalize, monitor and

evaluate school-site committees, empowered to lead

identification of hazards and community and action-planning

for ongoing DRR and preparedness activities.

Curricular activities. Use knowledge, innovation and education

to build a culture of safety and resilience through curricular and

co-curricular activities in schools and communities.

Standard operating procedures. Adapt standard operating

procedures as needed, for hazards with and without warnings,

including: drop cover and hold, building evacuation, evacuation

to safe haven, shelter-in-place and lockdown, and safe family

reunification.

Early warning/early action systems. Engage schools in making

early warning and early action (EWEA) systems meaningful

and effective. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and

threats to schools and enhance early warning for all learning

environments.

Pre-school and out of school children. Incorporate the needs of

pre-school and out-of-school children, children with

disabilities, and both girls and boys.

School preparedness and drills. Practice, critically evaluate,

and improve on response preparedness, with regular school-

wide and community-linked simulation drills. Adapt standard

operating procedures to specific context of each school.

Local cooperation. Promote parent-teacher-community

cooperation in school disaster management. Implement

community involvement in monitoring the enforcement of

national building codes.

Prevention of military use of schools. Review the Lucens

Guidelines and assess the community impact of military use of

schools. Conduct advocacy for adoption of the Guidelines

among government agencies as appropriate for local context.

Develop local strategies to protect schools from military use as

appropriate for local context.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xlv

4. Comprehensive Curriculum and Textbook reform

Establish a national advisory commission through an inclusive process

to review curriculum and textbooks to assess the gaps in content and

skills that promote social cohesion, school safety and education for

sustainable development. Design processes over the cycle of

curriculum/textbook reform that integrate content and skills prioritized

by stakeholders, including, as appropriate, the integration of education

for disaster risk reduction and climate change education for sustainable

development; mother tongue based multilingual education; life skills

education; and conflict-sensitive textbook revision to reflect the

historical narratives and cultures of diverse groups.


Government:

Process design and management. Establish an inclusive

national advisory commission to assess needs, pedagogy and

feasibility of developing policies and reform and revision

processes to mainstream curriculum to promote social cohesion

and comprehensive school safety.

Curriculum and textbook review and reform. Establish a

technical team with representatives from marginalized groups

and civil society to analyze national curriculum and textbooks

for bias or discriminatory content. Undertake revision process

to integrate new contents and skills related to conflict-sensitive

teaching of history, culture, and life skills into curriculum,

textbooks and teaching/learning materials.

Risk reduction in curriculum. Develop scope and sequence for

knowledge, skills and competencies in DRR. Include critical

thinking to respond to man-made and natural hazards, climate

change impacts, conflict-prevention and problem-solving for

risk reduction.

Mother tongue/multilingual education. Develop an advisory

commission through an inclusive process to assess the needs,

pedagogy and feasibility of MTB-MLE and develop policies

and programmes for its implementation. Implement in a phased

and evidence- based approach. Conduct pilot testing of MTB-

MLE or Bilingual Education (MTB-BE). Ensure that national

laws support language diversity. Ensure a regional commitment

to mother tongue education through regional bodies such as the

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xlvi

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Pacific

Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) and the Secretariat of the

Pacific Community or SOPAC.

Teacher training. Ensure that a long term pre-and in-service

teacher training programme is developed to accompany new

curriculum, textbooks and materials, which will require new

approaches to pedagogy to teach skills, values and contents that

promote peace, respect and tolerance for diversity, social

cohesion, and leaner-centered skills in DRR and school safety.

UN/NGOs/INGOs/IFRC:

Dissemination of good practice and lessons learned. Collect

and share lessons learned in curriculum reform from other

countries. Share good practices in MTB-MLE within the

region.

Advocacy. Strong advocacy from civil society, academia and

research institutions to promote curriculum and textbook

reform processes.

Resources. Provide support in resource mobilisation for long-

term curriculum reform processes.


Participation in curriculum review and reform. Analyse the

curriculum for bias or discriminatory content, inclusion of

mitigation, environmental and climate change education.

Community participation in development of curriculum and

materials and support the mobilisation of teachers.

Curriculum appropriate to local contexts. Generate community

buy-in and demand for more relevant curriculum to local

contexts and needs. Use flexible part of the curriculum to

support education in cultural heritage.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xlvii

5. Access to Safe and Equitable Education

Planning and policies need to ensure equity of access, duration and

opportunity across ethnic, religious and other identity groups,

regardless of multiple threats of conflict, violence and natural hazard.

Governments should address inequities and disparities facing: poor,

minority ethnicity/language, migrant, children with disabilities, and

risk-affected children by having specific solutions for specific

problems. Based on assessments and EMIS, governments should

develop a plan for equitable access to education, including secondary

education to ensure that rural and underserved marginalized groups

have increased access to quality education. Develop polices and plans

at national and local levels to ensure that access to education is not

threatened by violence, conflict or disasters.


Government:

Disparity analysis. Analyze the political economy, disparities

in resource allocation and access to education, degree of

inequity for marginalized groups, to progress through the

education system. Identify regional disparities and analyze

population groups by region, ethnic group, gender, income, and

participation rates.

Planning and resource allocation for equitable access.

Planning should involve using quantitative criteria to allocate

resources fairly to different groups. Disaggregated statistics are

needed that show current and planned resource allocations and

enrolment ratios, as well as education achievements and

transition rates to higher education levels, according to

geographic locations (districts, sub-districts) or for different

ethnic, religious or other groups.

Funding policies to increase access. Increase education budget

and fiscal autonomy, through high-level advocacy. Free public

education policies. Free/compulsory education for basic

education through secondary school. Provide scholarships to

enable children to go to school from early childhood

development programme through secondary school.

Strengthen education alternatives. Strengthening non-formal

and informal education. Increase proportion of vocational

schools to general schools. Provide alternative

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xlviii

teaching/learning methods including flexible curriculum and

accelerated learning strategies. Develop regulations to promote

inclusion/reintegration of conflict and/or disaster-affected

children in education system (e.g. removal of age restriction).

Strengthen education in remote areas. Prioritize reaching the

unreached children in remote areas. Coordination for providing

transportation service. Incentivize teacher deployment to

remote and challenging areas.

Incentivize increased enrollment. Promoting value of

education. Provide school nutrition programmes (breakfast or

lunch). Assistant teachers‘ role can be developed to support

inclusion of children with disabilities. Community advocacy

campaigns to continue in school and public relations to make

school welcoming.

Education continuity during emergencies. Develop protocol or

standard operation procedures on education continuity during

disasters and emergencies including alternative safe spaces and

psychosocial support.

UN/NGOs/INGOs/IFRC:

Advocacy. Active advocacy of education stakeholders for

increased investment in education.

Technical support. Technical support for programmes, tools

and resources in safe and equitable access to education.

Public/private partnerships (PPP). Create PPPs for resource

generation to fund major educational initiatives.


Advocacy. Conduct advocacy with local and national education

officials for increased investment in education in emergencies.

School violence reduction strategies. Anti-bullying/gang

awareness raising campaign; identify successful programmes

for reducing bullying and violence by and on children.

Education continuity during emergencies. Develop protocol on

education continuity during disasters and emergencies

including alternative safe spaces and temporary learning spaces

(TLSs).

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| xlix

Incentives to increase minority enrollment. Ensure recruitment

of ethnic minority teachers and provide special incentives to

teach in emergency/crisis-affected areas, including affirmative

action and scholarships to ethnic minorities. Parent volunteers

and assistant teachers may provide minority language support.

Stay in school strategies. Active promotion and engagement of

learners in extra-co-curricular activities.

6. Monitoring and Evaluation

Develop a system for monitoring the implementation of new policies

and programmes, integrating conflict/disaster risk reduction indicators

and monitoring tools into the M&E approach, developed through an

inclusive process. Measure actual performance compared with planned

inputs, outputs and impact. Monitoring should be a continuous routine

activity focused on operational goals, while evaluation takes into

account systemic and structural factors.


Government:

Indicators. Develop and integrate C/DRR indicators and

monitoring tools into the M&E approach. Use existing

indicators18

and build upon them according to the specific

hazards and vulnerabilities affecting the education system to

monitor C/DRR objectives.

EMIS. Ensure C/DRR indicators and data collection are

included in EMIS.

Implementation of M&E. Determine monitoring

responsibilities, data collection sources, and means of

verification and milestones for evaluation.

Capacity development. Support capacity development for

M&E, particularly in analysis, and data collection and

dissemination.

18

See A Self-Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism on Education Policies and

Plans for Conflict and Disaster Risk Reduction for Sustainable Development,

IIEP/UNESCO, November 2013.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| l

UN/NGOs/INGOs/IFRC:

Technical assistance. Provide technical assistance/expertise,

funding assistance and piloting of scalable M&E models.

Community/Schools/CBOs:

School mapping. Conduct school mapping to assess disaster

resilience, risks, and access.

Data collection. Collect C/DRR-related information through

the annual school survey for inclusion in the national EMIS.

Pilot testing. Include pilot testing, revision, and capacity

development in implementation of M&E.

7. Coordination and Networks

Build and strengthen coordination among education sector actors,

including government at national and sub-national levels, UN and

NGOs, and community-based organizations. Build and strengthen

coordination at the national level between the ministry of education

and the national disaster management agency. Coordination needs to

be institutionalized between ministries of education and other agencies

in policy and programme reform, and networks at all levels, including

local, national, and regional.


Government:

Horizontal coordination. Strengthen coordination at the

national level between the MoE and NDMA/NDMO, and also

ensure participation of different ministries (i.e. Finance,

Health), education and other sector representatives, in

coordination forums related to DRR and emergencies.

Vertical coordination. Translate policies into action through

collaborative efforts between MoE, schools and local

communities and synchronized with other national educational

policies such as the Strategic Plan/Development Plan; and

strengthen coordination between national and local education

agencies.

Administrative unit within MoE. MoE to be the coordinating

unit (centralized approach) to establish a secretariat within the

ministry and create permanent/dedicated positions for C/DRR.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| li

Education sector coordination. Development of partnerships

between government and UN/NGOs and CBOs.

Regional coordination. Regional bodies such as ASEAN, PIFS

and SOPAC should ensure the participation and collaboration

of education, disaster management and health authorities and

other relevant sectors in the various events related to social

cohesion and school safety.19

UN/NGOs/INGOs/IFRC:

Coordinate ongoing initiatives and support local-level

programmes. Create coherence with ongoing efforts, including

the post-2015 agenda, HFA2, the ASEAN ASSI and global

citizenship initiatives, and work with local communities in

developing contextual programmes and initiatives on C/DRR

for use at the local level.

Coordinate research. Develop guidelines for research and

knowledge management for CSS and Climate Change

Education for Sustainable Development (CCESD).

Strengthen regional networks and access to resources.

Facilitate dissemination of resources, tools, and technical

expertise of regional organizations to education sector policy

makers and practitioners through communication, advocacy,

training, research, regional conferences, and technical

assistance, utilizing social media platforms where possible.


Local involvement. Participate in policy development and

implementation at local levels.

Marginalised group participation. Ensure participation of

diverse groups to include indigenous knowledge in

development of policies and programmes.

Local youth leadership. Enable youth to play a role as

‗champions‘ in linking different agendas.

19

See the following as examples of regional bodies involved in disaster

management and climate change adaptation: South Asia Disaster Management

Centre; The Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network; Regional Climate

Change Adaptation Knowledge Platform for Asia; Asia Disaster Preparedness

Center, The Regional Consultative Committee (RCC) on Disaster Management

(ADPC); UNISDR Asia and Pacific.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lii

8. Education Governance and Community Participation

Ensure greater transparency in funding, employment, and the balance

between centralized and local authority. Devolution can result in

positive outcomes for education quality. Successful interventions can

empower the school community to take ownership and control of the

school improvement process. Building up trust and cooperation

through school-based organizations can rectify grievances over lack of

participation and improve relationships. Ensure participation of local

communities and children and youth in the development of national

policies and programmes.


Government:

Reform of education governance. Develop mechanisms for

greater transparency in funding, employment, and the balance

between centralized and local authority.

Devolution of management. Empower local education officials

and the school community as well as children and youth to take

ownership and control of the school improvement process, with

quality control mechanisms in place to ensure education

standards.

Local participation in national policy development. Ensure

participation of local communities in the development of

national policies and programmes for decentralized

management and programme implementation. Raising the level

of participation of children and youth, teachers and the

community in school improvement in areas such as teaching,

learning, safety and inclusion.

Resource allocation. At the national level, planning should

involve using quantitative criteria to allocate resources fairly to

different groups. Disaggregated statistics are needed that show

current and planned resource allocations and enrolment ratios,

as well as education achievements and transition rates to higher

education levels, according to geographic locations (districts,

sub-districts) or for different ethnic, religious or other groups.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| liii

UN/NGOs/INGOs/IFRC:

Technical support. Provide technical support in resources,

tools, pilot programmes, best practices and funding that support

reforms in education governance, quality and access.


Local resource allocation. At the local level, school

management committees should ensure transparency in funding

issues and avoid discrimination or favoritism regarding access,

scholarships, fee waivers and employment. Funding at village

level should also focus on capacity needs i.e. resource

personnel.

Local coordination on social cohesion and school safety. Joint

commitment between school, community and local government

on issues that affect social cohesion and school safety,

including monitoring mechanism. Local governments/

communities to mobilize the people in order to do things for

themselves through activities such as advocacy and information

sharing.

Local leadership. Strengthen the role of local education leaders

such as principals to advocate for support at all levels.

Local support for children as agents of change. Advocacy and

awareness programmes for adults and parents to safeguard

young people and children to speak up and participate actively

in social cohesion and school safety programmes/initiatives and

to see children and young people as important agents of

change.

9. Capacity Development

The integration of conflict and disaster risk reduction and

comprehensive school safety into education planning and programmes

will require capacity development of education sector actors at all

levels, from planners to curriculum developers to district officials to

teachers. Long term strategic reform of the teacher development

system, including pre-service and in-service, will be required.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| liv


Government:

Pre- and in-service training. Dedicate resources to building

capacity of pre- and in-service training institutes.

Embedding C/DRR. Ensure that C/DRR is embedded within

teacher education in pre- and in-services programmes.

Implement gradual plan for using annual in-service training.

Pedagogy. Teacher training in pedagogy that supports

curriculum reform efforts is essential in post-conflict contexts.

Teachers may need training in teaching methods that emphasize

critical thinking, dialogue and participatory, active learning

approaches rather than rote learning. Use pedagogy that

addresses the controversies and sensitivities of the narratives of

conflict and children‘s intellectual and emotional development.

Reform teacher training curriculum and pedagogies (pre- and

in-service).

Teacher training for social cohesion. Longer term, strategic

reform of teacher education to promote peacebuilding and

conflict resolution. Need to train minority language speakers to

communicate. Inclusion of mother-tongue instruction in pre-

service. Teacher training in diversity and conflict sensitivity.

Advocacy with education leaders/head teachers. Advocacy and

awareness raising targeting education leaders to change

mindsets and create political will needed to transform teacher

education and training.

Distance learning. Develop distance-learning self-study

materials for mass dissemination.

Teacher training materials. Develop more visual/video training

materials that demonstrate standard operating procedures,

school drills for children, and good teaching practices in DRR.

Teacher recruitment and promotion. Reflect C/DRR in the

teacher recruitment and promotion policies.

Incentives. Social recognition and awarding for champion

teachers and practitioners. Empowerment of head teachers and

teachers so that DRR is not seen as an add-on, but rather as

value-added to a teacher‘s current work.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lv

UN/NGOs/INGOs/IFRC:

Regional expertise. Create mechanisms for regional

organizations such as ASEAN, PIFS, SOPAC, SEAMEO,

UNICEF and UNESCO to provide technical expertise to

countries.

Scaling up. Support scaling up of capacity development.


Teacher performance monitoring. Participate in monitoring

framework of teacher performance.

Teacher training. Support and participate in diversity and

conflict sensitivity.

3. CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES

While there is significant consensus among stakeholders on priority

actions for implementing policies and programmes to promote social

cohesion and comprehensive school safety, there is also agreement that

there are major challenges in the effective implementation of these

priorities. Participants of the consultative meeting were asked to

identify some of the most important challenges and gaps, and identify

strategies to overcome them. A number of these strategies have been

included in the priority actions in Part 2 this Guidance.

It is important to highlight some of the key challenges and obstacles

here in order to capture the outputs of the participants, and to record

their suggestions for addressing them. Among some of the most

frequently identified challenges were: 1) lack of equitable access to

quality education, 2) lack of capacity to integrate C/DRR into

education sector plan, 3) inadequate capacity development, 4) lack of

appropriate curriculum and textbooks, and 5) lack of coordination and

local participation.

The following chart presents a synthesis of key challenges identified at

the Regional Consultation Meeting in implementing policies and

programmes in social cohesion and comprehensive school safety, and

some of the strategies for addressing them. Those responsible for

implementing the strategies include governments, NGOs and INGOs,

IFRC, UN agencies, and local communities and schools.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lvi

Challenges and Strategies

Challenges and Gaps Strategies to Address Challenges

Lack of access to quality education

and safe schools

Lack of security and safety due

to conflict or disasters reduce

access to children and teachers

Lack of engagement with non-

state actors to negotiate safe

access to schools

Insufficient funding

Lack of compulsory education

laws

Difficulty in serving remote

areas

Insufficient number of

secondary schools

Lack of adequate building

codes, infrastructure and

enforcement for school safety

Regulations to promote

inclusion and reintegration of

children affected by conflict and

disasters

Review and revise existing

building codes and create

enforcement mechanisms

Partnerships with other

government agencies and

sectors in funding and planning

Prioritise reaching the

unreached in remote areas,

including teacher incentives for

deployment in challenging

contexts

Increase education budget and

fiscal autonomy of education

sector through high level

advocacy

Scholarships for secondary and

higher education; scholarships

to ethnic minorities

Community based and driven

school mapping of risks and

hazards

Contingency planning/ standard

operating procedures (SOP) on

education continuity during and

after disasters and emergencies

Lack of capacity to integrate

C/DRR into education sector plan

Lack of budget allocation and

political commitment

Disconnect between DRR

policy and education policy

Limited capacity for sector

analysis

Advocacy with MoE, Ministry

of Finance and donors

Strengthen collaboration and

institutional arrangements

between education sector and

national disaster management

agency

Establish mechanisms for multi-

hazard assessment using

inclusive process

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lvii


Lack of implementation

Separation between education

policy and DRR

Overemphasis on Western/

mainstream knowledge and

marginalization of indigenous

knowledge, skills, and values

Support government in

developing monitoring

framework with incentives to

perform

Ensure balance in policy and

programmes of scientific

knowledge and research with

indigenous knowledge and

skills

Ensure participation of

communities

Identify champions

Inadequate capacity development

Lack of capacity of teachers

and resources to ensure quality

Corporal punishment still

practiced

Weak teacher education

programmes in risk reduction

and resilience education

Lack of teacher training and

education in indigenous

knowledge and skills

Lack of awareness of MoE and

other government officials on

issues of social cohesion and

DRR

Long-term strategic reform of

teacher education to promote

peace building and conflict and

DRR (C/DRR)

Capacity building of MoE

officials

Recruit ethnic minority teachers

for mother tongue language

support and indigenous

knowledge transmission

Monitoring framework for

teacher performance in conflict

sensitivity and diversity

Train engineers, contractors and

construction workers in national

building codes

Lack of appropriate curriculum

and textbooks

Sensitivities for government on

textbook reform in content

reform and teaching history

through participatory approach

Limited focus, coverage and

teaching/learning hours on

social cohesion and disaster

risk reduction in curriculum

Bias for use of major language

of instruction

Strong advocacy from civil

society, academia and research

institutions for curriculum

reform to incorporate conflict

sensitive content, reform of

teaching of historical narratives,

and education for climate

change and sustainable

development

Inclusion of key stakeholders in

curriculum and textbook reform

process and ensure

incorporation of indigenous

knowledge, values and skills in

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lviii


Lack of incorporation of

indigenous knowledge, skills

and values in curriculum

curriculum reform process

Integrate life skills, human

rights and civic education into

curriculum and teacher training

Implement MTE in ECD and

K-3 education

Lack of coordination with and

participation of local community

and schools

Weak coordination mechanism

between schools and

community

Insufficient local

representation in national

planning and assessment

Lack of engagement at local

level on disaster assessment

needs

Children and youth not

engaged in programmes

Lack of community awareness

of DRR and CCE

Need for sub-national and

school level policies and action

on the ground

Lack of contextualization of

standard operating procedures

to local needs

Local governments and

communities mobilize people to

do take control to develop local

contextualized policies,

programmes, and initiatives

based on local C/DRR needs

Strengthen vertical and

horizontal coordination

mechanisms

Make risk assessment

compulsory for all schools

Advocate for involvement in

national sector planning process

for C/DRR

Advocacy in communities to

see and engage children and

youth as agents of change

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lix

Appendix A: Key Concepts and Terms

The definitions below have been drawn from sources including

UNESCO IIEP, Global Education Cluster, INEE and the World Bank.

Climate change: Any change in global temperatures and precipitation

over time due to natural variability or human activity.

Conflict: Refers to armed or other violent conflict in or between

countries or population groups.

Conflict risk reduction: The practice of reducing the risk of conflict

through systematic analysis and management of the causal factors of

conflict. This involves conducting conflict assessments to identify the

‗drivers‘ of conflict (whether economic, social, political, or

environmental) and how these impact on or are impacted by education.

Strategies then need to be applied to reduce (and if possible prevent)

those risks from negatively affecting education systems, personnel, and

learners.

Conflict sensitivity: Conflict sensitivity is the capacity of an

organisation to understand its operating context, understand the

interaction between its interventions and the context, and act upon this

understanding to avoid negative impacts (―do no harm‖) and maximise

positive impacts on conflict factors.

Conflict sensitive education: INEE defines conflict sensitive

education as the process to 1) analyse and understand the context

within which education takes place, 2) analyse and understand the

complex, bi-directional interaction between education and conflict, and

3) on the basis of context and conflict analysis, take action to

maximize education‘s contribution to peace building while minimizing

education‘s potential to contribute to tension, grievances and conflict.

Disaster risk reduction: The practice of reducing the risk of disaster

through systematic analysis and management of the causal factors of

disasters. This includes reducing exposure to hazards, lessening the

vulnerability of people and property, wise land and environmental

management, and improved preparedness. For education it implies the

systematic analysis of and attempt to reduce disaster-related risks to

enable the education system to provide (and learners to continue, and

out-of-school children to access) quality education for all, before,

during, and after emergencies. Disaster risk reduction under the Hyogo

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lx

Framework for Action1 does not include conflict, but risk reduction

principles can also be applied to contexts involving conflict and civil

unrest.

Hazard: A dangerous phenomenon or human activity that may

damage, disrupt, or lead to loss of life, health, property, livelihoods,

social, and economic services. Hazards arise from a variety of sources

and sometimes act in combination. Technically, hazards can be

described quantitatively as ‗likelihood x frequency of occurrence x

intensity of impact‘. They can include conflict and natural disaster.

Prevention, mitigation, preparedness: Conflict and disaster risk

reduction can be grouped into three areas: prevention, mitigation, and

preparedness/readiness.

Prevention: Activities undertaken to avoid the adverse impact

of conflict or disaster. Examples: Locate and build disaster-

resistant schools; change attitudes and behaviour by raising

awareness of risk and of conflict, for example, through peace

education. Inclusive, good quality education in itself can reduce

the risk of conflict and disaster.

Mitigation: Measures undertaken to minimize the adverse

impact of potential conflict-related, natural, and human-made

hazards. Examples: Retrofit schools; educate education

personnel and communities on risk reduction; promote

inclusive education and participation; establish a child

protection network ahead of flood season.

Preparedness: Measures taken before and between hazard

events to forewarn and prepare in order to ensure a timely and

effective response. Examples: An early warning

communication mechanism; evacuation drills; building skills in

fire suppression, first aid, and search and rescue; stockpiling

and prepositioning of food, water, and educational supplies

ahead of flood season or worsening conflict; safe keeping of

records, teacher‘s guides, and curriculum material; a national

emergency preparedness and response plan; a provincial

contingency plan and a school safety/preparedness plan.

The examples above are just illustrations of these concepts. Since each

country and community is different, local ideas, adaptation, ingenuity,

and learning from other experiences are essential.

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lxi

Peace building: The United Nation‘s Secretary-General‘s Policy

Committee has described peace building as: ―A range of measures

targeted to reduce the risk of lapsing or relapsing into conflict by

strengthening national capacities at all levels for conflict management,

and to lay the foundation for sustainable peace and development. Peace

building strategies must be coherent and tailored to the specific needs

of the country concerned, based on national ownership, and should

comprise a carefully prioritized, sequenced, and relatively narrow set

of activities aimed at achieving the above objectives.‖

Risk: The word ‗risk‘ has two distinctive connotations. In popular

usage the emphasis is on the concept of chance or possibility (‗the risk

of an accident‘). In technical settings the emphasis is usually placed on

consequences in terms of ‗potential losses‘. The relationship between

vulnerability and the likelihood and severity of hazards can be

represented using this equation: Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability. The

worse the hazard, the greater the risk. Likewise, risk also increases

when a community, system, or even a school is more vulnerable.

‗Risk‘ is defined as the risk arising from natural and human-made

hazards as well as conflict.

Resilience: Resilience is the ability of an education system (at

different levels) to minimize disaster and conflict risks, to maintain its

functions during an emergency, and to recover from shocks. Resilience

at the individual level is the ability to apply knowledge to minimize

risks, to adapt to emergency situations, to withstand shocks, and to

rapidly resume learning and other life-sustaining activities. Resilience

can be strengthened when factors underlying vulnerability are

addressed. Resilience is the opposite of vulnerability. Resilience is

reinforced when the ‗inherent‘ strengths – of individuals and systems –

are identified and supported.

Retrofitting: The reinforcement or upgrading of existing structures to

become more resistant and resilient to the damaging effects of hazards

Social cohesion: Social cohesion has been described by the World

Bank ―as the glue that bonds society together, promoting harmony, a

sense of community, and a degree of commitment to promoting the

common good.‖ The Council of Europe defines social cohesion as ―the

capacity of a society to ensure the welfare of all its members,

minimizing disparities and avoiding polarization. The United Nations

Development Programme describes a cohesive society as a mutually

supportive community of free individuals pursuing these common

goals by democratic means.‖

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lxii

Vulnerability: The characteristics and circumstances of a community,

system, or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a

hazard. There are many aspects of vulnerability, arising from various

physical, social, economic, and environmental factors. At the education

system level, vulnerability is the combination of exposure to conflict-

related, natural, and human-made hazards, and the degree to which the

education system at different levels is susceptible to collapse and

disruption of function. At the learners‘ level, vulnerability is the

combination of exposure to hazards and the degree to which learners

are susceptible to interruption or complete loss of access to quality

education opportunities.

Appendix B: Synthesis of group work on priorities, challenges and

gaps of integrating conflict and disaster risk reduction, and

strategies for overcoming challenges

Priorities for Promoting Social Cohesion and Peacebuilding

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7

1. Access to

education

Conflict

analysis

Curriculum,

textbooks

Address

inequalities

Language

instruction

Integrate

DRR

?

2. Training of

teachers

Protection

from

violence

Life skills Mother

tongue

Access

(safety,

WASH)

Language

of

instruction

(MTE-

MLE)

Access to

education

3. Safety and

protection

Equitable

access

Teacher

training

Secondary

education

Quality

education

Link DRR

to schools

Mother

tongues

4. Addressing

violence

Curriculum,

textbooks

and

teaching

methods

Peace

promotion

Curriculum,

textbooks

Teacher

training

Curriculum,

textbooks

5. Curriculum

and

textbooks

Lang of

instruction

Access to

education

Violence

prevention

Curriculum,

texts

Safety and

protection

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lxiii

Priorities for Promoting Comprehensive School Safety


1 Safe

learning

facilities

Multi-hazard

& multi-

sectoral

assessment/

data collection

Whole

school

approaches

&

community

engagement

Coordination,

Communication

Safety and

protection

Adoption by

national

government of

the CSS

framework

Policy/

legislation for

CSS/CCESD

2 School

disaster

management

National

comprehensive

school-level

model

Learn from

& Respect

different

Knowledge

Sources

Standards and

indicators for

CSS and CCA

(e.g. Human

Development

Index, EGA

indicators.

Curriculum

reform/

teacher

training

Making risk

assessment

compulsory

For all schools

Strengthening

coordination/

collaboration

mechanisms

(vertical and

horizontal)

3 Risk

reduction

and

Resilience

Education

Strengthen

coordination

between

national and

education

agencies

Coordinate

&

mainstream

DRR in

education

Measure impacts

of hazards on

children

Monitoring &

evaluation

Institutionalise

DRR in

education

Institutionalise

CSS/CESD in

teacher

education and

school

curricula

4 Resource

allocation

for CSS in

government

and

institution

budgets

Education

sectoral plans

and budgets

Mainstream

DRR into

Education

policy &

planning

and

education

into DRR

&

Response

Planning

Scaling-up/

capacity-

building,

including teacher

& administration

training

Contingency

planning at the

national, sub

national and

local levels

Capacity

building on

school safety

for

stakeholders

Develop a

common/

comprehensive

model for

CSS/CCESD

5 CSS and CCE

integration

into

curriculum

Promote

DRR in

Teaching &

Learning

Comprehensive

should include

violence,

conflict, climate

change, road

hazards, water

safety, and other

risks that affect

children in

school

Ministry of

Planning

mainstreaming

risk into all the

sector plans

Ensure

meaningful

participation

of local

community

and children in

school safety

activities

Mainstream of

CSS/CCESD

into education

sector plans

Regional Consultation Meeting on Education and Resilience in East Asia and the Pacific| lxiv

Final Synthesis of Priorities for Education and Resilience Programmes

and Policies That Promote Social Cohesion and Comprehensive School

Safety


1 Link and

consolidate

networks

Multi-hazard

& multi-

sectoral

assessments &

data collection

Situational

& risk

analysis

Sector-wide

approach and

framework

Integration

C/DRR into

National

Strategic Plan

(Situation

Analysis)

Lucens

Guidelines

Situation analysis

(conflict risk,

gender, DRR,

CCA, social

cohesion)

2 Mapping

issues,

problem,

review of plans

and budget

Establish

SOPs during

emergencies to

provide

alternative

learning

spaces

Policy

review

Capacity-

building

(teacher &

administrator

training)

Vertical (inter-

sectoral) and

horizontal

(Ministry and

school)

coordination for

implementation

Integration of

peace

building and

DRR into the

education

sector plan

M&E, develop the

tools and

indicators

3 Monitoring and

evaluation

National

comprehensive

school-level

model

Curriculum

and

textbooks

Addressing

broad range

of inequities

and

disparities

should be

addressed as

part of

"access"

M&E Promote

mother

tongue based

multilingual

education in a

phased &

evidence

based

approach

Sector planning –

curriculum &

budgeting

Contextualization

– MTB-MLE,

ESD

4 Integrate DRR

and resilience

in education

sector planning

Coordination

at the national

level between

the MoE &

NDMA

Capacity

developme

nt

Capacity

building

Adoption by

national

government

of the CSS

Framework

Coordination,

communication,

and advocacy

5 Innovative and

pragmatic in

linking risk

frameworks in

implementation

Harmonization

of models

Ensure

meaningful

participation

of local

community

and children

in school

safety

activities

Education

governance

Regional Consultation - SEAMEO INNOTECH on Education...Regional Consultation ... LTLT Learning to...

Documents

Transcript of Regional Consultation - SEAMEO INNOTECH on Education...Regional Consultation ... LTLT Learning to...