Report on VISUS Workshop_26 September 2014_FIN

INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP ON SCHOOL SAFETY TOOLS FOR ASSESSMENT AND DECISION MAKERS

25 SEPTEMBER 2014 WORKSHOP REPORT & PRESENTATIONS

This report is developed from the result of Introduction Workshop

on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers that

was organized by UNESCO Office Jakarta, UNESCO HQ Paris

and University of Udine Italy. The Workshop was held in

Morrissey Hotel, Jakarta-Indonesia on 25 September 2014 and

attended by 60 participants and guest speakers from 39

national, international and UN agencies, universities and

government agencies.

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers

Page 1

Introduction Workshop on School Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers I. BACKGROUND Disasters have a major impact on children, youth and education systems. Studies of disaster trends and the likely consequences of climate change suggest that each year 175 million children are likely to be affected by natural hazard related disasters alone. In January 2010, some 38,000 students and 1,300 teachers and education personnel died in Haiti. The Ministry of Education offices were destroyed along with 4,000 schools close to 80 % of educational establishments in the Port-au-Prince area. During the Sichuan earthquake in May 2008, approximately 10,000 students were crushed in their classrooms and more than 7,000 school rooms collapsed.

During the second session of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in June 2009 participating countries expressed commitment to national assessments of the safety of existing education and health facilities should be undertaken by 2011. During the third session in 2011 the commitment was reiterated: By 2015, concrete action plans for safer schools and hospitals should be developed and implemented in all disaster prone countries.

In order to support different countries in the development and implementation of concrete action plans for safer schools, UNESCO, other major UN agencies and non-governmental organizations committed to disaster risk reduction joined the Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector (GAD3RES). The Alliance promotes a comprehensive approach to DRR education based on three overlapping areas of focus (pillars):

1. Safe School Facilities 2. School Disaster Management 3. Disaster Prevention Education


Page 2

The goals of this Comprehensive School Safety (CSS) are: a. To protect children and education workers from death and injury in schools b. To plan for educational continuity in the face of expected hazards c. To strengthen a disaster resilient citizenry through education d. To safeguard education sector investment

In regards to the CSS above, in particularly Pillar 1: Safe School Facilities, UNESCO HQ in collaboration with the University of Udine, Italy, developed a school safety assessment methodology called VISUS (Visual Inspection for defining the Safety Upgrading Strategies), which includes different materials and ICT tools andwhich provides elements for answering the following questions:

1) What are the schools that need priority interventions? 2) What are the reasons to intervene in those schools? 3) What types of interventions are needed? 4) How much could each intervention cost? 5) How many interventions are possible with the resources available? 6) How should we communicate the level of risk to the community?

This methodology outlines the safety issues of schools, such as site, structural response (global and local), non-structural elements and functional aspects in a multi-hazard manner. This methodology has been successfully tested in 1022 school of the region of Udine, Italy, and in 100 schools of El Salvador and is expected to start new projects in different countries worldwide with the goal to provide decision makers and the educational community with tools for assessing the risks affecting the educational infrastructure, as well as, with practical information - indicators - that allow making decisions on the investment needs and areas of concern where this investment should be prioritized.

For further adaptation of this methodology, and its related tools and materials, for the potential use and application in Indonesia by the UNESCO Jakarta Office, the UNESCO HQ Paris Section on Earth Sciences and Geo-hazards Risk Reduction, and the University of Udine, Italy, held a Workshop on Introduction Safety Tools for Assessment and Decision Makers inviting universities, research institutions, and other related agencies to introduce this methodology. The workshop presented technical understanding on the methodology and the implementation of the safety school assessment methodology. The workshop was led by Professor Stefano Grimaz, Director of SPRINT-Lab (Safety and Protection Intersectoral Laboratory at University of Udine) and Mr. Jair Torres, Consultant form the UNESCO HQ Paris Section on Earth Sciences and Geo-hazards Risk Reduction


Page 3

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

Time Activity Resource Person 09.00-09.05 Welcoming remarks Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat UNESCO/DRRTIU Unit 09.05-09.10 Opening remarks Mrs. Hasnah Gasim/National Coordinator for ASPNET,

Indonesian NatCom for UNESCO 09.10-09.15 Opening remarks Mr. Gogot Suharwoto/Head of Planning and Budgeting

of Secretary General of MoEC 09.15-09.30 Introduction of Participants Each representatives from agencies 09.30-09.45 Presentation of the Global Alliance for

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector

Mr. Jair Torres UNESCO HQ Paris

09.45-11.15 Presentation on VISUS Prof. Stefano Grimaz SPRINT University of Udine Italy

11.15-11:30 Implementation of the Assessment: The case of El Salvador

Mr. Jair Torres UNESCO HQ Paris

11.30-12.30 PANEL PRESENTATIONS Introduction on policy and practices on School Safety Assessment Tool-Application on Software, Web, and Manual Bases (20 minutes per agencies) 1. School Safety Assessment 2. Engineering, Construction and Assessment of

Safe School Infrastructure 3. Minimum Standard for Comprehensive Safe

and Health School

ITB

Disaster Resource Partnership

Save the Children 12.30-13.30 Lunch 13.30-15.00 Discussion:

1. How to adapt VISUS with Indonesia context and related tools that are available

2. What kind of trainings that need to be delivered in support the application of VISUS

3. How to apply VISUS effective and efficiently, and make it sustains

UNESCO Jakarta Office/DRR TIU Unit, UNESCO HQ Paris, SPRINT University of Udine Italy

(Coffee Break)

15.00 Closing remarks UNESCO Jakarta Office/DRR TIU Unit


Page 4

From L-R: Mr Ardito M.Kodijat/UNESCO Office Jakarta, Mr Gogot Suharwoto/Ministry

of Education and Cultural, and Mrs Hasnah Gasim/National Commission for UNESCO

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


Page 5

I would like to thank and congratulate UNESCO for initiating this important workshop on Introducing Safety Tools for Assessment in the framework of Education for Disaster Risk Reducation by bringing together all stakeholders represented by Government, UN Agencies, NGOS as well as donor agencies because DRR is everybodys business and inclusive of all concerns and expertise. Aside from that I would like to thank the resource persons represented by Mr Jair Torres, from UNESCO Paris and Professor Stefano Grimaz from Udine University,Italy. I would like to inform you that ASPnet schools, which are used as UNESCO vehicles to carry out UNESCO innovative experiments in its five sectors, has four themes:

1. The role of UN to address the Worlds Concerns 2. Peace and Human Rights 3. Education for Sustainable Development 4. Intercultural Learning

And as it was agreed during the International Forum for 60th Anniversary of UNESCO Associated School Project di Suwon, Korea,6-9 September ,2013 that Disaster Risk Reduction is one of the themes of ESD under ASPnet Programmes, the other two themes are Climate Change and Biodiversity. However, these three themes under ESD are interdependent since disaster happened because the impact of climate change and climate change happens among others due to the biodiversity loss. Because of the importance of these ESD themes, in 2013 ASPnet Indonesia organized three Workshops under these three themes in cooperation with UNESCO Office Jakarta and especially for Disaster Risk Reduction is an International Workshop covering countries of different regions. Therefore, I would like to welcome the the organization of the training of VISUS Visual Inspection for Defining the Safety Upgrading Strategies in the development of school safety assessment tool, in Indonesia for UNESCO ASPnet schools the number of which at present covering more than 150 schools from Primary to High Schools spread all over Indonesia. I hope this workshop a success. Thank you. Wass.Wr.Wbr Professor Arif Rachman Executive Chairman Indonesia National Commission for UNESCO c. Mr. Gogot Suharwoto Head of Planning and Budgeting of Secretary General of MOEC Mr Gogot explained that there are 3 issues that need to be discussed in DRR in Education Sector, this includes: 1. The regulation framework that regulates the implementation and the institution of the DRR 2. The budget framework in all education level and in the endowment fund. There are 29 million IDR that is

allocated for rehabilitation, research and scholarship 3. The priority on what the government should do

As 60% of schools in Indonesia (sub-district, district, and provincial level) are vulnerable to natural hazards, means that there are around 15,000 schools that need to be assisted. MOEC welcomes and supports the UNESCO-VISUS methodology adaptation process for Indonesia and its further pilots in 6 schools. As per 2014, the MOEC has allocated around 40 million IDR for education that can be used to ensure the school


Page 6

safety from disaster. The assessment methodology can help decision makers within the government to adopt appropriate safety measures and interventions for the particularities of the Indonesian context. III.2 Presentation of the Global Alliance for DRR and Resilience in the Education Sector Initiatives for Comprehensive Safe Schools (Jair Torres/UNESCO HQ Paris) Mr. Jair Torres shared information concerning the negative impact that natural hazard could produce in the educational sector leding, at the most, to school damages and disruption to educational facilities and infrastructures and even caused death. He then explained the international framework for school safety that includes: the HFA 2005-2015 and Post HFA, DESD 2005- 2014, UNISDR, Rio+ 20, HFA2, and the World Initiative on School Safety (WISS). These frameworks are international agreements on which governments have committed in order to advance and progress in school safety issues. Mr. Torres also explained the Comprehensive Safe School Framework (CSS) which underlines the different elments necessary to achieve school safety. He explained that in the framework of the WISS, a worldwide campaign which will be launched in the framework of the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan, on 2015, governments are committing to the CSS framework. He also raised the fact that Indonesia is one of eighteen countries that will commit on this initiative.

The Comprehensive School safety comprises 3 overlapping pillars: 1. Safe Learning Facilities which relates to the

environment of the school (site), the building itself (structural and non-structural) and the different elements related to it, such as maintenance, functionality, guidelines for construction, building codes, etc. . By 2030, it is expected that every school, new and old is a SAFE school. Safe Learning Facilities should also have safe access to disable children, temporary community shelters, provide water and sanitation facility, climate smart

interventions and continuously monitoring, financing and oversight the ongoing facilities maintenance and safety. Governments should implement prioritization scheme for retrofit and replacing, which normally start by an assessment process for understanding the state of the art of the educational inventory of the country.

2. School disaster management this pillar shows how the schools are prepared and react to natural or man-made hazards. These include the development of policies and guidance, contingency plans, and standard operating procedure, establishment of school committees, early warning and early action system, construction of temporary shelters, improvement of response preparedness, and link education sector and disaster management sector.

3. risk reduction and resilience education this pillar includes the preparation for and responding to hazard impacts as a foundation for formal and non-formal education, engagement of students and staff in real-life school and community disaster management activities, critical thinking for all hazards, development of quality teaching and learning materials, infusion risk reduction education throughout the curriculum and provide guidelines for integration of risk reduction and resilience into carrier subjects., provision teacher training on risk reduction curriculum materials and methodologies, and scaling up teacher involvement for effective integration of these topics (curriculum and extra-curricular).

Mr Jair Torres explained about the Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education

Sector


Page 7

Mr. Torres finalized his presentation by showing how different UN agencies, and major INGOs has organized themselves in order to support national and local government on achiving their goals and commitments on School Safety. This institutional structure is known as the Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector (GAD3RES) with the structure as shown in the picture. III.3 Presentation on VISUS School Safety Assessment Methodology (Professor Stefano Grimaz/SPRINT University of Udine Italy) Professor Stefano Grimaz introduces VISUS clarifying that it is not a software-tool, but an assessment methodology that uses a multi-hazard approach. At first, VISUS was developed to analyze seismic scenarios of schools for planning risk mitigation purposes. There are several concerns of administrators

regarding this assessment, which includes questions such as why, what, how much, how many interventions are feasible and how to communicate results to people. Another problem is the rational use of money balancing the costs of the preliminary assessment versus the concrete interventions. It is necessary to take into account that the final goal is a safety improvement that is as widespread and effective as possible. Yet, the approach used for the risk control of new building cannot directly applied to existing buildings, especially if the assessment has to be carried out on a large number of existing schools.

The VISUS methodology can be used for new schools, assuming that if the building complies the seismic code, the risk is under control. Existing buildings require a specific assessment. If there is a large number of schools, it is necessary to prioritize and plan interventions, thus defining a specific strategy of risk reduction. Usually this is done with the support of experts. In this process the expert investigates, collects the substantial data for the characterization of the building necessary to formulate judgments on a set of main issues. The VISUS idea is the pre-codification of the expert reasoning process, separating the phase of characterization that is the collection of substantial information, to the phases of evaluation and reporting. In this way the expert can be substituted by a trained surveyor, able to collect the substantial information. Then, using pre-codified experts criteria, the evaluation and judgment on specific main issues are automatically elaborated and a standardized report is produced. VISUS method follows the reasoning approach of the expert in assessing the reality, identifying pre-defined scenarios of predisposition to critical effect and the related levels of trigger, and associating the gravity of potential consequences on people safety. Furthermore, in VISUS, safety assessment means to consider every situation that can

Professor Stefano Grimaz explained about the UNESCO-VISUS methodology

Picture 2 Rose of Warning Needles


Page 8

cause specific difficulties, injuries or deaths as consequence of an adverse event (earthquake, flood, etc.). Therefore there are safety issues which need to be addressed, that are: site, structure (global and local), non-structural elements and functionality. By understanding these problems in terms of weaknesses of safety, the intervention needs are identified. All the intervention needs on the different issues are summarized in the rose of warning needles (see Picture 2). Finally, the global judgment on school facilities safety is expressed by the safety stars.

The different levels of depth of assessment could be depicted on a pyramid. At the top, the desk analysis on available documentation and the data-mining of information collected through questionnaires, at the bottom the detailed analysis and design. For planning purposes, the first could be too coarse and the last too deep and time and cost consuming. VISUS is in-between. In fact, it is conceived as a technical triage which aims to assess how much is enough for defining what is necessary to do in terms of intervention and to support decision-makers in the definition of a rational safety upgrading strategy (see Picture 3). VISUS was firstly applied for assessing 1,022 schools in Italy on the request of the Civil Protection of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region focusing in particular on the seismic safety. Then the methodology was piloted in El-Salvador through the implementation of surveyor training, producing a handbook, and a VISUS app for tablet. There are some final considerations regarding the application of the methodology, include: 1. VISUS can be adapted to the specific needs and peculiarities of the country thanks to the involvement

of a local committee of experts. Working together with specialists, it is possible to define what is necessary for making an assessment sufficiently pragmatic and objective-oriented, and to valorize the local knowledge. This adaptation allows to define the right contextualization and customization.

2. The methodology introduces a common language, makes explicit the criteria for reading the reality and for evaluating the substantial elements characterized. This facilitates the knowledge transfer to surveyors by short training. Therefore, VISUS can be used as a capacity building tool.

3. The uniformity of the final outcomes permits to obtain products, as reports and maps i.e. Open street map that are directly usable by decision-makers for defining the safety upgrading strategies.

Picture 3. Levels of Assesment


Page 9

III.4 Presentation on the Implementation of the Assessment: The Case of El Salvador (Jair Torres/UNESCO HQ Paris) The UNESCO-VISUS methodology was successfully piloted in three geographical departments of El Salvador (San Salvador, La Paz, and La Libertad). The implementation of the methodology in El Salvador involved different processes as follows: 1) Identification of local partners. National institutional assessment of different actors related to school

safety issues. For the case of El Salvador, the main identified partners were: 1) Ministry of Education, and the different departments concerning with educational infrastructure and disaster risk reduction, 2) Ministry of Environment and the SNET (Servicio Nacional de Estudios Territoriales ); and, 3) the faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture of the University of El Salvador.

2) Conformation of the Scientific Committee and adaptation of the UNESCO-VISUS methodology for El Salvador context. The Scientific Committee was integrated by the local partners listed above-, the SPRINT-Lab of the University of Udine Italy, and UNESCO. The Committee had as a major task to analyze the different aspects and elements of the VISUS methodology in order to adapt them to the local reality of El Salvador (e.g. typology of buildings, typical materials, geomorphology of the country, hazard identification maps and data collection-, etc.,)

3) Preparation of tools. Based on the adaptation process developed by the Scientific Committee, a

handbook for training of trainers and a handbook for training surveyors, on the general idea of the methodology, the characterizations, and the different elements to be assessed, were produced. Also, a mobile application for data collection, and the elaboration of logic and mathematical algorithms, completely adapted for the El Salvador context were developed in order to facilitate the data processing and the automatized reports.

4) Training of Trainers (ToT). A three days training of trainers on the use of the methodology, involved

about 60 people, including university professors, engineering associations and Ministry of Education personnel.

5) Training of Surveyors. In close cooperation with the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture of

the University of El Salvador, it was decided that the students from the last year of academic formation of the faculty will participate in the training, and will act as a surveyors in close coordination with the Dean of the faculty. 15 students were trained in the different aspects of the VISUS methodology and in the data collection.

6) Development of the Assessment on the field. 100 schools were assessed in a period of 10 days in

three geographical departments of El Salvador (San Salvador, La Paz and La Libertad). 5 groups of 3 surveyors were visiting one school in the morning and another one in the afternoon. The data collection was done off-line and after the work in the field was completed the surveyors were sending the collected information via internet to the servers of UNESCO and the SPRINT-Lab.

7) Production of Individual Reports (100). Based on the information collected by the surveyors, the SPRINT-Lab in close coordination with the University of El Salvador and UNESCO, double check the congruence of the collected data. After this process was finalized, automatic reporting was produced. 100 reports are today online and accessible to the educational community related to the school and also to the general public in OpenStreetMap. The reports (4 to 6 pages) resumes in a coherent way the different elements analyzed during the assessment. Mainly related to


Page 10

weakness found in the five areas of analysis (site, global and local structure, non-structural elements and functionality). It finalizes with a series of recommendations/interventions that will allow upgrading the level of safety of the school. The report includes photographic evidence and three indicators that summarize the state of the school vis-a-vis the potential hazards.

8) Production of a collective report. The collective report is mainly addresses to the national and local authorities. It provides decision makers and the educational community with practical information that allow making evidence based decisions on the related investment needs and areas of concern where this investment should be prioritized. The collective report includes the 100 individual reports, a general report of the 100 schools assessed and an estimation of the cost of every proposed recommendation/intervention, stating also the area of focus of that intervention and the schools that should be prioritized.

IV. DISCUSSION SESSION 1-PRESENTATIONS FROM EXPERTS a. Mrs Irina Rafliana from the Indonesia Scientific Institute (LIPI)

Mrs. Irina hares the same feeling and excitement towards the initiative. She said that Indonesia today needs to assessment the national inventory of school in the form of a triage, that will allow to understand the actual situation in a very efficient (related to resources human and economic-) and rapid way. Then, it would be more easy for planning. She asked about, the lack or the insufficient data available in Indonesia to produce a sufficient scenario for adopting the UNESCO-VISUS assessment methodology. She also asked how to incorporate the social factor to judgment since physical and social factors are very different. Finally, she asked whether or not it is possible to convert that into a more conventional original risk profile that incorporates other existing tools.

Professor Stefano Grimaz says that if there are no desk-data, the answer is inside the procedures. The basic data are collected on site as an expert does when no desk-data are available. The VISUS procedure helps surveyors in order to start checking the situation. Mr. Jair Torres said that focus will be mainly on providing decision makers with information related to the actual situation of the schools in Indonesia. As for social factors, tools that have been developed in Indonesia as well as other colleagues who are more knowledgeable or experienced in these areas can help in the management of these conditions. These tools try to see just one of the elements in order to provide a specific result or indicator for decision making to see the inventory of the school at the moment. Focusing on how to present the results to decision makers and policy makers can act as further recommendation to action. b. Mr Andy Wahyu Widayat from Save the Children Mr Andy asked for more information on the involvement of children and the community in using this methodology or conducting this assessment. He also asks if they have attempted to adapt this methodology to the local context, infrastructure and design. Mr. Jair Torres shared that in El Salvador, the surveyors that carry out the assessment explain to the school children why they were there and this generates interest to them.


Page 11

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

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

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

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


Page 12

handbook and materials, prepare for the application for data collection. This could take another 3to 4 months. Then there is also the training of trainers and the training of surveyors and finalize with the application of methodology by assessing the schools. A one year timeline is estimated.

e. Mr. Noviar from Indonesia Business Links He mentioned that he did not see any private sector involvement from this tools assessment. He asks how UNESCO sees private sector involvement in terms of creating leverage to make this tool to be carried out to broader stakeholders, especially to the private sector who have concerns for CSR programs. Mr. Jair Torres shared that they have been discussing with different private sector actors to get comments on how to improve this application and get more precision in the results. f. Mr. Jason Brown from DFAT

Mr Jason explained that Australia has been working with Indonesia on InaSAFE. It is also a tool or methodology that takes hazard layers and information and produces a scenario that provides indicators or potential action plans. He mentioned about synergies and the role of civil society and identifying some of the key areas where the government should consider starting or prioritizing the process. Mr. Jair Torres says that many things have been developed and they would like to build on these, adapt it

as well and incorporate the methodology and work together because the goal is the same, which is to support the local government in achieving school safety. He shared that one of the problems faced is focusing only on vulnerable areas and when disasters occur, the schools that are affected are in other areas. He emphasizes that it is important to go in a fast way and a triage way in order to identify where to go technical deeper. g. Mr Krishna Pribadi from Bandung Technology Institute (ITB)

Mr Krishna appreciates the concept and systematic approach and talks about the common issues faced and the differences in approach they are considering, a bottom up process instead of a top down process. He asks what the common adopted policy for criteria of structural performance is and the level of risk that can be accepted, whether or not there should be very strict national policy or if it is up to the local government to decide depending upon their capacity.

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


Page 13

judgments obtained as outcomes from the visual inspection. Since VISUS is a triage, engineering-quantitative parameters are not required; anyway, the discovered scenarios are used with specific roles for defining the performance level considering all the assessed elements and issues. Anyway, it is important to split the predisposition to produce some critical effects and their effective activation. A global strategy requires that all experts involved for the different hazards define together a matrix of criteria for satisfying the different levels of performance. V. PANEL PRESENTATIONS-PRACTICES ON INDONESIA SCHOOL SAFETY ASSESSMENT V.1 Presentation on the School Safety Assessment Tool in Indonesia- Research Center for Disaster Mitigation (Krishna Pribadi/ITB) Mr Krishna explained that Indonesia is exposed to various natural hazards and there are around 185.146 of elementary and secondary schools and 25.621 High Schools in Indonesia. These schools are divided into 4 categories, which are: 1) public schools that are funded by the National and Local Government-Ministry of Education and Cultural-Community, 2) private schools that are managed and funded by the Non-Government Social Organizations, 3) public religious schools that are funded by National and Local Government-Ministry of Religion Affairs-Community, and 4) NNoonn--ggoovveerrnnmmeenntt rreelliiggiioouuss sscchhoooollss//iinnffoorrmmaall bbooaarrddiinngg sscchhoooollss tthhaatt aarree ffuunnddeedd bbyy tthhee Non-Government Social (Religious) Organizations.

In term of school vulnerability to disasters in Indonesia, as an example the impacts of earthquake on schools, there have been many disaster events that caused many schools are damaged and destroyed. These happened due to many schools that are vulnerable to earthquake due to substandard design and construction practice. Thus need to reduce school vulnerability in Indonesia, through strengthening/retrofitting programs. In order to implement this program, an assessment must be conducted to analyze the condition of the susceptibility of the site, a building, people and operations that may be affected or exposed to a

natural hazard. It provides for a statement needed by stakeholders to do action, such as: to prepare, to allocate resources, organization, and provide mitigation. This assessment can have 2 levels, which are: the preliminary assessment that requires simple and quick approaches such as conducting compliance checklists, qualitative inspection or rapid visual screening, and a detailed assessment, on the other hand, entails more detailed quantitative tasks. For the building vulnerability, the assessment is categorized into: functional, non-structural, and structural assessments. These assessments may be visual, quick (or rapid) or preliminary and serves as a first step for prioritizing buildings towards a more detailed assessment. The school assessment tool is developed by ITB in 2010. It is a combination of non-structural and structural assessment for multi hazards and consists of three parts: Assessment by school (principal/teacher)

Mr Krishna Pribadi presented his work in developing the school safety assessment

tool in Indonesia


Page 14

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

building strength against tsunami forces 5. Check the highest level of school floor to be safe from highest run up and inundation level (expect

the unexpected, worst case tsunami) 6. Make sure that school has alternate evacuation route/path toward higher ground/hills


Page 15

V.2 Presentation on the Engineering, Construction and Assessment of Safe School Infrastructure (Victor Rembeth/Disaster Resource Partnership) The Disaster Resource Partnership (DRP) is an international alliance of Engineering & Construction community companies support by the World Economic Forum. Its objective is to develop a cross-sector, professional and accountable humanitarian response to disasters that has the ability. The vision of the E&C Disaster Resource Partnership is to form an ongoing collaboration with the humanitarian community at the global level and government and other key humanitarian actors at the national level in order to leverage the core strengths and existing capacities of the E&C community before, during and after natural rapid-onset disasters to reduce suffering and save lives. At global level, it provides multi skill or services in assessment-monitoring-evaluation, strategic planning, technical expertise, project/program management, safety management, physical planning, Infrastructure design (shelter, roads, water sanitation, power, facilities), local knowledge and network, local knowledge and network, logistics / supply chain management, and site supervision. In Indonesia, it provides services in assessment-monitoring-evaluation, strategic planning, technical expertise, project/program management, safety management. The principles in delivering these services are: Focus on natural rapid-onset disasters, particularly extreme major events. Using disaster prevention as an entry point, create partnerships that can be leveraged in the event of a

disaster. Build Back Better Mobilization of construction equipment dependent upon the proximity of equipment to a disaster zone

and the availability of existing capacity. Multiple modalities of delivery Partnership networks will be mobilized through multiple entry points, through pre-formed relationships

with relevant post-disaster actors. The modalities in delivering the services can be done through direct actions, secondment, local and global technical services. The typical services of DRP in Indonesia, include 1) Pre-disaster Provide training, developing disaster response/contingency plans Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction Programmes around project sites (mapping hazards and

critical infrastructure, developing response plans) 2) Immediately after a disaster (72 hours 2 weeks) Temporary repairs to critical infrastructure, provide emergency shelter, engineering first responder, Strategic technical assistance (e.g. advice on rubble clearance, building safety assessment)

3) Relief (2 12 weeks) Temporary repairs to critical infrastructure, provide emergency shelter, secondments of staff Needs assessment (leads to implementing programmes)

4) Recovery (12 weeks 3 years)


Page 16

DRP Indonesia helps to facilitate activities such as building permanent housing (through company fundraising/CSR programmes), implementing recovery programmes

5) Ongoing Building relationships, Strategic technical expertise to inform decision making Attending fora/ coordination mechanisms, Acting as an honest partner Project management

It delivers are in the form of: Public building safety assessments in emergency : reduce ongoing risks, provide recommendations of

recovery and reconstruction Capacity building to local builders and Partner NGOs to build back better Provide recommendation for proper plan of rebuilding public facilities

As for the way forward, we expect that: 1. Proper Construction Technology should be applied in relevant disaster prone areas, in order to support

the structural mitigation of the community by adapting/integrating local resources 2. Private sectors should share the existing technology to all, that multi stakeholders could benefit from the

resources they have 3. Capacity building to all, as to apply relevant technology that is crucial to provide awareness and skills

of the communities and relevant government authorities 4. Using existing technologies to strengthen vocational schools and community practitioners to build

resiliency

V.3 Presentation on the Minimum Standard for Comprehensive Safe and Healthy School (Andy Wahyu Widayat/Save the Children) Since most of the safety school project only concerns in dealing with the disasters itself, Save the Children in Indonesia develops a program called Comprehensive School Health and Safety (CSHS). The reason for implementing this program is due to several reasons as following: The children are not only victims

directly, but in many cases lose their right to education because learning activities disrupted or cannot take place for a very long time

Children who are victims of many who experience psychological stress such as feelings of fear, stress and trauma of prolonged


Page 17

School became a "supporting" the situation of many children consume foods and beverages that are not healthy

Many catastrophic events took place when the children are following the teaching and learning activities

This program is implemented from July 2013 July 2017, integrated with 2 other programs, which are: the ECCE (in Belu, NTT-eastern region) and the Literacy BoostCilincing, North Jakarta. The objective of this program is to improve health aspects and disaster preparedness knowledge and behavior among students 3-5 SD / SDS / MI in Cilincing, North Jakarta. in order to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the program, Save the Children developed 2 tools, which are the Monitoring Form of SETARA Project, and the Standard Minimum for Comprehensive School Health and Safety. The difference between SETARA Monitoring Form and Standard Minimum Form associated with the Project implementation needs is described in the following table:

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

and Disaster Risk Reduction in a more complete School members, especially children, could participate actively in doing monitoring and daily

assessment regarding to the target achievement in Standard Minimum The selection and the frequency of the monitoring process give different results and explanations

related to the achievement of programs output indicators Independent monitoring by the school have an impact on the sense of belonging of the school

regarding to the program implementation at the school level There is a need to be monitored regularly to check if the progress of the program through

performance indicators actually happened and there in school


Page 18

Therefore, we recommended that There is a need to make an assessment tool that provides the same measurement and assessment for

health and DRR components, because the assessment tools that exist today tend to measure only one program need to involve school committee as well as the students to monitor and to evaluate the process and results of the activities and impact of the changes that stated on the standard minimum checklist

There is a need to accommodate and involving children to promote child's participation (at least until collaboration joint making decision) level) in the process of monitoring and evaluation in the form of monitoring program on any school based assessment tool.

There is a need to emphasize on the importance of the process of achieving output indicators related to the parameters had been set, not only just on the results of the output indicators, because the most important thing is a sense of ownership of the program into a school needs to be completed and fulfilled for the best interest of the child

VI. DISCUSSION SESSION 2-PANEL PRESENTATIONS FROM INDONESIA PRACTITIONERS

a. Mr Susetyo Kurniawan from Save the Children

Mr Tyo said that since the 2004 earthquake and tsunami response, many schools are designed to become shelters. The function of the building changes and construction standards become less safe. He asks if VISUS will take this functional change into account. We should add the functional and structure of the building as shelter. Whereby when a disaster strikes, the school building are taken over by the community and the education is disrupted and this cause problem to the people and children. The VISUS assessment tool is specific to the hazard and location. He says that Save the

Children has realized a gap, and conduct the capacity building and awareness rising in North Jakarta as a respond to the situation. Furthermore the impact of disaster in urban schools that have multi storey can impact to other neighboring buildings therefore the standard needs to be improved. Furthermore in BNPB, there is socialization on the evacuation site as part of the building standard. We need to raise awareness on using the school as the last option for evacuation site. Mr Andy Wahyu Widayat answered by referring to BNPB Regulation No. 4 Year 2012 that mentioned that schools are not supposed to be used as shelter, but if there are no other options for safe sites, the schools can be used as shelter. As additional he mentioned that the school program in North Jakarta is involving the community in developing the plan. Mr Krishna Pribadi, we must differ the concept of evacuation and shelter. Shelter is to be used for IDPs, meanwhile the evacuation is only temporary used. As for the building code for school, is the most importance part. It has to be safe, especially if it is used as shelter, yet it is supposed to be disturbed the educational activities.


Page 19

Mr Victor Rembeth said that DRP has been asked for its advice for the school as shelter. It supposed to be based on building code plus, based on the California Building Authority. It is important to also involve the community, as they have an important role.

b. Ms Yuko Chiba from Hope World Wide Indonesia

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

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

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


Page 20

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

f. Mr Andy Wahyu Widayat from Save the Children

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


Page 21

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

VII. WAY FORWARD ON VISUS ADAPTATION AND APPLICATION IN INDONESIA

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

a. Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat from UNESCO Office Jakarta says that further technical overview needs to be

undertaken. It is necessary to engage with experts with the most appropriate knowledge and expertise. In addition, it is necessary to develop the application and associated materials and conduct training of trainers. The approximate timeline for this is one year.

Mr. Jair Torres from UNESCO HQ Paris comments that those interested to collaborate should express their interest to Mr. Ardito M Kodijat. The first step would be to organize meetings, and discuss hazard by hazard, component by component the different levels of the triage process.

b. Mr Krishna Pribadi from Bandung Technology Institute suggests that a roadmap for this initiative is

needed. He says that it is important to decide what is needed in terms of school safety, and then decide how this can be done. Major stakeholders such as the MOEC should be involved in this long term methodology that can be used at national to local level. Leadership is needed; though experts can provide valuable input, political willingness is also necessary in order to benefit in the future.

Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat from UNESCO Office Jakarta agrees with the statement made by Mr. Krishna Pribadi that ownership of the project is needed in order to move forward. Plans have been made to meet and discuss this with the relevant directorate and authorities, include the Ministry of Education and Cultural, and scheduled to meet with the Vice of Ministry of Education and Cultural (MoEC). We have planned to meet with different directorates in the MoEC to ask for their ownership before we continue with the technical meeting.

c. Mr Ronald Sianipar from Save the Children brought up the topic of piloting and asks about the result

or outcome of the project of 6 schools in Pandeglang. He also mentions about disaster prone areas and how most school buildings in these areas are vulnerable in the event of tsunamis or earthquakes as they are built back in the 80s. He suggests more areas for piloting and that quality and current conditions be checked to see if retrofitting is necessary.

Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat from UNESCO Office Jakarta responds by saying that UNESCO at present is assisting six schools in Pandeglang and is planning to use this methodology. However, the pilot can only be done after the adaptation to local context is done. He adds that UNESCO hopes to pilot this project in different areas and not limited to the areas where the work is currently being carried out.


Page 22

The more it is being piloted the more the identified issues can be resolved in the adaptation methodology.

d. Mr Guru Naik from Child Fund Indonesia asks if youth centers and early childhood centers are also

included or considered in this project. Mr Jair Torres from UNESCO HQ Paris said that every learning facility is included. At the beginning, it is easier to start with public schools but the idea is that this could then be used in a broader area, and ultimately even influence policy that can in the future demand private schools to be necessarily assessed using this methodology or even other methodologies. This is not a question of supporting government schools but rather supporting general policy for the whole education sector.

e. Mr. Ardito M. Kodijat from UNESCO Office Jakarta mentions the shortage of funding resources and

calls for the support of colleagues in terms of budget and financing. It is not necessary for this budget to be transferred to UNESCO but can also be useful to support the project when the need arises. It can be used for coordination meetings or pilot testing, for example. Yet we not only expect budget, but other resources, for instance for accommodating meeting or training. This might the ideas that the participants can think over Mr. Jair Torres from UNESCO HQ Paris agrees with Mr. Ardito M Kodijat and explained that the technical support has been provided by the University of Udine and UNESCO has invested some funding, if possible if the participants can communicate with their organizations in term of resources, we can improve better handbook, training and data collection and faster implementation of the project. If there is no resources available in your organization, your time and technical support are also important. Consider this as an opportunity for collaboration for everyone, not as UNESCO Project and all of your contributions will be acknowledged and recognized.

VIII. CLOSING REMARKS

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


Page 23

LIST OF COMMITTEE/SPEAKERS/PARTICIPANTS

NO NAME ORGANIZATION E-MAIL/PHONE ORGANIZER COMMITTEE

1 Mr Ardito M. Kodijat UNESCO Office Jakarta [email protected]/+62816971196 2 Mr Bustamam

Koetapangwa UNESCO Office Jakarta [email protected]/+6282166465019

3 Mrs Yuniarti Wahyuningtyas

UNESCO Office Jakarta [email protected]/+6281281842508

4 Ms Rebecca Sinaga UNESCO Office Jakarta [email protected]/+6287823556705 5 Ms Sella Octavia UNESCO Office Jakarta [email protected]/+6281298921111 6 Ms Adeline Liew UNESCO Office Jakarta [email protected]/+6282231845454

SPEAKERS 7 Professor Stefano Grimaz University of Udine [email protected] 8 Mr Jair Torres UNESCO HQ Paris [email protected] 9 Mr Krishna Pribadi ITB [email protected]/+62811217666

10 Mr Victor Rembeth DRP [email protected]/+6281213865028 11 Mr Andy Wahyu Widayat Save the Children [email protected]/+6281392376645

12 Mr Gogot Suharwoto Ministry of Education [email protected]/+6287886701662 13 Ms Hasnah Gasim NatCom for UNESCO [email protected]/+62818154227 PARTICIPANTS 14 Mr Jason Brown DFAT [email protected]/+62811924535 15 Mr Alex Robinson ASB [email protected]/+6281392378440 16 Ms Yuko Chiba Hope Worldwide [email protected]/+6282291575079 17 Mr Ahmad Noviar Indonesia Business Link [email protected]/+628111048853 18 Mr Wahyu Cahyono Crisis Centre

Univ.Indonesia [email protected]/+6281314023148

19 Ms Martina Estrely Crisis Centre Univ.Indonesia

[email protected]/+6281311469366

20 Mr Arif Nur Cholis Muhammadiyah [email protected]/+6281392285384 21 Ms Vera California Hope Worldwide [email protected] 22 Mr irfan Anom Islamic Relief [email protected]/+6281298582793 23 Mr Michael Hope Worldwide [email protected]/+6281919001111 24 Mr Guru Naik Child Fund [email protected]/+628111680511 25 Ms Yanti Sriyulianti KerLip [email protected]/+62817625001 26 Mr Amin BNPB [email protected]/+6285217129038 27 Mr Lutfi Prabowo Telapak +6282311625119 28 Ms Erita Nurhalim World Bank [email protected]/+628119216504 29 Mr Victorious Siahaan Ministry of Social n/a 30 Mr Arifan Jaya Geo-technology LIIPI [email protected]/+6281904194895 31 Mr Hadi Sutjipto Care [email protected]/ +628161876665 32 Ms Annisa Puji NatCom for UNESCO [email protected]/+6285717376856 33 Ms Claire Gaulin UN OCHA [email protected]/ +62812 9106 3020 34 Ms Mika Aono Japan Heart [email protected] 35 Mr Asmoro Dompet Dhuafa [email protected]/+87872304632 36 Mr Narwawi UNFPA [email protected]/+628121584656 37 Mr Jaswadi Ministry of Social [email protected]/+6281392460132 38 Mr jusaini Ministry of Religion [email protected]/+6282123024449 39 Mr Rinsan Tobing World Bank [email protected]/+6281320713741 40 Ms Rosalyn Wijaya Kuark [email protected]/+6287710188183 41 Mr Anton Save the Children [email protected]/+6285294463660 42 Mr Soesatyo Budi K. Save the Children [email protected]/+6281328359389


Page 24

43 Mr Ronald Sianipar Save the Children [email protected]/+628119401636 44 Mr Ivan Tagor Child Fund [email protected]/+6281315159510 45 Ms Dear Sinandang HFI [email protected]/+628174926247 46 Mr Surya R.M HFI [email protected]/+6281360469344 47 Mr Billy Sumuan World Vision [email protected]/+62811569913 48 Mr Marlon Lukman YTBI [email protected]/+6281210221969 49 Ms Sun Wook Jung UNICEF [email protected] 50 Ms Irina Rafliana LIPI [email protected] 51 Ms Deva Rachman Intel [email protected]/+6281380796477 52 Ms Widyasari L. Intel [email protected]/+6287886102029 53 Mr Leonardus Depa D. Karina [email protected]/+628111700798 54 Mr Petrasa Wacana Oxfam [email protected]/+6281227836239 55 Ms Sudarwati Data Statistic MoEC [email protected]/+628128328041 56 Mr Jazziray Hartoyo SecDitGen MoEC [email protected]/+628551070271 57 Mr Zamzam M KerLip [email protected]/+6281221766512 58 Mr Samino Basic Edu MoEC +62818703571 59 Mr Sutadji RIHS Ministry of Public

Work [email protected]/+6281320651331

60 Ms Octavina TW IBL [email protected]/+6281219787827

I. BackgroundII. PROGRAM AGENDAIII. PRESENTATIONS FROM EXPERTS

LIST OF committee/speakers/PARTICIPANTS

Report on VISUS Workshop_26 September 2014_FIN

Documents

Transcript of Report on VISUS Workshop_26 September 2014_FIN