Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report...enrolled in the school system. This means the safety of...

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents.

Project Number: 35174-082 April 2017

Nepal: School Sector Program Financed by the TA: 7935

Prepared by:

Naveed Anwar

Bangkok, Thailand

For Ministry of Education Department of Education

Capacity Development for School Sector Program Implementation (TA 7935 NEP)

Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education Department of Education

Executive Summary

Submitted to

Asian Development Bank

Nepal Resident Mission

June 2014

Strategy and Plan for Increasing

Disaster Resilience for

Schools in Nepal

Capacity Development for School Sector

Program Implementation (TA 7935 NEP)

Contract Number: 106698-S79855

Strategy for Increasing Disaster

Resilience for Schools in Nepal

Executive Summary

Submitted to


June 2014

Strategy for Increasing Disaster Resilience for Schools in Nepal

page 3 of 9

Executive Summary

A Disaster Resilient Nepal: The Current Situation

1. Nepal is located within a high hazard zone with high vulnerabilities, leading to

potentially high risk and grave consequences from natural disasters, especially

from earthquakes. The country lies on several active faults where possible

epicenters are located at rather shallow depths, increasing the probability of

Nepal experiencing very strong ground motions.

2. Due to the growing understanding of the importance of disaster resilience (DR) in

Nepal, many programs have been initiated in many sectors, including the

establishment of National Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC), comprising of five

flagship programs.

3. One such program is the School Safety Program (SSP) which was initiated and is

being funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Australian Agency

for International Development under the Flagship 1 of the NRRC. As a Technical

Assistance Program, SSP is being implemented through Nepal’s Department of Education (DOE), under the Ministry of Education (MOE) which is the government

agency responsible also for the school sector. This program targeted about 260

public school buildings in Kathmandu Valley (KV) for retrofitting. SSP also included

capacity building programs for masons, teachers, students, and professionals in the

DOE within a 2-year duration starting from 2012. Many of these activities have been

successfully completed to date.

4. Even though SSP covers less than 0.3% of total scope of schools in the country, and

is only administered in KV, it has helped to identify several challenges, such as the

lack of capacity and resources, need for better technological solutions, quality

assurance, financial management, reconsideration of the role of community, and

coordination amongst various stakeholders. Tackling the disaster risk reduction

(DRR) activities in the entire country with a scale that is 300 times larger, spread

over 75 districts, needs a clear strategy and plan. Streamlining existing processes

and developing innovative ways to increase and sustain DR is the key to

accomplishing scaling up.

5. The School Sector Reform Plan (2009-2015) is another key project of the Ministry of

Education which serves as the basis for most of the improvements and

modifications in the school sector. Reports showed minimal issues in

implementation and that most of the district-level programs were observed to be

satisfactory. The SSRP is considered a potential platform for integration with SSP and

for scaling up the DR initiatives.

Increasing DR in Schools: Overall Strategies and Actions

6. Recognizing and supporting the several ongoing and planned initiatives and

programs related to DRR in Nepal, and to ensure an increased effectiveness and

reduced instances of duplicated efforts and emphasize focus on DR of schools, the

strategies are divided into two categories; Linked and Stand-alone.


page 4 of 9

7. Linked strategies refer to those that have relationships, ownership, and/or

relevance to the National DRR initiatives, but will also impact the DR of the school

sector. These strategies are either based on strengthening and supporting other

ongoing and planned initiatives or needs integration with them. Six (6) strategies

are proposed under this category:

1. Increased DR awareness in various stakeholders, at various levels.

2. Continuous reinforcement of will and commitment to DR at the highest

levels of the government and development partners.

3. Increased institutionalization and coordination to tackle the risks and

consequences of to various disasters.

4. Building overall capability and capacity of different stakeholders for DRR.

5. Facilitate and support local research to aid in providing relevant solutions

for measures leading to DRR.

6. Development and/or amendment of policies, acts, and regulations, and

their enforcement for enabling implementation of various strategies,

actions and measures aimed at DRR of various sectors, including the

schools.

8. Stand-alone strategies are specific strategies that are primarily applicable to the

school sector and can be implemented mostly independently within the defined

frameworks. These consist of the following nine (9) strategies:

1. Building competency-based capability and capacity of the agencies

directly involved in the implementation of the DRR process.

2. Classification, categorization, and standardization of the intervention

solutions for the vast scale of schools and buildings capitalizing on the

geographical, administrative, rural/urban, building materials, and size

variations.

3. Prioritized increase in multi-hazard DR for public schools, based on the

disaster consequences as the primary parameter derived from hazard

levels, vulnerability, and exposure, using a combination of one-time and

incremental safety approaches.

4. Increased DR of private schools through a combination of appropriate

regulations, licensing, certification, technical and administrative support,

and incentives, in close collaboration with private sector.

5. Integration of DR into SSRP and other related development plans for

maximizing the cost and resource effectiveness, and to avoid duplication

and conflicting interventions.

6. Certification of the DRR process and the final outcome, through continuous

quality assurance mechanisms and formal inspections, combined with

voluntary DR rating.

7. Increased community DR through systematic and assured involvement of

the community in awareness, capacity building, intervention

implementation, monitoring the final outcome of increased school DR.


page 5 of 9

8. Integration of various aspects of DR into the academic and professional

curricula, progressively from basic awareness to vocational training and

advanced knowledge and skill sets.

9. Implementation of results-based monitoring and evaluation performance

management plans to ensure the achievement of the outputs and

outcomes.

9. The scale and complexity of the tasks require the engagement of many

stakeholders carefully aligned with appropriate linkages for a strong and flexible

framework that is necessary for the implementation of the DR strategies at a

national level.

Working Together: Ownership, Implementation, and Coordination

10. Institutional arrangements, roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders, and

coordination framework are largely reinforced by the collective agreement for the

DOE, to take ownership of the entire program as the primary implementing and

coordinating agency, actively supported by the Department of Urban

Development (DUDBC) under the Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD).

11. The primary role of MOE/DOE will be to formulate new or amend the existing

policies, rules, regulations, and guidelines to include DR considerations in the

design, construction and operations of schools, both in the public and private

domain. This may include enforcing a combined certification and licensing system,

similar to that used for the operations of hospitals.

12. For public schools, DOE will carry out all of the planning, execution management,

and coordination of the entire DRR process, closely with DEO and technical

support from DUDBC. The actual execution of various work items will be conducted

by the consultants and contractors, with appropriate involvements and support

from the community, VDC, and INGOS/NGOS based on several factors including

location (urban/rural, mountains/hills/plains), type of construction, size of buildings,

and complexity of tasks.

13. For private schools, the operators and or owners of buildings will be required,

through regulations, to gradually and progressively retrofit, relocate or rebuild the

school premises and facilities to meet the DR and functionality requirements laid

down by MOE/DOE. DUDBC will provide technical support and facilitate the

building owners in this process and will also carry out the required certifications.

The private school operators/owners will be supported by GON and development

partners in this process through financial assistance, soft loans, and other incentives

such as tax breaks.

14. Both, DOE and DUDBC will need to be strengthened to take on these additional

responsibilities, through the establishment of dedicated divisions/sections and

allocation of appropriate, sufficient, and qualified resources, with adequate

budgets, facilities and incentives.

15. Due to the level of community participation that is prevalent in Nepal, it may be

useful to reconsider the roles for community participation in the school DRR

process. The roles can include generating ownership by the community’s inclusion in basic training programs and thereby equipping the community with skills in order


page 6 of 9

to respond to various hazards and disasters. The community may also be involved

in fund raising and generating other in-kind resources and services related to the

process, direct intervention (construction) activities, and monitoring the works

carried out by other parties, in conjunction with the DEO, VDC, and the

consultants.

16. Frequent and smooth coordination with other ministries such as MOHA, MOUD,

MOF, MOFALD, and the Office of the Prime Minister will help ensure that the

objectives of this program are met.

17. A separate, dedicated coordination office is proposed for the coordination of the

entire school DRR process. This office will function as a clearing house and

repository of all information generated and needed to smoothly carry out various

aspects of the overall process, and will coordinate with various government

agencies, development partners, UN agencies, INGOS/ NGOS, private school

operators, technical committees, the media, and other stakeholders.

What is Needed: The Plan

Finances

18. A total of about 55,725 Million NPR (nearly 560 Million USD), may be needed for

completing the DRR of all public schools in the country, in about 8 to 10 years

duration. A summary of the key budgetary requirements and cost components (in

Million NPR and percentage against the total) is provided below:

Direct Intervention Cost 48,150 86.4%

DOE and DEO Resources and Costs 2,350 4.2%

DUDBC Resources and Costs 375 0.7%

Various Types of Consulting 2,900 5.2%

Coordination, Monitoring, and Evaluations 200 0.4%

Awareness and Capacity Building 500 0.9%

Risk Assessments and Related Studies 300 0.5%

Research and Development 350 0.6%

Miscellaneous 600 1.1%

19. The total cost is estimated to be about 8,000 NPR (about 80 USD), per student

enrolled in the school system. This means the safety of nearly all children (enrolled

in schools) from natural disasters can be significantly improved/ensured by

spending about 10 USD, per child, per year for the next 8 years on school DRR. This

is equivalent to less than 1 USD per month per child.

20. Although, the estimate does not include the direct cost of intervention for private

schools, which is to be borne by the private sector or through other mechanisms,

the finances needed by DOE and DUDBC to implement the strategy proposed for

the private schools were already considered.

21. The cost of planning, design, management, certification, and coordination was

calculated to be about 15% of the total cost. A significant portion of this amount is

to be allocated for the detailed assessment of buildings, which could be reduced

through proper hazard and vulnerability studies and standardization.

22. Some of the cost components, such as the cost that may be additionally incurred

by the various ministries in GON, development partners, UN agencies, NGOs,


page 7 of 9

various professional organizations, academic institutes, and committees that

support the overall DRR process were not explicitly included in this estimates. These

incidentals are expected to be covered as part of the commitment of these

organizations to the cause.

Prioritization

23. Considering the large scale of the intervention, it is important to prioritize the tasks

and schools identified for intervention, so that the finances and resources can be

allocated efficiently and utilized effectively. Three levels of prioritization are

considered:

a) Prioritizing the tasks that need be completed first, without which the DRR

process cannot be initiated. This includes generation of detailed school and

building inventory for all schools in the country, formulation of policies,

conducting/obtaining risk assessment studies, development of design criteria

and guidelines, classifications and categorizations, and development of

standardized solutions.

b) A macro-level (district) priority grouping for the implementation of the DRR

process which is primarily based on the anticipated disaster consequences.

This is done by assuming that the vulnerability of the buildings is of similar order

in all districts, and therefore considering the hazard levels, student density per

classroom, population density of the district, and the overall conditions of the

buildings as the main parameters. This prioritization is done with a view to gain

maximum benefit from the intervention.

c) A local-level prioritization of the individual schools and buildings, within the

districts, based on detailed assessments, and considering other relevant

factors. This is to be done at the implementation stage, and is not considered

in the current plan.

24. Four district-level priority groups have been initially planned based on the available

data. This grouping should be re-evaluated once the basic school inventory is

completed for the entire country. The categorized groups, number of districts in

each group, number of students in public schools that will benefit from the

intervention are presented below, together with associated cost:

Group-1 3 Districts of KV 151,385 Students 1,450 m NPR

Group-2 23 Districts 3,055,830 Students 18,750 m NPR



25. It is very important to note, that for KV, more than 70% of the students are in the

private schools (about 3 times more of those enrolled in public schools). The focus

of priority Group-1 must on private schools, in addition to the ongoing and future

plans for public schools. The cost and corresponding number of students in private

schools is not included in these estimates.

Resources

26. The primary resources needed for implementation are from DOE, DUDBC, DEOs,

consultants, contractors, and coordination office; whereas the supporting


page 8 of 9

resources required are Technical Advisory Committee, Development Partners, UN

Agencies, INGOs, and NGOs.

27. The average number of estimated resources required during the execution and

implementation of the prioritized plan, over a period about 8 to 10 years, for the

main agencies are summarized as follows, together with the approximate number

of available resources for implementing the DRR process shown in parenthesis.

DOE, total staff in head office and 5 regional offices 150 (7)

DEO, total staff in all districts 625 (220)

DUDBC, total staff in head office and all districts 70 (5)

Consultants, all districts 160 (50)

Construction firms of various sizes 450 (200)

28. Based on the summary of resources (above), a significantly large number of staff

was estimated to be needed in DOE, DEO, and DUDBC to implement the DRR

activities. It is important to prepare the needed staff to be well-trained, and

capable of handling various aspects of the DRR process, as provided with

adequate facilities and incentives.

29. It is also clear that not enough consultants and construction firms may be available

to undertake the implementation tasks, especially considering that the same

consultants and contractors will also be needed for other ongoing and planned

development projects. Given their current commitments, the present roster of

consultants and construction firms will not be fully available for the planned school

DRR process. Therefore, the involvement of international firms will be essential to

supplement and support the local capacity.

On New Schools

30. In planning for the constructing new schools, an average of 35 students per

classroom was projected for each district for all schools (public and private).

Results show that by 2021, approximately 45,000 new classrooms must be

constructed to satisfy the projected demand in Nepal. Given that an estimated

20% of the new classrooms will be private, a total of 36,000 new public classrooms

will need to be constructed by 2021 in Nepal.

31. For the hilly and mountainous areas that are sparsely populated, innovative

solutions such as adopting an Education Village concept may prove to increase

occupancy rate in the classrooms by reducing the student’s travel from daily to

weekly, increase mobilization effectiveness, and maximize the utilization of

resources. An Education Village will essentially transform underutilized school

infrastructures, with the possibility to merge with other schools, to provide both

academic and lodging facilities to students.

Prepared by:

Naveed Anwar, Ph.D. [email protected]

DRM Consultant

ADB Nepal Resident Mission



The Plan

Submitted to



June 2014

Overall Plan for Increasing

Disaster Resilience of Schools in

Nepal




Overall Plan for Increasing Disaster


The Plan

Submitted to


June 2014

of 70

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 5

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 7

List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 10

The Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Chapter 1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 14

1.1 The Issue ............................................................................................................................................ 14

1.2 In Brief: The Strategy.......................................................................................................................... 15

1.2.1 Increasing DR in Schools: Overall Strategies and Actions .......................................................... 15

1.2.2 Working Together: Ownership, Implementation, and Coordination.............................................. 16

1.3 Nepal’s School Sector ........................................................................................................................ 17

Chapter 2 Strategic Action Plan ............................................................................................................... 19

2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 19

2.2 Action Plan Matrix............................................................................................................................... 19

Chapter 3 Classification and Categorization ............................................................................................ 25

3.1 Need for Classification and Categorization ......................................................................................... 25

3.2 School and Building Categories ......................................................................................................... 25

3.3 Data Collection and Assimilation ........................................................................................................ 26

3.4 Public and Private Schools ................................................................................................................. 28

3.4.1 Schools in Kathmandu Valley ...................................................................................................... 29

3.4.3 On Private Schools ...................................................................................................................... 31

3.5 Categories of Public Schools for Intervention ..................................................................................... 31

Chapter 4 Parameters Used for Estimation ............................................................................................. 34

4.1 Additional Data Needed For Improved Planning ................................................................................ 36

Chapter 5 Resource Estimation ............................................................................................................... 37

5.1 Procedure for Resource Estimation .................................................................................................... 37

5.2 DOE Resources ................................................................................................................................. 38

5.3 DEO Resources ................................................................................................................................. 42

5.4 DUDBC Resources............................................................................................................................. 44

5.5 Consultants ........................................................................................................................................ 46

5.6 Summary of the Resource Planning ................................................................................................... 48

Chapter 6 Cost Estimation ....................................................................................................................... 49

6.1 Direct Cost of Intervention .................................................................................................................. 49

6.1.1 Kathmandu Valley ........................................................................................................................ 53

6.1.2 Public Schools in Rural Areas...................................................................................................... 53

6.1.3 Public Schools in Urban Areas .................................................................................................... 54

6.2 Summary of Costs .............................................................................................................................. 55

Chapter 7 Prioritization and Work Plan .................................................................................................... 57

Content

of 70

7.1 Procedure for Prioritization ................................................................................................................. 57

7.2 Efficient Utilization of Resources ........................................................................................................ 58

7.3 Priority for Intervention ....................................................................................................................... 58

7.4 Work Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 62

7.4.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 62

7.4.2 Time Line ..................................................................................................................................... 63

Chapter 8 On New Schools ..................................................................................................................... 65

8.1 Projection and Construction of New Schools ...................................................................................... 65

8.1.1 Education Village Concept ........................................................................................................... 66

8.2 Estimation of New Classroom Construction ....................................................................................... 66

of 70

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Action Plan Matrix 19

Table 3-1: Building Categorization Basis for the Academic Institutions in Nepal 25

Table 3-2: Building Size Categorization Description 26

Table 3-3: Information in EMIS Database for All Schools in Nepal 27

Table 3-4: Additional Data from MOE Flash Report 27

Table 3-5: Number of Schools in Various Distribution Parameters 28

Table 3-6: School Distribution in Kathmandu Valley (Public vs. Private) 30

Table 3-7: School Building Typology Distribution in Kathmandu Valley 30

Table 3-8: Ecological Belt-wise School Building Size Distribution 32

Table 3-9: Ecological Belt-wise School Building Size Distribution 32

Table 3-10: Administrative Region-wise Building Typology Distribution (Excluding KV) 33

Table 3-11: Administrative Region-wise School Building Numbers for Rebuild, One Time Intervention

and Incremental Intervention (Excluding KV) 33

Table 5-1: DOE Resources and Cost Summary for KV 38

Table 5-2: DOE Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas 39

Table 5-3: DOE Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Urban Areas 40

Table 5-4: DOE Required Resources and Cost for Total Public School Buildings including KV 41

Table 5-5: DEO Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in KV 42

Table 5-6: DEO Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas 42

Table 5-7: DEO Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Urban Areas 43

Table 5-8: DEO Required Resources and Cost for Total Public School Buildings including KV 44

Table 5-9: DUDBC Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in KV 45

Table 5-10: DUDBC Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas 45

Table 5-11: DUDBC Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Urban Areas 45

Table 5-12: DUDBC Required Resources and Cost for Total Public School Buildings including KV 45

Table 5-13: Consultants Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in KV 46

Table 5-14: Consultants Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas 46

Table 5-15: Consultants Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Urban Areas 47

Table 5-16: Consultants Required Resources and Cost for Total Public School Buildings including KV 47

of 70

Table 5-17: The Trade-off between Number of Resources and Time 48

Table 6-1: Overall Intervention Cost Summary for Public Schools (Regional) 49

Table 6-2: Overall Intervention Cost Summary for Public Schools (Belt-wise) 49

Table 6-3: Overall Intervention Cost Summary for Public Schools – Districts (East) 50

Table 6-4: Overall Intervention Cost Summary for Public Schools – Districts (Central & West) 51

Table 6-5: Overall Intervention Cost Summary for Public Schools – Districts (Mid West and Far West) 52

Table 6-6: Cost Basis Model for Public School Buildings in KV 53

Table 6-7: Direct Intervention Cost for Public School Buildings in KV 53

Table 6-8: Cost Basis Model for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas 53

Table 6-9: Direct Intervention Cost for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas 54

Table 6-10: Direct Intervention Cost for Public School Buildings in Urban Areas 54

Table 6-11: Summary of Overall Cost for DRR of Public School Buildings in Nepal 55

Table 7-1: Summary of Priority Groups and Cost 59

Table 7-2: Cost Indicators for Priority Groups 59

Table 7-3: Intervention Cost for Public Schools: Priority Group – 1 60




Table 8-1: District-wise Data for the Projection and Construction of New Schools 67

of 70

List of Figures

Figure 3-1: Distribution of School-related Indicators in the Kathmandu Valley 29

Figure 3-2: Distribution of Various School Indicators in Districts 30

Figure 7-1: Priority Groups Distribution, by District 58

Figure 7-2: Distribution of Various Parameters for Priority Groups 59

Figure 7-3: Distribution of Intervention Cost for Priority Groups 60

Figure 8-1: Comparison of Students per Classrooms and Population Density for 2011 and 2021 65

of 70

List of Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank

AHA Analytical Hierarchy Approach

AIT Asian Institute of Technology

ASIP Annual Strategic Implementation Plan

AusAID Australian Government Overseas Aid Program

AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget

BOQ Bill of Quantity

CBO Community-based Organization

CSSP Community School Support Programme

CTEVT Council for Technical Education & Vocational Training

DEO District Education Office

DOE Department of Education

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DR Disaster Resilience

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DUDBC Department of Urban Development & Building Construction

EFA Education for All

EMIS Education Management and Information System

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GON Government of Nepal

HFA Hyogo Framework for Action

INGO International Non-governmental Organization

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KV Kathmandu Valley

KPI Key Performance Indicator

MOE Ministry of Education

MOFLD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development

MOH Ministry of Health

MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs

MOUD Ministry of Urban Development

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NRRC Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium

NSET National Society for Earthquake Technology - Nepal

PHRD Policy and Human Resources Development, World Bank

RC Reinforced Concrete

of 70

SSP School Safety Program, sometimes referred to as the School Earthquake

Safety Program (SESP)

SMC School Management Committees

SSRP School Sector Reform Program

SSS School Seismic Safety

TAC Technical Advisory Committee

TEP Teacher Education Project

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

URM Unreinforced Brick Masonry

VDCs Village Development Committees

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organization

of 70

Executive Summary

1. This Strategic Action Plan was developed in continuation of the detailed strategy 1

that was established for nationwide implementation of disaster resilience (DR)

activities for Nepal and based on the previous successes of several ongoing DR

programs in Nepal such as the School Safety Program (SSP) and the School Sector

Reform Plan (2009-2015), including the formation of National Risk Reduction

Consortium (NRRC), comprising of five flagship programs.

What is Needed: The Plan

Finances

2. A total of about 55,725 Million NPR (nearly 560 Million USD), may be needed for

completing the DRR of all public schools in the country, in about 8 to 10 years

duration. A summary of the key budgetary requirements and cost components (in

Million NPR and percentage against the total) is provided below:

Direct Intervention Cost 48,150 86.4%

DOE and DEO Resources and Costs 2,350 4.2%

DUDBC Resources and Costs 375 0.7%

Various Types of Consulting 2,900 5.2%

Coordination, Monitoring, and Evaluations 200 0.4%

Awareness and Capacity Building 500 0.9%

Risk Assessments and Related Studies 300 0.5%

Research and Development 350 0.6%

Miscellaneous 600 1.1%

3. The total cost is estimated to be about 8,000 NPR (about 80 USD), per student

enrolled in the school system. This means the safety of nearly all children (enrolled

in schools) from natural disasters can be significantly improved/ensured by

spending about 10 USD, per child, per year for the next 8 years on school DRR. This

is equivalent to less than 1 USD per month per child.

4. Although, the estimate does not include the direct cost of intervention for private

schools, which is to be borne by the private sector or through other mechanisms,

the finances needed by DOE and DUDBC to implement the strategy proposed for

the private schools were already considered.

5. The cost of planning, design, management, certification, and coordination was

calculated to be about 15% of the total cost. A significant portion of this amount is

to be allocated for the detailed assessment of buildings, which could be reduced

through proper hazard and vulnerability studies and standardization.

6. Some of the cost components, such as the cost that may be additionally incurred

by the various ministries in GON, development partners, UN agencies, NGOs,

various professional organizations, academic institutes, and committees that

support the overall DRR process were not explicitly included in this estimates. These

incidentals are expected to be covered as part of the commitment of these

organizations to the cause.

1 Strategy for Increasing Disaster Resilience for Schools in Nepal. June 2014.

of 70

Prioritization

7. Considering the large scale of the intervention, it is important to prioritize the tasks

and schools identified for intervention, so that the finances and resources can be

allocated efficiently and utilized effectively. Three levels of prioritization are

considered:

a) Prioritizing the tasks that need be completed first, without which the DRR

process cannot be initiated. This includes generation of detailed school and

building inventory for all schools in the country, formulation of policies,

conducting/obtaining risk assessment studies, development of design criteria

and guidelines, classifications and categorizations, and development of

standardized solutions.

b) A macro-level (district) priority grouping for the implementation of the DRR

process which is primarily based on the anticipated disaster consequences.

This is done by assuming that the vulnerability of the buildings is of similar order

in all districts, and therefore considering the hazard levels, student density per

classroom, population density of the district, and the overall conditions of the

buildings as the main parameters. This prioritization is done with a view to gain

maximum benefit from the intervention.

c) A local-level prioritization of the individual schools and buildings, within the

districts, based on detailed assessments, and considering other relevant

factors. This is to be done at the implementation stage, and is not considered

in the current plan.

8. Four district-level priority groups have been initially planned based on the available

data. This grouping should be re-evaluated once the basic school inventory is

completed for the entire country. The categorized groups, number of districts in

each group, number of students in public schools that will benefit from the

intervention are presented below, together with associated cost:

Group-1 3 Districts of KV 151,385 Students 1,450 m NPR




9. It is very important to note, that for KV, more than 70% of the students are in the

private schools (about 3 times more of those enrolled in public schools). The focus

of priority Group-1 must on private schools, in addition to the ongoing and future

plans for public schools. The cost and corresponding number of students in private

schools is not included in these estimates.

Resources

10. The primary resources needed for implementation are from DOE, DUDBC, DEOs,

consultants, contractors, and coordination office; whereas the supporting

resources required are Technical Advisory Committee, Development Partners, UN

Agencies, INGOs, and NGOs.

11. The average number of estimated resources required during the execution and

implementation of the prioritized plan, over a period about 8 to 10 years, for the

main agencies are summarized as follows, together with the approximate number

of available resources for implementing the DRR process shown in parenthesis.

of 70

DOE, total staff in head office and 5 regional offices 150 (7)

DEO, total staff in all districts 625 (220)

DUDBC, total staff in head office and all districts 70 (5)

Consultants, all districts 160 (50)

Construction firms of various sizes 450 (200)

12. Based on the summary of resources (above), a significantly large number of staff

was estimated to be needed in DOE, DEO, and DUDBC to implement the DRR

activities. It is important to prepare the needed staff to be well-trained, and

capable of handling various aspects of the DRR process, as provided with

adequate facilities and incentives.

13. It is also clear that not enough consultants and construction firms may be available

to undertake the implementation tasks, especially considering that the same

consultants and contractors will also be needed for other ongoing and planned

development projects. Given their current commitments, the present roster of

consultants and construction firms will not be fully available for the planned school

DRR process. Therefore, the involvement of international firms will be essential to

supplement and support the local capacity.

On New Schools

14. In planning for the constructing new schools, an average of 35 students per

classroom was projected for each district for all schools (public and private).

Results show that by 2021, approximately 45,000 new classrooms must be

constructed to satisfy the projected demand in Nepal. Given that an estimated

20% of the new classrooms will be private, a total of 36,000 new public classrooms

will need to be constructed by 2021 in Nepal.

15. For the hilly and mountainous areas that are sparsely populated, innovative

solutions such as adopting an Education Village concept may prove to increase

occupancy rate in the classrooms by reducing the student’s travel from daily to weekly, increase mobilization effectiveness, and maximize the utilization of

resources. An Education Village will essentially transform underutilized school

infrastructures, with the possibility to merge with other schools, to provide both

academic and lodging facilities to students.

of 70

The Plan

of 70

Overall Plan for Increasing Disaster Resilience for Schools in Nepal

Chapter 1 Background

1.1 The Issue

16. Natural disasters have claimed the lives of more than 27,000 people between 1971

and 2007, indicating an average loss of more than 2 lives per day due to natural

disasters in Nepal. More people are killed by natural disasters in Nepal than any

other country in South Asia. In addition to high mortality, more than 50,000 people

were reported as injured, 3,000 people missing, and about 5 million people

affected by natural disasters. 2

17. With the increased understanding of disaster resilience (DR) in Nepal, many

programs have been initiated in many sectors to address the country’s vulnerability. This includes the establishment of the National Risk Reduction

Consortium (NRRC), comprising of five flagship programs.

18. One program was selected for large-scale country-wise implementation. The

School Safety Program (SSP), a Technical Assistance Program, was initiated and is


for International Development under the Flagship 1 of the NRRC. SSP is currently

being implemented through Nepal’s Department of Education (DOE), under the Ministry of Education (MOE) which is the government agency responsible also for

the school sector.

19. The program targeted about 260 public school buildings in Kathmandu Valley (KV)

for retrofitting. SSP also included capacity building programs for masons, teachers,

students, and professionals in the DOE within a 2-year duration starting from 2012.

Many of these activities have been successfully completed to date.


is only administered in KV, it has helped to identify several challenges, such as lack

of capacity and resources, need for better technological solutions, quality


coordination amongst various stakeholders. Tackling the DRR activities in the entire

country with a scale that is 300 times larger, spread over 75 districts, needs a clear

strategy and plan. Streamlining existing processes and developing innovative ways

to increase and sustain DR is the key to accomplishing scaling up.







22. This Strategic Action Plan was developed in continuation of the detailed strategy 3

that was developed for the nationwide expansion and implementation of DR

activities.

2 Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal: Flagship Programmes, The Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium. April 2011.

http://www.un.org.np/sites/default/files/report/2011-04-19-nrrc-doccument-version-april-2011.pdf 3 Strategy for Increasing Disaster Resilience for Schools in Nepal. June 2014.

of 70


1.2 In Brief: The Strategy

1.2.1 Increasing DR in Schools: Overall Strategies and Actions


programs related to DRR in Nepal. To ensure an increased effectiveness and

reduced instances of duplicated efforts, as well as to emphasize focus on DR of

schools, the strategies are divided into two categories; Linked and Stand-alone.


relevance to the National DRR initiatives, but will also impact the DR of the school















schools.









variations.











of 70





13. Increased community DR through the systematic and assured involvement

of the community in awareness, capacity building, intervention







outcomes.




national level.

1.2.2 Working Together: Ownership, Implementation, and Coordination








design, construction, and operations of schools, both in the public and private

domain. This may include enforcing a combination of certification and licensing

system, similar to that used for the operations of hospitals.

29. For the public schools, DOE will carry out all of the planning, execution

management, and coordination of the entire DRR process, in close coordination

with DEO and technical support from DUDBC. The actual execution of various work

items will be conducted by the consultants and contractors, with appropriate

involvements and support from the community, VDC, and INGOS/NGOS based on

several factors including location (urban/rural, mountains/hills/plains), type of

construction, size of buildings, and complexity of tasks.


through regulations, to gradually and progressively retrofit, relocate, or rebuild the






such as tax breaks.



of 70



budgets, facilities, and incentives.








consultants.










1.3 Nepal’s School Sector

35. Nepal is undergoing two momentous transformations – from a rural to an

urbanizing economy and from a unitary to a federal state. 4 Typical rural areas in

Nepal have a low population density and small settlements. Agricultural areas are

commonly rural. About 17% of the population resides in urban areas. With a

population of 2.5 million people, KV is growing at 4 % per year, one of the fastest-

growing metropolitan areas in South Asia. Several other districts, especially in the

plains, are also expanding at a significant rate.

36. There are primarily two types of schools in the country: public (community-based)

and private. Public schools receive regular government grants depending on their

sub-type, such as community-supported, community-aided, and community un-

aided. The private schools are funded and operated independently by individuals,

companies, or through other non-governmental organizations.

37. Public schools constitute about 84% of the total population of 6.3 million students.

Private schools, with only 16% of the total, have much greater presence in urban

areas. In case of KV, more than 75% of the students attend privately-operated

schools. It is believed, that with increased urbanization and economic growth,

enrolment in private schools is expected to grow at a faster rate than public

schools.

38. The districts in Nepal can be broadly grouped into administrative regions and

geographical/ecological belts based on terrain. Geographical grouping based on

terrain was considered together with the administrative grouping. However, KV has

4 Urban Growth and Spatial Transition in Nepal. 2013. http://issuu.com/world.bank.publications/docs/9780821396599

of 70


different characteristics compared to the other parts of the country and was

therefore considered separately.

39. The Ministry of Education (MOE) is the apex body responsible for initiating and

managing education activities in the country. MOE is mainly responsible for policy

development, planning and monitoring, and evaluation regarding different

aspects of education. The implementation of programs is handled by the

Department of Education (DOE).

40. For more details, a comprehensive report on Nepal’s school sector is available in the strategy document. 5

5 Strategy for Increasing Disaster Resilience for Schools in Nepal. June 2014.

of 70


Chapter 2 Strategic Action Plan

2.1 Overview

41. Following the established fifteen (15) strategies in two categories: Linked and

Stand-alone, a total of fifty-nine (59) actions were subsequently identified. This

chapter will provide details and linkages among agency involvement and

associated cost components, as further described in chapters 5, 6, and 7.

2.2 Action Plan Matrix

42. The Action Plan Matrix presented below lists the required actions for each strategy

to be implemented together with the agencies and stakeholders responsible for

implementing these actions. The matrix also indicates the associated cost

components that cover these actions. To perform resource and cost estimation,

several related and relevant actions have been grouped together.

Table 2-1: Action Plan Matrix

Sr.

No. Strategies Actions

Responsible

Agencies

Associated Cost

Components

A Linked Strategies

1 Increased awareness on the importance of DR

Awareness and

Capacity Building

Cost

1.1

Develop appropriate and focused

messaging material, in coordination with

international forums and guidelines, and

the NRRC communication unit

NRRC

Communication

Unit

1.2 Distribute communication materials to

relevant stakeholders NRRC

1.3

Carry out an extensive awareness

programs through various TV programs,

print and electronic media, and events

MOE/DOE

1.4

Set up special discussion groups and

forums through social media, and

launch a regular electronic newsletter

MOE/DOE

1.5 Engage teacher associations, student

groups, and youth organizations DOE

of 70


Sr.


Responsible

Agencies

Associated Cost

Components

(NPR millions)

2 Continuous reinforcement of political will and

commitment

<No direct cost

has been

assigned >

2.1

Develop a presentation and/or the

submission of strategic documents on

this issue to higher management

NRRC/DOE

2.2

Issuance of a policy statement, and

directives, supporting the DRR initiatives

in general, and DR of schools in

particular

DOE

2.3

Declaration from relevant ministries and

departments to own and commit to this

task, in accordance with the proposed

organizational frameworks

Council of Ministers

2.4

Re-affirmed commitment from the

heads of the development partners

and agencies to support this issue

Ministries and DP

2.5

Possibly signing of MOA by all

stakeholders to legitimize will and

commitment

DOE, DUDBC, DP,

UN-Agencies,

PABSON, AIN

2.6 Development and/or amendment of

policies, acts, and regulations MOE

3 Increased institutionalization and better

coordination

3.1

Identify the primary agencies

responsible for carrying out this task and

develop the corresponding

organizational structures

DOE, DUDBC DOE and DUDBC

Resources and

Cost

3.2

Provide institutional frameworks for the

implementation of this program,

considering all relevant stakeholders

DOE, DUDBC, DP,

UN-Agencies,

PABSON, AIN

Coordination,

Monitoring, and

Evaluation Cost

3.3

Create mechanisms within this program

to enable systematic reporting and

coordination for both the activities and

outcome

DOE, DUDBC,

Coordination

Office

Coordination,

Monitoring, and

Evaluation Cost

3.4

Set up a dedicated web portal and

contribute to open-sources networks

(such as OpenDRI) for information

dissemination and sharing

Coordination

Office

Coordination,

Monitoring, and

Evaluation Cost

4 Building Overall Capacity and Capability

Awareness and

Capacity Building

Cost

4.1

Increase awareness about DR and

Environmental Sustainability in basic

school curriculum

MOE/DOE

Awareness and

Capacity Building

Cost

of 70


Sr.


Responsible

Agencies

Associated Cost

Components

(NPR millions)

4.2

Focus on techniques and technologies

for retrofitting, constructing safer new

buildings and structures in vocational

trainings curriculum

CTEVT and Other

organizations

involved in

vocational

training and

certification

Awareness and

Capacity Building

Cost

4.3

Incorporate current trends and

developments in the field of DRR through

the universities curricula development in

various professional academic programs

Tribuan University,

Institute of

Engineers, other

Universities

Awareness and

Capacity Building

Cost

4.4

Focus on the proper application of

codes and new techniques through

professional organizations and programs

DUDBC,

Association of

Structural

Engineers

DUDBC Resources

and Cost

5 Facilitate and support local research

Research and

Development

Cost

5.1

Provide opportunity to work on locally

suitable solutions for technical

challenges faced for implementation,

through the allocation of appropriate

budgets and mechanisms

DOE, DUDBC,

Institute of

Engineers, other

Universities

5.2

Provide an opportunity for local

institutions to link with international

research organizations through program

and project network

DP, UN-Agencies,

MOE

5.3

Utilize the services offered by local

research centers for various tests,

verifications, and review

DOE, DUDBC,

Consultants,

Contractors

5.4

Create a database of centers in

universities, semi-public organizations, as

well as centers in private centers, listing

their capabilities and research interests

Coordination

Office

6 Development and/or amendment of policies, acts,

and regulations

Included in DOE

Costs

6.1

Create and maintain legal conditions

that address DR is necessary when

scaling up for country-wise

implementation

MOE

B Stand-alone Strategies

7 Building competency-based capability and capacity

Awareness and

Capacity Building

Cost

7.1 Establish the need for resources for

various tasks within different stakeholders

NRRC, DOE,

DUDBC

7.2

Develop a database of available

experts engaged in the capability and

capacity building

NRRC, DOE,

DUDBC

of 70


Sr.


Responsible

Agencies

Associated Cost

Components

(NPR millions)

7.3

Design consistent and integrated

programs and conduct these programs

while targeting the relevant groups

NRRC, DOE,

DUDBC

7.4

Ensure these programs are integrated

with other programs and projects to

avoid duplication of efforts

NRRC

8 Classification, categorization, and standardization

Included in DOE,

DUDBC, and

Consultancy

Costs

8.1

Generate the basic inventory data base

of all public and private schools

buildings, including basic information

about the physical characteristics

DOE, DEO,

Consultants

8.2

Classify and categorize buildings by

operator, by size, by age, material type,

condition, and location

DOE, DUDBC,

Consultants

8.3

Develop standardized intervention

approaches and details for various

categories

DOE, DUDBC,

Consultants

9 Prioritized increase in multi-hazard DR for public

schools

9.1

Standardize guidelines, procedures, and

tools for multi-hazard assessment and

intervention together with consideration

for appropriate structural and non-

structural aspects

DOE, Consultants

DOE and

Consultancy

Cost

9.2 Carry out preliminary data collection

and assessment DOE, Consultants

DOE and

Consultancy

Cost

9.3

Decide to either accept the building “as is” and move to certification process or for go for further review

DOE, Consultants

DOE and

Consultancy

Cost

9.4

Carry out second level evaluation and

decide approach from any of the

options mentioned in strategy document

DOE, Consultants

DOE and

Consultancy

Cost

9.5

Use an approach that combines

classification, categorization, and

standardization for prioritization,

planning, and implementation

DOE, Consultants,

Contractors,

Community, NGOS

Direct

Intervention Cost

10 Increased DRR of private schools

DOE and DUDBC

Resources and

Cost

10.1

Establish clear policies to obtain and

renew licenses for the operation of

private schools.

MOE/DOE, In

consultation with

PABSON and

parents

associations

of 70


Sr.


Responsible

Agencies

Associated Cost

Components

(NPR millions)

10.2

Formulate clear procedures, guidelines,

and supporting mechanisms for private

operators, to include the DR and

sustainability requirements

MOE/DOE, DUDBC

10.3

Notification and awareness building

about the new policies amongst all

stakeholders

MOE/DOE, DUDBC

10.4

Set timelines for the gradual

enforcement of the policies, starting with

awarding licenses for new schools,

followed by evaluating existing schools

to obtain and renew licenses

MOE/DOE, DUDBC

10.5

Set up mechanisms for providing

technical support to the operators by

providing guidelines and networking

services for engagement of qualified

professionals, contractors for carrying out

the construction work

MOE/DOE, DUDBC

10.6

Mechanism to provide soft loans, land

lease, and other performance-based

incentives, such as tax breaks for

achieving required levels of DR

MOE/DOE

10.7 Certification through DUDBC and other

municipal authorities

DOE, DUDBC,

Municipal

Authorities,

Consultants

DOE, DUDBC,

and

Consultancy

Cost

11 Integration of DRR into the overall SSRP and other

related plans

DOE and DEO

Resources and

Cost

11.1

Include basic information and

awareness about disaster resilience into

the overall annual teacher training plan

and other capacity building programs.

MOE/DOE

11.2 Infrastructure classroom standards to

include references to safety issues MOE/DOE

12 Certification and sustaining DRR levels

12.1

Identify the agency (or agencies) that

will carry out and award licenses and

certificates and develop appropriate

certification procedures, forms, and

guidelines

DOE, DUDBC, TAC,

and Consultants

DOE, DEO,

DUDBC

Resource and

Consultancy

Cost

12.2

Certify consultants, contractors, and

masons after going through the

capability and capacity building

programs, with possible mechanism for

better incentives

DOE, DUDBC, TAC

DOE, DEO,

DUDBC

Resource and

Consultancy

Cost

12.3

Intermediate review of design and

construction documents, site inspection

reports, photographs, and other QA/QC

records

DOE, DUDBC, TAC,

and Consultants

DOE, DEO,

DUDBC

Resource and

Consultancy

Cost

of 70


Sr.


Responsible

Agencies

Associated Cost

Components

(NPR millions)

12.4

Certify newly constructed buildings

including the retrofit of existing buildings

for public schools through qualified

inspectors, standardized procedures and

formats

DOE, DUDBC, TAC,

Consultants

DOE, DEO

DUDBC

Resource and

Consultancy

Cost

12.5

Certify new and retrofitting intervention

of private school buildings in

conformance with codes and standards

and construction quality by DUDBC and

local municipal councils

DUDBC,

Consultants

DUDBC

Resources and

Consultancy

Cost

12.6 Renewal of certification at intervals of 10

years through site inspections MOE/DOE

DOE and DEO

Resources and

Cost

13 Increasing DR of schools as a means for increasing the overall DR of the

community

13.1

Incorporate the declared rights of the

community to use the intervened parts

of school buildings as temporary and

emergency relief centers in case of

disasters

DOE, Consultants,

iNGOs/NGOs,

Community

13.2

Community participation in the

awareness building, preventative

activities, and other training and drills

conducted for school children

DOE, Consultants,

iNGOs/NGOs,

Community

13.3

Community participation in the capacity

development programs conducted as

part of projects undertaken in this plan,

either by the community, NGOs, or

contractors

DOE, Consultants,

iNGOs/NGOs,

Community

13.4

Active participation in the DR

intervention activities implemented

through the community

DOE, Contractors,

iNGOs/NGOs,

Community

13.5

Use of intervention processes as a

demonstration of the techniques for re-

use in other construction in the

community

DOE, Contractors,

iNGOs/NGOs,

Community

Direct

Intervention

Cost

14 Integration of DR into the academic and professional

curricula

Awareness and

Capacity

Building Cost

14.1

Integrate DR in education can be

implemented in four levels: basic

education, vocational, university,

graduate

MOE

15 Implementation of results-based monitoring and evaluation performance

management plans

Coordination,

Monitoring, and

Evaluation

15.1 Develop a comprehensive result based

M&E plan

DOE, DUDBC, DP,

UN-Agencies,

Consultants

15.2 Conduct continuous M&E, reporting, and

feedback

TAC, Coordination

Office, DP

of 70


Chapter 3 Classification and Categorization

43. This chapter includes details on the classification and categorization process of the

school data in Nepal. Based on various factors, classifying and categorizing

enabled the development of definite forms and structures to facilitate

interpretation in the most systematic and effective manner to estimate costs and

resources.

3.1 Need for Classification and Categorization

44. School building data in Nepal have been grouped into various categories based

on different factors such as the country’s topology, administration types, and

projected population growth. The diversified nature of the country particularly on

geography and the varying development levels greatly affect the building

typology and the way they are being operated. To logical allocate and effectively

and systematically mobilize resources, it is necessary to have a separate plan of

intervention based on these various categories of school buildings.

3.2 School and Building Categories

45. The school buildings all over the country have been classified based on following

categories:

a. Ecological belt wise

b. Region wise

c. District wise

d. Development area wise

e. Ownership

f. Building typology

g. Building size

46. Table 3-1 lists various categories of data and factors identified and used in the

analysis of the data related to the academic institutions. A total of 81 classifications

has been considered for cost and resource planning.

Table 3-1: Building Categorization Basis for the Academic Institutions in Nepal

Categorization Classification/Types

Ecological Belt Location

Terai/plains

Hilly areas

Mountains

Administrative Region

East

West

Central

Mid-west

Far-west

District Location Kathmandu Valley

All other Districts(73)

of 70


Development Areas Urban

Rural

Ownership Private

Public

Building Typology

RC Frame with infill walls

Un-Reinforced Masonry (URM)

Other types (Stone masonry, mixed systems

etc.)

Building Size

Type –A: Less than 150 sqm, less than 100

students, 4 rooms

Type –B: 151 to 500 sqm, less than 400 students,

10 rooms

Type-C: Larger than 500 sqm

47. The size of the school buildings considered in the framework and planning are

tentatively defined as:

Table 3-2: Building Size Categorization Description

Building Categories Description

Large

(Category A)

Buildings not categorized as small or medium and less

than 150 sqm

Medium

(Category B)

Buildings up to 4 stories, total area less than 1000 sqm

With about 5 to 10 rooms, not more than 300 students

Intervention cost expected to be less than 5.0 M NPR

These buildings may have varying and specific layouts,

but are not expected to be too complex, and some

level of standardization will apply

Small

(Category C)

Building 1 to 2 stories, total area less than 200 sqm

With up to 4 rooms, not more than 100 students

Intervention cost expected to be less than 1.0 M NPR

These are expected to be simple in configuration, for

which standardized details should be possible, similar

to Type Design

48. Based on development areas, schools are classified in to two groups, rural schools

and urban schools. In addition, schools which are located in municipalities and

district headquarters are classified as urban schools while remaining schools are

classified as rural schools.

49. The latest municipality numbers as per the decision made by GON in May, 2014

are considered for this classification purpose.

3.3 Data Collection and Assimilation

50. The estimation of resources, cost, and time was based on the extrapolation of the

limited data based on the additional information from SSP, OpenDRI, feedback

from various sources, and the Consultant’s expert judgment. The following data sources and data set were used as the primary basis:

a. Basic data about all the schools in Nepal from the EMIS database. This contains

the following information:

of 70


Table 3-3: Information in EMIS Database for All Schools in Nepal

Sr. No. Category Description of Data

1 School

Number

Under this category, each school is designated with a unique number. The

number is assigned in such a way that first one or two digits are

representing district code; next three digits are for VDC code. Whereas

remaining digits are representing numbers of school.

2 District Code

and Name

The data for schools is enlisted with district code. The district number is also

represented in school number.

3 VDC Code

and Name

In addition to the district code and name, the schools data is summarized

with VDC Code and Name.

4 School

Name

The EMIS data for all over Nepal also provides proper school names with

school level, such as primary, secondary, and higher secondary schools.

5 Location

and Ward

No.

Under these categories, the location of school is mentioned with city or

village name where school is located with ward number.

6 Established

Data

The established date of each school is given under established date

category. The established date is provided in BS, however current BS year

is also given.

7 Number of

Students

This is a very broad category which is summarized with the total number of

students for different grades i.e. Grade 1 to 12 for each school. In addition

to the total number of students, this category also provides the number of

students in each school and grade with respect to the gender i.e. number

of boys and girls in different grades.

8 Availability of

School wise

Physical

Facilities

Under this category, physical information about each school is

summarized under further sub-categories which are listed below;

Number of buildings,

Rigid buildings,

Weak buildings,

Total number of classrooms,

Rigid classrooms,

Weak classrooms,

Classrooms currently under retrofitting, and

Required retrofitting classrooms.

b. Supplemental data from MOE Flagship Report 2012 about schools and students

for various districts. This data set was used to extract, supplement, and estimate

some additional information from the EMIS database.

Table 3-4: Additional Data from MOE Flash Report

Sr. No. Category Description of Data

1 District code and

name

Flash Report data is enlisted with district code, name, and region

code. The district codes are in accordance with the district codes

of EMIS data. Each district is placed into the proper regions and

belt.

2 Total number of

schools

This is very broad category which is enlisted with total number of

schools in each district with respect to the grade (1 to 12) and

level of school such as primary, lower secondary, basic,

secondary, and higher secondary. Further total numbers of

schools in each district are also divided into total community and

institutional schools for each grade and level.

of 70


3 Total number of

students

Similar to the number of schools, total number of students in each

districts are also provided in Flash Report data with respect to the

level of school. However, the numbers of students are not

provided for different grades and with respect to the gender.

c. Population, area, and approximate seismic zone levels for all the districts from

various sources.

d. Current organization and location of offices, etc. for all DOE, DEO, and DUDBC,

as well as the information about local government VDCs, NGOs, and other

related organizations.

e. The extended data about the school buildings from the open DRI data for the

three districts in KV.

f. The detailed information obtained from the ongoing SSP about the retrofit

procedures, methodologies, cost, and other resources, for the three districts in

KV.

g. The common building types used for the school buildings in various belts, as

well as the relative cost variation based on the base cost in KV.

3.4 Public and Private Schools

51. In addition to the distinct categorization of public and private schools,

considerations pertaining to the spatial and demographic distribution of various

school-related indicators is important for the estimation of resources and costs. The

following parameters are considered:

a. The three ecological belts: Terai (plains), elevated lands (hills), and

mountains.

b. Five administrative regions: east, central, west, mid-west, and far-west.

c. Seventy-three districts, plus KV comprising three districts.

d. Two development categories: urban and rural.

Table 3-5: Number of Schools in Various Distribution Parameters

Sr. no. Parameters Public Private

Numbers Percentage Numbers Percentage

a

Plains/Terai 9,130 85% 1,630 15%

Hills 17,245 85% 2,953 15%

Mountains 4,065 95% 200 5%

b

East 6,732 88% 958 12%

Central 8,243 79% 2,183 21%

West 6,585 86% 1,062 14%

Mid-west 4,910 93% 345 7%

Far-west 3,970 94% 235 6%

c Kathmandu Valley 642 29% 1,585 71%

All Other Districts(72) 29,798 90% 3,198 10%

d

Urban 3,826 73% 1,393 27%

Rural 25,972 94% 1,805 6%

Kathmandu Valley 642 29% 1,585 71%

of 70


3.4.1 Schools in Kathmandu Valley

52. Several studies and programs are focused on the DRR of the valley including a

focus on the schools. The basic data derived from EMIS is shown for the three

districts in the valley. This helps provide a guide/comparison for the data with

respect to the rest of the country.

53. With more data and information available, it is possible to analyze the types of

building structures, number of stories, and the material used for the schools in the

valley. This data set was also used to extrapolate some of the data available from

EMIS. The following information was generated based on what was retrieved from

the OpenDRI data. There seems to be some significant differences between the

EMIS and OpenDRI database for some of the numbers. It is recommended to

reconcile these numbers between the two data sources.

Figure 3-1: Distribution of School-related Indicators in the Kathmandu Valley

of 70


Figure 3-2: Distribution of Various School Indicators in Districts

55. Table 3-6 shows the school distribution data based on various factors in KV which

comprises of three main districts. The percentage of private schools is higher as

compared to public schools.

Table 3-6: School Distribution in Kathmandu Valley (Public vs. Private)

Sr.

No.

Districts

All Schools Public Private

Students Schools Buildings Classrooms Schools Schools

1 Lalitpur 122,082 770 838 7,374 205 565

2 Bhaktapur 57,519 362 788 5,207 135 227

3 Kathmandu 365,649 1,095 1,048 7,157 302 793

Total KV 545,250 2,227 2,674 19,738 642 1,585

Table 3-7: School Building Typology Distribution in Kathmandu Valley

Sr.

No.Districts

RC URM Others RC URM Others RC URM Others RC URM Others Total

1 Lal i tpur 23 108 9 99 272 19 49 108 5 171 488 33 692

2 Bhaktapur 22 101 9 93 254 18 46 101 4 161 456 31 648

3 Kathmandu 29 134 12 124 340 25 61 134 7 214 608 44 866

Total 74 343 30 316 866 62 156 343 16 546 1,552 108 2,206

Total One Time InterventionRebuild Incremental Intervention

of 70


3.4.3 On Private Schools

56. For private schools, the DR process will mostly involve the establishment and

enforcement of the policy and requirements and corresponding certification. The

actual implementation of the DRR options will be entrusted to the owners and

operators of the schools, managed and enforced by DUDBC and other municipal

authorities.

57. Strategy 10 directly addresses private schools wherein increasing DR will be

attributed to solutions using a combination of appropriate regulations, licensing,

certification, support and incentives, and close collaboration among all sectors

involve both in the respective government agencies (MOE/DOE, MOUD/DUDBC,

municipal authorities) and private sectors (PABSON, consultants).

58. The classification or categorization of buildings and subsequent costing for direct

intervention were not carried out for private schools at this time due to limited

access and information on the particulars of private school operations.

59. Based on the discussions and viewpoints shared by the representatives of the

Private and Boarding School Organization of Nepal (PABSON), it seems that their

involvement with the ongoing School DRR program is a great possibility under

somewhat ideal conditions.

60. PABSON representatives expressed that they welcome policies in order to

implement the DR programs in private schools. Since the major hindrance to

retrofitting is that most of the school buildings are currently in rented buildings that

were not particularly designed for use as schools, or a combination of the two,

PABSON has expressed willingness to explore constructing new school facilities

adhering to DR standards if the government can provide unused governmental

land or other areas in the nearby localities. In addition, the president of PABSON

confirmed commitment of the private school owners/operators to carry out

retrofitting school buildings if soft loans can be provided. Rating schools based

vulnerability is not an option PABSON is keen on since it can directly hamper their

business. However, voluntary audits may be acceptable.

3.5 Categories of Public Schools for Intervention

61. Public schools have been further classified into public rural and public urban to

estimate the costs and resources at the appropriate level as specified earlier in

Table 3-2: Building Size Categorization Description. The following tables show the

estimated numbers for various sizes of school buildings in different administrative

and ecological belts.

62. It is clear from these tables that more urban school buildings are located in plains

compared to hills and mountains, and in the eastern, central and western region,

compared to mid and far western regions.

of 70


Table 3-8: Ecological Belt-wise School Building Size Distribution

Ecological

Belts

Public Urban Public Rural Total School Buildings

A B C A B C A B C Total

Mountain 483 506 15 3,747 4,775 211 4,230 5,281 226 9,737

Hill 2,451 2,085 77 16,947 21,409 964 19,398 23,494 1,041 43,933

Terai/Plain 3,643 2,113 222 9,464 10,518 1,177 13,107 12,631 1,399 27,137

Total 6,577 4,704 314 30,158 36,702 2,352 36,735 41,406 2,666 80,807

Table 3-9: Ecological Belt-wise School Building Size Distribution

Administrative

Regions

Public Urban Public Rural Total School Buildings

A B C A B C A B C Total

East 1,820 1,222 60 7,602 8,715 588 9,422 9,937 648 20,007

Central 1,497 1,022 83 7,027 8,718 809 8,524 9,740 892 19,156

West 1,772 1,180 58 7,324 7,547 290 9,096 8,727 348 18,171

Mid-west 644 615 25 4,435 6,768 268 5,079 7,383 293 12,755

Far-west 844 665 88 3,770 4,954 397 4,614 5,619 485 10,718

Total 6,577 4,704 314 30,158 36,702 2,352 36,735 41,406 2,666 80,807

63. The number of school buildings was also estimated for various regions based on

the type of material and primary structural system used for construction (Table 3-

10). This information is vital for the cost and resource estimation.

64. Another important classification needed for the cost and resources estimation is

the number of school buildings that may need to be demolished and rebuilt,

intervened by on-time retrofitting or may be suitable for incremental safety

implementation. A summary of these numbers is shown in Table 3-11.

of 70


Table 3-10: Administrative Region-wise Building Typology Distribution (Excluding KV)

Table 3-11: Administrative Region-wise School Building Numbers for Rebuild, One Time

Intervention and Incremental Intervention (Excluding KV)

RC URM Others RC URM Others RC URM Others RC URM Others Total

East 93 1,560 2,721 428 3,931 5,470 203 1,560 1,622 724 7,051 9,813 17,588

Plain 74 1,377 94 320 3,454 196 157 1,377 52 551 6,208 342 7,101

Hill 19 176 2,021 101 455 4,056 45 176 1,207 165 807 7,284 8,256

Mountain 0 7 606 7 22 1,218 1 7 363 8 36 2,187 2,231

Central 84 1,493 2,607 406 3,765 5,234 191 1,493 1,554 681 6,751 9,395 16,827

Plain 66 1,321 89 303 3,316 186 145 1,321 49 514 5,958 324 6,796

Hill 18 165 1,884 96 425 3,775 44 165 1,126 158 755 6,785 7,698

Mountain 0 7 634 7 24 1,273 2 7 379 9 38 2,286 2,333

West 67 1,006 3,025 322 2,547 6,070 152 1,006 1,807 541 4,559 10,902 16,002

Plain 39 750 50 174 1,887 107 84 750 30 297 3,387 187 3,871

Hill 28 256 2,918 148 660 5,849 68 256 1,744 244 1,172 10,511 11,927

Mountain 0 0 57 0 0 114 0 0 33 0 0 204 204

Mid west 44 733 2,079 215 1,862 4,179 101 733 1,239 360 3,328 7,497 11,185

Plain 30 591 39 134 1,483 83 64 591 23 228 2,665 145 3,038

Hill 14 141 1,627 80 366 3,264 37 141 971 131 648 5,862 6,641

Mountain 0 1 413 1 13 832 0 1 245 1 15 1,490 1,506

Farwest 40 645 1,723 184 1,627 3,460 87 645 1,028 311 2,917 6,211 9,439

Plain 30 546 38 126 1,365 78 62 546 22 218 2,457 138 2,813

Hill 10 92 1,059 51 240 2,122 23 92 631 84 424 3,812 4,320

Mountain 0 7 626 7 22 1,260 2 7 375 9 36 2,261 2,306

328 5,437 12,155 1,555 13,732 24,413 734 5,437 7,250 2,617 24,606 43,818 71,041

Rebuild Major Retrofit Minor Retrofit Total

Sr.

No.Rebuild

One Time

Intervention

Incremental

Intervention

1 East 4,374 9,829 3,385

2 Central 4,184 9,405 3,238

3 West 4,098 8,939 2,965

4 Mid west 2,856 6,256 2,073

5 Farwest 2,408 5,271 1,760

17,920 39,700 13,421Total

Regions

of 70


Chapter 4 Parameters Used for Estimation

65. The combined data from a, b, and d, as listed in section 4.3 Data Collection and

Assimilation were used as the primary basis for the cost and resource estimation

purposes, first performed at the district level and then summarized, and

subsequently computed at the region and belt level. Several assumptions and

judgments regarding various aspects follows in the next paragraphs.

66. Approximate distributions (percentages) of building types of RC frame (with in-fill

walls), unreinforced masonry (URM), including both mud and cement mortar and

other types of buildings is determined from the analysis of available data from SSP,

OpenDRI, and discussions with relevant experts. This was broadly based on the

location of the districts in mountain, hill, and plain belts as shown in the following

table.

Regions RC Frame Brick URM Others

KV 30% 65% 5%

Plains 10% 85% 5%

Hills 3% 10% 87%

Mountains 1% 2% 97%

67. The cost was computed by a fairly comprehensive analysis by dividing the

buildings, first into three types of construction/structure type (RC frame with infill

walls, URM, and others mostly including the stone masonry and other materials);

and then into four categories according to the level of intervention for each type.

These are:

a. Buildings that need to be rebuilt, because of high vulnerability, or very old

age, or where retrofit is not practical;

b. Buildings that need major retrofit, and may be carried out by using one-

time, direct intervention;

c. Buildings that may need minor retrofit, and could be accomplished by

using the increment approach, over a longer period of time; and

d. Buildings that may need any intervention, because they have already

been retrofitted, or newly constructed using type designs, or may of very

low vulnerability.

68. The approximate percentages of these categories for the three construction

materials follow.

Intervention Level RC Frame Brick URM Others

May need to Rebuild 5% 15% 20%

May need Major Retrofit, using

one-time retrofit 35% 40% 45%

May need Minor Retrofit, using

Incremental approach 35% 30% 20%

May not need intervention 25% 15% 15%

69. These were estimated based on the study of various relevant documents and the

expert judgment of the Consultant. The entire cost model was linked to these

of 70


assumed percentages, and if needed can be revised when improved or alternate

percentages become available through proper surveys and evaluation.

70. The cost was estimated by first estimating the area of buildings in various

categories in each district. The number of classrooms from the EMIS database were

taken as the main indicator. By using an average area of about 50 sqm per

classroom, including margin for the corridors, and staff rooms; the average costs

determined from SSP, with adjustments for various regions and future changes due

to improved technologies, scaling up benefits, contactors cost, and design cost

were then used as the basis.

71. The resources were then estimated based on the size of the typical school

buildings. The building sizes were categorized into small, medium, and large; then

the estimated number of buildings in each category and each district were

estimated based on number of average classrooms per building. These figures for

the typical building units were calculated for resource estimation only and may not

match with the actual number of buildings on ground. This was due to the fact that

the “total no. of classrooms” was given for each school, not per building.

72. The number of engineers in various departments and the number of consultants

and contractors were estimated based on the person-daily input for various tasks,

which were estimated based on the discussions held with officials and through

other sources. These resource estimates were then used to estimate the time

frame, with due consideration to the realistic availability of these resources for the

DRR process.

73. An estimation of the number of school buildings that may be implemented through

the assistance of the community and the NGOs was also assessed based on the

size and type of school buildings in various districts and regions.

74. The base cost was estimated on the basis of the retrofitting works being carried out

for KV under the ongoing SSP, and was further modified for appreciated cost

variation factors for each belt as shown below. The corrected cost was assigned

to all schools buildings in each district to compute the total cost of intervention for

various levels and types.

Regions RC Frame Brick URM Others

KV 1 1 1

Plains 1 0.9 0.9

Hills 1.5 1.5 0.7

Mountains 2 1.7 0.7

of 70


4.1 Additional Data Needed For Improved Planning

75. This current planning process was based on several assumptions and

approximations of the basic data.

76. For improved planning, the following additional information is recommended to be

collected through DEO and approved in the EMIS database, as indicated in

strategy action 8.1 in the Strategic Action Plan matrix.

a. Basic information about each building, in all schools in the entire country:

Unique Building Code/ID, including school ID

Primary building construction material

o Concrete frame/walls

o Brick masonry

o Stone masonry

o Other mixed types

Number of stories

Number of classrooms

A few photographs of the building if possible

Year of construction of building

b. Basic price indicators for various districts on the following items:

Main labor components: skilled labor and mason per day

Unskilled labor per day

Main materials:

o Cement

o Bricks

o Sand

o Stone rubble

o Rebars

o Structural steel

o Steel wire mesh

of 70


Chapter 5 Resource Estimation

77. Given that detailed data and information are not available on the hazard levels,

vulnerability size of buildings, number of stories, and type of construction materials

for the individual buildings for the district.

78. The procedure for the estimate of all costs, priority, resource, and time were based

on the available data, information, and set of assumptions, extrapolations,

indicators, and judgments. Changes in any assumed parameter or the availability

of more accurate or relevant data will result in a different set of estimates.

Therefore, the numbers and figures presented in this plan cannot be considered as

accurate at this stage. However the information presented here was based on

systematic analysis and then cross-checked with prevalent cost indicators and

previous experiences of the Consultant. The figures may be considered reasonable

and reliable for planning purposes up to a (+/-) 15% possible variation.

5.1 Procedure for Resource Estimation

79. It is very important that the DOE & DUDBC are provided appropriate and

adequate resources, facilities, and funds that are in addition to their normal

budget allocation and is specific to the management of the overall school DRR

process to ensure that the work can be carried out effectively. The cost of the

resources should be built into the overall plan.

80. The estimation of the required resources here in various categories has been

estimated using the following procedure:

a. The basic time input (person, days) for carrying out various activities for the staff

of the different departments and organizations were estimated based on the

ongoing SSP and supplemented by other additional information and

references. These resources input were factored to account for the buildings

that need to be rebuilt. The buildings that need major one-time intervention

and those that will be handled through incremental approach. Consideration

was also given to the type of construction/ material, for example, RC Frame,

URM, others, as well as the size of the building (Type A, B, C).

b. The basic resource needs were then multiplied by the appropriate number of

buildings, in each district to estimate the total person-days needed for

completing various tasks by different resources.

c. Those input needs were then summarized for the administrative regions, for the

seismological belts, and finally by the priority groups for intervention.

d. The person-days were then converted to person-months, based on the number

of working days, and finally used to compute the required number of

resources, for completing the task in assumed time-frame. If the number of

required resources seems excessive, then the number of resources was fixed as

appropriate and the required time was estimated.

of 70


5.2 DOE Resources

81. As indicated in the Action Plan Matrix, DOE and the DEOs are proposed to be the

primary executing agency for the school DRR process. The resources needed by

the DOE head office, and the DEOs at each district level have been estimated

based on the experience gained from the ongoing SSP and other parameters as

described in Chapter 7. The following tables summarize the estimated resources

(person-months) and the corresponding cost for various tasks for various types of

interventions.

82. The DOE head office is primarily responsible for the overall planning, management,

and coordination of the entire process. Therefore the resources needed for these

two tasks are the major components; detailed work on assessment and design and

implementation will be carried out under the respective DEOs in each district.

83. The resources indicted in following tables may be placed in the proposed new

section in DOE for managing the school physical infrastructure. Approximately 180

persons may be needed to manage the entire process for 6 to 8 years. Some of

these will be in main office and some in the five regional offices.

Table 5-1: DOE Resources and Cost Summary for KV

Task

Rebuild Major Minor All Rebuild Major Minor All

Planning 18 100 52 169 0.54 02.99 01.55 5.07

Design Management 1 12 6 20 0.04 0.45 0.23 0.72

Bidding, Billing 3 7 5 15 0.10 0.22 0.14 0.46

QE/QA/AC 1 5 2 9 0.05 0.18 0.08 0.31

Coordination 18 51 32 101 0.77 2.15 01.33 4.25

Certification 14 38 16 68 0.50 1.38 0.57 2.45

Reporting 2 5 3 10 0.06 0.15 0.10 0.30

Total 58 219 115 392 2.05 7.52 3.99 13.56

Required Resource (Person-Months)Resource Cost

(NPR Mill ions)

of 70


Table 5-2: DOE Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas

TaskPriority

Group


Planning 2 193 953 453 1,600 5.95 29.30 13.94 49.19

3 217 840 353 1,410 6.67 25.83 10.86 43.36

4 215 829 350 1,394 6.61 25.48 10.77 42.86

Total 625 2,622 1,157 4,403 19.23 80.61 35.57 135.41

Design Management 2 12 119 57 188 0.45 4.40 2.09 6.93

3 14 105 44 163 0.50 3.87 1.63 6.00

4 13 104 44 161 0.50 3.82 1.62 5.93

Total 39 328 145 511 1.44 12.09 5.33 18.87

Bidding, Billing 2 36 71 41 149 1.12 2.20 1.25 4.57

3 41 63 32 135 1.25 1.94 0.98 4.16

4 40 62 32 134 1.24 1.91 0.97 4.12

Total 117 197 104 418 3.61 6.05 3.20 12.85

QE/QA/AC 2 15 48 18 81 0.54 1.77 0.67 2.98

3 16 42 14 73 0.60 1.55 0.52 2.68

4 16 42 14 72 0.60 1.53 0.52 2.65

Total 47 131 46 225 1.74 4.85 1.71 8.30

Coordination 2 194 479 273 946 8.37 20.61 11.76 40.74

3 217 421 212 851 9.36 18.13 9.14 36.63

4 215 415 210 841 9.27 17.87 9.06 36.20

Total 627 1,315 696 2,638 26.99 56.61 29.96 113.57

Certification 2 146 359 137 641 5.38 13.25 5.04 23.67

3 163 316 106 585 6.02 11.65 3.92 21.59

4 162 311 105 578 5.96 11.49 3.88 21.33

Total 470 986 348 1,805 17.35 36.39 12.84 66.59

Reporting 2 19 48 27 95 0.60 1.47 0.84 2.91

3 22 42 21 85 0.67 1.29 0.65 2.62

4 22 42 21 84 0.66 1.28 0.65 2.59

Total 63 131 70 264 1.93 4.04 2.14 8.11

Total 1,989 5,710 2,565 10,264 72.29 200.65 90.76 363.69

Required Resource (Person-Months)Resource Cost

(NPR Mi l l ion)

of 70


Table 5-3: DOE Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Urban Areas

Total Resources (Rural, Urban, KV)

TasksPriority

Group


Planning 2 45 233 111 389 01.35 06.99 03.32 011.66

3 25 99 40 164 0.74 02.98 01.19 04.91

4 24 102 37 164 0.72 03.07 01.12 04.91

Total 94 435 188 716 02.81 013.04 05.63 021.48


3 2 12 5 19 0.06 0.45 0.18 0.68

4 1 13 5 19 0.05 0.46 0.17 0.68

Total 6 54 23 84 0.21 01.96 0.85 03.01

Bidding, Billing 2 8 17 10 36 0.25 0.52 0.30 01.08

3 5 7 4 16 0.14 0.22 0.11 0.47

4 4 8 3 16 0.13 0.23 0.10 0.47

Total 18 33 17 67 0.53 0.98 0.51 02.01

QE/QA/AC 2 3 12 4 20 0.12 0.42 0.16 0.70

3 2 5 2 8 0.07 0.18 0.06 0.30

4 2 5 1 8 0.06 0.18 0.05 0.30

Total 7 22 8 36 0.25 0.78 0.27 01.31

Coordination 2 45 117 67 229 01.89 04.91 02.80 09.60

3 25 50 24 98 01.04 02.09 01.00 04.13

4 24 51 22 98 01.00 02.15 0.94 04.10

Total 94 218 113 424 03.93 09.15 04.74 017.82

Certification 2 34 88 33 155 01.22 03.16 01.20 05.57

3 19 37 12 68 0.67 01.34 0.43 02.44

4 18 38 11 68 0.64 01.38 0.40 02.43

Total 70 163 56 290 02.53 05.88 02.03 010.44

Reporting 2 5 12 7 23 0.14 0.35 0.20 0.69

3 2 5 2 10 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.29

4 2 5 2 10 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.29

Total 9 22 11 42 0.28 0.65 0.34 01.27

Total 297 946 416 1,660 10.54 32.44 14.37 57.35

Required Resource

(Person-Months)

Resource Cost

(NPR Million)

of 70


Table 5-4: DOE Required Resources and Cost for Total Public School Buildings including KV

TasksPriority

Group


Plannig 1 18 100 52 169 0.54 02.99 01.55 05.07

2 238 1,186 564 1,988 07.30 36.30 17.26 60.85

3 242 939 393 1,574 07.41 28.81 12.05 48.27

4 239 931 388 1,557 07.33 28.55 11.89 47.77

Total 737 3,156 1,396 5,288 22.57 96.64 42.74 161.96


2 15 148 70 234 0.55 05.44 02.59 08.58

3 15 117 49 182 0.56 04.32 01.81 06.68

4 15 116 48 180 0.55 04.28 01.78 06.62

Total 46 394 174 615 1.69 14.50 6.41 22.60

Bidding, Billing 1 3 7 5 15 0.10 0.22 0.14 0.46

2 45 89 51 184 01.37 02.72 01.55 05.64

3 45 70 35 151 01.39 02.16 01.08 04.63

4 45 70 35 149 01.37 02.14 01.07 04.59

Total 138 237 126 500 04.23 07.25 03.85 15.33

QE/QA/AC 1 1 5 2 9 0.05 0.18 0.08 0.31

2 18 60 23 100 0.66 02.19 0.83 03.68

3 18 47 16 81 0.67 01.73 0.58 02.98

4 18 47 16 80 0.66 01.72 0.57 02.95

Total 55 158 56 270 02.04 05.82 02.06 09.92

Coordination 1 18 51 32 101 0.77 02.15 01.33 04.25

2 239 596 340 1,175 10.26 25.52 14.56 50.34

3 242 471 236 949 10.39 20.22 10.15 40.76

4 239 466 233 938 10.27 20.02 10.00 40.29

Total 739 1,584 841 3,164 31.70 67.90 36.04 135.64

Certification 1 14 38 16 68 0.50 01.38 0.57 02.45

2 180 447 170 796 06.60 16.41 06.24 29.24

3 182 353 118 653 06.68 13.00 04.35 24.03

4 179 350 116 646 06.60 12.87 04.29 23.76

Total 554 1,188 420 2,162 20.38 43.65 15.44 79.47

Reporting 1 2 5 3 10 0.06 0.15 0.10 0.30

2 24 60 34 117 0.73 01.82 01.04 03.60

3 24 47 24 95 0.74 01.44 0.72 02.91

4 24 47 23 94 0.73 01.43 0.71 02.88

Total 74 158 84 316 02.26 04.85 02.57 09.69

Total 2,344 6,876 3,097 12,316 84.87 240.61 109.12 434.60

Required Resource

(Person-Months)

Resource Cost

(NPR Mill ion)

of 70


5.3 DEO Resources

84. Most of the work for individual school buildings are expected to be managed

through the DEOs in each district. This includes coordination with head office,

engagement of consultants, assessment and evaluation of the buildings, design

management, execution management and supervision, Q/A, and reporting. The

summary of the resources needed for these tasks and corresponding costs are

summarized in Tables 5-5 to 5-8. The detailed estimates at the district level are

shown in subsequent tables and figures.

85. The costing was based on average salary of DEO staff engaged in various tasks.

Table 5-5: DEO Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in KV

Table 5-6: DEO Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas

Task


Assesment 19 53 22 94 0.57 01.59 0.66 02.82

Design Management 1 13 4 18 0.04 0.45 0.14 0.63

Bidding, Billing 7 16 5 28 0.21 0.47 0.15 0.83

Exec Mngt 12 43 13 68 0.35 01.29 0.40 02.04

Exec Supervision 442 1,642 170 2,254 10.60 39.41 4.08 54.08

QE/QA/AC 1 5 2 8 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.25

Reporting 18 50 15 83 0.43 1.19 0.37 01.99

Total 499 1,821 232 2,552 12.23 44.56 5.86 62.66

Required Resource

(Person-Months)

Resource Cost

(NPR Mill ions)

TaskPriority

Group


Assesment 2 166 410 156 732 5.10 12.61 4.79 22.50

3 184 358 120 662 5.66 11.00 3.70 20.36

4 176 339 115 630 5.42 10.42 3.54 19.38

Total 526 1,107 391 2,024 16.19 34.03 12.02 62.24


3 11 86 22 119 0.41 3.18 0.80 4.39

4 11 84 21 117 0.40 3.11 0.79 4.30

Total 32 270 71 374 1.19 9.98 2.64 13.80

Bidding, Billing 2 63 125 36 224 1.94 3.84 1.09 6.88

3 69 108 27 204 2.13 3.31 0.83 6.28

4 68 105 27 200 2.10 3.24 0.82 6.16

Total 201 338 89 628 6.18 10.40 2.75 19.32

Exec Mngt 2 117 386 110 614 3.61 11.87 3.39 18.87

3 131 338 85 554 4.02 10.40 2.62 17.05

4 130 333 84 547 3.98 10.24 2.59 16.82

Total 378 1,057 280 1,715 11.62 32.51 8.60 52.73

Exec Supervision 2 3,868 12,726 1,206 17,800 95.15 313.07 29.66 437.88

3 4,292 11,094 931 16,316 105.59 272.90 22.89 401.38

4 4,132 10,578 895 15,605 101.64 260.23 22.02 383.89

Total 12,292 34,398 3,031 49,722 302.38 846.20 74.57 1,223.15

QE/QA/AC 2 15 48 18 80 0.45 1.47 0.56 2.47

3 16 42 14 72 0.50 1.29 0.43 2.23

4 16 41 14 72 0.50 1.27 0.43 2.20

Total 47 131 46 224 1.44 4.03 1.42 6.90

Reporting 2 193 476 136 806 4.76 11.72 3.34 19.83

3 217 420 106 743 5.33 10.33 2.61 18.27

4 215 414 105 734 5.29 10.19 2.58 18.06

Total 625 1,311 347 2,283 15.38 32.25 8.54 56.16

Total 14,101 38,613 4,256 56,970 354.37 969.39 110.53 1,434.30

Resource Cost

(NPR Mi l l ion)

Required Resource

(Person-Months)

of 70


Table 5-7: DEO Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Urban Areas

TaskPriority

Group


Assesment 2 35 91 34 161 01.05 02.74 01.03 04.83

3 19 38 12 70 0.57 01.15 0.36 02.09

4 19 40 12 71 0.56 01.21 0.35 02.13

Total 73 170 58 301 02.19 05.10 01.75 09.04


3 1 10 2 14 0.04 0.36 0.09 0.49

4 1 10 2 14 0.04 0.37 0.08 0.49

Total 5 44 11 61 0.17 01.60 0.41 02.18

Bidding, Billing 2 14 30 9 53 0.43 0.90 0.26 01.59

3 8 13 3 23 0.23 0.38 0.09 0.70

4 7 13 3 23 0.22 0.39 0.08 0.70

Total 30 55 14 99 0.89 01.66 0.43 02.98

Exec Mngt 2 27 94 27 148 0.81 02.82 0.80 04.44

3 15 40 10 64 0.45 01.20 0.29 01.93

4 14 41 9 64 0.43 01.23 0.27 01.93

Total 56 175 45 276 01.69 05.24 01.36 08.29

Exec Supervision 2 830 2,880 271 3,981 19.92 69.12 6.51 95.55

3 453 1,210 96 1,758 10.86 29.03 2.29 42.19

4 443 1,265 93 1,801 10.63 30.36 2.22 43.22

Total 1,726 5,355 459 7,540 41.41 128.52 11.03 180.96

QE/QA/AC 2 3 12 4 19 0.10 0.35 0.13 0.58

3 2 5 2 8 0.06 0.15 0.05 0.25

4 2 5 1 8 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.25

Total 7 22 8 36 0.21 0.65 0.23 01.09

Reporting 2 45 117 33 195 01.08 02.80 0.80 04.67

3 25 50 12 86 0.59 01.19 0.29 02.07

4 24 51 11 86 0.57 01.23 0.27 02.07

Total 94 217 56 367 02.24 05.22 01.35 08.81

Total 1,990 6,039 653 8,681 48.81 147.99 16.55 213.35

Resource Cost

(NPR Mill ion)

Required Resource

(Person-Months)

of 70


Table 5-8: DEO Required Resources and Cost for Total Public School Buildings including KV

5.4 DUDBC Resources

86. Together with DOE and DEOs, the role of DUDBC is of paramount importance in the

overall DRR process. Technical advice, quality assurance, and the certification of

the private school buildings will be provided in some of the areas where specific

resources will be needed. A special school section may need to be added in

DUDBC to handle these tasks. The resources and cost of this input was estimated.

TaskPriority

Group


Assesment 1 19 53 22 94 0.57 1.59 .66 2.82

2 201 501 190 892 6.15 15.35 5.82 27.32

3 203 396 132 732 6.24 12.15 4.06 22.44

4 195 379 127 701 5.99 11.63 3.89 21.51

Total 618 1,330 471 2,419 18.94 40.72 14.44 74.09


2 12 124 35 172 0.46 4.55 1.30 6.30

3 12 96 24 133 0.45 3.54 0.89 4.88

4 12 95 24 130 0.45 3.48 0.87 4.80

Total 38 327 87 452 1.40 12.03 3.19 16.62

Bidding, Billing 1 7 16 5 28 .21 .47 .15 .83

2 78 155 44 277 2.37 4.74 1.35 8.47

3 77 120 30 228 2.37 3.69 .92 6.98

4 76 118 29 224 2.33 3.63 .90 6.86

Total 238 409 109 756 7.28 12.53 3.32 23.14

Exec Mngt 1 12 43 13 68 .35 1.29 .40 2.04

2 145 480 137 761 4.42 14.69 4.19 23.30

3 146 378 95 619 4.47 11.60 2.91 18.97

4 144 374 93 611 4.41 11.47 2.86 18.74

Total 446 1,275 338 2,059 13.65 39.05 10.36 63.07

Exec Supervision 1 442 1,642 170 2,254 10.60 39.41 4.08 54.08

2 4,698 15,606 1,477 21,781 115.07 382.19 36.17 533.43

3 4,745 12,303 1,026 18,074 116.45 301.93 25.18 443.57

4 4,575 11,844 988 17,406 112.28 290.59 24.24 427.11

Total 14,459 41,395 3,661 59,515 354.39 1,014.12 89.67 1,458.19

QE/QA/AC 1 1 5 2 8 .04 .15 .06 .25

2 18 59 23 100 .55 1.81 .69 3.05

3 18 47 16 81 .56 1.44 .48 2.48

4 18 47 16 80 .55 1.43 .48 2.45

Total 55 158 56 269 1.69 4.83 1.71 8.23

Reporting 1 18 50 15 83 .43 1.19 .37 1.99

2 238 593 169 1,001 5.84 14.52 4.14 24.50

3 242 470 118 829 5.93 11.52 2.89 20.34

4 239 465 116 821 5.86 11.42 2.85 20.14

Total 719 1,528 403 2,650 17.63 37.46 9.89 64.98

Total 16,573 46,423 5,125 68,120 414.99 1,160.75 132.58 1,708.32

Required Resource

(Person-Months)

Resource Cost

(NPR Mill ion)

of 70


Table 5-9: DUDBC Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in KV

Table 5-10: DUDBC Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas

Table 5-11: DUDBC Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Urban Areas

Table 5-12: DUDBC Required Resources and Cost for Total Public School Buildings including

KV

Task


Technical Advise 14 164 39 212 0.66 7.57 1.80 10.0

Quality Assurance 15 57 15 69 0.69 1.92 0.51 3.12

Total 29 221 54 281 1.35 9.49 2.31 13.16

Resource Cost

(NPR Millions)

DUDBC Required Resource

(Person-Months)

TaskPriority

Group


Technical Advise 2 139 1,382 255 1,655 6.94 69.03 12.74 88.71

3 152 1,129 197 1,438 7.59 56.39 9.84 73.83

4 147 1,068 190 1,375 7.34 53.35 9.49 70.18

Total 438 3,579 642 4,659 21.88 178.77 32.07 232.72

Quality Assurance 2 107 496 110 663 3.90 18.08 4.01 25.99

3 128 438 95 596 4.67 15.97 3.46 24.09

4 127 453 95 589 4.63 16.51 3.46 24.60

Total 362 1,387 300 2,049 13.19 50.56 10.94 74.69

Total 800 4,966 942 6,708 35.07 229.33 43.00 307.40


(Person-Months)

Resource Cost

(NPR Mill ion)

TaskPriority

Group


Technical Advise 2 38 297 85 376 1.83 14.29 4.09 20.20

3 27 127 39 155 1.30 6.11 1.88 9.28

4 27 146 39 160 1.30 7.02 1.88 10.20

Total 92 570 163 825 4.43 27.42 7.84 39.68

Quality Assurance 2 32 117 32 161 1.12 4.09 1.12 6.34

3 22 55 38 70 0.77 1.93 1.33 4.04

4 32 67 27 70 1.12 2.35 0.95 4.42

Total 86 239 97 422 3.02 8.37 3.40 14.79

Total 178 809 260 1,247 7.44 35.79 11.25 54.48

Resource Cost

(NPR Million)


(Person-Months)

TaskPriority

Group


Technical Advise 1 14.29 163.64 39 212.31 0.66 7.57 1.80 10.03

2 177 1,679 340 2,031 8.77 83.32 16.83 108.91

3 179 1,256 236 1,594 8.89 62.50 11.72 83.11

4 174 1,214 229 1,535 8.64 60.37 11.37 80.38

Total 544 4,313 844 5,372 26.96 213.76 41.71 282.43

Quality Assurance 1 15 57 15 68.785 0.69 1.92 0.51 3.12

2 139 613 142 824 5.02 22.17 5.13 32.32

3 150 493 133 666 5.44 17.90 4.80 28.13

4 159 520 122 660 5.75 18.86 4.41 29.03

Total 463 1,683 412 2,218 16.91 60.85 14.85 92.60

Total 1,007 5,995 1,256 7,590 43.87 274.61 56.56 375.04


(Person-Months)

Resource Cost

(NPR Million)

of 70


5.5 Consultants

87. Considering the specialized nature of the DRR process and the interventions, the

engagement of the consultants for various tasks will be necessary to support the

DOE and DEO, as well as to ensure for the quality of the work to be carried out.

88. The role of consultants and estimated resources for each task were estimated and

listed in the following table. This indicates the number of various professionals and

staff needed. The actual assignment of the work may be based on lump-sum cost

or cost plus basis. The traditional fee estimation based on the percentage of

construction cost may not be appropriate for retrofit, where the resource input

from engineers and staff is much larger than a corresponding new building. As can

be seen from the table below, the cost of assessment and evaluation is a major

component of the overall resource cost.

Table 5-13: Consultants Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in KV

Table 5-14: Consultants Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Rural

Areas

Task


Assessment Engineers 113 419 130 662 3.71 13.84 4.30 21.86

Assessment Support Staff 279 778 322 1,379 6.14 17.12 7.08 30.34

Design 25 351 147 522 0.87 12.35 5.17 18.39

Supervision 27 302 13 342 1.04 11.63 0.48 13.15

Certification 21 237 98 357 0.70 7.83 3.24 11.78

Total 465 2,087 710 3,262 12.47 62.76 20.29 95.51

Resource and O/H Cost

(NPR Mill ions)

Estimated Resource For Consultants

(Person-Months)

TaskPriority

Group


Assessment Engineers 2 1,005 3,309 942 5,256 37.98 125.09 35.60 198.67

3 1,118 2,890 728 4,736 42.25 109.25 27.52 179.03

4 1,073 2,748 699 4,520 40.56 103.89 26.42 170.87

Total 3,196 8,948 2,369 14,513 120.79 338.23 89.55 548.57

Assessment Support Staff 2 2,699 6,654 2,526 11,879 68.03 167.67 63.66 299.35

3 3,013 5,837 1,961 10,811 75.92 147.09 49.42 272.43

4 2,939 5,652 1,912 10,503 74.05 142.43 48.19 264.68

Total 8,651 18,143 6,400 33,193 218.00 457.19 161.27 836.46

Design 2 209 2,596 989 3,793 8.67 107.93 41.11 157.70

3 230 2,236 752 3,218 9.55 92.96 31.28 133.79

4 221 2,127 723 3,071 9.18 88.44 30.06 127.68

Total 659 6,958 2,464 10,081 27.39 289.33 102.44 419.17

Supervision 2 254 2,499 95 2,847 11.18 110.19 4.18 125.56

3 284 2,196 74 2,554 12.50 96.86 3.25 112.62

4 274 2,101 71 2,446 12.06 92.66 3.14 107.86

Total 811 6,796 240 7,847 35.75 299.72 10.57 346.04

Certification 2 221 2,179 828 3,229 8.37 82.37 31.30 122.04

3 249 1,927 648 2,824 9.41 72.85 24.50 106.75

4 243 1,872 634 2,749 9.20 70.76 23.96 103.92

Total 714 5,978 2,110 8,802 26.97 225.97 79.77 332.71

Total 14,029 46,823 13,582 74,435 428.91 1,610.45 443.60 2,482.95

Resource Cost

(NPR Mill ion)


(Person-Months)

of 70


Table 5-15: Consultants Required Resources and Cost for Public School Buildings in Urban

Areas

Table 5-16: Consultants Required Resources and Cost for Total Public School Buildings

including KV

TaskPriority

Group


Assessment Engineers 2 214 745 211 1,171 7.07 24.60 6.96 38.63

3 117 313 74 504 3.86 10.32 2.45 16.63

4 115 328 72 515 3.79 10.82 2.38 16.99

Total 446 1,386 357 2,189 14.72 45.74 11.79 72.24

Assessment Support Staff 2 601 1,560 590 2,750 13.21 34.32 12.98 60.51

3 329 660 210 1,199 7.24 14.52 4.62 26.38

4 320 686 201 1,207 7.05 15.10 4.42 26.56

Total 1,250 2,906 1,001 5,157 27.50 63.93 22.02 113.45

Design 2 45 587 222 853 1.57 20.66 7.81 30.04

3 24 243 77 344 0.85 8.55 2.70 12.10

4 24 253 74 351 0.83 8.91 2.61 12.36

Total 92 1,083 373 1,548 3.25 38.12 13.13 54.50

Supervision 2 55 569 21 645 2.11 21.90 0.83 24.84

3 30 241 8 278 1.16 9.26 0.29 10.72

4 30 252 7 289 1.14 9.72 0.28 11.14

Total 114 1,062 36 1,213 4.40 40.89 1.41 46.69

Certification 2 50 514 195 758 1.64 16.96 6.43 25.03

3 27 219 70 316 0.90 7.23 2.30 10.43

4 27 228 67 322 0.88 7.53 2.21 10.62

Total 104 961 331 1,396 3.42 31.72 10.94 46.08

Total 2,006 7,398 2,099 11,503 53.29 220.40 59.27 332.96


(NPR Mill ion)


(Person-Months)

TaskPriority

Group


Assessment Engineers 1 113 419 130 662 3.71 13.84 4.30 21.86

2 1,219 4,055 1,153 6,426 45.05 149.69 42.56 237.30

3 1,235 3,203 802 5,240 46.11 119.57 29.97 195.66

4 1,188 3,076 771 5,035 44.35 114.71 28.80 187.86

Total 3,754 10,753 2,857 17,364 139.23 397.81 105.64 642.67

1 279 778 322 1,379 6.14 17.12 7.08 30.34

2 3,300 8,213 3,116 14,630 81.24 201.99 76.64 359.86

3 3,342 6,497 2,171 12,010 83.16 161.61 54.04 298.80

4 3,259 6,338 2,113 11,711 81.10 157.53 52.61 291.24

Total 10,180 21,827 7,722 39,729 251.64 538.24 190.37 980.25

Design 1 25 351 147 522 0.87 12.35 5.17 18.39

2 253 3,183 1,211 4,646 10.24 128.59 48.92 187.75

3 254 2,479 829 3,561 10.40 101.51 33.98 145.89

4 244 2,380 797 3,422 10.01 97.36 32.67 140.04

Total 776 8,392 2,984 12,152 31.51 339.80 120.74 492.06

Supervision 1 27 302 13 342 1.04 11.63 0.48 13.15

2 308 3,068 116 3,492 13.29 132.10 5.01 150.39

3 314 2,437 81 2,832 13.66 106.13 3.55 123.34

4 303 2,354 79 2,735 13.20 102.38 3.42 119.00

Total 952 8,160 289 9,401 41.19 352.23 12.46 405.88

Certification 1 21 237 98 357 0.70 7.83 3.24 11.78

2 271 2,693 1,023 3,987 10.00 99.33 37.73 147.07

3 276 2,146 718 3,140 10.31 80.07 26.81 117.19

4 270 2,100 701 3,071 10.08 78.29 26.17 114.53

Total 838 7,177 2,540 10,555 31.09 265.52 93.95 390.56

Total 16,500 56,309 16,391 89,201 494.67 1,893.61 523.16 2,911.43

Assessment Support

Staff


(Person-Months)


(NPR Mill ion)

of 70


5.6 Summary of the Resource Planning

89. Cooperation between MOE/DOE & DUDBC is very important in resource

estimation. In addition, both departments must be provided appropriate and

adequate resources, facilities, and funds in addition to their annual/expected

budget allocation. This additional fund will be utilized specifically for the

management of overall school DRR process to ensure that the work can be carried

out effectively.

90. A work plan is needed for the utilization of the resources and the expenditures to

complete the process in a reasonable timeframe. Balancing the required

resources and funds, against the availability of these, and the target time of

completion is always a challenge and depends on many factors that are often

beyond the bounds of the program and project.

91. Table 5-17 shows various possible scenarios of the resources and time based on

average resource-months during the duration.

Table 5-17: The Trade-off between Number of Resources and Time

92. A program duration of 6 to 8 years is considered to reasonable provided with

manageable resources for each category. This timeframe is used in developing the

work plan. A maximum duration of 8 years was selected for the purpose of

determining the timeline.

93. The overall work plan is shown in Chapter 8. The major work on rebuilding and

direct intervention is proposed to be completed by 2020, whereas the incremental

work, together with monitoring and evaluation tasks, may extend to 2022.

)

of 70


Chapter 6 Cost Estimation

6.1 Direct Cost of Intervention

94. The following table presents the overall intervention cost summary for public

schools. The details were categorized by regions and the belts. The overall

information for the entire country is provided in the last row. The maximum cost is

indicated for the central region and in the hills; the lowest is at the far west and the

mountains.

Table 6-1: Overall Intervention Cost Summary for Public Schools (Regional)

Table 6-2: Overall Intervention Cost Summary for Public Schools (Belt-wise)

Demolish -

Rebuild

Major Retrofit

(One-Time)

Minor Retrofit

(Incremental

Approach)

Total

A-Regions

1 East 6,732 20,007 2,633,650 4,686 4,241 1,938 10,865

2 Central 8,253 20,023 3,066,896 5,570 4,957 2,219 12,745

3 West 6,581 18,171 2,983,100 5,191 4,490 1,978 11,659

4 Mid West 4,907 12,755 1,847,100 3,217 2,822 1,251 7,290

5 Far West 3,967 10,718 1,442,500 2,482 2,154 953 5,589

B-Belts

1 Plains 9,124 27,137 3,539,500 7,080 7,567 3,895 18,542

2 Hills 17,255 44,800 6,963,996 11,829 9,461 3,842 25,132

3 Mountains 4,061 9,737 1,469,750 2,237 1,636 602 4,475

Total 30,440 81,674 11,973,246 21,146 18,663 8,339 48,148

Cost

(NPR Million)Sr.

NoClassification

Schools

(Nos)

Buildings

(Nos)

Estimated

Building Area

(Sqm)

Demolish -

Rebuild

Major

Retrofit

(One-Time)

Minor Retrofit

(Incremental

Approach)

Total

East 6,732 20,007 2,633,650 4,686 4,241 1,938 10,865

Plains 2,484 8,142 1,001,150 2,010 2,141 1,098 5,249

Hills 3,274 9,345 1,231,200 2,063 1,651 674 4,388

Mountains 974 2,520 401,300 613 449 165 1,228

Central 8,253 20,023 3,066,896 5,570 4,957 2,219 12,745

Plains 3,166 7,826 1,005,050 2,004 2,149 1,107 5,259

Hills 4,004 9,562 1,704,946 3,024 2,413 967 6,404

Mountains 1,083 2,635 356,900 542 395 145 1,082

West 6,581 18,171 2,983,100 5,191 4,490 1,978 11,659

Plains 1,444 4,450 632,950 1,266 1,351 697 3,314

Hills 5,045 13,481 2,295,450 3,842 3,077 1,258 8,178

Mountains 92 240 54,700 83 61 23 167

Mid West 4,907 12,755 1,847,100 3,217 2,822 1,251 7,290

Plains 1,165 3,498 505,600 1,011 1,084 557 2,652

Hills 2,888 7,523 1,087,550 1,821 1,457 590 3,868

Mountains 854 1,734 253,950 385 281 103 769

Far West 3,967 10,718 1,442,500 2,482 2,154 953 5,589

Plains 865 3,221 394,750 789 842 435 2,066

Hills 2,044 4,889 644,850 1,079 863 352 2,294

Mountains 1,058 2,608 402,900 614 449 165 1,228

Entire Country 30,440 81,674 11,973,246 21,146 18,663 8,339 48,148

RegionSchools

(Nos)

Buildings

(Nos)

Estimated

Building Area

(Sqm)

Cost

(NPR Mill ion)

of 70


95. The next tables provide breakdowns of the cost summary for public schools

corresponding to sub-regions and the different types of terrain. This provides the

next level of detail for sub-regional planning and budgeting. The maximum cost is

indicated in West-Hills and the lowest is observed in West-Mountains.

96. The cost distribution in various regions and belts are also shown in the following

figures. Further detail on the cost for demolishing/rebuilding and the major or minor

retrofitting entails per region as categorized per district are also provided in these

table.

97. These figures will also be useful for budgeting and planning at the district level

when combined with prioritization plan given in the following sections.

Table 6-3: Overall Intervention Cost Summary for Public Schools – Districts (East)

Demolish -

Rebuild

Major Retrofit

(One-Time)

Minor Retrofit

(Incremental

Approach)

Total

1 Taplejung 323 713 130,800 199 145 54 398

2 Panchthar 393 1,132 157,800 264 211 86 562

3 Ilam 432 1,309 159,600 267 214 87 569

4 Jhapa 433 1,527 206,900 412 442 228 1,081

5 Morang 599 1,925 258,000 516 551 284 1,351

6 Sunsari 505 1,764 232,950 466 498 257 1,221

7 Dhankuta 316 1,227 156,800 263 210 86 559

8 Terhathum 240 834 111,550 187 150 61 398

9 Sankhuwasabha 381 1,023 161,700 249 184 67 500

10 Bhojpur 417 1,114 161,350 270 216 88 574

11 Solukhumbu 270 784 108,800 165 120 44 330

12 Okhaldhunga 338 969 129,450 217 173 71 461

13 Khotang 690 1,344 182,300 305 244 100 648

14 Udayapur 448 1,416 172,350 290 233 95 618

15 Saptari 473 1,474 153,000 315 327 163 805

16 Siraha 474 1,452 150,300 300 323 166 789

Sr.

No

Ea

st

Schools

(Nos)

Buildings

(Nos)

Estimated

Building Area

(Sqm)

Cost

(NPR mi l l ion)

Re

gio

ns

Districts

of 70


Table 6-4: Overall Intervention Cost Summary for Public Schools – Districts (Central & West)

Demolish -

Rebuild

Major Retrofit

(One-Time)

Minor Retrofit

(Incremental

Approach)

Total

17 Dhanusha 414 1,281 148,750 297 318 164 780

18 Mahottari 400 1,152 137,000 274 294 151 719

19 Sarlahi 725 1,114 133,550 267 286 147 701

20 Sindhul i 570 1,479 228,650 383 307 125 815

21 Ramechhap 475 1,257 197,400 330 264 108 702

22 Dolakha 395 865 118,850 181 133 49 363

23 Sindhupalchok 584 1,532 192,050 291 212 78 582

24 Kavrepalanchok 616 1,690 281,050 472 378 154 1,004

25 La l i tpur 205 343 151,107 332 261 99 692

26 Bhaktapur 135 295 97,540 214 169 64 446

27 Kathmandu 302 229 78,100 171 135 51 357

28 Nuwakot 531 1,348 187,400 314 251 102 667

29 Rasuwa 104 238 46,000 69 50 18 138

30 Dhading 621 1,391 241,800 405 324 132 861

31 Makwanpur 549 1,530 241,900 406 326 133 865

32 Rautahat 397 1,028 124,400 249 266 137 652

33 Bara 437 1,029 131,750 263 282 145 690

34 Parsa 379 790 91,050 182 195 100 478

35 Chitwan 414 1,432 238,550 472 506 262 1,240

36 Gorkha 534 1,315 224,500 376 300 123 799

37 Lamjung 380 1,095 181,100 303 242 99 644

38 Tanahu 632 1,433 231,700 390 313 127 830

39 Syangja 541 1,712 240,300 404 324 132 860

40 Kaski 444 1,207 291,250 487 386 159 1,033

41 Manang 27 73 12,850 20 14 5 40

42 Mustang 65 167 41,850 64 47 17 128

43 Myagdi 246 639 123,800 209 165 69 442

44 Parbat 317 961 146,100 245 197 80 522

45 Baglung 536 1,480 243,050 406 325 133 864

46 Gulmi 562 1,150 214,100 358 286 117 761

47 Palpa 448 1,444 226,150 380 305 124 809

48 Nawalparas i 566 1,984 294,450 585 629 321 1,534

49 Rupandehi 483 1,387 204,250 408 435 225 1,068

50 Kapi lbastu 395 1,079 134,250 268 288 148 704

51 Arghakhanchi 405 1,045 173,400 291 233 95 620

Estimated

Building Area

(Sqm)

Cost

(NPR mi l l ion)Sr.

No

Re

gio

ns

DistrictsSchools

(Nos)

Buildings

(Nos)

Ce

ntr

al

We

st

of 70


Table 6-5: Overall Intervention Cost Summary for Public Schools – Districts (Mid West and

Far West)

98. Tables 6-6 and 6-8 provide a general overview of the cost model basis. Factors

include the base cost, details on material re-use, inflation set to 5% per annum, the

benefits of improved technology, and other factors together with the cumulative

factor over periods required for rebuild, major retrofit, and minor retrofit. The

approximate duration for cost inflation is listed below each level of intervention.

Demolish -

Rebuild

Major Retrofit

(One-Time)

Minor Retrofit

(Incremental

Approach)

Total

52 Pyuthan 354 1,062 146,750 246 197 80 523

53 Rolpa 397 852 148,750 248 198 81 528

54 Rukum 373 951 152,200 254 203 83 540

55 Salyan 324 629 95,550 161 129 51 340

56 Dang 432 1,446 229,500 459 493 253 1,204

57 Banke 377 1,080 150,350 299 322 166 786

58 Bardiya 356 972 125,750 251 270 139 660

59 Surkhet 506 1,509 210,700 352 281 115 748

60 Dai lekh 506 1,513 185,150 311 250 102 663

61 Ja jarkot 428 1,007 148,450 248 198 81 528

62 Dolpa 117 279 50,600 77 56 21 154

63 Jumla 156 15 1,750 3 2 1 5

64 Kal ikot 308 654 99,550 151 110 41 302

65 Mugu 140 438 52,900 80 58 21 160

66 Humla 133 348 49,150 75 54 20 149

67 Bajura 261 615 93,650 142 104 38 284

68 Bajhang 459 1,092 179,500 274 200 74 547

69 Achham 755 1,268 167,750 281 224 92 597

70 Doti 492 1,085 146,650 245 196 80 521

71 Kai la l i 567 2,200 240,500 481 514 265 1,260

72 Kanchanpur 298 1,021 154,250 309 328 170 806

73 Dadeldhura 253 943 113,800 191 153 62 406

74 Baitadi 544 1,593 216,650 362 290 118 770

75 Darchula 338 901 129,750 196 145 53 394

Cost

(NPR mi l l ion)Sr.

No

Re

gio

ns

DistrictsSchools

(Nos)

Buildings

(Nos)

Estimated

Building Area

(Sqm)

Mid

We

st

Fa

r W

est

of 70


6.1.1 Kathmandu Valley

Table 6-6: Cost Basis Model for Public School Buildings in KV

Table 6-7: Direct Intervention Cost for Public School Buildings in KV

6.1.2 Public Schools in Rural Areas

Table 6-8: Cost Basis Model for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas

Rebuild

(4 Years)

Major

Retrofit

(6 Years)

Minor

Retrofit

(8 years)

Rebuild

(4 Years)

Major

Retrofit

(6 Years)

Minor

Retrofit

(8 years)

Rebuild

(4 Years)

Major

Retrofit

(6 Years)

Minor

Retrofit

(8 years)

1 Base Cost (NPR/SqM) 22,000 3,800 1,400 19,000 6,300 2,800 16,000 4,000 1,700

2 Material Re-use 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00

3 Inflation (5% per year) 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.10 1.15 1.20

4 Improved Technology Factors 0.95 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.80 0.80

5 Other Factors 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

6 Cumulative Factor 0.94 1.04 1.08 0.83 0.98 1.02 0.69 0.92 0.96

Avg Cost Used (NPR/SqM) 20,691 3,933 1,512 15,675 6,158 2,856 11,088 3,680 1,632

Sr.

No

RC Frame Others (Stone Masonry etc.)URM (Brick Masonry)

Cost and Cost Modification

Factors

Demolish -

Rebuild

Major Retrofit

(One-Time)

Minor Retrofit

(Incremental

Approach)

Total

Nos Nos SqM NPR (m) NPR (m) NPR (m) NPR (m)

1 Lalitpur 205 343 151,107 332 261 99 692

2 Bhaktapur 135 295 97,540 214 169 64 446

3 Kathmandu 302 229 78,100 171 135 51 357

Entire Country 642 867 326,746 717 565 213 1,495

Cost Sr.

NoDistrict

Number of

Schools

Number of

Buildings

Estimated

Building Area

Rebuild

(4 Years)

Major

Retrofit

(6 Years)

Minor

Retrofit

(8 years)

Rebuild

(4 Years)

Major

Retrofit

(6 Years)

Minor

Retrofit

(8 years)

Rebuild

(4 Years)

Major

Retrofit

(6 Years)

Minor

Retrofit

(8 years)

1 Base Cost (NPR/SqM) 22,500 4,000 1,500 19,000 6,500 2,800 15,000 3,500 1,500

2 Material Re-use 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00

3 Inflation (5% per year) 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.10 1.15 1.20

4 Improved Technology Factors 0.95 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.80 0.80

5 Other Factors 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

6 Cumulative Factor 0.94 1.04 1.08 0.83 0.98 1.02 0.69 0.92 0.96

Avg Cost Used (NPR/SqM) 21,161 4,140 1,620 15,675 6,354 2,856 10,395 3,220 1,440

Cost and Cost Modification

Factors

Sr.

No

RC Frame URM (Brick Masonry) Others (Stone Masonry etc.)

of 70


Table 6-9: Direct Intervention Cost for Public School Buildings in Rural Areas

6.1.3 Public Schools in Urban Areas

100. The cost basis model for public schools in urban areas is the same as KV, please

refer to Table 6-6: Cost Basis Model for Public School Buildings in KV

Table 6-10: Direct Intervention Cost for Public School Buildings in Urban Areas

Demolish -

Rebuild

Major Retrofit

(One-Time)

Minor Retrofit

(Incremental

Approach)

Total

A-Regions

1 East 5,765 16,905 2,178,550 3,831 3,427 1,547 8,804

2 Central 6,728 16,554 2,329,400 4,083 3,661 1,656 9,400

3 West 5,562 15,161 2,457,550 4,218 3,593 1,562 9,374

4 Mid West 4,474 11,471 1,649,200 2,851 2,484 1,094 6,429

5 Far West 3,443 9,121 1,200,450 2,029 1,720 743 4,492

B-Belts

1 Plains 7,229 21,159 2,613,650 5,226 5,627 2,878 13,730

2 Hills 15,030 39,320 5,882,650 9,791 7,809 3,190 20,790

3 Mountains 3,713 8,733 1,318,850 1,995 1,449 534 3,978

Total 25,972 69,212 9,815,150 17,011 14,885 6,602 38,499

Cost

(NPR Mill ion) Schools

(Nos)

Buildings

(Nos)

Estimated

Building

Area

(Sqm)

Sr.

NoClassification

Demolish

- Rebuild

Major

Retrofit

(One-Time)

Minor Retrofit

(Incremental

Approach)

Total

Nos Nos SqM NPR (m) NPR (m) NPR (m) NPR (m)

A-Regions

1 East 967 3,102 455,100 855 814 391 2,061

2 Central 883 2,602 410,750 769 731 350 1,850

3 West 1,019 3,010 525,550 973 896 416 2,285

4 Mid West 433 1,284 197,900 366 338 157 860

5 Far West 524 1,597 242,050 453 434 209 1,097

B-Belts

1 Plains 1,895 5,978 925,850 1,854 1,940 1,017 4,811

2 Hills 1,583 4,613 754,600 1,320 1,087 439 2,846

3 Mountains 348 1,004 150,900 242 186 68 497

Total 3,826 11,595 1,831,350 3,417 3,213 1,523 8,154

Cost

Sr.

NoClassification

Number of

Schools

Number of

Buildings

Estimated

Building Area

of 70


6.2 Summary of Costs

101. A total of about 500 Billion NPR (nearly USD 500 Million), may be needed for

completing the DRR of schools, projected for a duration of 8 to 10 years. The

following table provides a breakdown of important cost components, together

with percentages of the total costs, as indicated for easy comparison.

Table 6-11: Summary of Overall Cost for DRR of Public School Buildings in Nepal

102. It is important to note that in order for DOE and DEOs to able to undertake this

work, about 2.3 Billion NPR should be provided as additional budget, spread over a

period of about 8 years.

Sr.

No

Cost

(M NPR)% of Each % of Total

1 Direct Intervention Cost

1.1 Rebuild 21,146.00 43.9%

1.2 Major, one time intervention 18,663.00 38.8%

1.3 Incremental Intervention 8,339.00 17.3%

1.4 Total 48,148.00 100% 86.4%

2 DOE Resource Cost

2.1 Planning 161.96 33.4%

2.2 Design Mngt. 22.60 4.7%

2.3 Bidding& Billing 15.33 3.2%

2.4 QE/QA/QC 09.92 2.0%

2.5 Coordination & Reporting 145.33 30.0%

2.6 Certification 79.47 16.4%

2.7 Infrastructure, Facilities and Tools 50.00 10.3%

2.8 Total 484.60 100.0% 0.9%

3 DEO Resources

3.1 Assessment 74.09 4.0%

3.2 Design Mngt. 16.62 0.9%

3.3 Bidding & Billing 23.14 1.2%

3.4 Execution Mngt. & Supervision 1,521.25 81.8%

3.5 Q/A & Reporting 75.21 4.0%

3.6 Infrastructure, Facilities & Tools 150.00 8.1%

3.7 Total 1,860.31 100.0% 3.3%

4 DUDBC Resources

4.1 Technical Advise 282.43 76.2%

4.2 QE/QA/QC 92.60 23.8%

4.3 Total 375.04 100.0% 0.7%

5 Consultants

5.1 Assessment 1,622.93 55.8%

5.2 Design 487.50 16.8%

5.3 Supervision & Certification 797.45 27.4%

5.5 Total 2,907.88 100.0% 5.2%

6 Other Costs

6.1 Coordination , Monitoring and Evaluation 200.00 10.3% 0.4%

6.3 Public Awareness and Capacity Building 500.00 25.6% 0.9%

6.4 Risk Assessment and Mapping 300.00 15.4% 0.5%

6.5 Research and Development 350.00 17.9% 0.6%

6.6 Others and Miscellaneous 600.00 30.8% 1.1%

6.7 Total 1,950.00 100.0%

Total Estimated Cost 55,725.82 100.0%

Cost Components

of 70


103. As DUDBC is expected to play an important part in supporting the DRR of both

public and private schools, a budget of about 272 Million NPR should be provided

to support related tasks.

104. The total cost of DRR for all public school buildings approximately equates to about

7,500 NPR, per student (less than 80 USD). This means, the safety of nearly all

school-going children in Nepal from natural disasters can be significantly

improved/ensured, by spending less than 10 USD per child, per year (less than 1

USD per month) for the next 8 years on school DRR.

105. The cost of planning, design, management, certification, coordination, and other

related functions was computed to be about 15% of the total cost. However, it

may be possible to reduce this cost through improved processes and

standardization. A significant portion of this cost is allocated for the detailed

assessment of buildings.

106. Some of the cost components, such as the cost of the various ministries in GON,

development partners, UN agencies, NGOs, various professional organizations,

academic institutes, and committees that support the overall DRR process is not

explicitly included in this estimates, and expected to be covered as part of the

commitment of these organizations to this cause.

107. These computations do not include the cost of intervention for private schools,

since activities to increase DR for private schools is covered by Strategy 10 which

includes the creation of regulatory frameworks.

of 70


Chapter 7 Prioritization and Work Plan

7.1 Procedure for Prioritization

108. As indicated in the strategy for prioritization, in the absence of proper hazard

maps, vulnerability information, and details from the assessments of individual

buildings, it was not possible to prioritize the school buildings for intervention.

109. To address this situation, prioritization based on consequences was proposed, with

the following underlying assumptions:

a. The seismic hazard levels across the entire country are of similar order. The

assumption is reasonable, based on the results from previous hazard

studies, maps from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and other sources.

However, for the detailed evaluation of the vulnerabilities, intervention

design, proper hazard maps, and response accelerator, the soil profile

including soil type and so forth must be determined for each district and

ward.

b. The vulnerability of existing buildings is of similar order, with a small

percentage with low vulnerability, mostly with medium to high and some in

very high ranges. It is assumed that this distribution is similar to various

regions and/or districts.

110. These two assumptions lead to a “similar level of risk” for an assumed range of vulnerability. However, the consequences for the realization of the risk could be

very different based on several factors. Therefore, the estimation of the order of

consequences may be used to prioritize the intervention. This consequence-based

approach, together with the attempt to gain maximum benefit from the particular

expense of cost and resources, was used to estimate the level of “urgency” or priority. The following indicators were computed and combined using the

analytical hierarchy approach.

a. Based on EMIS database, the percentage of classrooms that need

retrofitting for each school and pro-rated to each building.

b. Based on EMIS database, the percentage of weak classrooms that need

retrofitting for each school and pro-rated to each building.

c. The seismic zone level for the district the school is located in.

d. The number of students per classroom for each school and pro-rated to

each building.

e. The population density of the district where the school is located.

f. The percentage of the total students in the district.

g. The percentage of the total school buildings in the district.

of 70


7.2 Efficient Utilization of Resources

111. The utilization of resources can be made more efficient by prioritizing groups of

districts so that the same resources can be used over a longer time, and at the

same time provide consistency and continuity in the work for different districts in

the country. It also reduces the need for capability and capacity building of a

large number of personnel.

112. The proposed “priority-groups”, resource number, and time, represent just one of several possible options/scenarios. Alternate options may be studied based on

other considerations and input from various stakeholders.

7.3 Priority for Intervention

113. Priority for intervention was based on the overall consequence reduction and

higher benefit approach to identify which districts should be addressed first.

114. The detailed priority plan for each ward, school, and building can only be

determined once the detailed assessment and evaluation of all school buildings in

each district has been carried out.

115. The estimated priority of intervention at the district levels divided into four groups.

KV is placed in Group 1, as this priority has already been established, and

significant work is ongoing in SSP at this time.

116. IMPORTANT: For consistency, the following numbers for all groups (including KV)

were based on EMIS data. For KV, the EMIS data seems to differ from the data

obtained from OpenDRI, and separate analysis could be undertaken for KV based

on OpenDRI data if needed.

Figure 7-1: Priority Groups Distribution, by District

of 70


Table 7-1: Summary of Priority Groups and Cost

117. It can be observed from both tables 7-1 and 7-2 that the distribution of various

parameters and costs that Group 2 has the maximum benefit in terms of the

students covered by this intervention. The various cost indicators clearly show the

benefits of the proposed priority (excluding KV which is a pre-selected priority at

this stage). The analysis for this group indicates that even though the average cost

per building is relatively high, due to higher student density in those districts, the risk

is covered for a comparatively higher number of students.

Table 7-2: Cost Indicators for Priority Groups

118. The relative distribution of various indicators for the 4 priority groups are shown in

the following figures and further emphasize the prioritization logic and outcome.

Figure 7-2: Distribution of Various Parameters for Priority Groups

RebuildOne-Time

Retrofit

Incremental

RetrofitTotal

1 Group-1 3 151,385 642 867 717 565 213 1,495

2 Group-2 23 2,916,112 10,724 30,564 7,746 7,970 3,995 19,710

3 Group-3 21 1,596,882 10,017 25,576 6,528 5,306 2,200 14,034

4 Group-4 28 1,197,278 9,057 24,667 6,154 4,822 1,932 12,909

Total 75 5,861,657 30,440 81,674 21,145 18,663 8,340 48,148

Intervention Cost

(NPR Mi l l ion)Students

(Nos)

Schools

(Nos)

Buildings

(Nos)

Districts

(Nos)

Priority

Group

Sr.

No

District (M) School Building Student

1 Group-1 4% 2% 1% 3% 498.45 2,329,212 1,723,971 9,878

2 Group-2 31% 35% 37% 50% 856.96 1,837,945 644,880 6,759

3 Group-3 28% 33% 31% 27% 668.28 1,400,999 548,710 8,788

4 Group-4 37% 30% 30% 20% 461.03 1,425,298 523,328 10,782

All 100% 100% 100% 100% 641.98 1,581,742 589,514 8,214

Sr.

No

Priority

Group

Districts

(%)

Schools

(%)

Buildings

(%)

Students

(%)

Total Cost Indicators (NPR per )

Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 Group-4

Districts Students Schools Buildings

of 70


Figure 7-3: Distribution of Intervention Cost for Priority Groups

119. The following tables present details on the intervention costs for all priority groups.

Table 7-3: Intervention Cost for Public Schools: Priority Group – 1


Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 Group-4

Rebuild One-Time Intervention Incremental Total Cost

Demolish -

Rebuild

Major Retrofit

(One-Time)

Minor Retrofit

(Incremental

Approach)

Total

1 Lalitpur 205 343 151,107 332 261 99 692

2 Bhaktapur 135 295 97,540 214 169 64 446

3 Kathmandu 302 229 78,100 171 135 51 357

Total KV 642 867 326,746 717 565 213 1,495

Cost (NPR Million)

Sr.

NoDistrict

Number of

Schools

(Nos)

Number of

Buildings

(Nos)

Estimated

Building Area

(SqM)

Rebuild One-Time

Retrofit

Incremental

RetrofitTotal

1 Sarlahi Centra l Pla in 201,625 725 1,114 267 286 147 701

2 Bara Centra l Pla in 157,800 437 1,029 263 282 145 690

3 Rautahat Centra l Pla in 153,384 397 1,028 249 266 137 652

4 Rupandehi West Pla in 153,907 483 1,387 408 435 225 1,068

5 Mahottari Centra l Pla in 164,402 400 1,152 274 294 151 719

6 Dhanusha Centra l Pla in 155,270 414 1,281 297 318 164 780

7 Kai la l i Far west Pla in 185,538 567 2,200 481 514 265 1,260

8 Si raha East Pla in 140,753 474 1,452 300 323 166 789

9 Jhapa East Pla in 126,662 433 1,527 412 442 228 1,081

10 Kapi lbastu West Pla in 109,352 395 1,079 268 288 148 704

11 Saptari East Pla in 137,102 473 1,474 315 327 163 805

12 Nawalparas West Pla in 133,909 566 1,984 585 629 321 1,534

13 Parsa Centra l Pla in 68,221 379 790 182 195 100 478

14 Dang Mid west Pla in 117,901 432 1,446 459 493 253 1,204

15 KanchanpurFar west Pla in 104,434 298 1,021 309 328 170 806

16 Bardiya Mid west Pla in 108,170 356 972 251 270 139 660

17 Darchula Far west Mountain 38,365 338 901 196 145 52 393

18 Dai lekh Mid west Hi l l 103,595 506 1,513 311 250 102 663

19 Banke Mid west Pla in 101,587 377 1,080 299 322 166 786

20 Surkhet Mid west Hi l l 99,603 506 1,509 352 281 115 748

21 Achham Far west Hi l l 97,301 755 1,268 281 224 92 597

22 Chitwan Centra l Pla in 96,664 414 1,432 472 506 262 1,240

23 Morang East Pla in 160,567 599 1,925 516 551 284 1,351

Total Priority Group 2 2,916,112 10,724 30,564 7,746 7,970 3,995 19,710

Sr. No Districts Region BeltBuildings

(Nos)

Intervention Cost (NPR Million)Schools

(Nos)

Students

(Nos)

of 70



RebuildOne-Time

Retrofit

Incremental

RetrofitTotal

1 Sindhul i Centra l Hi l l 96,982 570 1,479 383 307 125 815

2 Rukum Mid west Hi l l 83,380 373 951 254 203 83 540

3 Ja jarkot Mid west Hi l l 82,903 428 1,007 248 198 81 528

4 Sa lyan Mid west Hi l l 47,655 324 629 161 129 51 340

5 Sunsari East Pla in 128,632 505 1,764 466 498 257 1,221

6 Kal ikot Mid west Mountain 57,678 308 654 151 110 41 302

7 KavrepalancCentra l Hi l l 86,920 616 1,690 472 378 154 1,004

8 Rolpa Mid west Hi l l 70,212 397 852 248 198 81 528

9 Udayapur East Hi l l 80,511 448 1,416 290 233 95 618

10 Makwanpur Centra l Hi l l 97,473 549 1,530 406 326 133 865

11 Baitadi Far west Hi l l 96,103 544 1,593 362 290 118 770

12 Pyuthan Mid west Hi l l 65,307 354 1,062 246 197 80 523

13 Gulmi West Hi l l 72,966 562 1,150 358 286 117 761

14 Nuwakot Centra l Hi l l 73,833 531 1,348 314 251 102 667

15 Panchthar East Hi l l 54,677 393 1,132 264 211 86 562

16 Bajhang Far west Mountain 76,590 459 1,092 274 200 74 547

17 Baglung West Hi l l 78,519 536 1,480 406 325 133 864

18 Khotang East Hi l l 72,930 690 1,344 305 244 100 648

19 Taplejung East Mountain 40,213 323 713 199 145 54 398

20 Tanahu West Hi l l 70,197 632 1,433 390 313 127 830

21 Ramechhap Centra l Hi l l 63,201 475 1,257 330 264 108 702

Total Priority Group 3 1,596,882 10,017 25,576 6,528 5,306 2,200 14,034

Sr. No Districts Region BeltBuildings

(Nos)

Intervention Cost (NPR Million)Students

(Nos)

Schools

(Nos)

of 70



7.4 Work Plan

7.4.1 Overview

120. The work plan was developed to outline the time line and sequence of work in

order to complete the nationwide implementation and expansion of the DR

activities for the school sector of Nepal within 6-8 years and in compliance with a

set budget.

121. The work plan was characterized by the fifteen (15) major actions based on the

strategies previously defined. The priority groups (1-4) were identified per action.

The timeline was divided quarterly.

122. Ten of the major actions are proposed to begin implementation in 2014.

RebuildOne-Time

Retrofit

Incremental

RetrofitTotal

1 SindhupalchCentra l Mountain 77,110 584 1,532 291 212 78 582

2 Syangja West Hi l l 68,059 541 1,712 404 324 132 860

3 Dolakha Centra l Mountain 51,871 395 865 181 133 49 363

4 Palpa West Hi l l 69,906 448 1,444 380 305 124 809

5 Arghakhanch West Hi l l 55,136 405 1,045 291 233 95 620

6 Okhaldhung East Hi l l 45,464 338 969 217 173 71 461

7 Gorkha West Hi l l 71,436 534 1,315 376 300 123 799

8 Doti Far west Hi l l 65,033 492 1,085 245 196 80 521

9 Bhojpur East Hi l l 51,815 417 1,114 270 216 88 574

10 Ilam East Hi l l 49,599 432 1,309 267 214 87 569

11 Jumla Mid west Mountain 35,386 156 15 3 2 1 5

12 DadeldhuraFar west Hi l l 44,673 253 943 191 153 62 406

13 Kaski West Hi l l 72,662 444 1,207 487 386 159 1,033

14 Terhathum East Hi l l 29,378 240 834 187 150 61 398

15 Solukhumbu East Mountain 32,516 270 784 165 120 44 330

16 Sankhuwasa East Mountain 44,304 381 1,023 249 184 67 500

17 Rasuwa Centra l Mountain 12,042 104 238 69 50 18 138

18 Dhankuta East Hi l l 41,739 316 1,227 263 210 86 559

19 Parbat West Hi l l 22,716 317 961 245 197 80 522

20 Dhading Centra l Hi l l 89,039 621 1,391 405 324 132 861

21 Mugu Mid west Mountain 18,448 140 438 80 58 21 160

22 Humla Mid west Mountain 15,744 133 348 75 54 20 149

23 Myagdi West Hi l l 28,082 246 639 209 165 69 442

24 Lamjung West Hi l l 41,058 380 1,095 303 242 99 644

25 Dolpa Mid west Mountain 10,326 117 279 77 56 21 154

26 Bajura Far west Mountain 50,997 261 615 142 104 38 284

27 Mustang West Mountain 2,001 65 167 64 47 17 129

28 Manang West Mountain 738 27 73 20 14 5 40

All 1,197,278 9,057 24,667 6,154 4,822 1,930 12,909

Buildings

(Nos)

Intervention Cost (NPR Million)

Sr. No Districts Region BeltStudents

(Nos)

Schools

(Nos)


page 63 of 70

7.4.2 Time Line

The term “Relevant” pertains to the readiness of a priority group to implement or perform a particular major action.


page 64 of 70


page 65 of 70

Chapter 8 On New Schools

8.1 Projection and Construction of New Schools

123. Considering an average of 35 students per class room, the required and excess

number of classrooms in each district by 2021 were marked in the map shown below,

Figure 8-1.

124. Detailed district wise data is shown in Table 8-1. This analysis includes the data of both

public and private schools. Results show that by 2021, approximately 45,000 new

classrooms are required to be constructed in Nepal. Given that an estimated 20% of

the new classrooms will be private, a total of 36,000 new public classrooms will need

to be constructed by 2021 in Nepal.

125. It is important to note that the actual demand will not only be based on the current

data available. The school levels and grades offered in the schools, and the future

utilization of the classrooms and structures, for example, will need to be considered. A

possible change in migration patterns may also occur, thus these situations are in fact

debatable. More studies should be conducted to retrieve reliable data to support this

initiative.

126. The figures presented are estimates which should be regarded as a way to illustrate

the possibilities and in turn provide a starting point to plan the construction of new

schools for ideal student densities.

Figure 8-1: Comparison of Students per Classrooms and Population Density for 2011 and 2021

2011 2021 (Projected)

Cla

ssro

om

s

Po

pu

latio

n D

en

sity


page 66 of 70

8.1.1 Education Village Concept

127. As shown in the table, the districts in hilly and mountain belts have excess classrooms.

As per the census data of 2011, some of the districts have population densities as low

as two (2) while in other districts the number of students per classroom is at three (3).

The trend shows that in coming years, these figures will be further reduced.

128. The villages are characterized by low and sparsely distributed population, with

students often travelling great distances to reach their school. This current situation

adds to the low attendance levels, thus innovative options must be explored. One

concept involves the development of Education Villages. An Education Village will

essentially transform underutilized school infrastructures, with the possibility to merge

with other schools, to provide both academic and lodging facilities to students.

129. This concept aims to increase occupancy rate in the classrooms by reducing the

student’s travel from daily to weekly, increase mobilization effectiveness, and maximize the utilization of resources.

8.2 Estimation of New Classroom Construction

130. To estimate the number of classrooms required by 2021, projected number of

population in 2021 was calculated based on the population growth trend in each

district from 2001 to 2011 and the total calculated population was reduced by 5% to

match with the projection as per the prescribed UN growth rate. � � ℎ = � � − � � /� �

� � = � � ℎ ∗ � �

131. The existing data of number of schools, students and classrooms were then used to

calculate the multiplying factor (student per population). � = /� �

132. The projected number of students and the required number of classrooms in 2021 was

calculated as follows. = � ∗ � �

= /35

of 70


Table 8-1: District-wise Data for the Projection and Construction of New Schools

Sr.

No. Districts

2011 2021 (Projected)

Population Total

students

Population

density

Student/

population

No. of

classroo

ms

Students/

Classroom Population

Population

density

Total

students

No. of

classrooms

required

(35

students/room)

Additional

classrooms

1 Taplejung 128,547 60065 35 0.47 2807 21 116543 32 54456 1556 -1251

2 Panchthar 198,362 65856 160 0.33 3409 19 184999 149 61419 1755 -1654

3 Ilam 295,824 68628 174 0.23 3834 18 293969 173 68198 1949 -1885

4 Jhapa 810,636 195019 505 0.24 6977 28 907232 565 218258 6236 -741

5 Morang 964,709 200265 520 0.21 5160 39 1048517 565 217663 6219 1059

6 Sunsari 751,125 180427 598 0.24 6356 28 856699 682 205787 5880 -476

7 Dhankuta 164,133 46441 184 0.28 3497 13 153729 173 43497 1243 -2254

8 Terhathum 101,709 31469 150 0.31 2355 13 86884 128 26882 768 -1587

9 Sankhuwasabha 159,649 48951 46 0.31 3516 14 152091 44 46634 1332 -2184

10 Bhojpur 183,918 54864 122 0.30 3227 17 158284 105 47217 1349 -1878

11 Solukhumbu 106,772 36458 32 0.34 2184 17 100572 30 34341 981 -1203

12 Okhaldhunga 148,320 49365 138 0.33 2689 18 133367 124 44388 1268 -1421

13 Khotang 209,130 74814 131 0.36 3661 20 179565 113 64237 1835 -1826

14 Udayapur 321,962 96895 156 0.30 3706 26 342302 166 103016 2943 -763

15 Saptari 646,250 139739 474 0.22 3249 43 695721 510 150436 4298 1049

16 Siraha 643,136 148670 541 0.23 3028 49 686484 578 158690 4534 1506

17 Dhanusha 768,404 175278 651 0.23 2985 59 835497 708 190582 5445 2460

18 Mahottari 646,405 185275 645 0.29 2911 64 717184 716 205562 5873 2962

19 Sarlahi 768,649 217318 611 0.28 2671 81 882931 701 249629 7132 4461

20 Sindhuli 294,621 104466 118 0.35 4720 22 294694 118 104492 2985 -1735

21 Ramechhap 205,312 67347 133 0.33 4104 16 188530 122 61842 1767 -2337

of 70


22 Dolakha 188,186 59074 86 0.31 2619 23 164733 75 51712 1477 -1142

23 Sindhupalchok 289,455 88395 114 0.31 4068 22 260236 102 79472 2271 -1797

24 Kavrepalanchok 389,959 113958 279 0.29 7182 16 374579 268 109463 3128 -4054

25 Lalitpur 466,784 122082 1212 0.26 7374 17 612795 1592 160269 4579 -2795

26 Bhaktapur 303,027 57519 2546 0.19 5207 11 386914 3251 73442 2098 -3109

27 Kathmandu 1,740,977 365649 4408 0.21 7157 51 2661611 6738 559005 15972 8815

28 Nuwakot 278,761 79245 249 0.28 3759 21 255903 228 72747 2078 -1681

29 Rasuwa 43,798 13885 28 0.32 1030 13 40740 26 12916 369 -661

30 Dhading 336,250 102899 175 0.31 5137 20 317166 165 97059 2773 -2364

31 Makwanpur 427,494 116940 176 0.27 5694 21 442210 182 120966 3456 -2238

32 Rautahat 696,221 185477 618 0.27 2802 66 844727 750 225040 6430 3628

33 Bara 701,037 210970 589 0.30 2658 79 835004 702 251286 7180 4522

34 Parsa 601,701 142961 445 0.24 1944 74 691731 511 164352 4696 2752

35 Chitwan 566,661 149091 255 0.26 6599 23 646225 291 170025 4858 -1741

36 Gorkha 269,388 82080 75 0.30 4892 17 239269 66 72903 2083 -2809

37 Lamjung 169,104 51868 100 0.31 4245 12 153353 91 47037 1344 -2901

38 Tanahu 330,581 95684 214 0.29 6145 16 329338 213 95324 2724 -3421

39 Syangja 288,040 89122 247 0.31 5845 15 248389 213 76854 2196 -3649

40 Kaski 490,429 139942 243 0.29 9894 14 600469 298 171341 4895 -4999

41 Manang 6,527 891 3 0.14 262 3 4222 2 576 16 -246

42 Mustang 13,799 2488 4 0.18 925 3 12075 3 2177 62 -863

43 Myagdi 113,731 34684 50 0.30 2807 12 107369 47 32744 936 -1871

44 Parbat 147,076 34764 298 0.24 3299 11 130205 264 30776 879 -2420

45 Baglung 270,009 91303 151 0.34 5572 16 257531 144 87084 2488 -3084

46 Gulmi 283,577 84902 247 0.30 4615 18 257523 224 77101 2203 -2412

47 Palpa 269,372 81264 196 0.30 5117 16 256679 187 77435 2212 -2905

48 Nawalparasi 635,793 185926 294 0.29 7936 23 682255 316 199513 5700 -2236

49 Rupandehi 886,706 224912 652 0.25 4427 51 1054369 775 267440 7641 3214

of 70


50 Kapilbastu 570,612 153524 328 0.27 2994 51 641771 369 172669 4933 1939

51 Arghakhanchi 200,446 61522 168 0.31 3808 16 183164 154 56218 1606 -2202

52 Pyuthan 235,165 73966 180 0.31 3235 23 247254 189 77768 2222 -1013

53 Rolpa 227,075 77731 121 0.34 3163 25 233257 124 79847 2281 -882

54 Rukum 210,878 97790 73 0.46 3044 32 224191 78 103963 2970 -74

55 Salyan 243,575 88352 167 0.36 2005 44 263992 181 95758 2736 731

56 Dang 557,852 152277 189 0.27 5050 30 639385 216 174533 4987 -63

57 Banke 493,017 135642 211 0.28 3712 37 598467 256 164654 4704 992

58 Bardiya 426,946 127043 211 0.30 2815 45 452552 223 134663 3848 1033

59 Surkhet 360,104 126714 147 0.35 4218 30 426966 174 150241 4293 75

60 Dailekh 263,835 107697 176 0.41 3815 28 293642 196 119864 3425 -390

61 Jajarkot 172,565 86178 77 0.50 2969 29 209759 94 104752 2993 24

62 Dolpa 36,701 11139 5 0.30 1033 11 43311 5 13145 376 -657

63 Jumla 108,734 35269 43 0.32 1240 28 125599 50 40739 1164 -76

64 Kalikot 141,620 57843 81 0.41 1995 29 180464 104 73708 2106 111

65 Mugu 55,311 19996 16 0.36 1088 18 66148 19 23914 683 -405

66 Humla 51,008 16074 9 0.32 1005 16 60887 11 19187 548 -457

67 Bajura 135,506 52335 62 0.39 1901 28 160357 73 61933 1770 -131

68 Bajhang 196,277 78156 57 0.40 3629 22 219118 64 87251 2493 -1136

69 Achham 258,022 100649 154 0.39 3385 30 273457 163 106670 3048 -337

70 Doti 211,827 67897 105 0.32 2973 23 205863 102 65985 1885 -1088

71 Kailali 770,279 236151 238 0.31 5008 47 914004 283 280214 8006 2998

72 Kanchanpur 444,315 132399 276 0.30 3321 40 496283 308 147885 4225 904

73 Dadeldhura 141,543 47808 92 0.34 2427 20 150859 98 50955 1456 -971

74 Baitadi 252,116 97452 166 0.39 4395 22 257593 170 99569 2845 -1550

75 Darchula 133,464 45204 57 0.34 2940 15 138710 60 46981 1342 -1598

Total 26,620,809 7,542,393 29,590,466 8,296,353

Required Classrooms 45,235

Prepared by:


DRM Consultant




The Strategy

Submitted to



June 2014








The Strategy

Submitted to


June 2014

of 70

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 5

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 6

List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Strategy ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Chapter 1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 14

1.1 The Issue ............................................................................................................................................ 14

1.2 Nepal’s School Sector ........................................................................................................................ 15

1.3 Disaster Risks and Need for DRR for School Sector .......................................................................... 18

1.3.1 Multi-Hazard Risks in Nepal......................................................................................................... 18

1.3.2 Seismic Risk and Consequences ................................................................................................ 20

1.4 DRR Initiatives Related to School Sector ........................................................................................... 22

1.4.1 School Safety Program (SSP) Action Plan .................................................................................. 23

1.4.2 School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP) and School DRR ................................................................. 25

1.5 Challenges ......................................................................................................................................... 25

1.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 27

Chapter 2 Strategies to Increase DR of Schools...................................................................................... 28

2.1 Vision .................................................................................................................................................. 28

2.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 28

2.3 Overall Strategies ............................................................................................................................... 28

2.4 Linked Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 29

2.4.1 Strategy 1: Increased DR Awareness .......................................................................................... 29

2.4.2 Strategy 2: Continuous Reinforcement of Will and Commitment ................................................. 30

2.4.3 Strategy 3: Increased Institutionalization and Coordination ......................................................... 30

2.4.4 Strategy 4: Building Overall Capability and Capacity ................................................................... 31

2.4.5 Strategy 5: Facilitate and Support Local Research ...................................................................... 31

2.4.6 Strategy 6: Development and/or Amendment of Policies, Acts, and Regulations ........................ 32

2.5 Stand-alone Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 33

2.5.1 Strategy 7: Building Competency-based Capability and Capacity ............................................... 33

2.5.2 Strategy 8: Classification, Categorization, and Standardization................................................... 34

2.5.3 Strategy 9: Prioritized Increase in Multi-Hazard DR for Public Schools ....................................... 35

2.5.4 Strategy 10: Increased DR of Private Schools ............................................................................. 39

2.5.5 Strategy 11: Integration of DR into SSRP and Other Related Plans ............................................ 40

2.5.6 Strategy 12: Certification and Sustaining DR ............................................................................... 40

2.5.7 Strategy 13: Increased Community DR through Increased School DR ........................................ 41

2.5.8 Strategy 14: Integration of DR into the Academic and Professional Curricula ............................. 42

2.5.9 Strategy 15: Implementation of Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Management Plans ...................................................................................................................... 42

2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 43

Chapter 3 Framework for Implementation ................................................................................................ 45

3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 45

Content

of 70

3.2 Key Stakeholders and Roles .............................................................................................................. 45

3.2.1 Ministries and Departments of Government of Nepal .................................................................. 45

3.2.2 Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC) ................................................................................. 47

3.2.3 Development Partners and International Organizations .............................................................. 48

3.2.4 NGOs, CBOs, and Community .................................................................................................... 49

3.2.5 Academic and Professional Organizations .................................................................................. 49

3.2.6 Other Organizations ..................................................................................................................... 51

3.3 Primary Implementing Agencies ......................................................................................................... 51

3.3.1 Overall Framework ...................................................................................................................... 51

3.3.2 DOE and Institutional Development ............................................................................................. 51

3.3.3 The Role of MOE/DOE ................................................................................................................ 53

3.3.4 The Role of MOUD/DUDBC......................................................................................................... 53

3.3.5 Primary Role of DUDBC .............................................................................................................. 55

3.3.6 Collaboration between DOE and DUDBC .................................................................................... 56

3.3.7 Role of Other Ministries ............................................................................................................... 58

3.3.8 Role of Community ...................................................................................................................... 58

3.3.9 Coordination Framework ............................................................................................................. 59

3.4 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 60

References ................................................................................................................................................ 62

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................... 64

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................... 67

of 70

List of Tables

Table 1-1: School Distribution (Public vs. Private) 16

Table 1-2: Number of Schools in Various Distribution Parameters 17

Table 1-3: Relative Comparison of Seismic Risks 21

Table 1-4: A Sample Estimate based on the Consultant’s Review of the Available Data 22

of 70

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Administrative, Geographical, and Ecological Regions of Nepal 16

Figure 3-1: Proposed Physical Infrastructure Division (PID) in DOE 53

Figure 3-2: Conceptual Framework for Sharing DR Responsibility in Academic Institutions 55

Figure 3-3: Proposed New Sections in DUDBC 56

Figure 3-4: Proposed Roles for DOE and DUDBC 57

Figure 3-5: Proposed Coordination with Other Ministries 57

Figure 3-6: Proposed Organization in Dedicated Coordination Office 60

of 70

List of Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank

AHA Analytical Hierarchy Approach

AIT Asian Institute of Technology

ASIP Annual Strategic Implementation Plan

AusAID Australian Government Overseas Aid Program

AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget

BOQ Bill of Quantity

CBO Community-based Organization

CSSP Community School Support Programme

CTEVT Council for Technical Education & Vocational Training

DEO District Education Office

DOE Department of Education

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DR Disaster Resilience

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DUDBC Department of Urban Development & Building Construction

EFA Education for All

EMIS Education Management and Information System

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery

GON Government of Nepal

HFA Hyogo Framework for Action

INGO International Non-governmental Organization

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KV Kathmandu Valley

KPI Key Performance Indicator

MOE Ministry of Education

MOFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development

MOH Ministry of Health

MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs

MOUD Ministry of Urban Development

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NRRC Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium

NSET National Society for Earthquake Technology - Nepal

PHRD Policy and Human Resources Development, World Bank

RC Reinforced Concrete

of 70

SSP School Safety Program

SMC School Management Committees

SSRP School Sector Reform Program

SSS School Seismic Safety

TAC Technical Advisory Committee

TEP Teacher Education Project

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

VDCs Village Development Committees

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organization

of 70

Executive Summary

A Disaster Resilient Nepal: The Current Situation






2. Due to the growing understanding of the importance of disaster resilience (DR) in

Nepal, many programs have been initiated in many sectors, including the

establishment of National Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC), comprising of five

flagship programs.

3. One such program is the School Safety Program (SSP) which was initiated and is


for International Development under the Flagship 1 of the NRRC. As a Technical

Assistance Program, SSP is being implemented through Nepal’s Department of Education (DOE), under the Ministry of Education (MOE) which is the government

agency responsible also for the school sector. This program targeted about 260

public school buildings in Kathmandu Valley (KV) for retrofitting. SSP also included

capacity building programs for masons, teachers, students, and professionals in the

DOE within a 2-year duration starting from 2012. Many of these activities have been

successfully completed to date.


is only administered in KV, it has helped to identify several challenges, such as the

lack of capacity and resources, need for better technological solutions, quality


coordination amongst various stakeholders. Tackling the disaster risk reduction

(DRR) activities in the entire country with a scale that is 300 times larger, spread

over 75 districts, needs a clear strategy and plan. Streamlining existing processes

and developing innovative ways to increase and sustain DR is the key to

accomplishing scaling up.







Increasing DR in Schools: Overall Strategies and Actions


programs related to DRR in Nepal, and to ensure an increased effectiveness and

reduced instances of duplicated efforts and emphasize focus on DR of schools, the

strategies are divided into two categories; Linked and Stand-alone.


relevance to the national DRR initiatives, but will also impact the DR of the school

of 70















schools.









variations.




















of 70



outcomes.




national level.

Working Together: Ownership, Implementation, and Coordination








design, construction and operations of schools, both in the public and private

domain. This may include enforcing a combined certification and licensing system,

similar to that used for the operations of hospitals.

12. For public schools, DOE will carry out all of the planning, execution management,

and coordination of the entire DRR process, closely with DEO and technical

support from DUDBC. The actual execution of various work items will be conducted

by the consultants and contractors, with appropriate involvements and support

from the community, VDC, and INGOS/NGOS based on several factors including

location (urban/rural, mountains/hills/plains), type of construction, size of buildings,

and complexity of tasks.


through regulations, to gradually and progressively retrofit, relocate or rebuild the






such as tax breaks.




budgets, facilities and incentives.








consultants.

of 70










of 70

Strategy

of 70


Chapter 1 Background

1.1 The Issue

18. Nepal is among the most disaster prone countries in the world with a high level of

exposure to multiple hazards, most prominently earthquakes, floods, landslides,

windstorms, hailstorm, fire, glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), and avalanches.

Natural disasters have claimed the lives of more than 27,000 people between 1971

and 2007, indicating an average loss of more than 2 lives per day due to natural

disasters. More people are killed by natural disasters in Nepal than any other

country in South Asia. In addition to high mortality, more than 50,000 people were

reported as injured, 3,000 people missing, and about 5 million people affected by

natural disasters.1

19. The risk of an earthquake is of great concern in Nepal. After a major earthquake

struck this region in 1934, urbanization and population growth has increased the

country’s susceptibility to seismic hazard exponentially such that a similar earthquake would have catastrophic consequences today (NSET, 2012). Much of

the urbanization occurred in KV, which sits upon very soft soils that can amplify

shaking and cause liquefaction, which can further increase the potential

consequences of a high magnitude earthquake. The country lies on several active

faults, and possible epicenters, at a rather shallow depth, with a potential of very

strong ground motion.

20. School buildings and premises present particularly high risks due to the large

number of students, in relatively small, inappropriately designed and constructed

buildings. The loss of human, economic, and education facilities after a strong

event will be of enormous scale.

21. Schools need special attention due to the potentially high consequences in case

of disasters. Putting initiatives in place that address Disaster Resilience (DR) and

Environmental Sustainability (ES) can have long-term and far-reaching effects.

22. By carrying out the Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) or by strengthening the DR of

school buildings, these consequences can be averted or reduced significantly.

These buildings can also serve another purpose by providing the much needed

immediate shelters and short-term relief centers for nearby communities, which are

oftentimes equally or even more vulnerable.

23. School safety is addressed by relevant education policy and practices aligned

with disaster management at national, regional, district, and local school site

levels. Three key pillars were noted in the Comprehensive School Safety document

published in March 2013.2

1. Structures: Facilities and infrastructures that are safe from various risks is the

primary focus of the proposed strategy and plan.

1 Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal: Flagship Programmes, The Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium. April 2011.

http://www.un.org.np/sites/default/files/report/2011-04-19-nrrc-doccument-version-april-2011.pdf 2 Comprehensive School Safety, March 2013.

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/globalplatform/5194f951dabc99997_STC00792_DRR_CSS_Framework_singles_web.pdf

of 70


2. Plan: Disaster management plans that takes care of the consequences of

disasters, should it happen. These aspects are primarily addressed by

Flagship 2 and 4 of NRRC.

3. Education: Risk reduction and resilience education that prepares students,

teachers, and the affected community in the event of such risks and

disasters. This aspect is also addressed in this strategy document.

1.2 Nepal’s School Sector

24. The Ministry of Education is the apex body responsible for initiating and managing

education activities in the country. The Minister of Education, assisted by the

State/Assistant Minister, provides political leadership to the Ministry. The Ministry, as

a part of the government bureaucracy, is headed by the Secretary of Education

and consists of the central office, various functional offices, and offices located at

the regional and district levels. The Central Office or the Ministry is mainly

responsible for policy development, planning and monitoring, and evaluation

regarding different aspects of education.

25. Nepal is undergoing two momentous transformations – from a rural to an

urbanizing economy and from a unitary to a federal state. 3 Typical rural areas in

Nepal have a low population density and small settlements. Agricultural areas are

commonly rural. About 17% of the population resides in urban areas. With a

population of 2.5 million people, KV is growing at 4 % per year, one of the fastest-

growing metropolitan areas in South Asia. Several other districts, especially in the

plains, are also expanding at a significant rate.

26. Education in Nepal is structured as school education and higher education. School

education includes primary level of grades 1–5, lower secondary and secondary

levels of grades 6–8 and 9–10 respectively. Grades 11 and 12 are considered as

higher secondary level. The Higher Secondary Education Board (HSEB) supervises

higher secondary schools that are mostly under private management. Higher

education consists of bachelor, masters, and PhD levels. Depending upon the

stream and subject, bachelor’s level may be of three to five years' duration. This

categorization is currently being reviewed for re-organization. When confirmed,

Nepal may adopt two levels; 1-8 as Basic Education and 9-12 as Secondary

Education.

27. There are primarily two types of schools in the country: public (community-based)

and private. Public schools receive regular government grants depending on their

sub-type, such as community-supported, community-aided, and community un-

aided. The private schools are funded and operated independently by individuals,

companies, or through other non-governmental organizations.

28. For the entire country, the public schools constitute about 84% of the total

population of 6.3 million students. Private schools, with only 16% of the total, have

much greater presence in urban areas. In the case of KV, more than 75% of the

students attend privately-operated schools. It is believed, that with increased

urbanization and economic growth, enrolment in private schools is expected to

grow at a faster rate than public schools. The number of public and private

3 Urban Growth and Spatial Transition in Nepal. 2013.

http://issuu.com/world.bank.publications/docs/9780821396599

of 70


schools and estimated number of students, number of buildings, and classrooms

are shown in Table 1-1. These numbers are essential input for the development of

strategies and the preliminary plan.

Table 1-1: School Distribution (Public vs. Private)

Category Number of Schools Estimated Distribution

Students Buildings Classrooms Area (sqm)

Public 29,630 6,344,749 76,543 237,407 11,870,338

Private 5,593 1,197,644 14,448 44,813 2,240,662

Total 35,223 7,542,393 90,991 282,220 14,111,000

29. In addition to the distinction of public and private schools, the consideration to the

spatial and demographic distribution of various school-related indicators is

important for the development of the strategies and plans. The following

parameters

a. Three ecological belts: Terai (plains), elevated lands (hills), and mountains.

b. Five administrative regions: east, central, west, mid-west, and far-west.

c. Seventy-three districts, plus KV comprising three districts.

d. Two development categories: urban and rural.

Figure 1-1: Administrative, Geographical, and Ecological Regions of Nepal

30. Figure 1-2 shows a visual representation of the number of total schools and

students in all the districts, together with the distribution of public and private

schools, indicating wide variations in various districts located in different regions

and belts.

31. An analysis of the school data based on the above categorization shows wide

variations in the number of students, schools, buildings, classrooms, and student

densities.

32. While the overall number of public schools in the country is much higher than the

number of private schools, it is noticeable that private schools are more prevalent

in urban areas. In KV particularly, the students in private schools account for over

75% of the total number of students enrolled in schools (Figure 1-4). The student

proportions in the private schools are expected to increase in the future due to

urbanization, migration patterns, as well as economic affluence.

of 70


Figure 1-2: The Administrative, Geographical, and Ecological Regions of Nepal

Table 1-2: Number of Schools in Various Distribution Parameters

Sr. no. Parameters Public Private

Numbers Percentage Numbers Percentage

a

Plains/Terai 9,130 85% 1,630 15%

Hills 17,245 85% 2,953 15%

Mountains 4,065 95% 200 5%

b

East 6,732 88% 958 12%

Central 8,243 79% 2,183 21%

West 6,585 86% 1,062 14%

Mid-west 4,910 93% 345 7%

Far-west 3,970 94% 235 6%

c Kathmandu Valley 642 29% 1,585 71%

All Other Districts(72) 29,798 90% 3,198 10%

d

Urban 3,826 73% 1,393 27%

Rural 25,972 94% 1,805 6%

Kathmandu Valley 642 29% 1,585 71%

of 70


Figure 1-3: School Distribution based on Four Categorizations: Ecological Belt,

Administrative Region, District, and Urban/Rural Development

1.3 Disaster Risks and Need for DRR for School Sector

1.3.1 Multi-Hazard Risks in Nepal

33. Nepal is extremely susceptible to many natural disasters due to the location and

landscape. Though earthquakes are considered one of the major hazards

affecting Nepal, some of the other common natural hazards, 4 related to the

schools safety need to be considered in the overall DRR are listed below:

34. Landslides: Both natural and human factors are responsible for these frequent

landslides. Common natural factors encompass steep slopes, fragile geology, and

high intensity of rainfall. Human factors that may also affect the frequency of

landslides, particularly in vulnerable mountain belts, involve improper land use,

encroachment into vulnerable land slopes, and unplanned development activities

such as construction of roads and irrigation canals without proper protection

measures. These occurrences are found around Siwalik, Mahabharat range, mid-

land, and also in the higher Himalayas.

35. Floods: During the monsoon season, waterways fed by the melting of the Koshi,

Narayani, Karnali, and Mahakali rivers swell and cause damage to the villages,

crops lands, people, and livestock situated at the river basins.

4 Nepal Disaster Knowledge Network - Nepal Disaster Knowledge Network (NDKN) has been developed under the portal of SAARC

Disaster Management Centre. The NDKN is a web portal within the South Asian Disaster Knowledge Network that provides a broad

array of resources, knowledge, and services such as knowledge collaboration, map generation, database, and other important

information pertaining to disaster management.

Accessed from: http://www.saarc-sadkn.org/countries/nepal/country_profile.aspx

of 70


P

ub

lic -

Ru

ral

Priva

te -

Ru

ral

Figure 1-4: Variations in School and Student Distributions in Schools in Nepal

(Public/Private, Rural/Urban)

School Distribution Student Distribution P

ub

lic -

Urb

an

Priva

te -

Urb

an

of 70


36. Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs): Glacial lakes in the foothills of the mountain

outburst from the melting of huge glaciers. These occurrences cause great

damage downstream. Currently, 15 glacial lakes are indicated as substantially

dangerous in Nepal.

37. Fire: Most of the houses in the rural areas are constructed in clusters with materials

made of earthen wire, stone, and wood. Thus, these are highly susceptible to

catching and spreading fire during the dry season. Wildfire is another cause of

natural disaster, which usually occurs during the dry season especially in the mid hill

areas.

38. Avalanche: Rapid movement of snow and debris bring massive masses down

through the slope or flanks of mountains. The high mountainous region of Nepal,

having rugged and steep slopes topographically, is susceptible to these

avalanches.

1.3.2 Seismic Risk and Consequences

39. What makes the seismic hazards more difficult and thus very important to consider

compared to other natural hazards are due to the following points:

a. Unlike many other hazards, such as landslides and floods that may affect

some particular regions and areas, earthquake seismic hazards are of high

level for the entire country.

b. Many of the natural disasters are either seasonal, or can be predicted, or

early warning systems can be developed and implemented to take

preventive or evacuative measures.

c. Many hazards can be avoided by temporary relocation such as moving to

higher ground during floods. However, it is not uncommon to find that there

is no such location to seek refuge at or time to relocate due to the lack of

early warning and extremely short event time of earthquakes.

d. In the context of Nepal, the consequence of a “rare” or “extremely strong” earthquake event is expected to be much more devastating, and longer

lasting than other hazards.

40. Based on the review of various documents, discussions with engineers, and visits to

some of the selected buildings, it was noted that many buildings and schools were

built using unsafe construction techniques, and were also currently in poor physical

conditions due to sub-standard material or workmanship, lack of maintenance, or

extreme age. Many buildings have serious maintenance problems, such as

decaying timbers or severely cracked walls that may deteriorate and create

dangerous conditions causing safety hazards even without the onset of an

earthquake.

41. A relative comparison of the seismic hazards, risks, vulnerability, and possible

consequences for some of the countries is shown in Table 1-3. The seismic hazard

levels in Nepal have nearly the same maximum PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration)

as that in Japan and in California, United States. Both of these countries have less

vulnerability compared to Nepal due to their advanced state of awareness and

technological development, together with better quality of construction and

preparedness. They have experienced lower consequences in terms of loss of life

of 70


from strong earthquakes. On the other hand, Haiti, which experienced an

earthquake of a much less intensity than those in the United States or in Japan,

resulted in disastrous consequences due to high vulnerability.

Table 1-3: Relative Comparison of Seismic Risks

Country Hazard Vulnerability

Observed/

Anticipated

Consequences

Japan Very High

Max. PGA = About 1.2

Max. EQ = 9.0 M

Very Low

Advanced state of

awareness,

technology, design,

and empowerment

Low

Low/medium for

general buildings

Low level of casualties

observed

United States

(California)

Very High

Max. PGA = About 1.2

Max. EQ = 7.9 M

Low

Advanced state of

awareness,

technology, retrofitting

of many structures

Low

Low/medium for

general buildings

Low level of casualties

observed

Nepal High to Very High

Max. PGA = Estimate

1,0

Max. EQ = 8.29 M

Very High

Poor construction, lack

of awareness,

inadequate design,

High/ Very High

Extensive damage

experienced in the

past with potential for

much greater

consequences

Haiti High

Max PGA = About 1.1

Max EQ = 7.0 M

Very High

Very poor

construction, lack of

awareness,

inadequate design,

Very High

Recent earthquake

caused close over

250,000 casualties

42. In an earlier study conducted by NSET (2011), 5 a rough estimation of damages to

buildings was determined using information about typical construction types found

in KV. Such information on construction types were also collected and analyzed

while developing the Nepal National Building Code, 1994. 6 Results indicated that

as many as 60% of all buildings in KV are likely to be damaged heavily, many

beyond repair, if a future earthquake causes shaking equivalent to intensity 9.

43. A detailed and reliable estimate of causalities, downtime, and cost of

repair/rebuild requires extensive data and studies, together with the use of

standardized methodologies and tools such as HAZUS 7 are necessary. To estimate

the order of consequences, a few scenarios were roughly considered for strong

5 Snapshot Study for School Safety in Nepal - Report on Snapshot Study for School Safety in Nepal, 2011, a government report

prepared by NSET financed by ADB.

6 Nepal National Building Code, NBC 110: 1994. http://www.dudbc.gov.np/pdf/nbc/NBC110.pdf 7 Hazus is a standardized methodology by FEMA that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes,

Floods, and hurricanes. Hazus uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to estimate physical, economic, and social

impacts of disasters. http://www.fema.gov/hazus

of 70


earthquakes that correspond to a national Maximum Considered Earthquake

(MCE) level event affecting about 40% of the overall schools in the country. The

following range of casualties, and school closures were estimated using the

following data and assumptions.

Total Buildings 90,991

Total Students 7,542,393

Percentage of buildings assumed to be effected by scenario

earthquake

40%

44. The table below is an estimate based on the Consultant’s review of the available data, hazard levels, building designs information, overall type and quality of

construction, and discussions with other experts. The figures derived were not

based on any detailed computational or loss-estimation model. The numbers

however are realistic and provide an insight to the order of the consequences.

The CP (Collapse Prevention), LS (Life Safety), and IO (Immediate Occupancy)

refer to the typical performance indicators used to define various states of

structural response after an earthquake.

Table 1-4: A Sample Estimate based on the Consultant’s Review of the Available Data

Scenario

Case

Severely

Damaged/

Collapsed,

(Casualties

25%, Repair

Cost 80%)

Moderately

Damaged,

(Casualties,

2%, Repair

cost 25%)

Not

Damaged

(No

Casualty,

no repair)

Estimated

Repair Cost

USD

(millions)

Estimated

Lost

Student-

Days

(millions)

Estimated

School-

time Event

Casualties

Favorable 10% 30% 60% 100 60 90,000

Moderate 20% 40% 40% 180 110 175,000

Unfavorable 30% 50% 20% 250 150 250,000

1.4 DRR Initiatives Related to School Sector

45. Important research and groundwork has been established by many organizations

containing key data useful analysis relevant to the development of the strategy for

DR efforts for schools in Nepal, including two related documents:

Developing Strategy for Improving School Seismic Safety (SSS) - National

Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET), prepared for GFDRR,

2011.

Snapshot Study for School Safety in Nepal - Report on Snapshot Study for

School Safety in Nepal, 2011, a government report prepared by National

Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET) financed by ADB.

46. There have been and are several ongoing initiatives by the GON and

development partners, UN agencies, INGOs, NGOs, and other stakeholders related

to DRR in many sectors including those especially targeted at schools. These

include awareness building programs, capacity building programs, preparedness,

as well as the retrofitting school buildings. While all of these initiatives are valuable

in their own right, the need for coordination and consistency to increase their

of 70


effectiveness is felt by many stakeholders, and is therefore identified as one of the

primary challenges when implementing DR activities.

47. One of the most significant ongoing initiatives, and relevant to the development of

the present strategy and the plan is the School Safety Program (SSP) or sometimes

referred to as School Earthquake Safety Program (SESP). This program, started as

part of the Flagship 1 of the National Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC), focusing

on school and hospital safety, led by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), World

Health Organization (WHO), and Nepal’s Ministry of Education (MOE) and Ministry

of Health (MOH).

1.4.1 School Safety Program (SSP) Action Plan

48. School Safety Program (SSP) is funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and

the Australian Agency for International Development. SSP is a Technical Assistance

Program, implemented through Nepal’s Department of Education (DOE), Ministry of Education (MOE). According to the Action Plan, 8 this program was scheduled

for 2012-2014 duration and is targeted and for retrofitting about 260 public school

buildings in the KV. Several other activities have been also included to create a

more inclusive approach for greater impact such as:

Public awareness building programs.

Development of strategic documents.

Capacity building programs for masons, teachers, students, and

professionals in the DOE, by organizing workshops and other events.

Demonstration of structural retrofitting and rehabilitation techniques.

49. The results and experiences from the implementation of the SSP are being used as

the basis for the expansion of the program and for the development of the present

strategy and plan to scale up the process and techniques to address the DRR of all

schools in the entire country.

50. As of date, the following targets have been achieved through the SSP and other

related initiatives by the DOE: 9

Work Status KV Outside KV Total

Completed Rapid Visual Vulnerability Assessment 201 35 236

Completed Design for Retrofitting 197 35 232

Design Reviewed (approved from Technical

Committee)

197 35 232

Ongoing Program for Vulnerability Assessment

and Retrofit Design

84 125 209

Retrofitting Construction Completed 64 64

8 School Earthquake Safety Program (SSP) Action Plan, 2012/2014. 9 Introduction and update on SSP, Senior Divisional Engineer, DOE, April 28, 2014

of 70


Agreement completed and ongoing construction

for retrofitting

133 35 168

51. In addition, the following were also accomplished:

128 engineers/ sub-engineers trained (3 sets of basic technical training on

retrofitting and 1 set of engineers training on seismic strengthening

completed)

TOT for 81 RP (54 in KV + 27 Outside KV)

2,580 teachers trained at RC level

Orientation to 12,000 teachers from 1,215 schools from 11 districts

300 masons trained (156 through 5 days intensive training and remaining

through on the job training) on retrofitting

About 243,000 students were provided with 1 day orientation

1.4.1.1 Key Observations on SSP

52. Many activities have been initiated and completed, and the progress on the

software side of the program is very impressive.

53. Although several school buildings have already been retrofitted, and many have

been designed and are in the process of implementation, however, the

implementation of some activities are behind schedule.

54. The entire process of increasing the DR of existing schools is rather new in the

context of Nepal, and especially for DOE. There are therefore several initiation and

teething difficulties in streamlining the existing processes to accommodate these

new demands such as evaluation and selection of buildings, design and design

reviews, costing, billing, construction supervision, approvals, role of community in

execution of works, and financial community contribution.

55. Although capacity building and training of the respective personnel has been

envisaged and conducted as part of the program, it was observed that very

limited resources were allocated to DOE, and within DOE, to carry out the assigned

tasks. Among the available resources, key persons often manage many other

responsibilities in addition to the tasks required for increasing DR of schools.

56. Other challenges identified were insufficient and delayed budget allocation,

difficulty in achieving community participation targets that lead to delayed or

incomplete execution, lack of policy regarding DRR of private schools, no

budgetary allocation for project management, QA/QC, lack of proper

coordination framework and lack of incentive structure for the technical staff, that

were often employed on ad-hoc and/or temporary basis.

57. Upon reviewing the interventions, it was found that there were significant variations

of intervention cost across different building types and sizes, and between the

buildings designed by different consultants. Implementers also expressed difficulty

in using some of the planned contractor-based implementation. There were also

noticeable delays in some design, approval, and construction process.

of 70


58. Provided that the current SSP covers less than 0.3% of total scope and is only

administered in Kathmandu Valley, tackling a similar project with a scale that is 300

times larger, spread over 75 districts, needs a clear strategy and plan.

1.4.2 School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP) and School DRR

59. The School Sector Reform Plan (2009-2015), August 2009, Ministry of Education,

Kathmandu forms the basis of most of the improvements and modification that are

ongoing in the school sector. The plan calls for a total budget of about 2.8 billion

USD for a period of five years.

60. Reports showed that except for a few cases, most of the programs implemented in

the districts were observed to be satisfactory. Enthusiasm, commitment, and

creativity have been reflected in the district reports. An increased level of

awareness on educational programs among stakeholders was also reported due

to the basic orientation of the program and the disclosure of information on

educational activities across multiple channels.

61. Areas such as governance and accountability, internal control mechanism,

transparency, monitoring, evaluation, supervision and reporting are some of the

areas that need increased effectiveness in order to make the system more

functional. 10

62. However, despite the broad scope of the SRRP, there seems to a lack of emphasis

in the plan on any aspects of school safety, DR, or DRR for any of the hazards. This

is neither addressed for the existing school facilities, nor for the requirements and

budget allocated for up-gradation, re-furbishing or construction of new classrooms

and schools.

63. It is important to introduce the SSRP as a potential platform for scaling up the DR

initiatives. The potential of SSRP is elaborated in various strategies and

implementation plan.

1.5 Challenges

64. The specific challenges identified through the ongoing SSP are discussed in section

1.4.1.1, and can be summarized as the need to address the shortage of resources,

increased capacity building in various actors, appropriate budget allocation and

financial approval systems, cost-effective retrofitting solutions, and improved focus

on quality assurance, coordination, and management.

65. The overall challenges identified through several interactions and consultations

with other stakeholders are multi-level and complex.

10 School Sector Reform Program (SSRP), Second Higher Education Project (SHEP), Education For All Shishu Vikash Karyakram,

Community School Capacity Development Program, Status Report 2012.

of 70


66. These challenges can be summarized as:

Scale and

Complexity

The scale and complexity in terms of the number of schools, their

geographical and regional distribution, and the number of the

stakeholders involved.

Political

Need for reinforcement of will at the top levels, the commitment to this

will, assigning a high priority, making of appropriate policies and

legislations, and continuity until the objectives are achieved.

Governance Strengthening the appropriate frameworks and organizational

structures to handle this task.

Legal Need of sufficient and appropriate legal frameworks based on the

policies and regulations, and corresponding enforcements.

Financial

Need of financial resources for undertaking the scaled up tasks, the

integration of the DRR activities in appropriate budgets, the possible

misuse of funds, and delays in realization of the allocated funds.

Technical

Need for greater ability and capacity to handle planning and design

aspects, lack of intervention technologies, QE/QA/QC issues, and lack

of relevant research.

Management Lack of capacity, frameworks, and mechanisms for all aspects related

to management, coordination, reporting, monitoring, and evaluation.

Social

Not enough public awareness on the significance of DRR, lack of

acceptance of the intervention solutions, low/inadequate community

contributions.

67. The national scale of the school sector, distinctive spatial distribution, administrative

and ecological regions, and large number of stakeholders present major

challenges in developing the appropriate strategies and plans to cover

widespread implementation. Details are described as follows:

of 70


Hazards to be considered Earthquakes (for the entire country)

Floods, landslides, fires, on relevant zones

Seismic risk Hazard amongst the highest zones in the world

Vulnerability, very high

Risk and consequences very high

Regions and administrative

units

75 districts

3,912 VDCs

5 regions

3 ecological belts

Kathmandu Valley

School types Public/community and private

KG, primary, secondary, high

Existing schools 35,200 schools

91,000 buildings

282, 200 classrooms

New schools No clear plan for public and private sector

School students 7. 5 Million, nearly 28% of the total population

Stakeholders GON, a number of related ministries

UN Agencies

Development partners

INGOS/NGOs

Extensive Community involvement

1.6 Conclusions






69. School buildings and the surrounding premises are thus prone to particularly high

risks due to the large number of students studying in relatively small, inappropriately

designed and constructed buildings. Due to Nepal’s susceptibility to natural

disasters, the loss of human, economic, and education facilities after a strong

event will be of an enormous scale. By increasing the DR of schools and its

infrastructure, these consequences can be averted or reduced significantly. These

buildings can also provide the much needed immediate shelters and temporary

relief centers for the surrounding communities, which are equally or even more

vulnerable.

70. Due to the scale of the task and the relationships among multiple stakeholders,

there is a need to develop and adopt a clear strategy and overall plan to scale

up the ongoing initiatives for increasing the DR of the school sector. This strategy

needs to address various challenges that cover the scale and complexity of the

project; political, governance, and legal issues; financial, technical, and

management requirements for implementation; together with carefully addressing

the social implications to the general public. A preliminary plan is also needed to

estimate the requirements of resources, budget, and time and establish the basis

for the prioritized intervention.

of 70


Chapter 2 Strategies to Increase DR of Schools

2.1 Vision

“All new school buildings will be constructed with due consideration to risk from

various hazards (and environmental sustainability11), and that all existing schools

will have acceptably high resilience to various disasters by 2025 or earlier.”

71. At the core of this vision lies the recognition of children’s rights to survival and protection as well as to education and participation. Protecting learners and

education workers from death, injury, and harm involve developing safer

structures, a school disaster management plan, and educating all stakeholders. 12

2.2 Objectives

72. The objectives of this initiative include the following:

1. Prevent and/or minimize casualties and serious injuries to the students and

staff as a result of natural disasters.

2. Reduce the damage to the school property and assets in the course of a

disaster.

3. Minimize the disruption to the normal activity of the schools, during and

after a disaster.

4. Increase the resilience of school buildings at a level that can also serve as

shelters for the community.

5. Use disaster reduction process for the schools as a model and means for

enhancing the ability and capacity of the community.

6. Contribute towards the overall national initiatives for DRR and

management.

2.3 Overall Strategies

73. As highlighted in the Chapter 1, there are several ongoing and planned initiatives

and programs related to DRR in Nepal. It is therefore essential that the strategies for

the DR of schools recognize and support these initiatives. The proposed strategies

are divided into two categories:

74. A - Linked Strategies: Linked strategies refer to those that have direct relationships,

ownership, and/or relevance to the national DRR initiatives, and are either based

on strengthening and supporting other ongoing and planned initiatives or needs

integration with them. Detailed actions, plans, and outcomes for these are

dependent upon the other initiatives that are concurrently being run.

11 It is highly recommended that environmental sustainability considerations be added to this vision, although at

present is not explicitly covered by the strategies and the corresponding plans. 12 Comprehensive School Safety, March 2013

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/globalplatform/5194f951dabc99997_STC00792_DRR_CSS_Framework_singles

_web.pdf

of 70


75. B - Standalone Strategies: Stand-alone strategies are specific strategies that are

primarily applicable to the school sector and can be implemented mostly

independently within the frameworks described in this document.

2.4 Linked Strategies

76. The following linked strategies are proposed:


2. Continuous reinforcement of will and commitment at the highest levels of

the government and development partners.



4. Building overall capability and capacity of different stakeholders for

disaster risk reduction.



6. Development and/or amendment of policies, acts, and regulations; and


actions, and measures aimed at DRR of various sectors, including the

schools.

2.4.1 Strategy 1: Increased DR Awareness

77. There appears to be considerable awareness regarding the importance and need

of DRR amongst various sectors in the primary stakeholders. However, there is still a

need to increase the awareness of overall DRR among a wider audience, carrying

messages about the specific awareness about the importance of the DR of

schools. Increasing this awareness is likely to generate greater consensus and

support for the various other aspects of the strategy and plan for increasing the DR

of schools.

78. It is also important to link awareness raising and capacity development program to

execution and not be handled separately from the construction work.

79. Proposed actions include the following:

1. Develop appropriate and focused messaging material, in coordination

with international forums and guidelines, and NRRC’s communication unit

for specific communication tools for the following primary stakeholders:

a. Government ministries and departments.

b. Development partners, UN Agencies, INGOS, NGOs, etc.

c. Academia, professional bodies.

d. Students, parents, and the general public.

2. Distribute communication materials to relevant stakeholders.

3. Carry out an extensive awareness programs through various TV programs,

print and electronic media, and events.

of 70


4. Set up special discussion groups and forums through social media, and

launch a regular electronic newsletter under the umbrella of NRRC to

communicate results.

5. Engage teacher associations, student groups, and youth organizations.

2.4.2 Strategy 2: Continuous Reinforcement of Will and Commitment

80. Initiatives like DR that appear to fall outside the regular operation needs, often

have a better chance of success when supported by champions of the cause at

the highest level who can advocate for the issue and have the will and

commitment to carry them through. This requires the DR strategies to be brought to

the agenda of the highest levels of GON and the top levels of other stakeholders

and partners.

81. This can be achieved through:

1. Developing a presentation and/or the submission of strategic documents

on this issue to H.E. the Prime Minister’s office and Council of Ministers as a

matter of national importance.

2. Seeking the issuance of a policy statement, and directives, supporting the

DRR initiatives in general, and the DR of schools in particular.

3. Declaration from relevant ministries and departments to own and commit

to this task, in accordance with the proposed organizational frameworks.

4. Re-affirmed commitment from the heads of the development partners and

agencies to support this issue.

5. Possibly signing of MOA by all stakeholders to legitimize will and

commitment.

6. Development and/or amendment of policies, acts, and regulations.

2.4.3 Strategy 3: Increased Institutionalization and Coordination

82. In the context of this document, the institutionalization of the DRR aspects covers

the following details:

a. There are primary institutions in the country that are specially tasked with,

and are assigned to provide overall responsibility and the corresponding

authority of the disaster management, such as FEMA in USA and NDMA in

Pakistan.

b. There are specialized secondary agencies that are either independent, or

are divisions or sections within other institutions supporting the DRR activities

in various sectors, that support the initiatives.

c. All institutions have awareness mechanisms and focal points for the

coordination of risk reduction and disaster management.

83. While the establishment of a national level institute is essential for the success of

various DRR initiatives, this is considered beyond the scope of this document.

Actions and frameworks proposed in this document aim to facilitate the

involvement of specialized secondary agencies and focal point institutions in the

context of the DR of schools.

of 70


84. DR activities, including the concept of retrofitting may be integrated with

maintenance procedures that are already institutionalized or generally planned

and budgeted for annually.

85. Although most of these actions are further expanded in Chapter 3, Framework for

Implementation, some actions may include the following:

1. Identify the primary agencies responsible for carrying out this task and

develop the corresponding organizational structures.

2. Provide institutional frameworks for the implementation of this program,

considering all relevant stakeholders.

3. Create mechanisms within this program to enable systematic reporting and

coordination for both the activities and outcome.

4. Set up a dedicated web portal and contribute to open-sources networks

(such as OpenDRI) for information dissemination and sharing.

2.4.4 Strategy 4: Building Overall Capability and Capacity

86. One of many objectives of national education is also for the students to learn and

to develop their capabilities, while also building sufficient capacity to contribute to

the development and well-being of the nation as a whole. Carrying out the DRR of

schools will provide a first-hand opportunity for building capacity and capability

that will in essence benefit all initiatives, including DR. It is important to engage

teachers, students, and the community and integrate the awareness of the

components and importance of DR and ES, basic response to disasters, and the

need and scope of further studies and skills into the education process.

87. The specific actions are to include:

1. Within basic school curriculum, there must be increased awareness about

DR and Environmental Sustainability through emphasis by MOE and DOE.

2. Within the curriculum of vocational training, increased focus is necessary on

techniques and technologies for retrofitting, constructing safer new

buildings and structures, in related trades. This can be led by CTEVT and

other organizations involved in vocational trainings and certifications.

3. Within various professional academic programs, incorporate current trends

and developments in the field of DRR through the universities curricula

development.

4. Within the professional development programs, focus on the proper

application of codes and new techniques through professional

organizations and programs.

2.4.5 Strategy 5: Facilitate and Support Local Research

88. One of the challenges identified in the implementation of the ongoing SSP is the

lack of enough appropriate, cost-effective techniques and technologies for

constructing new buildings and retrofitting existing that are well adapted to the

local context. There also seems to be a greater need for human resources with in-

depth local knowledge and expertise for various aspects of the DRR process. This

challenge can be addressed by active support for the research and

development. This will not only lead to appropriate solutions, in a cost-effective

of 70


manner, but will also help to strengthen the research activities in the academic

institutes, which will turn benefit the overall capability and capacity building.

89. The following actions are proposed to implement this strategy:

1. Provide opportunities to work on locally suitable solutions for technical

challenges faced for implementation, through the allocation of

appropriate budgets and mechanisms for engaging local research centers

and institutes.

2. Provide opportunities for local institutions to link with international research

organizations through program and project network, as well as through

stipulations for prescribed local engagement.

3. Utilize the services offered by these centers for various tests, verifications,

and reviews.

4. Create a database of centers in universities, semi-public organizations, as

well as centers in private centers, listing their capabilities and research

interests for proper engagement.

2.4.6 Strategy 6: Development and/or Amendment of Policies, Acts, and

Regulations

90. Creating and maintaining legal conditions that address DR is necessary when

scaling up for country-wise implementation. While formulating specific policies,

acts and rules to address the DR requirements in schools are needed, it may be

necessary and possibly more effective to integrate the following aspects in the

relevant existing documents.

a. Requiring all new public schools to be built with due consideration to and

certification of the achieving the safety standards needed by relevant

building codes and guidelines.

b. Requiring all new private schools to be housed in buildings with due

consideration to and the certification of achieving the safety standards

needed by relevant building codes and guidelines.

c. Requiring existing private schools to gradually relocate and/or retrofit the

buildings to achieve the required safety and performance standards.

d. Requiring public and private schools to obtain specific approvals for

expansions, extensions, or alterations with due consideration to the safety

standards and guidelines.

91. Several related policies, acts, and regulations were revisited to determine whether

certain necessary mechanisms to enable the well-coordinated implementation of

DR for schools in Nepal are supported by policies and lawful measures.

92. The Education Rules, 2067 (2002), last amended on 2010, discusses infrastructure

requirements in Chapter 2: Provision relating to permission for establishment of

school. The section offers comprehensive procedural and establishment processes

but does not provide rules to address DR for infrastructure.

93. In relation to Rule 4 on the requirements for infrastructures for establishing a school,

Schedule 3 provides a detailed list from A to R. None of the rules refer specifically

of 70


to DR though some provide considerations for infrastructure construction for

example, the nominal height of classrooms, minimum floor area per student, and

rental duration. These rules and schedules can be expanded and/or new rules

and schedules can be added that explicitly address the requirements for buildings

and facilities that are safe and resilient to disasters, in addition to being functional.

94. Of the many the policies, acts, and regulations reviewed, a list of acts that may

need to be reviewed, addressed, and included in order to achieve DRR follows:

National Framework of Child Friendly School for Quality Education (2010)

Technical Education and Vocational Training Council Act, 2066 (2010)

Higher Secondary Education Rules, 2052 (1996)

2.5 Stand-alone Strategies

95. These strategies explicitly cover the “Safe Facilities” aspects of the overall school

safety, while also addressing awareness and education aspects:





geographical, administrative, rural/urban, building materials and size

variations.


disaster consequences as the primary measure derived from hazard levels,

vulnerability, and exposure, using a combination of on-time and

incremental approaches.


regulations, licensing, certification, support and incentives, in close

collaboration with private sector.









implementation, and monitoring the final outcome of increased school DR.






outcomes.

2.5.1 Strategy 7: Building Competency-based Capability and Capacity

96. One of the main challenges that factors into the need for scaling up the ongoing

SSP is the availability of sufficient qualified, trained, and fully equipped

of 70


professionals, including local consultants, to undertake various aspects of the DRR

process. This requires the need to enhance the capability of the existing personnel,

increase the number of qualified personnel, and provide required organizational

and resource support.

97. Key actions involve the following four priorities:

1. Establish the need for resources for various tasks within different

stakeholders.

2. Develop a database of available experts engaged in the capability and

capacity building.

3. Design consistent and integrated programs. Conduct these programs

following the objectives and activities of the proposed mission and

objectives. The following relevant groups should be targeted, with specific

competency:

a. DOE/DEO and DUDBC staff for various roles such as planning,

assessment, budgeting, design review, site supervision, quality

assurance, and reporting.

b. Consultants (engineers and architects, managers) for design and

management capabilities.

c. Inspectors for quality assurance and certification.

d. Contractors and their staff for updating construction techniques

and technologies.

e. Masons and other skilled labor for specific construction techniques

and quality.

4. Ensure these programs are integrated with other programs and projects to

avoid duplication of efforts.

2.5.2 Strategy 8: Classification, Categorization, and Standardization

98. Experiences from the ongoing SSP, which is dealing with only 260 buildings within

KV, has shown scaling up activities to include thousands of buildings across the

country will not be possible using the “individual building” approach being used at present. It is important to classify, categorize, and standardize the design and

construction approaches so that a large number of buildings and facilities can be

handled within a reasonable time, using a simplified process, and producing

consistent output. The following actions are proposed, which will be used as the

basis for developing the preliminary prioritized plan:

1. Generate the basic inventory of all public and private schools buildings,

including basic information about the physical characteristic such as size,

number of stories, basic building material/structure type, overall condition,

providing visuals of the buildings’ exterior and interior. This information can

then added or integrated into the current database maintained by EMIS.

Simple information collection forms can be developed and sent to DEO

and school administrative team. All school buildings should be geo-tagged

by the GPS coordinates.

of 70


2. Classify and categorize buildings by operator (public, private), by size

(large, medium, small), by age (historic, very old, old, new), material type

(URM, RC, others), condition (very good, good, fair, poor, very poor), and

location (rural, urban, and further by Terai, hills, mountains, KV).

3. Develop standardized intervention approaches and details for various

categories.

2.5.3 Strategy 9: Prioritized Increase in Multi-Hazard DR for Public Schools

99. Implementing and prioritizing schemes to increase DR for public schools is the

primary focus for the intervention strategy. While the main risk may be from

earthquakes and the demands from other hazards, non-structural threats also

need careful consideration during integration into a single intervention plan.

100. Standard and well-established guidelines, procedures, and tools for multi-hazard

assessment and intervention together with consideration for appropriate structural

and non-structural aspects should be adopted into all aspects of the intervention.13

101. The hazards and strategies that are to be considered are:

– The risk of earthquakes to all schools, based on appropriate hazard levels.

– Landslides and avalanches for schools in hills and mountains, and known

hazard zones. This may require a regional level intervention, or relocation as

building level intervention may not be possible in a cost-effective manner.

– Floods in the schools in plains, hills, and other areas with established

flooding hazard. This risk is typically addressed on regional level, rather than

on individual building levels.

– Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs), for specific areas where such hazards

have been identified. This may also require a macro level intervention, or

re-location.

– Winds and storms, for all buildings in all zones.

– Fire for all buildings in all zones.

102. Increasing DR involves three streams of actions:

1. For completely new buildings to be built;

2. For adding rooms/expansions to existing buildings; and

3. For existing buildings without expansion.

103. It is recommended to integrate 2 and 3 into a single approach for existing

buildings, and the following approach is prescribed:

1. Determine if the expansion of the building is included in the SSRP within the

next 5 (or 10) years.

If yes, then integrate DR intervention and expansion into a single

design and implementation plan.

13 Tools for the Assessment of School and Hospital Safety, UN HABITAT

http://www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org/info/misc/20130216.html

of 70


If no, then plan for intervention on as-is basis, and mark building for

no expansion after intervention without full evaluation and specific

approval.

2. Carry out preliminary data collection and assessment.

3. Decide to either accept the building “as is” and move to certification

process or go for further review.

4. Carry out second level evaluation and decide approach from any of the

following option:

A. Accept the building > Move to certification process.

B. Demolish and rebuild > Use new building process.

C. Demolish and abandon (No need in overall SRRP).

D. Design the retrofit (Both structural and non-structural).

i. Specify implementation as one-time construction

ii. Specify implementation using incremental process

5. Use an approach that combines classification, categorization, and

standardization for prioritization, planning, and implementation, as detailed

in section 2.5.2.

2.5.3.1 Choosing between Rebuild and Retrofit:

104. When deciding whether to retrofit or rebuild, the following strategy and

considerations are important:

All historical, monumental, or national heritage buildings must be

considered as special cases by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

A purely on cost basis following criteria is recommended in order to

consider the overall benefits of the investment. In essence, older vulnerable

buildings should be considered for re-build, as it will not only improve DR

but also the functionality, and possibly land and/or space utilization. Newer

vulnerable buildings should be preferred for retrofit, even at a higher

relative cost.

While computing rebuilding cost, the savings due to possible re-use of

material from existing buildings should be considered.

105. General considerations based on the age and vulnerability of selected buildings

are outlined below:

of 70


106. More details about making the choice between re-build and retrofit are given in a

separate document, Retrofitting for DR of Schools in Nepal, 2013 14, which shows

the relative importance of building age, cost of retrofit, vulnerability, allowed

down-time, land-use value, available budget, and other factors.

2.5.3.2 On One-time Construction and Incremental Approach:

107. In the current SSP, a one-time construction approach is being used, which

considers each intervention as a single project, with specified budget, timeframe,

and resources. This approach is generally suitable when financial and other

resources are available and earmarked for the DRR purpose. This is more of a

project-oriented approach, which is similar to the construction of a new building.

This requires as certain time duration for the school building to be shut down for the

to be work carried out, often times lasting approximately 2-6 months, depending

on the size and complexity of the building. For a few buildings, this could be

scheduled during the annual break to minimize disruption.

108. To complete the DRR of schools which aims to address over 90,000 buildings, the

one-time construction approach may not be feasible in all cases, particularly

within a reasonable time frame, unless almost unlimited resources are mobilized.

An alternative is proposed by FEMA15 in its guideline for reducing DR for schools up

to high school level. This involves incremental interventions for disaster risk

reduction, often in conjunction with and integrated with other physical

infrastructure/building maintenance, enhancements, up-gradations, or expansions.

The overall planning and design is carried out at the start of the initiative, but the

implementation is divided into stages and phases.

109. For the DR of schools in Nepal, a mixed approach is recommended, in which some

schools/buildings are intervened using the direct, one-time intervention, and for

others an incremental approach is used. The following are some of the

considerations for choosing between one-time or incremental strategies,

considering the effect of all relevant hazards. Preliminary planning (presented in

accompanying document) has been carried out using these considerations.

a. For buildings that are found to be highly vulnerable, and cannot be

retrofitted and must be replaced/rebuild; one time new construction

should be carried out.

b. For buildings which are vulnerable, and funds are directly available from

the government, community, NGOS, or any other funding sources; one-

time intervention may be used.

c. For buildings which are found to be vulnerable, but are not selected for re-

built (a above), or immediate one-time intervention (b above), a

prioritization and planning should be carried out first, and then direct

14 Retrofitting for DR of Schools in Nepal, 2013. To be published, development is ongoing.

15 FEMA 395 | Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of School Buildings (K-12): Providing Protection to People and

Buildings (2003) http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/5154

of 70


intervention may be used for very high priority buildings, subjected to

availability of funds for this purpose.

d. For all other buildings, (not covered by a-c above); an incremental

approach may be used and integrated into the SSRP and other

development plans, not only by the GON but also by development

partners, NGOs, and the community. It is important to note that currently,

annual funds for rehabilitation and maintenance of schools buildings are

already budgeted in the DOE plans and can be integrated with the

incremental approach. A building which has been retrofitted for DR, may

not need extensive maintenance for a few years, and hence, it may be

possible to integrate the financial allocations.

110. The incremental intervention, also referred to as incremental safety, can be

planned and designed on the following basis:

1. By gradually increasing the performance levels from “Life Safety” to “Collapse Prevention”, for different hazard and risk levels. This can be established through risk assessment studies. Retrofitting to achieve this level

can then be planned incrementally for the different members, such as

columns first, and the beams next.

2. By carrying out the intervention in phases for different parts of the buildings,

such as lower floors in one phase, and the upper floors in the second

phase.

3. By creating “Strong Rooms” 16 first in parts of buildings, in case budget and

resources are not readily available for full intervention.

2.5.3.3 Seismic Retrofit Strategies and Techniques for Existing Buildings

111. The lack of sufficient and cost-effective options for retrofitting existing buildings

have been cited as one of the challenges for scaling up the DR process. A

separate document has been prepared as part of this assignment. 17 This

document summarizes various strategies and techniques used for retrofitting

different buildings types and their relevance to various regions of Nepal.

2.5.3.4 Strategy for New Public School Buildings

112. The following procedure is recommended when planning for and constructing

new public school buildings. This is to be used for completely new buildings that do

not exist as well as for demolishing and rebuilding existing buildings.

1. Develop and/or adopt design guidelines for new school buildings, in line

with national codes. This to be done in close collaboration with DUDBC.

16 Strong rooms are proposed as parts of the building that are either found to less vulnerable, or can be

made less vulnerable at with minimal intervention, and can be used as emergency shelters. These could

be typically located near the stairwells and exits, and students should be trained to rush to these rooms

in case of an earthquake or other hazards.

17 Retrofitting for DR of Schools in Nepal, 2013. To be published, development is ongoing.

of 70


2. Review the already prepared seven (7) type designs for Terai regions for

conformance to the guidelines.

3. Modify and/or adopt the type designs, and formulate possible construction

modalities (contractor, community/mixed).

4. Develop type design for hilly and mountain areas.

5. Include DR consideration in the process of site selection.

6. Adopt and use the type design for local site conditions.

7. Develop specific designs where type designs are not applicable using the

guidelines, through the proper review and approval process.

8. Construct structures using appropriate construction modality.

9. Complete the certification process.

2.5.4 Strategy 10: Increased DR of Private Schools

113. It has been highlighted in many discussions and consultative workshops that the DR

of privately owned and operated schools must be ensured, together with the

public/community schools. It was observed from various documents and

databases, that the percentage of total students enrolled in private schools is on

the rise, especially in KV and in other urban centers. In KV, more than 75% of the

student body attend public schools. In many other districts, especially in plains, this

ratio is more than 25%. As the unitization continues and the standard of living

improves, the relative enrolment in private schools is also expected to increase. At

present, these schools are often located in residential buildings that were not

specially designed to be used as school facilities. Most of these residential buildings

have little or no attention to DR. Due to these reasons, it is essential that the DR of

private schools is also achieved to provide a safe and sustainable environment for

all children.

114. Increasing the DR of private schools can be achieved through a combination of

policies, regulations, technical and financial support mechanisms, engagement

with private school operators, and the parents of the school children. The following

actions are proposed:

1. Establishment of clear policies for requiring the operators to obtain and

renew licenses for the operation of private schools. This should be done in

consultation with PABSON and parents associations.

2. Formulation of clear procedures, guidelines, and supporting mechanisms

for private operators, to include the DR and sustainability requirements for

the facilities in which schools are operated, in addition to other

requirements.

3. Notification and awareness building about the new policies amongst all

stakeholders.

4. Setting timelines for the gradual enforcement of the policies, starting with

awarding licenses for new schools, followed by evaluating existing schools

to obtain and renew licenses.

of 70


5. Setting up mechanisms for providing technical support to the operators by

providing guidelines and networking services for engagement of qualified

professionals, contractors for carrying out the construction work.

6. Mechanism to provide soft loans, land lease, and other performance-

based incentives, such as tax breaks for achieving required levels of DR.

7. Certification through DUDBC and other municipal authorities.

115. It is essential that the DR of public schools must be initiated and achieved to some

degree before enforcing the requirements for private schools. Leading by

example will greatly increase the chances for enforcement and build public

pressure on private school operators.

2.5.5 Strategy 11: Integration of DR into SSRP and Other Related Plans

116. Integrating school DR initiatives into the SSRP will be beneficial to the overall

objective of the cause because of the following reasons:

a. The DR aspects that are currently missing in the SSRP will be highlighted,

creating the awareness in a wider spectrum of stakeholders in the

education sector

b. Planning for projects for expansion, up-gradation, renovation,

maintenance, and the interventions for increasing DR can be integrated

and/or coordinated to minimize duplication and reduce the conflict of

efforts; increase utilization of funds and resources; and reduce the

frequency of disrupting of academic activities.

c. Support mainstreaming DRR in the academic curriculum and related

educational programs, as highlighted in other strategies.

117. An example of integration involves the inclusion of basic information and

awareness about DR into the overall annual teacher training plan and other

capacity building programs.

118. Since the current infrastructure classroom standards do not make any references

to safety issues, addressing this gap should also be prioritized.

2.5.6 Strategy 12: Certification and Sustaining DR

119. Achieving DR requires comprehensive and continued policy-level commitment

particularly in evaluation and monitoring. The two aspects that are closely related

are, (a) certifying achievements when DR is increased, and (b) sustaining

achieved DR. Both of these aspects are considered as integral parts of this

strategy.

120. To ensure that the desired DR levels have been achieved, the entire process first

needs to be quality-centric, continuously evaluated, and incrementally certified.

Next, the completion of the process must lead to a formal and verifiable

certification. Certification ensures the achievement of the outcome and is a

platform for creating awareness, and incentive awarding.

121. To achieve this, the following actions are needed:

of 70


1. Identify the agency (or agencies) that will carry out and award licenses

and certificates for various types and levels of certification, and develop

appropriate certification procedures, forms, and guidelines.

2. Certification of consultants, contractors, and masons after going through

the capability and capacity building programs, with possible mechanism

for better incentives in terms of hiring and financial benefits.

3. Intermediate review of design and construction documents, site inspection

reports, photographs, and other QA/QC records.

4. Certification of newly constructed buildings including the retrofit of existing

buildings for public schools through qualified inspectors, standardized

procedures and format. This process includes a review of the documents

generated previously (step 3), site visits, and feedback from the community

and local bodies.

5. Certification of new and retrofitting intervention of private school buildings

in conformance with codes and standards and construction quality by

DUDBC and local municipal councils.

6. Renewal of certification at intervals of 10 years through site inspections.

Inspections will assess the condition of the buildings and verify that no

major alterations have been made without adherence to DR

considerations.

2.5.7 Strategy 13: Increased Community DR through Increased School DR

122. As the benefits of safer schools directly impact the safety of a community, the

overall DR of the community can be increased, by and through the process of

increasing school DR. The presence of “safer schools” in a community is expected to help in raising the sense of well-being and pride in the members of the

community, especially the children and their parents.

123. Some key actions that the community is recommended to be actively part of

include:

1. Incorporation of the declared rights of the community to use the

intervened parts of school buildings as temporary and emergency relief

centers in case of disasters. Provided that the school infrastructure can be

used for multiple purposes, the continuity of education for the students

must be prioritized in such plans. This can be done by using a part of the

space and shifting teaching protocols.

2. Participation of the community in awareness building, preventative

activities, and other training and drills conducted for school children.

3. Participation of community in the capacity development programs

conducted as part of projects undertaken in this plan, either by the

community, NGOs, or contractors.

4. Active participation in the DR intervention activities implemented through

the community, and ensured prescribed participation in the projects

undertaken by the consultants and contractors.

of 70


5. Use of intervention processes as a demonstration of the techniques for re-

use in other construction activities in the community.

2.5.8 Strategy 14: Integration of DR into the Academic and Professional Curricula

124. Developing a culture of resilience at an early age draws attention to the

importance that schools and educators play to achieve a disaster resilient society.

Education can be the foundation for awareness building when mainstreaming DR

in schools in Nepal, particularly in primary and secondary education, to achieving

lasting DR.18 Mainstreaming DR education will include curriculum mapping and

needs assessments together with inquiry-based learning approaches to directly

affect learners (students and teachers) at each possible level.19

125. Integrating DR in education can be implemented in four levels:

Basic Education: Basic awareness about disaster and need for DR,

including ES, is highly proposed for inclusion in the school curricula.

Vocational: Emphasis on developing skills aligned with DR activities should

be prioritized in training for specific professions.

University: Specific fields such as engineering and architecture is advised to

incorporate courses on building design and vulnerability analysis to

produce a critical mass of capable professionals.

Graduate: Higher learning programs for engineers, architects, and other

related professionals can include topics on DRR and management.

126. Continuous research and development in infrastructure DR is particularly important

since the rate of population increases in Nepal alongside the country’s development into a more urban society. The academe can support the

development of systematic approaches that can integrate rehabilitation measures

with the overall economic conditions as well as disaster preparedness plan at a

national level. The potential of locally available materials being used for retrofitting

may also be explored. Latest technologies (including skilled personnel and

required machinery) are suggested for further study and inclusion in current R&D

projects with a view for possible implementation in the near future.

2.5.9 Strategy 15: Implementation of Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation

Performance Management Plans

127. One of the challenge, as well as observation on the ongoing SSP, is the need for

proper quality assurance, reporting, monitoring, and evaluation requirements and

systems.

128. The following indicators are recommended to determine the final outcome of

proposed strategies and plans. Explicit measurement, monitoring, and evaluation

of the outputs leading to these outcomes is to be achieved through development

and implementation of a results-based performance management plan:

18 Educating the Educators: Disaster Resilience Resource Mapping Report, July 2013, Revised in January 2014.

19 Disaster resilience starts with the young. Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in the School Curriculum. 2011.

of 70


129. The following indicators are comprised of the following:

1. Awareness about DR is increased.

2. Commitment at various levels is demonstrated.

3. Institutional frameworks are completed.

4. Required capability and capacity is built.

5. DR of public school buildings is increased.

6. DR of private school buildings is increased.

7. DR of community is increased.

8. Mainstreaming of importance and process of DR is increased.

2.6 Summary

130. It is important to recognize and support the several ongoing and planned initiatives

and programs related to DRR in Nepal to ensure increased effectiveness and

reduced duplication of efforts. Proposed strategies must then be divided into two

categories; Linked and Standalone.

131. Linked strategies refer to those that have direct relationships, ownership, and/or

relevance to the national DRR initiatives. These strategies are either based on

strengthening and supporting other ongoing and planned initiatives or needs

integration with them. Six strategies are defined under this category:


2. Continuous reinforcement of will and commitment at the highest levels of

the government and development partners.








actions, and measures aimed at DRR of various sectors, including the

schools.








geographical, administrative, rural/urban, building materials and size

variations.

of 70



disaster consequences as the primary measure derived from hazard levels,

vulnerability, and exposure, using a combination of on-time and

incremental approaches.


regulations, licensing, certification, support and incentives, in close

collaboration with private sector.









implementation, and monitoring the final outcome of increased school DR.






outcomes.

133. The complex nature of these strategies require an implementation plan that is

inclusive to all stakeholders, whether formal or informal, in order to facilitate a

strong sense of responsibility, transparency, and accountability in all possible levels

when it comes to DR.

of 70


Chapter 3 Framework for Implementation

3.1 Overview

134. The scale and complexity of the tasks to be undertaken and the engagement of

many stakeholders require strong and flexible frameworks that can link the

strategies with work plan. This chapter presents the institutional arrangements, roles

and responsibilities of the key stakeholders, and coordination framework necessary

for implementation of the DR strategies at a national level.

135. This institutional framework for disaster risk management was developed to link

various institutions from the cabinet at the highest level down to the district

councils. 20 The presence of a similar national level framework would greatly

facilitate and support the proposed frames in this document for the DR of school

sector.

3.2 Key Stakeholders and Roles

136. Many stakeholders are currently involved in the overall DRM initiatives in Nepal.

Due to the current situation of the initiatives, it is possible that there will be more

opportunities to contribute to the DR of schools in Nepal.

137. A summary of key stakeholders and their envisaged role/s in increasing the DR of

schools, based on the strategies defined in Chapter 2, is presented in the section.

More details on specific roles and engagements to various activities will be

presented separately as The Plan.

3.2.1 Ministries and Departments of Government of Nepal

138. The GON, through its various ministries, departments, and agencies, is undertaking

several efforts to improve the DR of various sectors in the country. Some of the key

agencies and their relevant roles are:

MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) is considered as the focal

point for all of these efforts, and should also be involved in

the integration of the DR of schools with other initiatives

for the scaling up the SSP.

MOHA is also the coordinator of closely related Flagship 2

and Flagship 5 of the NRRC, described in the following

section.

The District Administration Offices (DAO), discussed latter

in this section, are under this ministry, increasing the

engagement of MOHA in the actual implementation at

the district level.

20 Natural Calamity (Relief) Act, 2039 (1982)

of 70


MOE MOE, as the primary ministry managing the education

system, has the overall responsibility for ensuring that all

academic institutions (both public and private) have safe

and supportive infrastructure, building environment, and

facilities conducive to the learning process. This must

explicitly include the DR requirements as well. MOE is to

include the allocation of resources and funds needed for

DR into its overall budget and plans, such as SSRP and

strives to generate these from the GON and

development partners.

MOE, also responsible for the making of and amending

the Education Rules and Acts. Most of policy-related

strategies for increasing the DR of schools need to be

addressed at the ministry level

MOFLD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development

(MOFLD) is an important ministry, as it oversees the District

Development Committees (DDC), as well as the Village

Development Committees (VDC) which will be crucial for

the success of the proposed strategies in and for

engagement of the communities.

MOUD Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD) is responsible for

the development of urban areas in the country. MOUD is

comprised of six divisions handling administration;

planning, monitoring, and foreign aid; water supply and

environment; physical planning and urban development;

housing and building; and municipality coordination.

DUDBC, under this ministry is envisaged to be directly

involved in the DRR of schools, discussed in the following

sections.

DOE The DOE has specific and direct responsibilities for public,

as well as overall responsibility for the private/ institutional

schools in the country and thus should be entrusted with

the overall responsibility of increasing the DR in the

schools.

The role of DOE will be discussed in greater detail as the

primary implementing agency, in close collaboration with

DUDBC.

DUDBC The Department of Urban Development and Building

Construction (DUDBC), under MOUD, is the main

department entrusted to manage the urban

development and building construction and is

encouraged to provide full support to the DOE in terms of

technical and human resources for the DR of public

schools and include direct responsibility for the DR of

private schools, in collaboration with DOE.

The role of the DUDBC will be discussed in greater detail in

the following sections.

of 70


DEOs The District Education Offices (DEOs) should be the main

unit responsible for the school’s DR at the district levels, in

close coordination with DOE head office and regional

offices, as well as the divisional offices of DUDBC, and the

municipal offices.

The role of DEO is discussed in greater detail in the

following sections as well as in The Plan.

DDC and

VDC

The District Development Committee (DDC) headed by

Local Development Officer (LDO) that is under Ministry of

Federal Affairs and Local Development, with several

Village Development Committees (VDC) and wards need

to be fully engaged in school DRR. This initiative should

be coordinated through the DEOs.

School

Management

Committees

(SMC)

The School Management Committees (SMC) can play an

important role in creating awareness regarding the DR (as

well ES) in the community, and among teachers and

students. The SMC can also be conduit for coordinating

the training and preparedness activities, as well as

increasing engagement with the community and NGOS.

DAO The most important administrative office present in every

district is the District Administration Office (DAO) headed

by Chief District Officer (CDO), under Ministry of Home

Affairs. CDO is the head of all the administrative body in

the district. While DAO plays a major role during any

disasters, the DEOs should work closely with the district

administration level and to coordinate with CDO for DRR

and DRM aspects of the schools, especially to inform

them of the schools where DR has been achieved.

3.2.2 Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC)

139. The Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC) is a unique arrangement that unites

humanitarian and development partners with financial institutions in partnership

with the GON in order to reduce Nepal's vulnerability to natural disasters. Based on

the Hyogo Framework and Nepal's National Strategy for Disaster Risk

Management, the NRRC has identified 5 flagship priorities for sustainable disaster

risk management.

140. The DR of schools and hospitals has been assigned to Flagship 1 of the consortium

and has already made significant progress through SSP. The role of NRRC is of

paramount importance for the overall DR of in all sectors, including schools as it

provides the platform for keeping the agenda of all of the development partners

and GON. It is important that the various flagship programs are well integrated,

and the efforts and outputs benefit the other programs.

of 70


Flagship-1 School and Hospital Safety. Led by the Asian

Development Bank (ADB), World Health Organization

(WHO), and Nepal’s Ministry of Education (MOE) and

Ministry of Health (MOH), it aims to build the earthquake

resilience of schools and hospitals through retrofitting,

training, raising awareness, and safety measures.

Flagship-2 Emergency Preparedness and Response. Led by

UNOCHA and Nepal’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA), it

seeks to enhance the government’s preparedness and response capabilities at the national, regional, and local

level.

Flagship-3 Flood Risk Management in Koshi River Basin. Led by the

World Bank (WB) and Nepal’s Ministry of Irrigation, this

initiative aims to protect the country from flood-related

disasters.

Flagship-4 Community-based Disaster Risk Management. Led by the

International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent

Societies and Nepal’s Ministry of Local Development, this

effort aims to prepare 1000 VDCs to become disaster

resilient.

Flagship-5 Policy/Institutional Strengthening. The United Nations

Development Program and Nepal’s Ministry of Home Affairs lead with the aim of enhancing government’s disaster risk management capacity centrally and at the

municipal and local level.

3.2.3 Development Partners and International Organizations

141. Many development partners (DP) and international organizations (IO) in Nepal

have contributed efforts to reduce poverty, increase access to health and

education, increase literacy rates, and enhance agricultural productivity, social

structure, and the overall community development. According to Nepal’s Ministry of Finance, the total commitment is currently 5.3 billion USD provided by 73

international organizations for 742 projects in Nepal. An average project size

funded by these organizations is about 4.2 million USD.

142. Working with DPs and IOs are especially advantageous for policy making and in

aligning funding for the projects.

143. UN agencies can provide the institutional and international support, exchange

technical assistance, sharing of knowledge base, advice, capacity development,

and other organizational support.

144. INGOs provide support to the community for enhancing their capacity, for both

DRR and DRM in general, including specific projects targeted at schools. NGOs

may also be involved in direct intervention for the retrofitting or building of new

schools, in close coordination with the community and DEOs. Working with NGOs

will be beneficial due to their strengths in awareness raising, sensitization, capacity

building, and community mobilization.

of 70


3.2.4 NGOs, CBOs, and Community

145. Similarly, NGOs, CBOs, and the community can be very helpful when formulating

policies for the DRR and when seeking support and funding for projects for

implementing DRR at school level.

146. The Association of International NGOs (AIN) was formed by INGOs working in Nepal

in September 1996, to establish an important network in the development sector of

Nepal. About 112 INGOs are registered under this umbrella organization. These

members generally implement people-centered development programs

throughout the hills, mountains, and Terai areas included activities pertaining to

disaster preparedness, disaster management, and emergency relief programs

147. The four macro-level objectives that can be facilitated through the active

engagement of international and local NGOs are:

Multi-hazard resilience of school buildings in Nepal.

Raising awareness about DR of school buildings in the region

Sustainability of the implementation of multi-hazard resilience of school

buildings in Nepal.

Actual implementation of DRR intervention in some the areas, and for

smaller size buildings.

NGOs Local NGOs provide support to the community for

enhancing their capacity, for both DRR and DRM in

general, including specific projects targeted at schools.

NGOs may also be involved in direct intervention for

retrofit or building of new schools, in close coordination

with the community and DEOs. Working with NGOs will be

beneficial due to their strengths in awareness raising,

sensitization, capacity building, and community

mobilization.

CBOs The Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) are small,

informal organizations that provide various services

towards the development of rural communities and can

be used as channels to route DR awareness and

development information rural communities.

Local

Community

The local community is expected to continue to play an

important role in the education sectors especially in the

rural areas. The role of community in the DRR of schools is

expected to be very significant, and is elaborated in

section 3.3.8.

3.2.5 Academic and Professional Organizations

148. Academic institutions will be responsible for updating curriculum to include DR and

contribute to capability and capacity building. These institutions can also conduct

workshops and technical sessions for professionals. Professional associations can

provide resources, expertise, and many essential services to support a community’s resilience to disasters. Forming Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) are very

of 70


important when assisting DOE to finalize the designs by local consultants and guide

DOE/DEO staffs and consultants whenever any technical difficulties arises.

Academic

Institutions

The academic institutions are to update curriculum for

architectural and engineering graduates, which should

include greater emphasis in the DR and ES aspects of

design and familiarity with the design codes. Academic

institutions should also conduct technical workshops and

professional development programs on the proper

application of the codes and standards.

Institute of Engineering (IOE), Pulchowk should

play a leading role in developing and updating

curriculums, conducting technical workshops,

and conducting various research works.

CTVET should be responsible for providing trainings

to produce skilled masons. They should provide

trainings to small scale construction firms to

enhance their capabilities.

Professional

Associations

Professional associations can and do play a fundamental

role in supporting a community’s resilience to disasters. They provide resources, expertise, and many essential

services on which the community depends. Working with

professional associations may bring about collaboration

with critical infrastructure providers, which can contribute

to providing more opportunities to understanding risks

and ensuring the potential to continue providing services

during or soon after a disaster.

Consultants Consultants, oftentimes architectural and engineering

experts, are expected to develop their capabilities and

capacities to be able to do proper evaluation of DR

needs and the design of interventions for the existing

school buildings. This also includes the design of new

school buildings using proper tools, techniques, and

methodologies.

Construction

Firms

The contractors and construction firms are expected to

enhance their capability and capacity to carry out DR

intervention, using the right techniques with the right

quality, in a cost-effective manner. They are also

expected to improve the construction quality for new

buildings that incorporates the details necessary for

proper DRR.

Technical

Advisory

Committee

(TAC)

The role of the Technical Advisory Committee is very

important in ensuring that the overall process proceeds in

the proper manner, with proper quality, and with the right

output. TAC may be responsible for assisting DOE to

finalize the designs by local consultants, to guide

DOE/DEO staffs and consultants whenever any technical

difficulties arises.

of 70


3.2.6 Other Organizations

149. Strengthening DR is not a detached activity that can be achieved in a set

timeframe, nor can it be achieved without a joint commitment and concerted

effort by all sectors of society. Other parts of society can also play an important

role through their specializations such as those enumerated below.

National

Media

National media should conduct public awareness

through print, TV, and online media to inform the public

about the importance of DR and ES in general and for

schools in particular. MOE and DOE should provide the

material for such programming.

Teachers

and

academic

staff in the

schools

Teachers and academic staff in the schools are

expected to be trained and become aware of the

importance of DRM and the actions to be taken in case

of an emergency and disaster situation.

Students and

Youth

Groups

Student and youth groups can greatly support awareness

building and participate in emergency and disaster

management activities.

3.3 Primary Implementing Agencies

3.3.1 Overall Framework

150. The interest in DR activities is increasing based on the number of stakeholders and

actors currently involved and looking to participate in related programs. This may

prove to be beneficial for a nation where resources to continue and persevere for

an extended period of time may become a critical issue.

151. Due to the varying interests, it is important to designate primary responsibility to key

agencies. Considerable debates and several rounds of discussions rounded off

suitable agencies and arrangements. After careful deliberations, it was agreed

that the responsibility will be shared between MOE/DOE and MOUD/DUDBC. The

organizations charts of MOE and MOUD are available in Appendix B.

3.3.2 DOE and Institutional Development

152. The primary role and responsibility of DOE is to take ownership of the entire

program as the primary implementing and coordinating agency. More

specifically, DOE will be tasked to carry out the following actions related to the

achievement of the overall vision and objectives of this initiative :

a. Take the lead in obtaining the approval, and adoption of the proposed

strategy and the preliminary plan through the relevant channels

b. Carry out inventory of the all public and private schools in the country, in

association with EMIS, and supported by consultants, DEOs, and school

administration.

of 70


c. Carry out the detailed planning of the entire program, including the

prioritization for intervention, in line with this strategy, and the

accompanying plan, as supported by DUDBC and consultants.

d. Engagement and management of consultants to develop the guidelines,

type designs, and standardized solutions for typical cases

e. Carry out the intervention implementation for the public schools through

the DEO supported by DUDBC, municipalities, DAO, DDC, VDC, consultants,

contractors, community, NGOs, and other stakeholders.

f. Ensure the quality of the implementation and manage the coordination of

the process, as well as the final interventions through in-house inspectors

and consultants.

g. Support private school operators in terms of awareness, technical advice,

and guidelines identification of relevant resources for achieving DR.

h. Support DUDBC in the process of certification for private schools.

153. Considering the scale of the challenge at hand and based on the experiences

learned from the ongoing SSP, it is very clear that it is essential to elevate and

expand the institutional status of the sections and resources allocated within DOE

to address the physical infrastructure of the school facilities, A separate “Physical Infrastructure Division”, headed by a director is proposed, by merging various related sections, and establishment of dedicated sections for handing the DR

process, as shown in Figure 3-1.

154. It is important to note that the engineering staff of the DEOs, should report to and

coordinate with the head office for matters related to construction of new schools,

intervention for DR, and other building and infrastructure issues.

155. The new division must be given the required resources, as well as authority to

tackle various aspects of the program. This program must include competence-

based capacity building of the existing and newly engaged resources. These

resource needs are estimated in The Plan.

156. The responsibilities of this division will include overall planning, development of

guidelines, program and project management, property management, and

handling the related areas concerning health, nutrition, and safety of children and

teachers. This division will also handle the construction of new schools, retrofitting of

existing schools, and the maintenance and up-gradation of exsiting schools.

157. The new division is expected to work closely and be supported by with the relevant

sections in the Planning and Monitoring Division in DOE, such as the Educational

Management & Information Section (EMIS), Education Mapping, and

Communication and Coordination Section.

of 70


Figure 3-1: Proposed Physical Infrastructure Division (PID) in DOE

3.3.3 The Role of MOE/DOE

158. MOE/DOE will assume the prime responsibility for all schools, both public and

private sector, and will be established as the main implementing agency for the

public schools. Specific activities will be supported by DUDBC.

159. This decision was based on the realization that the DR of public schools is closely

tied with the school system management, a close interaction with community, and

the rehabilitation, expansion, maintenance, and up-gradation of the school

facilities. DOE also has a greater presence in all districts and has direct access to

the teachers, administrators, and tools such as databases. DOE is also in a better

position to carry out most of the Linked Strategies, such as awareness and

curriculum development related to DR. By conducting DR initiatives through DOE,

the process will have a wide ranging effects on the students, their parents, and the

community at large.

160. DOE involvement for the retrofitting works may be substantial in the first phase

which could last approximately three years. This three-year period should be used

to prepare all the guidelines, norms, and regulations 21 for the retrofitting of schools.

After these details have been completed, MOE/DOE can transfer the majority of

the responsibility to DUDBC to continue the program to its completion.

3.3.4 The Role of MOUD/DUDBC

161. DUDBC will ensure the DR for private school buildings as supported and guided by

policies and regulations to be developed by the MOE/DOE. In areas where DUDBC

may not have an active presence, this role may be delegated to municipal

bodies.

21 GON has prepared and endorsed guidelines for Disaster Resilient Hospitals & Health Facilities in Nepal. Similar guidelines should

be prepared for school sector.

of 70


162. This decision was based on the current overall responsibility and jurisdiction that

DUDBC handles for the development of infrastructure and buildings, including the

buildings where private schools are housed. DUDBC also has the authority to

develop and enforce the building codes and standards. DUDBC is also currently

involved with the current SSP which deals with the DR of both public and private

hospitals and has thus gained considerable experience and developed capability

and capacity to implement the initiative at a larger scale.

163. The strengths of both departments pertaining to their respective roles are

summarized below. This information is used as the basis for the development of

overall framework, not only for schools, but also for other academic institutions.

DOE DUDBC

MOE is primarily responsible for

all schools nationwide.

The department manages all

aspects of education, including

the physical infrastructure and

database of the schools.

DOE is also closely linked with

community.

DOE is also experienced with

intervention strategies through

the SSP.

It will be easier to integrate and

align the project with SRRP and

other future plans and

programs.

Integrating awareness, training,

drills for students, teachers,

community, and DR into the

academic curricula will also be

easier through DOE.

Maintenance, upgradation,

and expansion of buildings will

also be easier to manage due

to DOE direct responsibility.

• MoUD is directly responsible for

buildings and infrastructure

nationwide.

• The ministry is handling increasing

DR of hospitals and other public

buildings.

• DUDBC has greater technical

expertise and capacity.

• MoUD-DUDBC has jurisdiction on all

buildings, including private schools.

• The department is also responsible

for the approval, certification, and

enforcement of building codes

and regulations.

164. On the provisions of funding allocation to DUDBC, currently funding comes through

the ministries directly to DUDBC. It is key to continue to allocate the budget to the

respective agencies and avoid the trend in GON where budgets are passed from

ministry/department secretaries before the amount is received by the

implementing department or unit.

165. Figure 3-2 shows the conceptual framework for sharing the roles and responsibilities

between MOE/DOE and MOUD/DUDBC for increasing the DR of various types of

academic institutions, with focus on public and private schools. This framework

covers almost all types of institutions and operators. This is used as the basis for

development of the organizational structures and other implementation

mechanisms.

of 70


Public and Community

Supported

Primary to High Schools

Direct Intervention by

DOE

Vocational Colleges

Universities

Colleges

Direct Policy

Guidelines Certification

by MOE

Private

Self-owned or Rented

Institutional

Policy and Regulation

License Renewal

By MOE

Ministry of Education Ministry of Urban Development

Coordination

Coordination

Technical Support

Regulations

Inspections

Certification

DUDBC

Figure 3-2: Conceptual Framework for Sharing DR Responsibility in Academic Institutions

3.3.5 Primary Role of DUDBC

166. The active engagement of the DUDBC is essential for the overall success of the

program, as highlighted in the overall framework. The specific role of the DUDBC is

envisaged to be:

a. Provide technical support and advice to the DOE for developing guidelines

in line with the evolving building codes and active involvement in the

similar program for hospitals.

b. Develop criteria and procedures for the evaluation and certification of the

existing private buildings currently being used as schools.

c. Develop criteria and procedures for certifying new private buildings which

have been proposed to be used as schools.

d. Carry out necessary reviews, approvals, inspections, and certifications of

buildings that have been identified to be used as schools.

167. As urbanization continues in the country, it is expected that an increase in the

enrolment of students in private schools in urban areas will continue. And as this

trend continues, the role of DUDBC is expected to expand. At present, more than

75% of the students in KV are enrolled in private schools, thus making the role of

DUDBC more significant when compared to DOE in ensuring the safety of children

in schools during disasters.

of 70


Figure 3-3: Proposed New Sections in DUDBC

168. To handle this role, it is proposed that two new sections be established within the

Building Division to handle the schools and hospitals separately. These sections may

be developed into full divisions in a few years as the requirements of certification

and number of private schools increases (Figure 3-3). The division offices under

DUDBC will support the DEOs in technical matters and any issues private schools

may encounter within their respective jurisdictions.

3.3.6 Collaboration between DOE and DUDBC

169. Close collaboration and coordination between DOE and DUDBC are essential for

achieving the goals of the program while providing consistency when

implementing DR for public and private schools. Figure 3-4 show the proposed

coordination arrangement, comprising of :

a. A top level committee, jointly chaired by the Director Generals of DOE and

DUDBC to guide and oversee the implementation of the program.

b. A task force jointly chaired by the directors of the Physical Infrastructure

Division (PID) in DOE and the Building Division in DUDBC for the formulation

of the guidelines and the review of ongoing projects.

c. A working group comprised of representatives from the Planning and

Design Section in PID and the Schools Section in DUDBC for coordinating

the implementation of prescribed interventions in public schools and

certifying private schools.

d. Working groups at each district level comprised of representatives from

DEOs and respective divisional offices of DUDBC for coordination, as well as

for technical cooperation and certification.

Could be established as

Division after few years.

of 70


Figure 3-4: Proposed Roles for DOE and DUDBC

MOUD

Planning, Monitoring and Foreign Aid Division

Monitoring and Rating Section

Drinking Water & Environment Division

Regional Coordination & Capacity Increment

Section

Department of Drinking Water & Sewage Outlet

DUDBC

International Economic Cooperation Coordination Division

EconomicPolicy

Analysis Division

Budget and

Program Division

Legal and Consultation Division

Monitoring and Evaluation

Division

MOFALD

Disaster Management & Municipal Development

Section

Municipal Management Section

Municipal Management

Division

Department of

Infrastructure Management

Division

Planning & Foreign

Co-ordination Department

Infrastructure & Technology Management

Section

Infrastructure Policy Coordination Section

Standard development

Information, Publication & Archival Section

Planning & Foreign Aid

Coordination Section

Monitoring & Evaluation Section

MOF

Prime Minister &

Council of Minister

Joint Secretary

(Administrative & Manpower Development

Division)

Joint Secretary

(Financial & Infrastructure

Development Division)

Information & Technology Section

Joint Secretary

(Social Development, Planning and

Monitoring Division)

Social DevelopmentSection

Joint Secretary

(Conference of Council of Ministers &

Constitutional Body Division)

Council of Ministers and Constitutional Body

Section

Joint Secretary

(Governing Development Division)

Joint Secretary

(Legislation & Development Division)

Law & Decision Implementation

Section

MOHA

Divisions

Departments

Security Agencies

Disaster Management

Division

Policy Planning &

Program Division

Internal Management

Division

Law & Order

Coordination Division

Human Resource

Management Division

Figure 3-5: Proposed Coordination with Other Ministries

of 70


3.3.7 Role of Other Ministries

170. Coordination with other ministries will also prove to be very important. As shown in

Figure 3-5, the MOHA, MOUD, MOF, MOFALD, and the Office of the Prime Minister

will play a crucial role in ensuring that the objectives of this program are met.

Detailed responsibilities will be provided in the action/responsibility matrix with the

accompanying document, The Plan.

3.3.8 Role of Community

171. It is well established that in Nepal, the role of communities and the local

government are very important in various development works, including the

construction and management of schools. This approach is very admirable, and

has been developed and established over several decades.

172. However, during the stage of retrofitting and strengthening the school against the

disasters, quality assurance is of great importance and key to the project’s effectiveness. If the retrofitting work is not of good quality then the whole effort

could be wasted. One of the main causes for vulnerability in buildings is the low

construction quality. If quality is not achieved properly in the retrofitting work or the

reconstruction work, then the safety and/or the DR will not be properly ensured.

173. It may be appropriate to reconsider the roles for community participation. Several

discussions were held on this topic with the department and other stakeholders.

Therefore, for the school DRR process and activities, the following role of the

community is proposed.

a) Be involved in awareness building of importance of DRR activities, and basic

training programs in response to various hazards and disasters. Generate

ownership, pride, confidence and understand benefits of this intervention for

their community as whole and safety of their children.

b) Be involved in the fund raising, and generating other in-kind resources and

services related to the process. However, this fund-raising and financial

contribution should not be tied to the basic financing of the project. The

appropriate funds for the completion of the primary works 22 to make the

building operational, both for new construction and for retrofit must be

provided by the program/project budget. The contribution from the

community should be encouraged, but should earmarked for secondary

works.23

c) Be involved in the direct intervention (construction) activities at various levels

depending on the size and complexity, ranging from full execution of small and

simple buildings, specially using local materials and techniques, to providing

22 The primary works are defined as all works related to structural safety, building enclosure for protection

from the elements, and prevention of various hazards, so that the building has the required resilience

and functionality.

23 The secondary works are defined as any items will improve the functionality and aesthetics of the

building and can be carried out in stages, such as painting, flooring, electrification, and façade

treatment.

of 70


material and labor support for simpler medium size building. The actual extent

of involvement will depend on the capability, capacity and willingness of the

community members, and should be agreed upon mutually by the DEO, the

VDC and the local community for each school/ building.

d) Be involved in the monitoring of the works carried out by other parties, in

conjunction with the DEO, VDC, and the consultants, where applicable.

3.3.9 Coordination Framework


entire school DRR process (Figure 3-6). It will function as a clearing house and

repository of all information generated and is needed to smoothly carry out various

aspects of the overall process. The coordinator will be assisted by at least four

offices, each coordinating with the various ministries in the GON with various

development partners, UN agencies, NGOs, and with private schools. Information

offices to mainstream databases, reports, and documents while mandated with

the task of properly disseminating both media partners and the public are essential

components of the initiative.

175. The coordination office will also work with the various task forces, technical

committees, with professional bodies, academic institutions and so forth. If one

national level disaster management agency is established, this coordination office

could become the conduit for integrating DR into schools as part of the overall

national framework. The following options are possible for the creation of the

coordination office:

a. A special unit or team within the ADB Nepal office actively coordinating

Flagship 2.

b. A special unit/section with MOE.

c. A special unit/section with DOE.

d. As an independent “program office” within the overall NRRC framework, funded and sourced through the school DRR program until completion.

Various Ministries

in GON

DR-FP

Development

Partners

DR-FP

UN Agencies

DR-FP

INGOs/ NGOs PABSON

GON

Coordination

Officer

Development

Partner

Coordination

Officer

UN and NGO

Coordination

Officer

Private and

Institutional

Coordination

Officer

Information

Management &

Communication

Officer

School Disaster

Risk Coordinator

(SDRCO)

National &

International Media

Public Events

Technical

Advisory

Committee

Professional Bodies

Academic/Research

Institutes

School Disaster

Risk Steering

Committee

National Disaster

Management Agency ?

*DR-FP Disaster Risk Reduction Focal Point

of 70


Figure 3-6: Proposed Organization in Dedicated Coordination Office

3.4 Summary and Conclusions

176. The scale and complexity of the tasks requires the engagement of many



national level.


coordination framework is largely reinforced by the collective agreement for the

MOE, through DOE, to take ownership of the entire program as the primary

implementing and coordinating agency. Since the DR of public schools is closely

tied with factors that are under the MOE/DOE’s areas of responsibilities such as the school system management, a close interaction with community, and the

rehabilitation, expansion, maintenance, and up-gradation of the school facilities.

DOE also has a greater presence in all districts and is in a better position to carry

out most of the Linked Strategies and is expected to have a greater national

reach.

178. MOE/DOE’s involvement for the retrofitting works may be substantial in the first phase to prepare all the guidelines, norms, and regulations for the retrofitting of

schools. It is expected that these high level planning details will be accomplished

within three years. MOE/DOE can then transfer the majority of the responsibility to

Department of Urban Development & Building Construction (DUDBC), a

department under the Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD), to continue the

program to its completion.

179. The active engagement of the DUDBC is essential for the overall success of the

program as the main department entrusted to manage the urban development

and building construction. At present, more than 75% of the students in KV are

enrolled in private schools, thus making the role of DUDBC more significant when

compared to DOE in ensuring the safety of children in schools during disasters.

180. DUDBC is encouraged to provide full support to the DOE in terms of technical and

human resources for the DR of public schools and assume direct responsibility for

the DR of private schools, in collaboration with DOE.

181. Frequent and smooth coordination with other ministries: MOHA, MOUD, MOF,

MOFALD, and the Office of the Prime Minister will help ensure that the objectives of

this program are met.


useful to reconsider the roles for community participation to include generating

ownership by the community’s inclusion in basic training programs for response to various hazards and disasters, fund raising, and generating other in-kind resources

and services related to the process, direct intervention (construction) activities at

various levels depending on the size and complexity, and monitoring the works


consultants.



of 70



aspects of the overall process.

of 70


References

1. ACI Committee 318 (2002). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete

and Commentary. ACI 318-02.

2. American Society of Civil Engineers (2000). Prestandard and Commentary of the

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA 356.

3. American Society of Civil Engineers (2006). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing

Buildings. ASCE 41-06.

4. American Society of Civil Engineers (2003). Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings.

ASCE 31-03.

5. Applied Technology Council (1997). NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA 274.

6. BIA (1996). The Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of

Earthquake Risk Buildings – Draft for General Release. New Zealand National

Society for Earthquake Engineering

7. Bureau of Indian Standards (2002). Criteria of Earthquake Resistant Design of

Structures. IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002.

8. CEB (1997). Fastenings for Seismic Retrofitting. Comite Euro-International Du Beton,

Thomas Telford, London.

9. Department of Education, Ministry of Education, Government of Nepal (2012).

School Sector Reform Program (SSRP), Second Higher Education Project (SHEP),

Education For All Shishu Vikash Karyakram, Community School Capacity

Development Program, Status Report 2012.

10. Department of Education, Ministry of Education, Government of Nepal (2012).

School Earthquake Safety Program (SSP) Action Plan, 2012/2014. Sanothimi,

Bhaktapur.

11. Department of Urban Development and Building Construction (1994). Nepal

National Building Code. NBC 105:1994.

12. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2014). FEMA 395 | Incremental Seismic

Rehabilitation of School Buildings (K-12): Providing Protection to People and

Buildings (2003) http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/5154

13. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2014). Hazus.

http://www.fema.gov/hazus

14. Masonry Standards Joint Committee (2002). Building Code Requirements for

Masonry Structures. ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02.

15. National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET) (2011). Developing

Strategy for Improving School Seismic Safety (SSS), prepared for GFDRR.

16. Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (April 2011). Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal:

Flagship Programmes.

of 70


17. National Society for Earthquake Technology (2011). Snapshot Study for School

Safety in Nepal - Report on Snapshot Study for School Safety in Nepal, 2011, a

government report prepared by Nepal (NSET) financed by ADB.

18. Oral Buyukozturk, Oguz Gunes (2003). Advances in Earthquake Risk Assessment

and Hazard Reduction for Lange Inventory of Structures with High Characteristic

Variability. ARI - The Bulletin of the Istanbul Technical University, Volume 53, Number

2, June 2003, Istanbul, Turkey.

19. Rutherford & Chekene (R & C) Consulting Engineers (2006). Techniques for the

Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. FEMA 547.

20. SAARC Disaster Management Centre (2014). Nepal Disaster Knowledge Network.

Accessed from: http://www.saarc-sadkn.org/countries/nepal/country_profile.aspx

21. Sugano (1989). Study of the Seismic Behavior of Retrofitted Reinforced Concrete

Buildings.Proc. ASCE ’89 Structures Congress, San Francisco, CA.

22. UN HABITAT (2014). Tools for the Assessment of School and Hospital Safety.

http://www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org/info/misc/20130216.html

23. UNDP/UNIDO (1985). Post-Earthquake Damage Evaluation and Strength

Assessment of Buildings under Seismic Conditions. Volume 4, Vienna

24. UNICEF et al. (March 2013) Comprehensive School Safety.

25. World Bank (2013) Urban Growth and Spatial Transition in Nepal.

http://issuu.com/world.bank.publications/docs/9780821396599

Appendix A

School Data


page 65 of 70

Figure A-1: Seismic Hazards in Nepal based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGC) Map

Figure A-2: Distribution of School Indicators in Various Regions (Public and Private)


page 66 of 70

Figure A-3: Distribution of School-related Indicators in the Kathmandu Valley

Figure A-4: Distribution of DEOs, MOE Resource Centers, and DUDBC Offices

Appendix B

Organization Charts


page 68 of 70

Education Minister

State Minister

SecretaryNepal National Commission

for UNESCO

Administration DivisionHigher Education and

Educational Management Division

Planning DivisionMonitoring, Evaluation

and Observation DivisionSyllabus Development

Center

Office of Examination Controller

Informal Education Center

Educational Manpower

Development Center

Department of School Teacher Records

Nepal National Library

Keshar Library

Department of Education

Regional Education

Directorate

District Education Office

Resource Center

Schools

Educational Training Center

Educational Training Sub Center

Internal Administration and Property

Management Section

Employee Administration and Manpower

Development Section

Financial Administration Branch

Rules and Regulations Advisory Section

Sports and Youth Program Section

University Donors Commission

Universities

Higher Secondary Education Council

Council for Technical Education & Vocational Training (CTEVT)

Higher and Technical Education Section

Scholarship Section

School Education Section

Foreign Aid Co-ordination Section

Policy Analysis & Program Section

Library Co-ordination Section

Monitoring and Evaluation Section

Observation Section

Research & Educational Management and

Information Section

Autonomous Institutions

Dilliraman Kalyani Regmi Memorial

Library

Janak Education Material Center

Ministry of Education

(MOE)

Figure B-1: Overall Roles and Various Divisions in MOE

Minister

Secretary

Administrative Division

Planning, Monitoring & Foreign Aid Division

Drinking Water & Environment Division

Physical Planning & Urban Dev. Division

Building and Accommodation

Division

MunicipalityCoordination Div. Department of

Drinking Water & Sewage Outlet

DUDBCInternal

Management

Section

Finance

Administration

Section

Employee

Administration

Section

Law and Order

Implementation

Section

Monitoring and

Evaluation Section

Foreign Aid and

Investment

Promoting Section

Planning Section

Social Coordination

Section

Environment

Section

Regional Coordination & Capacity Increment

Section

Drinking Water and

Sanitation Section

Town Development

Committee and Small

City Section

Physical Planning and

Urban Infrastructure

Section

Building

Section

Disaster Management

Section

Accommodation

Section

Municipality Financial

Management

Development

Municipality Good

Governance and

Capacity

Ministry of Urban Development

(MOUD)

A

B C

E

D

Figure B-2: Overall Roles and Various Divisions in MOUD


page 69 of 70

Monitoring and Evaluation (A) is very relevant and important for the

development and implementation of the rating and certification system for

private schools, in particular, and public school buildings as well, in consultation

with the DOE/MOE. This section should be engaged from an early stage in the

program.

The section marked (B) should be consulted and informed of the various

capacity and capability activities for school DRR.

Sections marked (C) and (D) involved in DR activities should be informed of the

outcomes of the program and the school building certified for DRR.

Within MoUD, DUDBC is the primary division that should take a major role and

stake in the overall DRR of buildings, including schools.

Prepared by:


DRM Consultant


Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report...enrolled in the school system. This means the safety of...

Documents

Transcript of Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report...enrolled in the school system. This means the safety of...