ADRCPPeerR
Reviewi Project
P j t 2012
Asian Disaster Reduction Center

Overview of the Mission to Armenia
Counterpart in Armenia:
Survey for Seismic Protection Agency
Person in charge: PhD.
PhD Hrachya Petrosyan,
Petrosyan HeadMission Date:
15 20 December
15‐20
Db 2012
Theme of Review:
Education and Training on Seismic Protection
Behavior Rules in the Cities of Yerevan and Gyumri(HFA Priority Action 3: Use knowledge, innovation andeducation to build a culture of safetyy and resilience at alllevels.)

Reviewe e Teamea
Team Leader
Prof. Aiko Sakurai
Associate Professor
Graduate School of International Studies
Studies,
Kobe University, Japan
Prof. Vishnu Dangol (Republic of Nepal)
Professor
Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal

Mr. Junji MoriwakiResearcher,, ADRC

Field Trip to Earthquake Stricken Areas (ZvartnotsCathedral)(Dec. 16)• Zvartnots Cathedral is a 7th‐century
centrally planned aisled Armenian
church built from 641‐653.
• ThisThi architectural
hil masterpieceiisi amonument which embodies thecenturies old traditions of Armenianarchitects.
architects• Zvartnots has survived only in ruins since it
was completely destroyed by powerfulearthquake in the 10th century.
• The ruins of Zvartnots Cathedral aredesignated by UNESCO as World Heritage
Site.

4

School N155 Visit in Yerevan (Dec. 17)

Above Left: photo during class on disasterprevention.
Above Right: photo after evacuated atplayground, which is expected to be safe
from collapse of neighboring buildings.
Below: p
photo on evacuation route and of aposter to show emergency behaviors
5Workshop
p in Yerevan ((Dec. 17))

A workshop to share Japanese and Nepali cases on earthquake
was held on December 17 in Yerevan. With thirty participantsfrom various key organizations on disaster reduction, including
Ministryy of Emergency
g y Situations,, International NGOs,, schools andrescue service, active discussions were exchanged to deepen
understandings on earthquake disaster prevention andpreparedness
preparedness.
6

School Visit & Workshops in Gyumri (Dec. 18)• The tem visited School N11 in Gyumri to observe the school’s
evacuation drill. In the afternoon, a workshop was held at the schoolwith about 25 participants from schools and local government offices.
• Since Gyumri was located near the epicenter ofthe 1988 Spitak Earthquake, it was observedthat people in Gyumri perceived earthquakewith more reality than the people in Yerevan
Yerevan.
Our visit was broadcasted on a local TV network.

7

Visit of Western Branch Office of Seismic Research Centerin Yerevan (Dec.
(Dec 19)• To collect more information about SRC’s training contents and theawareness raising program, the team visited Western branch office ofSRC in Yerevan.
Yerevan The training team presented their training materials
and gave a briefing on their program.
8

EVALUATION BY THE PEER REVIEWMISSION TEAMPresentedPd at Final
Fi l Evaluation
E l i Meeting
M i@the Head of Survey for Seismic Protection Agency
on December 19
19, 2012(revised after the discussion)9

Evacuation Drill in Yerevan(School N155)

BAD:• Students got excited andteachers yelled out. Exit is
too tight to help smoothevacuation.
evacuation• Doors open outside from twoclass rooms at the cornerpartially block the evacuationof students.
GOOD:
•••

Military Service reported to the safe evacuation is finishedto the school principal.
Evacuation route is displayed in the school.
Teams are organized among students and wear coloredarm bands.

10Evacuation Drill in Gyumri(School N11)

GOOD: Students were very
calm and teachers helped togguide usingg stairs safely.
yBAD:
N callll over was maded att• No
the playground.
• One outside door ispermanently closed at themain exit of the School.
11

Findings
1. The project team member in NSSP headed by Dr.
Hrachya Petrosyan have strongly committed tosmoothh andd successful
f l implementationi li off thehproject activities.
– Startedd in Octoberb 2012, theh project has
h beenb
implemented according the originally planned
time schedule
sched le as of mid
mid‐December.
December– Behavior rules have already been drafted andseriousi
off ttrainings
i iwere conductedd t d withith
about 2500 participants at schools.
12Findings
2 As
2.
A seen ffrom th
the participants
ti it att ththe W
Workshops
khiin
Yerevan and Gyumri, major stakeholders related todisaster p
prevention education are involved in a p
process of
formulating the behavior rules.
– MajorM j stakeholdersk h ld iinclude
l d schools,
h l locall l government
officials, rescue teams, DRR national platformfoundation,, HFA focal point,p, UN organizations
gandINGOs.
– Japanese 311 experiences and Nepali’s earthquake
risk reduction efforts were shared at the workshopswith around 50 Armenian participants.
13

Findings
3. Information and experience sharing with JICA related
program members have been promoted since the start of
the ADRC Project.
– The Project team has collaborated with JICA project
team for Seismic Risk Assessment and Risk
Management Planning in Armenia.
– JICA training participants have been invited to theWorkshops in Yerevan and Gyumri.
4. Attendance at two evacuation drills at schools in Yerevanand Gyumriyhelped
p the Peer Review Team to makecomparisons between two schools at different cities andamong Armenia, Nepal and Japan.
14

Recommendations regarding evacuation drills• NSSP could develop a template manual of conducting anearthquake evacuation drill at school based on thedrafted list of behavior rules since the different approach
was found in the team’s observation at schools.
• For preparation,preparation a school could conduct a safety check.
check– Finding out where the safe place and not‐safe place
during earthquake (including stairs, ceiling lights,windows, etc.)• Schools could prepare an evacuation map based on schoollayout map. Avoid non‐safe spots until these are fixed.
• Secure enough exits for evacuation. If not available, findout alternative exits.
exits• Roles of teachers are very important to prepare andg y Share thesecure students’ safetyy duringg the emergency.
information and assign a role to each teacher.
15

Recommendations regarding safety ofthe students and teachers• Apply earthquake‐resistant film to the windows. Having
windows with a shatterproof film will prevent injuries
from glass being thrown out of the frame during anearthquake.
hk• Use closed hooks or safety hangers for pictures andmirrors.
• Put non‐skid, padded matting under breakables, such astelevisions and monitors.
• Anchor all large appliances and pieces of furniture withmetal brackets or nylon strapping. Falling cabinets andbookcases can be potential hazards during an earthquake.
• Power backback‐upup system for alarm is essential.
• Radio or Walkie Talkies with specific band may beinstalled.
16

When an earthquake happens at School in Japan:
Students on the first floor

Students on the above floors

Secure an exit. Open a door for evacuation. Protect head and body.
Be away from the windows.
Counttime
until acall
over isifinished. InJapan,
average is 5‐6
minutes

4 rules of evacuation behavior should beobserved:
1. Do not push in evacuation
2. Do not run during the evacuation inside aschool building.
3. Do not speak in evacuation
4. Do not return after evacuation until safety
is confirmed
fd

Take cover under study desk near bearing walls
until shaking is stopped.

Evacuate to a p
playgroundyg
byy followingg a predeterminedproute.
Protect heads from falling objects and paying attention to the falling objects on the grounds.
Form a line by grade and class.
A class representative call over all the classmates. Report to a classroom teacher. Teacher
reports to a deputy principal.

17Evacuation Drill in Japan(Photo: Save the Children Japan)
18

Recommendations (Overall)• M
More systematic
tti trainingt i i modules
d l might
i ht beb required
i d forfincreasing the coverage of trainings by NSSP. Target
organizations and priority need to be set up for the training.
• Standardized procedure for evacuation should be provided
to the organizations, in particular to schools.
• Criteria for evacuation should be revised based on thestandardized procedure.
• Plan‐Do‐Check‐Action cycle
y should be introduced for thetraining. Provision of training‐ conducting an evacuation
drill‐ check the good and bad points‐ improve theprocedure.
• NSSP should conduct monitoring and evaluation after thetraining offered.
19

Conclusion• Findings
Fi diandd recommendations
d iwere discussed
did withih
NSSP on December 19, 2012.
– In March 20132013, NSSP is planning to conduct simultaneous
evacuation drills at all the schools in Yerevan and Gyumri
to check the schools’ preparedness for an earthquake. The
recommendations given by the Review Team will beconsidered for the further improvement of the Project
activities before the school‐wide drills
drills.

• The Peer Review Team concluded that the Project has
been implemented accordingly and achieved theintended objectives even in a mid‐term period of theschedule.
20