Report of the

APRU-IRIDeS
Multi-Hazards Program
Campus Safety Workshop 2016

APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards Program
CAMPUS SAFETY WORKSHOP 2016
Building Disaster-Resistant Universities: Is Your University
Ready for the Next Disaster?

2-4 February 2016
Tohoku University
Sendai, Japan

IRIDeS, Tohoku University
International and Domestic Liaison Office468-1-S302 Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai
980-0845 Japan
www. irides.tohoku.ac.jp/

APRU International Secretariat
IAS Building, 3/F
3019, HKUST, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong
www.apru.org

Edited by
Takako Izumi (Associate Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Yuko Sato (International and Domestic Liaison Office, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Akiko Yamada (International and Domestic Liaison Office, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Yoko Tani (International and Domestic Liaison Office, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)

2

CONTENTS● Introduction....................................................................................................................... 5● Acknowledgement............................................................................................................. 6● Opening remarks.............................................................................................................. 7● Presentations..................................................................................................................... 11● Case studies....................................................................................................................... 19● Group activities................................................................................................................. 27● Recommendations and key messages.............................................................................. 39● Field trip............................................................................................................................ 43
Annex I..................................................................................................................................... 46
Annex II................................................................................................................................... 47

3

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

The International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) at Tohoku University

and the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) held a workshop, “Building

Disaster-Resistant Universities: Is Your University Ready for the Next Natural Disaster?” on
February 2–4, 2016 at the IRIDeS. Ms. Amy Aiken, director of the Department of Emergency

Management at Florida International University (FIU), was the invited trainer and facilitator.

More than 30 participants attended, including faculty, staff, and students from 16 universities
in the United States, Australia, China, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, thePhilippines, and Thailand. The workshop discussed lessons learned from other universities,
common challenges and issues, and tools to develop an effective emergency plan thatenhances overall university preparedness.

In 2006–2007, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)

implemented a campaign entitled “Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School.” This campaign

highlighted the importance of disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts, countermeasures,and education at elementary and secondary schools; however, disaster preparedness on

university campuses was not covered. At universities, the number of students, faculty
members, and staff is much larger than at lower schools. If a major disaster strikes auniversity that does not have adequate risk reduction measures in place, the damage andimpact on university assets, buildings, and lives could be enormous. Universities must
prepare for these emergencies so that they can implement appropriate response strategies in
the initial stage of a disaster event.

A campus safety survey conducted by the APRU Multi-Hazards (MH) Program in 2014

identified weaknesses and challenges with regard to implementing campus safety steps.

Most universities have a disaster management and response plan, but many have not held asimulation exercise to assess the adequacy of the existing plan. Also, not all universities havecarried out a thorough risk assessment, even though this is a crucial baseline step to gather

data for a disaster management plan. Respondents also noted that it can be difficult to gain
the necessary support and understanding, including human resources and sufficient budgets,from senior managers in order to implement campus safety measures.

The APRU and the APRU MH Program acknowledge the importance of disaster

preparedness measures on campuses and the responsibility of universities to protect the

lives of students, staff, and faculty as well as various institutional assets. The APRU and theMH Program intend to play a key role in promoting and advocating for necessary initiatives at
the university level, and they will provide the needed support to universities for the processof developing campus safety measures.

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe IRIDeS and the APRU would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the participants fromthe APRU member universities and the three speakers from Tohoku University in Japan, the National
University of Singapore, and the University of the Philippines Diliman who shared their experience andknowledge regarding disaster management on campus. Their case studies and lectures provided us withideas and lessons learned that will be very helpful in developing disaster management plans.

Special thanks are due to Amy Aiken for serving as trainer and facilitator at the workshop. Her

commitment and support contributed greatly to the workshop’s organization, and her expertise and strong
background in disaster management were highly appreciated by the participants.

The IRIDeS and the MH Program also received tremendous support from the former APRU secretariat

in Singapore and the new secretariat in Hong Kong, which initiated operations in January 2016, as well asfrom the MH Program’s international core group members.

Last but not least, this workshop could not have been implemented successfully without the hard workand considerable support provided by the International Exchange Division of Tohoku University and thestaff of the International Regional Cooperation Office of the IRIDeS.

6

OPENING REMARKSProf. Masahiro Yamaguchi
Associate Vice President for International Affairs, Tohoku University

Good morning, everyone. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you to Tohoku

University for this workshop, “Building Disaster-Resistant Universities.” Thank you verymuch for traveling from all over the world to participate in this workshop and discussdisaster preparedness on campus. I also would like to extend our sincere appreciation to Ms.

Amy Aiken of Florida International University, who will serve as facilitator and trainer during
this workshop, for the invaluable support that she has provided for this event.

Five years have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of 2011,

which caused tremendous damage to this campus’s facilities and other assets. Thisdisaster reminded us that having a comprehensive preparedness capacity and plan is auniversity responsibility and that we must make efforts to ensure safety and security during

emergencies. Preparedness is a key to minimizing disaster risks and undertaking prompt
response and recovery. After five years, the recovery efforts from the earthquake and tsunami

are still continuing. Tohoku University has made various contributions to recovery efforts

by providing technical advice, collaborating with local governments, and assisting in thedevelopment of disaster education materials. We will continue working with the affected
communities and governments to build disaster-resilient communities and universities.

Tohoku University has been hosting the Multi-Hazards Program as a regional hub

and has provided coordination and secretariat services to the Program since April 2013.

Through this Program, along with the work of the Multi-Hazard Program International CoreGroup members, the need for disaster preparedness on campus has been emphasized, andpromoting its importance to the APRU members has become one of the Program’s main

activities. The Program conducted a survey of the APRU universities to understand their

ongoing initiatives, current level of disaster preparedness, and primary challenges. Amongthe survey responses, the desire to learn from other universities was extremely strong, andthat is a main reason why we have organized this workshop.

I hope that this workshop will provide you with an opportunity to learn from otheruniversities’ experiences in campus safety and that it will strengthen your ability to develop
and enhance the disaster preparedness capacity.

I wish you every success in this workshop. Thank you.

8Prof. Fumihiko Imamura
Director of IRIDeS, Tohoku University

Good morning to all of you. Thank you very much for participating in this workshop on“Building Disaster-Resistant Universities,” which is a very important and new topic even for
us in Japan. I am Fumihiko Imamura, Director of IRIDeS, Tohoku University. This institutewas established in 2012, one year after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.

Even though IRIDeS is only four-years old, it has grown to include more than 100 faculty,
researchers, and staff, specializing in natural, human, and social sciences. Our aim is toconduct practical research that contributes to strengthening community resilience.

Opening remarks

I am a professor of tsunami engineering, specializing in computer simulation forpredictive purposes, and have been discussing comprehensive countermeasures to mitigate

tsunami disasters for more than 30 years. I conducted comprehensive research on the Indian

Ocean Tsunami in 2004, visiting the affected areas many times. Five years ago, the Tohoku
region suffered tremendous damage from the Tsunami. This experience has caused us toexpand our commitment to research, particularly in the important area of the large scale ofdisasters with low frequencies.

In March 2015, the UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNWCDRR) was

held in Sendai with 150,000 participants, including the UN Secretary-General. It provided

various opportunities for discussion with people from different sectors. At the end of theConference, a new international strategy and framework for disaster risk reduction (DRR),

known as the Sendai Framework, was adopted as a blueprint for DRR efforts over the

next 15 years. To implement the strategy, collaboration with many groups of stakeholders
is necessary. Among the many topics and themes that we need to tackle as part of DRR,

this workshop focuses on one of them: safety issues on campuses. Disaster preparedness

on campuses is essential for universities as we are responsible for protecting the lives ofstudents, staff and faculty, as well as university assets from natural disasters. This workshop
includes presentations, discussions, group activities, and a field trip to areas affected by theGreat East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. I hope that you will learn from the recovery andreconstruction processes and efforts, particularly those carried out by local governments.

Again, thank you very much for attending this workshop, and I hope that you will have fruitful
discussions over the next three days.

9PRESENTATIONSAPRU Multi-Hazards Program and Results of
APRU Campus Safety Survey
Takako Izumi
Associate Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku University

The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) was established in 1997 to form a premier allianceof research universities as an advisory body to international organizations, governments, and business on
the development of science and innovation as well as on the broader development of higher education.
Currently, the APRU network consists of 45 leading universities from 16 APEC economies.

The APRU Multi-Hazards (MH) Program was launched in April 2013 by the APRU and Tohoku

University in Japan. The International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) at Tohoku University
has provided secretariat services and has been in charge of program coordination. The main objectivesof the MH Program are to harness the collective capabilities of the APRU universities for cutting-edge

research on disaster risk reduction (DRR) and to contribute to international policymaking processes

to steadily improve DRR. Its major activities include a campus safety program, summer school, annual
symposium, collaborative survey research, data sharing, and contributions to discussions at regional andinternational levels.

APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards Program

MH Program Website
CONTENTS• What’s new?
• About
MH Program
IRIDeS
APRU
Core Group Members• Annual Events
Summer School• Activities
Special events (UNWCDRR)
Campus safety program
Statement
http://aprumh.irides.tohoku.ac.jp/app-def/S102/apru/

The MH Program’s campus safety initiative aims to promote a culture of campus safety, provide

related learning opportunities among the APRU member universities, support efforts to strengthen
disaster preparedness capacity on campuses, share experiences with non-APRU member universities, andcontribute to overall improvement of disaster preparedness capacity in the region. As a source of baseline

data, the campus safety survey was conducted to understand the current disaster preparedness capacity of

the APRU member universities and to identify challenges and recommendations for the development of adisaster/emergency preparedness and management plan.

The results showed that the area of risk assessment requires greater attention and effort. In addition,

early warning and alert systems have not been installed widely. An early warning system is extremely
crucial to implement instant response actions such as evacuation. Moreover, further support andconsideration of foreign students is required. Universities have an important responsibility to provide

sufficient knowledge and support before and after disasters for foreign students who have language
barriers and less knowledge of local hazards.
12

3/9/2016

Area

Strength

Potential

Governance Action•••

Countermeasure office
Response plan•

Simulation exercise of countermeasure
officeInformation sharing and early warning••

Risk Assessment

None

DisasterPreparedness
Mechanism andCapacity•••

Emergency communication system
Disaster‐resistant structure
Awareness‐raising activities

Response Capacity••

Support System••

Data Preservation••
Emergency stockpile
Building inspection implementation•and capacity•
Policies for support to students
Support for psychosocial assistance •needs
Data and information gathering •after disasters

Risk assessment
Strategies and action based on risk
assessment• Assessment result to be shared• Guidance for foreign students• Safety confirmation• Response handbook and its distribution

Presentations

Mutual agreement with neighboring
universities
Volunteers list
Support system for foreign students
Support system for faculty members, andstaff, as well as their families
Archival system for preservation ofVisitinformation
our Website at apru.org
records andIn addition, many universities seeking to develop preparedness capacity have encountered financial

constraints, human resource challenges, difficulties in understanding risks and safety issues, and a lackof participation by faculty and staff. To improve the situation and expand their current capacity, many

universities have requested assistance from peer institutions, in the form of sharing tools and bestpractices, and have asked the APRU to provide a learning opportunity such as a workshop on campus

safety. This workshop has been organized in response to that latter request and to enable sharing ofexperiences and knowledge about campus safety among the APRU universities. Based on the outcomesof this workshop, the MH Program will develop a work and activity plan for campus safety to strengthen
disaster preparedness capacity on campus.

Survey Outline

Objectives of Campus Safety Program• Promote the need for campus safety and provide learning opportunities on
campus safety among the APRU member universities• Support strengthening disaster preparedness capacity on campus• Share the experience with non-APRU member universities and contribute to
overall improvement of disaster preparedness capacity in the region.
1) Governance on action
2) Risk assessment
3) Disaster preparedness mechanism
4) Response capacity5) Support system for students, faculty members and staﬀ
6) Rehabilitation and recovery
1Campus Safety Survey –The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
+ Mechanism in place toestablish a counter-measureoﬃce and have developed a
response manual and plan.
+ Physical structure areas, suchas disaster-resistant structures,
emergency communication,and emergency stockpiles,
have been progressed.
+ Support toward psychosocial
aspects has been provided
after disasters.

- The area of risk assessment
requires more attention andeﬀort.
- Conducting simulation
exercise of
preparedness/response
plan is required.
- Early warning and alert
systems have not been
installed widely.
- Further support andconsideration for foreign
students is required.

Visit our Website at apru.org

13

What Is Campus Safety?
Amy B. Aiken
Director, Department of Emergency Management, Florida International University

The concept of campus safety can carry various meanings. In the United States, it normally goes beyond

natural disasters and includes criminal acts and other events that require major involvement of the policeand or local fire department. . Even with regard to natural disasters specifically, different terms are used,such as emergency management, crisis management, disaster management, and disaster risk reduction.

Even if a university has developed only a natural disaster management plan, many aspects of that plan canalso be applicable to other types of incidents, such as those involving man-made and chemical hazards. It is
most crucial for each university to clearly understand the overall concepts of preparedness and emergency
management.

Emergency Management• Strategic, not tactical• Ideally resides in executive level oforganization• No direct power• Often comes “after the fact”

Emergency management includes different stages: preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery.

Each of these stages involves different actions: emergency response plans, training, and exercises for

preparedness; structural improvements and hazard and vulnerability assessment for mitigation; lifesaving

efforts and incident stabilization in the response stage; and debris management and economic renewal
in the recovery stage. Emergency management must be strategic, not tactical, and it ideally resides at theexecutive level of an organization. In addition, an effective disaster management program must include:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

14

commitment from university leadership,inclusion of any legal authorities governing emergency management,
adequate funding,a dedicated emergency operations center,appropriate staffing with trained staff,
training exercises, andmutual aid partnerships with local entities outside of the university.

The role of an emergency operations center in an unfolding disaster is crucial. Such a center must be

staffed with personnel who are trained and authorized to represent their agency or discipline. It must be

equipped with technology for transmitting and receiving information and managed through protocols.
An incident command system for emergencies should be standardized. This is a management tool that

relies on a tight chain of command and promotes effective decisions and incident response. In the system,a leader with expertise in emergency management is appointed to take charge of overall management,
making decisions and ensuring that staff identify what needs to be done for immediate response andrecovery.

What is an EOC?

Incident Command System• Standardized management tool

 Staffed with personnel trained and authorized torepresent their agency/discipline• Relies on a tight chain of command Equipped with technology for transmitting andreceiving information
 Managed through protocols

Presentations

 A physical location• Flexible – expand or contract• Promotes effective, team‐based decisions
and incident response

Considering the high probability of disaster occurrences in this region—tornados, pandemics,

hurricanes, active shooters, cyber-attacks, bomb threats, chemical spills, food-borne illnesses, infectious
diseases, etc.—universities are required to build a culture of preparedness through planning, training,and exercise. In addition, involving a policy team in the process of developing a plan is indispensable.

After a practice exercise is completed, the existing plan must be reviewed to determine whether it can copewith emergencies and suits the current university structure.

15

Developing and Evaluating Disaster Plans
Amy B. Aiken
Director, Department of Emergency Management, Florida International University（FIU）

An emergency management plan is intended to mitigate the risk of potential events that could

endanger your university’s ability to function. Such a plan should include measures that provide for thesafety of personnel, property, and facilities. It also covers continuity and recovery planning to help youruniversity prepare for and survive any emergency situation. It should include provisions for implementing
steps to eliminate problems that may arise.

Developing a plan is a critical part of disaster management. There are five crucial steps in creating aplan.

Steps to create a plan

CreateTeam•Administrative
Support•Lead
Department•Key
Stakeholders•Regular
Meetings

Risk
Assessment
andVulnerability
Analysis

Steps to create a plan

•Hazard andVulnerability
Assessment•Prioritize
Hazards

Develop
Plan•Resources•Decisions andActions•Format•GIS Maps

Plan
Review•Key
Stakeholders•Administrative
Approval

Implement
Plan•TrainStakeholders•Exercise•After Action

Maintain
Plan•Review•Annually•Post Disaster•After Action

１．Create the team: The team should include administrative support, alead department to oversee
plan development, and key university stakeholders who would be needed before, during or after an
emergency, and it should convene regular meetings.

２．Risk assessment and vulnerability analysis: Substantial research is required to determine all

the potential hazards that could affect your university. This is an extremely crucial step in thedevelopment of an emergency management plan. Various types of templates and formats forassessment can be obtained from the Internet and relevant publications

３．Develop the plan: Human resources with different skills and knowledge as well as budgetary

resources are required to develop a plan. The basic plan provides a concept of operations. It mustoutline the immediate actions required of and the responsibilities assigned to various departments

and offices; it must also list available personnel and other resources and how they would be activatedduring an emergency situation. It includes a list of guidelines for implementation, direction, andcontrol.

４．Plan review: The plan should be reviewed by a group of key stakeholders. If any revisions aresuggested, the team should make the appropriate changes. After that, the plan should be submitted toa policy group for approval.

５．Implement the plan (education, training, and exercises): Further education and training are

beneficial for all people concerned, especially for the team that would operate and staff the Emergency

16

Operations Center, so that they can feel competent and comfortable with their roles in the plan. Table

top exercises that simulate emergency situations are integral to the development of an effective
emergency management plan. The exercises provide opportunities not only to practice the emergency
management plan, but also to identify and eliminate weaknesses in it. Types of exercises to test theplan include drills (single function), tabletop exercises (key personnel discussing simulated scenarios
in an informal setting), and full-scale exercises (large, lengthy events at a particular location withequipment and personnel actually deployed).

Communications

Communications

Before, During, After

Before, During, After

National Meteorological
ServicesLocal Responders
Internal Department
MediaSocial Media

National Meteorological
ServicesForeign students andfacultyLocal Government

University wide email

Local Responders

Exchange or study abroad
students

Public address systems

Early warning systems (sirens)Policy; training to send
message; testing Verifying and disseminating
information

Communications

Will I get paid?
Tuition payment
Grant reporting deadlines
MediaSatellite locations

Concerned parents
Back up communications

Types of Exercises to Test Plan

Before, During, AfterStudent and faculty support

Presentations

Local GovernmentNo notice event vs. eventwith warning (Earthquake vs.
Typhoon)Foreign students andfaculty
Exchange or study abroad
students
Accountability of students
and faculty Drill – single function
 Tabletop – Key personnel discussing simulated scenarios in an informal
setting Functional – Testing specific functions of plan in most realistic manner
possibleExamples: Communication between sites, emergency notification
systems
 Full Scale Exercise – Large, lengthy event at a location with equipment
and personnel
Takes a year to plan

17

CASE STUDIES

1．Tohoku University, Japan
Hiroaki Maruya
Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku University

The Tohoku region of Japan was severely affected by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake andTsunami (GEJET). Tohoku University was also impacted, with the earthquake causing severe damage tobuildings at multiple locations such as the Aobayama and Kawauchi campuses. Three students lost theirlives, although these fatalities occurred at the students’ homes and not on campus. In addition, the disasterhad a tremendous impact on academic events at Tohoku University: the 2011 degree conferral ceremony

and the late-stage entrance examinations were canceled, and the undergraduate and graduate entrance
ceremonies and orientation had to be rescheduled.

Based on its experience of the 2011 GEJET, Tohoku University initiated disaster management activities.

One key step was to develop a disaster response and business continuity plan for the Administration
Bureau, which will be complete in the near future. Prior to that, a disaster management action plan project
team was formed, and the disaster management promotion headquarters is presently active.

Even during and immediately after a disaster, universities need to continue regular business operations

and functions while also responding to the disaster and taking prompt recovery actions. Universities
are expected to maximize effective use of limited resources such as communication tools, electricity,

manpower, space for operations, etc. to manage disaster response and recovery activities as well as
regular business operations. In order to manage these critical tasks simultaneously, Tohoku University has

developed a “critical operations list” for emergency situations. The critical operations vary depending on

the season; for example, they include the exit examinations for undergraduate and graduate students inJanuary and February, as well as the entrance examinations for undergraduate students in February andMarch and for graduate students in September through November. Postponement or cancellation of theseimportant events would have serious impact on students’ ability to pursue overseas study or employment
or on the university’s ability to enroll excellent freshman students. Should Tohoku University be soseverely affected that it cannot conduct important events and classes, it will be able to reach agreementswith other Japanese universities to use their spaces temporarily.

203.4 Disaster Response and Business Continuity
Plan (BCP) of Tohoku Univ.
Disaster response operations～Present DM manual partly covers

Necessary only in the time ofdisaster→ Chosen from the character andthe experience of the GEJE of
Tohoku Univ.

To confirm whether theindispensable resources
for each criticaloperation are secured ateach timing• To secure the indispensable
resources by countermeasuresin presence• To educate and train theprofessors and stuff to be able
to act in the time of disasters• Periodically check and improvewhen any changes occur
including personnel change

Ordinary time operations
that should be continue～Additional items by BCPThat should be continue even in
the time of disasters→ To consider the effect of
stoppage of each operation and toprioritization

3.5 Method for Critical Operation List
• Critical operation = Disaster response operations +Necessary operations that should be continued at the timeof disaster
Action records of the GEJE

Operation lists at ordinary
times

Disaster response operations

Necessary operations thatshould be continued

Critical operation list (draft)
Confirmation and adjustment (hearing investigation)

Critical Operation List (Final)

3.6 Tohoku University's Critical Operations
with Seasonality

3.7 Future Plan: Agreement with Other
Universities Located in the Distant

It is the characteristic of the university that the critical operations
has seasonality.
Apr

Ma

Jun

First yTerm ofe Class

Sep

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Second Term of Class

Case studies■ Exit Examination
 For undergraduate and graduate (January, February)
IF postponed, serious effect on students and organizations to
accept them
■ Entrance Examination
 For undergraduates (February, March) For graduate students (September – November)
IF postponed, lose good quality students and university fees
(income)agreementInterdependent in an areafor Business Continuity

Interdependent in an areafor Business Continuity

Periodic drills and exercises are also crucial so that universities can check the effectiveness of theirplans, tools, and facilities. For instance, fire drills involving Tohoku University’s students, staff, and faculty

are held regularly. These drills include safety checks, response training, and practice in first-aid and cardiac
resuscitation skills. Disaster response and business continuity exercises for the Administrative Bureau
were held, with the university’s administrative staff and senior managers (including the president andvice presidents) participating. During these exercises, a Disaster Management Headquarters (DMH) wasestablished as if a severe disaster had occurred in the region. Several challenges and issues were identified
through these exercises:
◦
◦
◦
◦

◦

The room and space allocated for the DMH were too small.

The number of telephone lines at the DMH was not sufficient.

An extension line to communicate with different campuses was always busy. It is also necessary toestablish a fax line in addition.

Several vice presidents have multiple duties and responsibilities and need to cover different

units during the response stage; these complex responsibilities constrain smooth operations andcommunication.

It is necessary to review response actions in case the emergency electric power does not work in key

rooms such as the General Administration Division.

21◦

Drills and exercises on the setup of DMH facilities are needed.
4.2.3 BCP Exercise of Tohoku Univ.
Exercise of Disaster Management Headquarter (1)4.3 Problems that was discovered in the exersise The room of the Disaster Management Headquarter (DMH) was too
small. Persons faced hard to move in the room during the exercise.
 The extension (telephone) was usable at first several hours. However,there was too little number of the lines which were usable in the DMH.
 We prepared a extension line to communicate with the different campus
where there were many students. The line was always busy. We should
prepare a fax line additionally.
 There were several important response units which a vice president wasin charge of, and duties centered on this vice president and sometimes
disturbed smooth correspondence.
 It is necessary to review the situation that an emergency electric power
is not usable in work room such as the General Administration Division.
 Drill to set up facilities of the DMH was seemed to be necessary.

2

Based on its experience of these exercises, Tohoku University is now reviewing its existing plan and improving

the content of its exercises so as to better prepare for the next disaster and reduce the risks and possible damageof such an event.

22

2．National University of Singapore:

Crisis Emergency Management Framework in NUS andExperience Sharing in the Management of H1N1 Pandemic
Peck Thian Guan

Director, Office of Safety Health & Environment, National University of Singapore

Mohammad Fazulee

Senior Manager, Office of Safety Health & Environment, National University ofSingapore

The National University of Singapore has adopted the “FISH” Crisis Management System Model. It is a

modification of the Plan-Do–Check–Act (PDCA) model made popular by Dr W. Edwards Deming. The PDCA

model which involves a four-step management method is widely used in businesses today for the control

and continual improvement of processes and products. The “FISH” model has the following components:“Plan” phase (5 elements) as the dorsal fin, the “Do” phase with ‘Crisis’ (4 elements) and ‘Peacetime’(8 elements) as the tail fin and “Check” phase (2 elements) as its lower fins, “Act” phase that involves
management review thus completing the anatomy of a fish (See Annex 1).

For universities that are just starting on their CEM framework, in the “Plan” phase, the organization

should begin with environmental scan to determine both the internal and external threats. In assessing
the internal threats, the organization should consider the entire supply chain, from its suppliers (S)of external products and services, the “inbound” (I) process and process (P) itself, the outbound (O)process and finally the customers (C) or SIPOC. The concept of SIPOC is used today in Six Sigma, Lean

manufacturing, and business process management. For external threats, natural disasters (e.g. flooding,typhoons, earthquake or pandemic) should be considered.

The conduct of risk assessment will help the university prioritize key areas that it would need toCase studies

address. Business Impact Assessment (BIA) will help the university understand the impact of suchinterruptions on its mission critical business functions. The next step in planning phase is to lay theground work to deal with crisis situation. Here, a crisis policy would provide the university with the “rulesof engagement” during a crisis. When formulating the policy, do remember that event classification withinorganization should mimic closely to federal or state’s classification to prevent confusion. Identification of
emergency roles and responsibilities within organization should be done and documented with adequate
training and exercises given in preparation of assuming those roles. Official emergency communication

procedure for any internal or external releases during emergencies should also be clearly disseminated to
all levels of the organization to prevent possible complication or confusion during real emergencies.

During normal (non-crisis) conditions, the organization should focus its attention on crisis prevention

and emergency preparedness. Here, prevention programmes (or crisis mitigation measures) should be
implemented. This could include training, awareness building and carrying out drills and exercises.

In the event of a crisis, there should be procedures for initiation and assessment of the situation. The

incident should then be escalated up the chain of command so that relevant senior people can be informedof the incident and the correct level of authority be mobilized to deal with the situation. Stabilizing a

critical incident involves an iterative process of deciding the actions needed and mobilizing the resources
to deal with it. Here, the university is guided by the following in order of decreasing priority – saving of

lives, minimizing damage to property, ensuring business continuity and finally taking appropriate actions

to protect the reputation of the organization. After the initiation series of intervention measures tostabilize the situation, the organization then goes into the recovery phase. It would resume its business23and then take appropriate measures to restore its operations to the pre-crisis stage. The team should keep

proper document, carry out debrief to identify lessons learnt. A crisis may have legal implications for theorganization and compensation and insurance claims need to be address. Care for the victims will have to
be looked into as well.

For universities that have an established CEM program, possible shortfalls could be addressed in the“Check” and “Act” phases. Support and resources would be needed to ensure both phases are carried out

to close findings and actionable improvements found from previous incidents or to review and addresspossible new threats. Review of the universities’ response may identify gaps as circumstances do change

from incident to incident. It is also a time for the university to ask if we should continue responding how

we always did or “Are we doing things right?” The other question for universities to ask in the “Act” phaseor during management review is “Are we doing the right things?” Due to changes in the environment andthe introduction of new threats, the university management may be required to recommend new strategic
direction to mitigate possible risks.

A case study on how the FISH model was applied to the management of the H1N1 outbreak in 2009 waspresented. We shared the strategies that the National University of Singapore had adopted in dealing withthe various stage of the pandemic (See Annex 2). We hope the detailed sequence of events shared withparticipants can be used by the participants to plan for their own internal table top exercise for pandemic

flu preparation. It is important to note how situations can escalate quickly and control measures reinstatedif a confirmed case appears even after a general stand down alert was given. Due to the support from theuniversity management, we were able to move swiftly into mobilizing the resources needed to overcome

such unexpected events. Arising from the incidents, faculties and schools in our universities have also beenasked to plan at individual levels to get ready for possible flu pandemics so as not to disrupt their daily

operations. This includes stockpiles and emergency suppliers for personal protection equipment, trained

manpower to activate local plans such as temperature screening and isolation procedures for potential
infected personnel. We also continue to diligently check the preparedness level for pandemic flu throughtable top exercises with our faculties and schools.
Summary
The “Fish” Crisis Management System Model

H1N1 Pandemic - Strategies & Plans
1.

• Internal Threats: Identify Key processes (SIPOC)• External Threats: Scenario & Modelling• Conduct Risk Assessment & Business Impact Assessment• Control Strategy

Preparation elements
4• Crisis
Planning

Response (IADA)

2.
Recovery

4 Response elements•Initiation / Notification• Resumption
Crisis•Assessment
Restoration
8 Recovery• elements

Plan
Do

Act
Management
Review

Check• Program review•Decision•Define objective•Priority and task list
•Resources•Communication plan
•Coordinating instruction•Act•Resource Mobilisation•Resource Deployment

3.
4.
5.

• Prevention“Peace”• Educationtime• Training

System auditselements
2• Checking

24• Documentation• Debrief• Lessons learnt• Legal• Compensation• CARE

Prevention
Education
Training

6.

Education, awareness& communication
Monitoring &surveillance
Temperaturescreening at
workplaces
Temperaturescreening for visitors
Contact tracing &isolation
Case management

7. Containment
8. Ambulance Service
9. Travel Advisory
10. Travellers from affected
countries
11. Decanting operations &alternative housing
12. Cleaning & disinfection
13. Business Continuity

3．University of the Philippines Diliman:

The New Initiatives of the University of the Philippines
Diliman for Disaster Risk Management in Campus
Benito M. Pacheco
Professor, Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University of the Philippines Diliman

The University of the Philippines Diliman, while long engaged in numerous researches andcourses related to disaster risk reduction and management, has only recently started to formally andcomprehensively adopt DRRM or DRM for its own campus. “The challenge is to practice what we preach(research and teach).”One of the steps is to have a commonly shared distinction among the evolved concepts of Disaster
Management, Disaster Risk Reduction, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, and Disaster Risk
Management. While DRRM and DRM have virtually the same definition by UNISDR Terminology, thePhilippine law uses DRRM.
Another step is to adopt the four priority areas of action by the Sendai Framework for DRR in 20152030, and the role of academia, namely, to focus on the disaster risk factor.

DRR Priority Areas for Action ** After the “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015‐2030” (2015 March 18)“Academia, scientific and research entities andnetworks [are to be encouraged by the States] to:focus on the disaster risk factors and scenarios,
including emerging disaster risks, in the medium
and long term; increase research for regional,
national and local application; support action by
local communities and authorities; and support
the interface between policy and science fordecision‐making…”

Case studies• Understanding disaster risk;• Strengthening governance to manage disaster risk;• Investing in disaster risk reduction and management
for resilience; and• Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective
response, and to “build back better” in recovery,
rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Role of Academia ** After the “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015‐2030” (2015 March 18)

The physical setting of UP Diliman is such that storms and/or nearby floods, earthquakes, fires, andan assortment of local human induced hazards, are among the immediate concerns by the six (6) sectors:
students, faculty, non-teaching staff, locators, visitors, and residents (that include a significant number of
informal settlers in the 493-hectare campus).
14 zones have been recently identified in the Diliman campus (while there are satellite or extension
campuses or laboratories), considering political division (village or barangay as political unit), type andpurpose of structures (with the type of land use), population, and existing feature as boundary.
Following and applying the Philippine law’s focus on the risk factors of hazard, exposure, vulnerability
and capacity, the UP Diliman DRRM Committee has been recently restructured to have the following five (5)sub-committees: hazard management led by the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Development; exposure
management led by the Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs; vulnerability management led by the ViceChancellor for Administration; capacity management led by the Vice-Chancellor for Community Affairs;
and institutional training led by the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Still in the formative stage – learning from the published plans of more than 48 universities andcolleges abroad, and also from a 2015 campus safety report by the APRU-IRIDeS – some 17 elements are
expected to be addressed in the following five (5) major sub-plans for DRRM: Hazard Management Plan;Student Preparedness Plan; Business Continuity Plan; Emergency Management Plan; and Training Plan.
These basically correspond to the five sub-committees listed above.
25

UPD Hazard Management SC

UPD Exposure Management SC• Headed by Vice‐Chancellor for R&D• Headed by VC for Student Affairs

1. Develop, promote and implement a Hazard
Management Plan particularly the mappingand monitoring of hazards in relation tovarious exposures and vulnerabilities in thevicinity of the University.
2. Coordinate with other organizations insideand outside the University with similarfunctions.
3. Propose and request appropriate resources.

UPD Vulnerability Management SC• Headed by VC for Administration

1. Develop, promote and implement a BusinessContinuity Plan particularly provision of
emergency resources.
2. Coordinate with other organizations especiallythose essential to the sustenance of critical
functions for the University.
3. Plan and recommend prioritization of resources
to reduce vulnerability prior to any disasterevent, and aid early recovery and medium‐term
rehabilitation after any disaster event.

UPD Institutional Training SC• Headed by VC for Academic Affairs

1. Develop, promote and implement an alternative
learning environment for use in emergency.
2. Develop, promote and implement, incoordination with the other Sub‐Committees, a
DRRM Training Plan for various University
sectors.
3. Coordinate with other training organizations
inside and outside the University with similarfunctions.
4. Propose and request appropriate resources.

1. Develop, promote and implement a Student
Preparedness Plan to reduce their exposuresuch as, but not limited to, organizing,
training, planning, and equipping.
2. Facilitate the accreditation of National Service
Reserve Corps reservists and theirorganization into a school‐based NSRC unit,
preferably any existing student organization
with recognized DRRM program.
3. Propose and request appropriate resources.

UPD Capacity Management SC• Headed by VC for Community Affairs

1. Develop, promote and implement an Emergency
Management Plan particularly among University
personnel, including preparedness of personnel
in terms of capacity or capability building.
2. Coordinate with Barangays within the Universityand vicinity.
3. Propose and request appropriate resources.

Planning the Plan
• UPD DRRM Template (2015 November 13)– Chair: Chancellor– Hazard Management Plan

VCRD

– Student Preparedness Plan

VCSA

– Business Continuity Plan

VCA

– Emergency Management PlanVCCA

The organization and the plan are expected to be mirrored and adapted to the size of each zone and toeach building or facility within a zone. It is to be emphasized that while the DRRM framework has beenrearticulated in a comprehensive manner for the whole university, the implementation needs to be scalable
to the size or level that is appropriate to the actual risk or disaster.

26

GROUP ACTIVITIESGroup activity 1: The four phases of disaster management: steps
that should be taken in each phase.

The participants discussed what steps and activities are needed to deal with various types of disasters(chemical release, tsunami, typhoon, and flood) in relation to the four stages of disaster management. The
activities considered crucial by all groups at each stage are listed below.
RESPONSE

Evacuation

Damage assessment

Information dissemination and exchange with local emergency services
Restoration of utilities, communication, etc.

RECOVERY

Continuation and extension of response activities

Support (including psychosocial support) to students, staff, and faculty
Returning to regular, normal operations

Plans if the university cannot recover in a timely manner
Debris removal

Developing a recovery plan

MITIGATION

Review of infrastructure, existing plans and risk assessment processes, and policies

Identification of areas to be strengthened on the basis of review and revision of policies and othernecessary areas

Awareness-raising activities

Provision of appropriate and properly trained staff and budget allocation

PREPAREDNESS

Hazard and risk assessment
Simulation
Training

Communication/alert system
Stockpile

Human resource management (identification of tasks for managers)

The above activities are considered the minimum actions that must be taken in all emergencies,

regardless of type. Universities must develop a detailed plan and structure for each action and thenpractice using simulation exercises and drills to determine whether the plan is suitable and sufficient.

28

GROUP 1

Chemical ReleaseResponse (Do)
Preparedness- Depository of Database: where, when, who, quantity - Evacuation / Shelter- Safety data sheet- Rapid assessment / situation analysis- Standard operating procedure or intensity, impact, damage degree
SOP for Chem release / Manuals (Early warning ) - Stabilization- Notification- Communication / Media / report- Emergency level(U.  notification , student or- Response to (1) local (U./Department
Gov. which data should be released)(2) national (Hazmat, Fire dept.)- Type of chem. (1) release: Gas / liquid
Operation Planning Logistic Admin(2) container  Env release/ finance- SOP: safe working with chem (prevention)
BCP- simulation- community communication / information- training- Security and safety measure- resources: PPE, equipment, IT- Psychological support- emergency funds, financial issue- Initial incident investigation- Insurance  risk transfer- MOU / protocol  Gov, Pubic (who is in charge)

Chemical Release
Mitigation- Detailed incident investigation(Root)- Cleanup/decontamination- Resumption of activities- Activate BCP- Detailed damage assessment- Continuous care for victims / status ofstaff- Reconstruction work / its budget
corresponding- Scheduling- Legal obligations- Improvement of risk assessment- Improvement of controls / facilities- Build back better- Coping capacity building (man)- Revise Policies / institutionalize- Policy – align with national policies-Alternative Financial Mechanism suchas risk transfer

Group activities

Recovery29

GROUP 2
TSUNAMI
Preparedness

Response

Recovery

Mitigation
go back tothe business

Staff

Resource

Office of Safety(Not all have this)Hazard Map
Local Policies
Liaison Officers
Support from Senior
Management

Evacuation‐ Authorization‐ E‐com System‐ Radio System‐ Hand ‐held radio /Megaphone‐ Door to door
Go back
Search and Rescue
Building and Facility
preservation

Office of Safety

Tsunami Assembly Area
All equipment needed

Building & Recovery‐ Communication‐ Water Supply‐ Power Supply‐ IT‐ Disposal debris‐ Financial &Psychological aid

Recovery contractors
Other Recovery
Agencies

ActionHazard assessment
Documents/Manual prep
Infrastructures‐ alert system‐ communication system‐ EOC
Man power‐ Trainings‐ Drills

After action Review
Review‐structure design‐manual‐money‐resources

ERT (Not all have this)
Security Guards

PPT
Government

Funds

Financial affaires
Student affaires
Campus hospital
Other hospital
Top Management
Office Safety

Funds
Report from each individual
Unit in Campus

GROUP 3

ActionPreparedness

Response

Recovery

Mitigation‐ Weak spots‐ Tracking‐ Critical activities‐ Evacuation logistics‐ Reception of outsiders‐ Insurance‐ Real‐time tracking‐ E.O.C. working activated‐ Medical aid‐ Clear obstacles to eva.
‐ Restore services ASAP
‐ Damage assessment‐ Info & communication‐ Repair‐ Debris removal/cleaning‐ Psycho‐social support‐ Rehabilitation‐ Insurance claim‐ Resume normal operation‐ Strengthen weak spots‐ Better tracking‐ Retrofitting bldg.
‐ Bigger insurance‐ Capability building forcommunity‐ Better eva. logistic‐ E.O.C. space/back‐up‐ Early warning system‐ Rescue equipment of‐ Emergency power & com.
facilities‐ Emergency shelters‐ Food, water, medicine, etc.
‐ Food, water, medicine, etc. ‐ Hospitals‐ Transport‐ Debris removal‐ Debris removal equipment‐ Construction material‐ Money‐ Time‐ More money‐ More time
‐ Better tracking tech.
‐ More better shelter‐ Enhanced E.W.S.
‐ Better everything‐ Dedicated team for
tracking‐ First‐aid, medical team‐ IT people‐ Government depts.
‐ Contractors‐ Guidance counsellor‐ Campus maintenanceteam‐ Building contractors‐ Lawyers‐ Faculty staff‐ More & better trained
staff‐ Institutionalized‐ Recruit director & full‐timeteamResource ‐ Risk hazard map

Staff

30

‐ Rescue team‐ Medical team
‐ External help: fire brigade‐ Security‐ Information expert

GROUP 4

FLOOD AROUND CAMPUS

LOCAL FLOOD (Inside the building)
PLAN/PREPAREDNESS‐ Communication hotlines‐ Water resistant‐ Elevated important
documents/equipment‐ Training

RESPONSE‐ Shut down utility lines‐ Warning signs‐ Proper transfer ofimportant
documents/equipment

PLAN/PREPAREDNESS‐ Alternative routes‐ Security‐ Communication hot lines‐ Orientation for new
students/visitors‐ Multi media
announcements‐ Data on affectedstudents/faculty/staff‐ Temporary shelter‐ Logistic supplies

RECOVERYMITIGATIONRECOVERYMITIGATION‐ Quick repair‐ Cleaning &decontamination‐ Regular maintenance ofutilities‐ Adjust academic calendar‐ Make up classes‐ Support to affectedstaff/faculty/students‐ Clearing of debris

RESPONSE‐ Support flood control
projects‐ Solid waste management

GROUP 5
Group activities

 Strong winds
 Strong rain
 Trees falling Window breaking
 Seasonal planning (summer)

RESPONSE

PREPAREDNESS• Risk assessment – Write plan
• Warnings ‐Communicate to staff/students‐SMS warning systems• Reaction plan for individuals (Paper)
Social media channels• Establish communication protocols with local EM
serv.
• Clear Drains –Box gutters to avoid flooding• Move loose materials and furniture• Store PPE/Medical kits –First aid/Response training• Tree pruning risk management• Power failure –Possible wires down
‐Back up generators‐Fuel supply• Flooding risks‐What is in low lying areas• Develop flood map ‐Use to inform development
program‐Inform evacuation plans

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Suspend classes→SMS students and staff
Activate EOC
Issue comms on actions for individuals
Building managers/wardens –Action local typhoon plan(eg. Lock windows, Check gutters, Remove
hazards –loose material)
Early evacuation of campus as required
Establish communication with local emergency services
Start a log of the event
University as a shelter?
Check on staff/students affected by the Typhoon andtheir families
Establish counselling hot line/service
Provide first to scene response including first aid
Have electricians/plumbers etc. on site available hotline open for reporting / responding
Use preparation time wisely

31

RECOVERY• Stiff scotch！
• Contact staff/students to establish welfare• Inspect campus for damage –Make safe, Remove
hazards (eg. Fallen trees, Powerlines down)• Prepare a plan for recovery
Stages to re‐open building, Implement
BCP’s, Establish allowable outage time
• Re‐assess weather risk –Short/med/long term
outlook• Release emergency recovery funds• Ramp up counselling services• Post emergency debrief‐improve preparation plans while fresh• If shelter –Logistics plan
‐Local charity organization activation‐Soliciting volunteer support• Communication plan in status when BAU

32

MITIGATION Strong winds
 Strong rain
 Trees falling Window breaking
 Seasonal planning (summer)• Move campus to Sydney• Infrastructure –Typhoon resistant, flood resistant,Typhoon resistant trees• Lessons learnt –Revise plans/actions• Awareness raising –Individuals to be accountable inemergency• Investment program as necessary such as generators• Update campus maps –Flooding etc. as a result of new
information• Debrief with local emergency services and agree onchanges as required• Look at impact mitigation on researchdata/experiments/equipment and update BCP’s

PREVENTION• Disease• Water purification

Group activity 2: Developing and evaluating a plan

Each group was requested to prepare a disaster emergency plan for a university with 32,000 students, 9,000of them living on campus, and 6,000 faculty and staff. The major steps of developing a disaster emergency plan
were presented as follows:

１．Elucidate regarding your university based on a risk assessment. Provide basic information about special
considerations such as location, demographics, and special vulnerabilities.

２．Describe the command system that your university would employ during response and recovery. Who is incharge? Where would the staff report? Which staff would be responsible for managing the incident?

３．Identify hazards affecting your university.

４．How vulnerable is your university to these identified hazards?

５．Describe how your university manages the risks that these hazards create. Are mitigation strategies in place?
６．Assess the capabilities of your university. Provide a basic inventory of resources that would be used for allphases of emergency management. List resources that outside entities may provide if an emergency exceeds
the capabilities of your university.

７．Describe the protective actions that would be required for various hazards. List the resources required toaccomplish these protective actions.

８．Describe how you would evaluate the effectiveness of your plan. Who would conduct the evaluation?

Conducting an assessment and discussing it with a policy group and senior managers are crucial steps

in the process of developing such an emergency plan, as is practicing implementation of the plan through asimulation exercise. When the groups discussed mitigation strategies to manage risks, most of them identified

Group activities

both hard and soft (i.e., infrastructure and non-infrastructure) measures. Universities need to prepare a plan

for response and recovery after an event, as well as to minimize the risks in advance through education, early
warning system development, and drills. The level and scale of the plan will vary depending on each university’sgeographic location and past experience of disasters. However, the most important actions are to understand therisks, prepare for an event, and respond in an effective and efficient manner. To make these actions possible, anemergency management plan is indispensable.

33

GROUP 1
Charlie Brown University
32,000 students / 9,000 live on campus / 6,000 faculty and staff
Identification
HazardShooter on Campus
L
Bomb Threat
L
Cyber ThreatM
PandemicL
Typhoon/Cyclone
HH
NaturalEarthquake
H
Fire‐Bush Fire/Man Made L/L
Volcano eruption/Lahar M
Storm Surge
H/HLand Slide
L
Hail Storm
M
Haze/Pollution CloudL
B. Element at Risk (Hurricane)
Exposure ‐ Annual Event Risk
‐ In Semester (32,000)‐ Examination Period (32,000)‐ Night Time (9,000)
High Exposure need to lower by increasing capacity‐ Need a good plan to deal with 32,000
Risk Assessment
A. Man Made

Key Points for Plan/ Strategy
1. Lower number of people on campus *List not priority
2. Early warning/Reaction crucial
3. Force evaluation
4. Preparedness ‐ Transport‐ Logistics : Water/Power/Food‐ Supply chain
5. Communication Plan/Readiness‐ Early warning system‐ Advocacy Campaign : Be prepared. Messaging
6. Sign up to UNISDR ‐ and enter safe school advocacy‐ Reciprocity University Agreement
7. Risk Transfer/Avoidance ‐Soft/Hard Mitigation
Mangroves/Buttress/Levy Banks/Wave Breakers
8. Structural Measures

Objectives
Safe Lives
Index
―
$
1,000’s$$ 100,000’s$$$ 1,000,000’s

EOC Team
FM Manager
WHS Manager
Communication Manager
Head of Security
CFO – Finance Representative
Legal – Gen Counsel Reps.
Secretary for Team
Student Services
Manager
Local Emergency Services
Medical Officer
Disaster MGR (Team Leader)
HR Manager
Student Housing Manager

BudgetTime
Frame‐ State of the Art EOC
A ‐ Awareness Campaign
B ‐ Call to Action Plan
C ‐ Storm Markers
D ‐ Build a Seal Wall
E ‐ Develop EWS with Local Emergency Service
F ‐ Sign MOU with line agencies and LGUs
G ‐ Protocol Portal for comm
H ‐ Ce Escape Route Map

$
$
―
$
$$$
$
―
―
―

I
I
I
L
L
M
I
I
I

PPAs
1
2
3
4
5
7

Safe Property

6
2
4
5

I
‐ Sign up with Safe SchoolJ‐ BCP’s for all assets
D‐ Prepare Seawalls
K‐ Asset Readiness Plans
L‐ Rapid Assessment of Asset Ability/ Resistance

―
$
$$$
$
$

I
I
L
M
I

Safe
Environment

2,4
5,6
7,8

M ‐ Mangrove Project Not Mango’s
D ‐ Seawalls
N ‐ Breakers

$$
$$$
$$$

L
L
L

+ Economic
Livelihood

34

Assumptions
Command Control Centre
Priority ; Life Safety
Hazard Maps Available
Evacuation Center/Route Established
Shelter area designatedM & E

INDICATIVE AS AT TIME OF EMERGENCY
INDICATORTIME FRAME% DONEEVALUATION TO BE PERIODICALLY 6MTHS

REMARKS

A

I

100%

Well done

B

I

100%

Excellent

C

L

80%

Good as Gold

D

L

20%

Design complete
Construction commenced

E

M

100%

Tested + working

F

I

100%

Complete with Protocol’s

G

I

100%

Tested + working

H

I

100%

Route marked

I

I

100%

Complete

J

I

50%

In progress

K

M

40%

Being written

L

I

50%

In Progress

M

L

10%

Seedlings sourced

N

L

5%

Design commenced

GROUP 2
Hazards/Risk Assessment
EOC

MGT Team

Chair
L.O.

Housing/Evac

‐UHO
‐OSA

Group activities

The Team

P.I.O.

Logistic

S&R

WASH

Comm.

‐Procurement of r
‐Maintenance‐Transport‐Search‐Rescue‐Fire‐First Aid‐Security‐Volunteers‐UHS‐Nutrition‐Sanitation‐Mortuary‐Radio Ops‐IT people‐Signal corps

Resources‐On‐Hand:
Manpower: (Basic) Trained Personnel
Equipment: Available but Insufficient (30%)
Transport: Insufficient (Tech) but timely & pool →Suff.
Supplies: Sufficient for 72hrs
Comm.: SMS, EB, Radio, Signal‐Needs:Manpower: Adv./ Ref. training + Capability Building
Equipment: Add’l Debris cleaning equipment,
Transport, Comm. facilities

Exercises (w/ Observers)‐ Semi‐Annual Fire & Earthquake drills
per bldg./facility‐ Regular drill for S&R teams‐ Table top exercises for management
team & Team leaders‐ Functional exercises for all operating
teams‐ Full‐scale seismic hazard every 2yrs

‐Natural
Meteorological
HP / HI•Typhoons•Landslides•Storm surges
Seismic
HP / HI•Earthquakes•Tsunamis•Landslides
Pandemics
HP / HI‐Man‐madeChemical & Haz. Mats L/M P / LI
Violence/ Gang wars
Fire/ Sabotage
Cyber Attacks
HI‐Community Risks
Haze/ Fire for com.
LP P HI
Criminal Elements
LP HI

Review Process‐ Annual review & updates based on
results of drills/exercises

35

GROUP 3
Context of Univ.
‐ Charlie Brown Univ.
Located seaside‐ Vulnerable to Hurricane, Flood, Storm
surge, Tsunami, Seawater intrusion,
Low‐rise building‐ Limits: Many foreign students
Many substandard buildings
President – not committed

Capabilities
Resources we need from outside:‐ Local rescue team (Fire dept., Policeetc.)‐ Food, Water‐ Fuel‐ Building inspection‐ (Army)‐ Support from neighboring universities‐ Human resources
Limited for large‐scale
No money – no talkCommand system

How Vulnerable?

‐ Emergency Response Team: (EOC)
Chaired by president or vice‐President
Director of Disaster Management,
Director of Facility, Director of IT,
Hospital Director (Univ. Hospital),
Director of Student Affairs,
Director of Communications,
Campus Security Chief, Directorof Research Affairs, IT Technology

Protective Actions‐ Evacuation : Transportation, Fuel, signage,Evacuation drills, Police support‐ Rebuilding / Relocation

Evaluate Effectiveness‐ Table top, Drills, Full scale exercise‐ Implement during disaster!
‐ Computer simulation‐ Bench mark with other universities‐ Hurricane : High‐ Flood / Rains : Medium‐ (Tsunami / Earthquake)

How manage the risks
Mitigation strategies
1. Infrastructure
2. Non‐infrastructure
1. Infrastructure‐Stronger building & materials‐Shelters (food, water, medicals)‐Good transportation/Roads‐Debris removal‐Backup generator‐Communicator backup
2. Non‐infrastructure‐Education/Awareness raising‐Early warning/Monitoring/Info.
dissemination‐Emergency response plan/
Exercise/Implement

GROUP 4①

POLICY GROUP‐ Provost / Vice chancellor /Vice rector‐ Facilities / Logistics‐ Communications‐ CFO‐ Security‐ Student Affairs‐ HR‐ Legal‐ Safety‐ Medical‐ Health

INCIDENT
COMMANDER

CEM

OPS

Planning

Facilities
SecurityHR
Student affairs
Counselling
Comms

Logistics

Admin / Finance

Facilities

Finance
Legal
Insurance

Faculty / Schools

36

Vice Dean(Admin)②
Activities

Hazards

Natural Disasters

Man‐madeResearch
Internal/External
Student‐related
Community‐related

Frequency
1 2 3 4 5

Risks

Consequence
1 2 3 4 5

F×C

R

Typhoon

5

5

25

1

Earthquake

3

5

15

3

Tsunami

2

5

10

4

Forest Fire

3

3

9

5

Flood

5

4

20

2

Fire

2

3

6

2

Chemical

1

4

4

3

Biological

1

3

3

4

Radiological

1

4

4

3

Shooting

1

2

2

5

Student Demo

5

2

10

1

Boosting/Water
related accident

3

2

6

2

①Typhoon②Flood③Earthquake④Tsunami⑤Forest Fire
①Student demo
②Fire
Accidents③Chemical
Radiological④Biological⑤Shooting③
Mitigation
NaturalTyphoonMan‐made
Student DemoFire

Use safety windows
Improve drainage system
Clean drains
Locate critical services on high ground
Early warning system
Evacuation procedures
Alternative housing arrangements for students
Food & waterCommunications

Capability / Resources
Maintenance team
+ equipment
early planning
Communication though sms,
twitter, facebook, PA; mobile APPs
Rescue boats, emergency teamUse halls, nearby hotels
Stock upPhone, fax, radio, SOS media, sms

Evaluation

DrillsTabletops
Functional testing
Full scale exercises
After action review

Group activities

Flood

Strategies

Regular & transparent comm. with students
Involvement of students in university governance
Implement maximum tolerance
use “safe” electrical appliances
Elimination
chemical fires
R.A.
Trg
Substitution use chemicals higher
Eng controls detectors, sprinclars
Response
Staff & students trained in using
fire extinguishers

37

GROUP 5
Context

Command system• 32000 students• 9000 live on campus• 6000 staff• Research• Located on coastline inremote area
• A hospital, PD, FD are
nearby outside campus• Vice chancellor is in charge• Safety director is manager• Staff report to safety
office/director

Mitigation strategies• Build strong buildings with fire protection systems• Capacity building/training and education of safety officers andemergency response team(ERT)• Stockpile of emergency supply• Own debris clearing equipments• Multiple modes of communication systems• Assign a safe room in each building for hurricane shelter with clear
marker• Assign an assembly place outside building in case of fire with
evacuation route signage• Install warning system, e.g., sirens• Provide at least two access routes

38

Hazards• Hurricane storm• FireVulnerabilities• Limited supplies due toremote location• Blocked access• Only one access route forfire fighter and help

Resources• Allocate contingency fund/ EOC• ERT and backup ERT (trained faculty &staff)• Information from meteorological dept.
• Supply for 7days for 10,000 people• Debris removal equipment/
transportation within campus• Helicopter platform• Use undamaged buildings for activities

Actions• Activate EOC• Alarm and alert
people• Evacuate• Secure vital sites,
data, personnel• Monitor situation

RECOMMENDATIONS AND KEY MESSAGESRECOMMENDATIONS AND KEY MESSAGESThe discussions in this workshop suggested that leadership is indispensable during emergencies interms of making critical and prompt policy decisions and ensuring that staff identify what needs to bedone for immediate response and recovery. It is crucial to implement the incident command system in an

emergency situation, and this system must be widely understood. Some universities do not have such a
specific system; rather, the regular organizational structure is adopted as the incident command system.

Each university must identify the structure that best suits its context and make it work as a key to effective
emergency management.

Also during the preparedness stage, universities need to develop an adequate emergency (disaster)

management plan for responding to and recovering from any damage. This process requires gaining
understanding and support from the university leadership (policy group) as well as obtaining adequate

funding and human resources. To identify any current oversights or weaknesses, universities should also
conduct simulation exercises using existing plans.
The keys to campus safety are as follows:

１） Involving a policy group consisting of the executive leadership of the university to makecrucial policy decisions (closing the university, etc.) (decision-making body)２） Developing an emergency management plan (preparedness and response plan, etc.)
３） Conducting exercises, drills, or simulations using the existing plan to assess its efficacy
４） Reviewing the plan every year or following any emergency event to determine whether it cancope with emergencies and whether it suits the current university structure
The discussion highlighted various strengths:

１） Universities in this region have similar management structures and therefore share common issues
and concerns. Accordingly, they can learn from one another and adopt similar efforts.

２） They also share access to strong networks, such as the APRU, to exchange views and concerns andobtain feedback and suggestions. In this case, practical experience of what has worked well or did
not work are especially valuable. Such networking also ensures a strong possibility of continuing this
dialogue and initiative with additional workshops and training.

３） Likewise, universities in this region have experienced various disasters, making them experts on
several types of disasters.

At the same time, several weaknesses were also identified:

１） A lack of permanent staff and managers in the safety and security office. Also, once senior managersof the university such as the safety director and president are replaced, interest and understandingon campus safety issues can become hard to sustain. Changes in staff leadership can often make it
difficult to conduct regular drills and exercises.

40２） University resources needed for emergency planning and preparedness must be shared with otherobjectives such as research, innovation, and experimentation, and the battle for resources can bevery competitive. Consequently, campus safety projects tend to suffer from inadequate resources.

The participants requested the APRU to continue providing opportunities for discussion and learningon campus safety issues and to address the importance of involvement by senior managers and leaders
in a university policy group on this topic. This message will be conveyed to senior managers of the APRU

member universities as well as other universities and research institutes in the APRU geographic area
through regional and international conferences and discussions.

Source: United Nations
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific2014 Year in Review

Recommendations and key messages

Source: United Nations
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific2014 Year in Review

41

FIELD TRIP

FIELD TRIP

After two days of sessions, the workshop participants visited Natori and Sendai on February 4 toobserve the recovery efforts since the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.

In Natori City, more than 900 people were killed by the Disaster and nearly 14,000 houses andbuildings were affected. Natori adopted a multiple-defense approach in its recovery plan. In this case,the primary defense (mainly by sea walls) is for tsunamis that occur once every 10 to 100 years, and thesecondary defense (collective relocation, elevating lands, etc.) is for severe tsunamis that occur once every

1,000 years. The industrial area has been built closer to the coast, and the housing area is farther inland.
This arrangement gives residents more time to evacuate in a tsunami.

44For its reconstruction plan, Sendai opted to develop tsunami evacuation facilities. The participants

visited one of the following facilities: a tsunami evacuation tower that can accommodate nearly 300
people and houses various features such as solar power, emergency wireless service, and stockpiled
supplies. The local governments also introduced various disaster risk reduction and mitigation measures
to avoid experiencing the same damage during future severe disasters as in 2011 and to build resilient
communities equipped to protect local lives and assets.

Field trip

45

ANNEX Ⅰ : Workshop on Building Disaster Resistant Universities~Is Your University Ready for the next Natural Disaster?~
2-4 February 2016 at Tohoku University in Japan

2 February 2016
9:00-9:30 Registration
9:30-10:00

10:00:10:10

10:10-10:30
10:30-11:15
11:15-11:30
11:30-12:15
12:15-13:15
13:15-14:00
14:00-14:45
14:45-15:00

Opening and Group photo

Prof. Masahiro Yamaguchi (Associate Executive Vice President
for International Affairs, Tohoku University)

Prof. Fumihiko Imamura (Director, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Self-introduction

Results of Campus safety survey (Dr. Takako Izumi, IRIDeS)

What is campus safety? (Ms Amy Aiken, Florida International University)
CoffeeCase study 1: Tohoku University (Prof. Hiroaki Maruya, IRIDeS)
Lunch

Case study 2: National University of Singapore (Dr. Peck Tian Guan, NUS)

Case study 3: University of Philippines (Prof. Benito M. Pacheco, UP Diliman)
Coffee15:00-16:00	Group work: the 4 phases of disaster management: what steps would be taken for each
16:00-17:30
18:00-

phase

Group presentation and discussion
Gathering

3 February 2016
9:30-10:30

Developing and Evaluating an effective Emergency Plan (Ms Amy Aiken, FIU)

11:45-12:30

Group work continue

10:30-11:30
11:30-11:45
12:30-13:30
13:30-14:45
14:45-16:00
16:00-16:15
16:15-17:00
17:00-17:30

Group work: Developing and Evaluating a plan
CoffeeLunch

Group presentation and discussion

Table top exercise to test your emergency plan
CoffeeDebriefing
Wrap up

4 February 2016
9:00-13:30
46

Field trip to the affected sites (Yuriage, Kitakama, and Tsunami evacuation tower

ANNEX Ⅱ : List of Participants

1

Name

Greg Robinson

University

Australia

University of Hong
Kong

Hong Kong Director of Safety

Yangyong Zhang

Fudan University

4

Fatma Lestari

University ofIndonesia

5
6

Edmund Hau

Riyadh Firdaus

Yuni Kusminanti

7

Dadan Erwandi

8

Hitoshi Yamamoto

10

Jooyong Park

9

Michihiro Kita

Position

the University ofSydney23Location

University ofIndonesia
Universitas
Indonesia

China

Director, Campus Infrastructure &Services
Deputy Director, Campus Safety
OfficeIndonesia

Director of Disaster Research &Response Centre

Indonesia

Researcher Staff in
Disaster Research & Response
CentreIndonesia

Universitas
Indonesia

Indonesia

Osaka University

Japan

DoctorLecturer staff in Occupational
Safety and Health Department,
School of Public HealthOsaka University

Japan

Professor, Vice Director, Dept. of
Safety and Hygiene

Seoul National
University

Korea

Philippine Schoolof Business
Administration

Philippines Associate Dean and DRM Adviser

Professor, Division of Global
Architecture, School/Graduate
School of Engineering
Professor

11Mark Paz De Guzman

St. Louis University

13

Marish Sabiniano
Madlangbayan

University of thePhilippines Los
Banos

Philippines Vice Chancellor for Planning andDevelopment

University of thePhilippines Los
Banos

Philippines Chancellor/Professor

12

14

Tabassam Raza

Genaro Andres Cuaresma

15

Fernando C. Sanchez

16

Nestor T. Castro

University of thePhilippines Los
Banos

University of thePhilippines Diliman

Philippines Graduate Program Coordinator

Philippines Assistant to the Vice Chancellor
for Community Affairs and Chair

Philippines Vice Chancellor for Community
Affairs47

17

Benito M. Pacheco

18

Jessica K. Carino

20

Peck Thian Guan

19

21

Oscar Victor M. Antonio

Mohammad Fazulee
Abdul Rahman

22

Fongzuo Lee

23

University

Location

Position

University of thePhilippines Diliman

Philippines Vice-Chancellor for Academic
Affairs; Professor of Civil
Engineering

University of thePhilippines

Philippines COE Associate Dean for
Administration

University of thePhilippines Baguio

National Universityof Singapore

National Universityof Singapore

National Taiwan
University

Philippines Professor, Vice Chancellor for
Administration
Singapore
Singapore

TaiwanDirector, Office of Safety Health &Environment

Senior Manager (Fire & Life
Safety)Postdoctoral Research Fellow

24

Pochia Chen

Pongsak Suttinon

National Taiwan
University

TaiwanPhD Candidate

25

Chatpan Chintanapakdee

Chulalongkorn
University

Thailand

Assistant Professor, Assistant to
the Dean

IRIDeS, Tohoku
University

Japan

Professor

IRIDeS, Tohoku
University

Japan

Associate Professor

26

Amy Aiken

27

Hiroaki Maruya

29

Takako Izumi

28

30

48

Name

Yuichi Ono

Takuya Ito

Chulalongkorn
University

FloridaInternational
University

IRIDeS, Tohoku
University

IRIDeS, Tohoku
University

Thailand

USA

Japan

Japan

Lecturer, Department of Water
Resources Engineering, Faculty ofEngineering

Director, Department ofEmergency Management

Professor

Researcher