ADRC Peer Review Mission Team(February 23-27, 2014)

Final Report(as of Feb. 27)

1
FY2013 ADRC－Armenia Cooperative Project on Reaching the Most
Vulnerable-Orphans and Seniors Inclusive Earthquake Safety in the Capital Cityof Yerevan and District of Ararat, Armenia

2

ADRC Expert Team Renato U. Solidum, Jr., Ph.D. (Earth Science), Director,
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology,
Philippines Aiko Sakurai, Ph. D. (International EducationalCooperation), Associate Professor, Graduate School ofInternational Cooperation Studies(GSICS), KobeUniversity, Japan Junji Moriwaki, ADRC, Japan

Schedule3

 23 Feb 2014 (Sun): PM : Arrival -Transfer to Hotel 24 Feb 2014 (Mon): AM : Showcase of the Project at the office of the Head of Survey for Seismic Protection
Agency (presentation by H.Petrosyan, Project Manager) PM: Inspection visits to orphanages
 25 Feb 2014 (Tue) AM : Inspection visits to nursing homes
 PM : Workshop at MES RA: Raising awareness for the staff of orphanages and nursing homes
through lessons learned and good practice of seismic protection measures, contingency
planning and preparedness (Reviewers’ presentations & exchange opinions withparticipants ) 26 Feb 2014 (Wed) AM : Survey visit to Yerevan School N155, Classes and Drills (comparison with last year,check out improvements and follow-up, etc)
 PM : Final Evaluation Meeting at the office of the Head of Survey for Seismic ProtectionAgency
 27 Feb 2014 (Thu): AM DepartureProject Summary
4

Armenia Cooperative Project on Reaching the Most Vulnerable-Orphans and Seniors Inclusive
Earthquake Safety in the Capital City of Yerevan and District of Ararat, Armenia

 Objective
 Improving earthquake safety of orphanages and nursing homes through providing adequate training
and information to residents and technical staff for coping with earthquake disaster Target Most vulnerable social groups of population: out of family children and seniors

 Major stakeholders Orphans, seniors, mentor, and nurses, and technical staff

 Specific Feature of methodology
 Streaming to people who are able to act on themselves
 Stage by stage approach when training is followed by the alert drills
 Periodicity of training Assumption
 Due to shortage of seismically resistant buildings and structure in the seismically active territory ofArmenia, the only prerequisite for raising public awareness could be just human factor based on thepsychological preparedness adaptation to not favorable social conditions

5

Project Activities
1. Acquiring and familiarization of the international experience on
seismic protection behavior rules education and training
2. Elaboration of earthquake protection teaching and informationmaterials for orphanages and nursing homes
3. Working meetings and inspection visits, workshop with participationof the ADRC experts
4. Training at the orphanages and nursing homes
5. Preparation of instructions, printing and sharing of educational
informative materials

6

ADRC Teams’ Observation andRecommendation

7

Framework of Evaluation
ADRC experts team evaluated the project activities from thefollowing perspectives:
1.

Inspection visits to orphanages and nursing homes are
conducted in terms of hazard watching exercise

2.

Evaluation is conducted based on disaster risk
management cycle (what to do before, during and after anearthquake)3.

Recommendations include on-site improvement as well as
advocacy to higher level of the government to securesustainability of the Project efforts

8

Examples of check-points in terms ofhazard watching exercise
 Safety of non-structured facilities in every room and building Secured routes to exits: prepare multiple and safer evacuationroutes to exits
 Safety of evacuation areas
 Preparation of survival kits and emergency materials (including
emergency lights and kits, electricity, water, etc..)
 Emergency communication lines and networks with relatives ofresidents, hospitals, community, local government, internationalorganizations and overseas donors, etc.
 Availability of emergency manual to cover all of the above

9Mari Izmirlian State Orphanage(Children with 0-16 years old)
 Good For further improvement Regular trainings conducted Good relations with neighboring
community established Director’s strong leadership andcommitment to reinforcing safetyof the facility
 Well-shared information amongstaff about actions at a time ofemergency even during absenceof the director
 Experiences of past fire to be
expanded to earthquake
preparedness
 Playground for evacuation
 Evacuation signs on the walls

 Evacuation route maps andemergency lights could be put onwall with emergency signage
 Building safety inspection forearthquake required Install sloping walkways forhandicapped Drills in winter could be prepared Conducting joint drills with
community and otherstakeholders could be organized School aged children could learn
on what to do during earthquakes

10Kids’ Home State Orphanage(Children with 0-6 years old)
 Good: Each mentor and baby sitter
already assigned to take care of
specific children during
emergency Reporting line to fire fighters
already established Director recognizes importance ofhaving earthquake resistantbuildings
 Displayed emergency instructions
on the wall

 For Further Improvements:
 Bed numbers could be written
larger and clearer
 Evacuation routes andemergency light could be shownon wall Exit door need to be open in acase of emergency
 Existence of swing-in doors could
be documented
 22 out of 67 children are aroundage 6. These children could learn
on what to do during earthquake

Kharberd Ararat District State Orphanage
11(children with special needs from 0 to 18 years old and more) Good Earthquake-resistant new building and old building underrenovation
 Enough spaces for evacuation
 In renovated rooms, emergency lights equipped andfurniture fixed-on to walls, doors open outside
 Evacuation route displayed on wall, but only a single exitand route Wheel chair children living in the first floor Building entrance with sloping walkways for wheel chairs
 Pediatrician Director with passion

 For Further Improvement
 Each room should have an evacuation
map with multiple routes andemergency information
 Built-in emergency facility (drinking
water and food, etc. ) could beprepared Electricity, water and communication
should be secured for emergency
 Robust communication between
facilities and hospitals, local
government and MES should beestablished in advance12Yerevan Nork State Nursing Home（230 65+ residents and 130 staff)
 Good: Have emergency evacuation
plan though old and not updated
 40% of residents healthy and able
to walk A contact list of residents’ familiesin place Good district (called as a greengarden) administration and good
linkages already established 10 male staff expected to beleaders at a time of emergency

 For Further Improvements:
 Need to update evacuation plan Evacuation map should be
displayed on wall
 Building inspections required (builtin 1994)
 Robust communication between
facilities and hospitals, local
government and MES should beestablished in advance Disaster preparedness andresponse team should be formedin advanceYerevan #1 State Nursing Home
(250 residents with 140 staff)

13

 Good: For Further Improvements:

 Building inspection already conducted by SSP
inspector

 Need to conduct hazard watching fornon-structural material

 Based on the result of inspection, ministerial
collaboration made among Ministry of Laborand Social Issue, Ministry of Urban
Development and Ministry of Emergency

 Need to prepare emergency manual
before the next evacuation drill One story building to be constructed for 60
patients in bed by Kuwait assistance Secure safety of administrative staff as
respondents to emergency
 Display evacuation map on wall
 Electricity, water and communication
should be secured for emergency

School No155 Yerevan (1200 G1-G9 students)14

 Good For Further Improvement

 Updated evacuation maps and exit signage displayed on wall
 Evacuation maps included a route from all the rooms and locations of
all the emergency equipment
 Emergency plan existed including contact list, roles and responsibility ofteachers Director of school as a strong advocator on disaster management
 Disaster family plan already developed through whole school project,and families discussed evacuation plans and maps, leading to changeparents’ awareness of disasters
 Changed doors to swing-out with their own budget
 22 hours of disaster related education provided after school
 School prepared all the educational materials

 Hazard watching could be doneby students
 Strong ground shaking andmovement during earthquakes
could be appreciated throughtraining videos
 Evaluate appropriate behaviors
during strong ground shaking
 Check safety of exits beforeevacuation
 Evacuation route options could beprepared15

Summary of Observation from Inspection
Visits In all of the visited institutions, directors were very much concerned about the safety ofresidents during earthquake incidents. Some measures are taken at each institution. A
comprehensive approach is lacking at each institutions.
 From a disaster management perspective, all the institutions visited firstly need to establish ateam responsible for disaster management.
 With a support of SSP, the team at each institutions need to prepare a manual on earthquake
preparedness and response. Steps are shown and a sample structure of the manual is also
indicated in the following pages.
 Building inspection should be conducted at all the nursing homes and orphanages in order forthem to identify safer places in the facility.
 With building inspection, each institutions could conduct hazard watching to find safe anddangerous zones in their facilities.
 With all the above preparations in place, evacuation drills and training should be executed.
 Experiences at the selected institutions should be shared among all the relevant facilities inArmenia.

16

Earthquake Preparedness and Risk Reduction:
Steps to Get Ready!
1. Facility inspection:

6. Immediate
Response

7. Business/ServiceContinuity

2. Develop plans

5. Evacuation
Procedures

8.Test the Plan:
Conduct drills andexercises

3. Mitigation
countermeasures

4. Awareness andPreparedness

structural integrity
and hazards in rooms,
facility and ground17

Structure of Disaster Manual for Nursing
Homes (Sample from a Japanese Manual)
BEFORE an Earthquake•

•••
•
•
•

Preparation in Advance• Safety checks of surrounding areas• Safety checks of facilities (Structure and nonstructure)• Risk Assessment (prepare a worst case scenario)
Establishing a Disaster Management Organization• Roles and responsibilities among management
and staff• Prepare a contact list
• Set a guideline on assembling staff
Information Gathering• Identify residents and users of the facility
Preparation of food, water and emergency goods(back-up electricity, communication devises, etc.)
Building networks among community and localauthorities
Training and Drills
Prepare as a emergency shelter for evacuees

During an Earthquake• Secure safety of residents and facilities• Prevent fire and fire extinguishing• Checking the safety of all the residents
and rescue• Checking the safety of the facilities• Information gathering• Evacuation of residents• Contacting relatives of residents• Assembling the staff• Maintain physical and mental health ofresidents (during emergency response)• Arrange doctors and nurses• Arrange transportation of ill-residents

Recommendations to the Project Team18

1. Building inspection for earthquake resistance at each facilities isstrongly recommended. Human factors could be more effectivewith facility reinforcement
2. Help nursing homes and orphanages to conduct hazard watching
3. Earthquake Protection Rules could be used as a checklist by each
institution and help each institution to develop their own
emergency plan
4. Prepare more precise scenarios and information guidance duringstrong shaking. Strong ground shaking and movement could beappreciated through training videos (e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxitIewLv9c)
5. Experiences by selected facilities experiences should be
documented and shared among all the other facilities in thecountry
6. School No.155 as a good show case to share with orphanages andnursing homes

Recommendations to the Project Team19

7. Responsible ministries for orphanages and nursing homes (Ministryof Labor and Social Issues as well as Ministry of Emergency
Situations) should be aware of the urgent needs for preparednessof these facilities as well as immediate assistance following a strong
earthquake.
8. Higher level advocacy is required to strengthen collaborative
relationships among MES, Ministry of Labor and Social Issues andMinistry of Urban Development to make the Project efforts
sustainable
9. The Project should be connected to the overall disaster
preparedness and response strategy in Armenia (How to protect
vulnerable sectors at a time of disaster)
10. Since this project is very GOOD and practical, share the projectexperiences with other ADRC member countries