to follow earthquake provisions mandated by the building
codes because they could not read the codes. NSET was
more likely to choose these communities, but only if they
showed potential for sustained community engagement.
Community engagement began with town hall meetings
where community members were invited to learn about
hazards and earthquake technology. At first attendance
was low, but as the few attendees chatted with their families
over dinner, tea and at other gathering points, involvement
increased. Potentially saving children from harm in the next
earthquake proved an effective conversation piece.
SECTION III: MOBILISATION
Once the initial novelty of the information wore off,
sustaining the interest and commitment of the community’s
stakeholders was a challenge. NSET, along with community
members, organised shake table demonstrations to continue
conversations and demonstrate the effectiveness of hazardresistant construction.
Shake table demonstration
Shake table demonstrations are now widely used for
teaching school communities and local masons about the
effectiveness of earthquake-resistant technology. Typically,
two one-tenth scaled models –that look like the local school
– are placed side-by-side on an apparatus that partially
simulates the movement of real earthquakes. Although
the external design of both models is the same, one of the
models has earthquake-resistant features and one is a
replicate of current building practices. As the table vibrates,
the community simultaneously witnesses the potential
destruction of their own building, while they are given hope
through the model that withstands the quake scenario.
Out of all the schools surveyed in the Nawalparasi District,
Kalika Secondary School was finally chosen. Community
members were low- to middle-income, meaning there
was potential for donation from the wealthier community
members and deep interest in a safer school. The local
government was also an eager partner.
communities helps make sure that community demand is
very high before initiating the project. However, they do not
leave schools to operate alone.
At the Kalika Secondary School, NSET facilitated the formation
of community-based organisations (CBOs) that would
spearhead school retrofit activities. NSET representatives
accompanied the funding CBO to request donations from
the community and district-level government offices. Again,
in the company of an NSET representative, the CBO went to
the steel manufacturer asking for a tax-deductible donation,
which would be part of the steel company’s corporate social
responsibility. As those negotiations began, NSET started to
mobilise in-kind contributions of sand, boulders and bamboo
that would eventually be necessary in the construction project.
After developing a presence in the area, they were also able to
secure some funding from a local NGO to support the project.
NSET also maintained a consistent presence during
construction. NSET engineers remained on the construction
site throughout the process, providing on-the-job training
for local masons. Trainings were not only focused on how
to construct for earthquake safety, but on why the changes
produce safer school buildings.
After training masons, and tearing down one of the school
buildings, a new three-story building was completed in 2010.
Since then, around 60 percent of the construction completed by
the trained masons has included earthquake-safer technology.
NSET has seen masons tear down sections of their work when
engineers point out deviations from the safer methods.
Challenges to this approach
Communities often resisted new construction practices at
first. The initial scepticism made fina ncing especially difficult.
Constructing a high-quality building was expensive, and NSET
wanted the school to either contribute directly or be involved
in gathering funds from other sources. Garnering the support
and demand for the project took time before community
members were willing to plunge into the project and provide
time-consuming support. However, after decades of work the
region, Nepal’s MoE now fully supports the community-based
approach (see In context: Working towards a culture of safety
in the Post-Construction Stage section).
Key takeaways
• Although adequate mobilisation can be time consuming,
it can make drastic differences in project feasibility and
procurement.
In Nepal’s Nawalparasi District, NSET engineers answer
questions at a shake table demonstration. Onlookers learn
their traditional building may collapse in earthquakes, but
that small changes in their construction practices can save
their schools and their lives. Photo: NSET.
Funding and retrofitting
NSET requires communities to gather almost all the funding
required for a school construction project. Challenging
as that may seem, their exacting method for choosing
43
• Allocating a large proportion of resources to project
selection can be useful when project goals include a
focus on scaling-up.
• Raising community awareness through demonstrations
and public forums can generate invaluable conversations.
• Shake tables are a particularly powerful tool for creating
community interest and demand for safer construction.
• If communities lack the resources to build a school,
and they lack the skills to gather the funds from
outside sources, implementing agencies can facilitate
conversations with public and private groups that may be
willing to make donations.