Regional Civil-Military Coordination in Disasters: Central Asia Within aGlobal Network

OCTOBER 2013

On July 3, 2013, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the UN Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs Regional Office for Caucasus andCentral Asia (OCHA ROCCA), and the UN Development Programme (UNDP)Kazakhstan co-organized a one-day roundtable in Almaty, Kazakhstan tostrengthen civil-military coordination (CMCoord) for disaster risk reduction(DRR) in Central Asia. The meeting was called because the countries of CentralAsia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) arehighly susceptible to large-scale natural disasters—in particular, earthquakesand floods—yet there is very little regional cooperation in terms of disasterpreparedness and relief. The co-organizers therefore designed the meeting toenable international and regional experts to share information and experienceson civil-military coordination in disasters, to explore the extent to whichCMCoord activities are already taking place in Central Asia, and to identifypriority areas in order to advance humanitarian CMCoord in the region.Approximately thirty participants from government agencies (from the fivecountries of Central Asia plus Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and Iran), interna-tional and nongovernmental organizations, and United Nations agencies tookpart in the event.

Introduction

In his opening remarks, Stephen Tull, UN resident coordinator and UNDPresident representative in Kazakhstan, welcomed Kazakhstan’s commitmentto principles of regional and multilateral cooperation and expressed hope thatthis workshop will be the beginning of a process that promotes regionalcooperation for disaster risk reduction. He encouraged countries of the regionto make effective use of the recently established Central Asia Centre forDisaster Response and Risk Reduction (CADRRR) in Almaty. It was noted that the severity and frequency of disasters is increasingdramatically and that the world needs to be better prepared to deal with mega-disasters. The scale of such relief operations will require military and civilianactors and assets. As Marcel Vaessen, head of ROCCA, pointed out, militaryand civil defense assets (MCDA) should be deployed without compromisinghumanitarian principles. Disaster prevention and relief “will be for the twenty-first century whatpeacekeeping was for the second half of the twentieth century,” said WalterKemp, IPI director for Europe and Central Asia. Regional cooperation,improved preparedness and reaction capability, as well as effective CMCoordare in this regard the optimal way ahead. It was stressed that this is an issuethat should be approached pragmatically and at the operational level, rather

On July 3, 2013, in Almaty, Kazakhstan

the International Peace Institute (IPI),

the UN Office for the Coordination of

Humanitarian Affairs Regional Office

for Caucasus and Central Asia (OCHA

ROCCA), and the UN Development

Pro gramme (UNDP) in Kazakhstan

co-organized a one-day roundtable to

strengthen civil-military coordination

for disaster risk reduction in Central

Asia. The meeting brought together

approximately thirty parti cipants

from the governments of the five

countries of Central Asia, Afghanistan,

Azerbaijan, and Iran, international and

nongovernmental organizations, and

United Nations agencies.

This meeting note summarizes the

key themes of the meeting. It was

drafted by Maximilian Meduna, a

policy analyst at IPI. The note

reflects the rapporteur’s interpreta-

tion of the meeting and does not

necessarily represent the views of all

other participants. IPI owes a debt

of gratitude to its many generous

donors whose contributions made

this publication possible.

2 MEETING NOTE

than as a political question. As one speaker put it,“Mother Nature doesn’t care about bureaucracyand borders, so when disaster strikes neighborsshould work quickly and effectively together.” Atthe same time, it was noted—in the specific contextof the Istanbul Process—that disaster relief can be aconfidence-building measure. Yerbolat Sembayev, director of the Departmentof International Cooperation, Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Kazakhstan, highlighted his country’ssupport for the workshop, and for promotingregional cooperation for disaster relief, particularlyas host of the Central Asia Centre for DisasterResponse and Risk Reduction. He cited theestablishment of the Centre as a further example ofhow Almaty is becoming a regional hub forhumanitarian assistance.

Global Trends ofHumanitarian Civil-MilitaryCoordination in DisasterRelief

The severity and frequency of natural disasters andconflict situations is increasing. As a result, national,regional, and international disaster relief agenciesare coming under increased pressure to prepare forand respond to emergencies. What challenges arefaced in improving or establishing coordination andcooperation mechanisms between civilian andmilitary actors involved in humanitarian opera -tions? What steps are being taken to facilitateeffective deployment of MCDA in relief operations?What multilateral efforts are being made to improvehumanitarian CMCoord in disaster preparednessand relief?Rudolf Müller, deputy director and chief ofEmergency Services Branch at UN OCHA-Geneva,informed participants that despite globallydiminishing numbers of victims as a result ofnatural disasters—due to preparedness measures—the economic costs have increased. Mr. Müllerexplained that in 2012, a year without a mega-disaster, about 310 major natural disasters killedthousands and affected over 100 million people,including 32.4 million displaced persons—42percent of which originated from Asia alone. The

costs in 2012 amounted to $180 billion. He furtheridentified the main drivers of disaster risk vulnera-bility, based on their potential large-scale impact,including climate change and environmentaldegradation, demographic trends (populationgrowth and rapid unplanned urbanization), as wellas economic factors. Disaster risk management(i.e., prevention and mitigation of hazards andvulnerabilities) requires the involvement of allactors and sectors, combining different skills andtasks. Here, the first responsibility lies atcommunity, provincial, and national levels ofgovernance, but needs to include strategic partners,such as the civil society, local governments, media,private actors, academia, and the scientificcommunity. Mr. Müller particularly highlightedthe need for a shared understanding of the risklandscape among all involved actors, preparednessand regional cooperation, as well as improvedinteroperability between humanitarian andmilitary actors as well as between neighboringstates. He noted that there may be times when the scaleof the disaster is so large that humanitarian actorsmay have to call on the military to support disasterrelief. This is why it is necessary to have civil-military coordination and to have guidelines on theuse of military-civil defense assets. He referred to anumber of existing OCHA reference manuals, aswell as the “Oslo Guidelines on the Use of ForeignMilitary and Civil Defence Assets in DisasterRelief.” Mr. Müller also observed that the proliferation ofnew technologies enables easier communicationand self-organization of community members andthat this can enhance disaster prevention and relief.Social networks can mobilize and organizeassistance, while technology can avoid competitionby facilitating information sharing, division oftasks, and joint planning for common goals. Ambassador Toni Frisch, chair of the MCDAConsultative Group, emphasized that humani-tarian CMCoord in disaster relief needs to focus onsustainability, credibility, transparency, andefficiency in all its phases—ranging from transitionto early recovery, DRR, and mitigation.“Spectacular” rapid response action alone withoutsufficient professional adherence to humanitarian

principles is not adequate.1 While institutionalcooperation in emergencies has improved in recentyears, local capacities—including the affectedpopulation as well as the host governments—needto be more involved in planning and assessment,and “lessons learned” should not only be identifiedbut also implemented. Such lessons learnedinclude, most importantly, the need for capacitybuilding on the ground. Ambassador Frisch underlined the need for rapidand effective deployment of military and civildefense assets immediately after sudden-onsetdisasters. He noted that in the past there had beenresistance to the use of MCDA, with the exceptionof search and rescue teams. Yet, despite the factthat MCDA are often considered to be a “lastresort”2 by policymakers, in reality the military—because of its equipment and training—is often thefirst responder to major disasters. To avoidmisunderstandings among the relevant actors(military, humanitarian, local, and foreign) and toimprove coordination among them, the responseshould be needs-driven and based on a sharedneeds assessment. Ambassador Frisch noted thatthe use of MCDA has, in the past, raised issuesabout who should pay for the deployment of theassets, how long should the assets be deployed,what codes of conduct should military membersfollow when engaged in humanitarian operations(particularly in conflict zones), and how shouldmilitary personnel interact with their humanitariancounterparts (and vice versa). He noted theimportance of disaster preparedness to overcomemany of these challenges, including regularcontacts among practitioners, status of forcesagreements, interoperability mechanisms, andcertified training to an internationally recognizedstandard. He encouraged representatives fromCentral Asia to become more active in the interna-tional MCDA network.3

The session chair, Walter Kemp, underlined thatthere are global efforts to improve the effectivenessof disaster preparedness and relief (like the

HOPEFOR Initiative)4 and that several parts of theworld have regional disaster relief networks. Heurged representatives from Central Asia to enhancetheir own regional network and to join the growingglobal network. DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS

• Participants from Central Asia were encouragedto make effective use of the Central Asia Centrefor Disaster Response and Risk Reduction. Theywere encouraged to engage in practical coopera-tion, identify national focal points, carry out jointtraining, and build up contacts and capacity.

• It was noted that every local situation is differentand risk reduction strategies and mechanismsneed to be developed accordingly. However,since countries of certain regions face similarchallenges, they have a common interest incooperation and may have similar assets andbackgrounds that enable interoperability.

• Participants from Central Asia were encouragedto draw on existing networks like the MCDAConsultative Group and the International Searchand Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) to learnfrom their peers, contribute to internationaldisaster relief efforts, and enhance capacity inline with international standards.

• It was noted that there is a well-established bodyof standards and guidelines for disaster riskreduction as well as training tools, i.e., throughOCHA. Participants were encouraged to usethese tools and to harmonize national disasterguidelines to international standards.5

Regional Disaster ReliefNetworks and UN Civil-Military Coordination

A number of regions across the world have developedregional disaster relief networks and centers ofexcellence that have developed some experience inhumanitarian CMCoord. This session looked at a

REGIONAL CIVIL-MILITARY COORDINATION IN DISASTERS 3

1 Principles include the Oslo Guidelines, SPHERE standards, as well as Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD).2 See UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Emergency Services Branch, Civil–Military Coordination Section, “What is Last Resort?” available at

https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/Last Resort Pamphlet - FINAL April 2012.pdf .3 For example, the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) classifies international rescue bodies worldwide.4 HOPEFOR (Humanitarian Operations Force) is a Qatari initiative aimed at improving the effectiveness and coordination of military and civil defense assets in

natural disasters.5 See, for instance, Humanitarian Response, “Syria,” available at http://syria.humanitarianresponse.info and Humanitarian Response, “West and Central Africa,”

available at http://wca.humanitarianresponse.info .

4 MEETING NOTE

few concrete examples, including from Asia and thePacific and discussed some of the challenges andopportunities in establishing and operating suchregional initiatives and centers.Ambassador Frisch noted that in today’s world,needs are increasing while funds are limited orbeing reduced. At the same time public pressure isrising as a result of the mass media. When disasterstrikes, governments are under pressure to act.However, without proper preparation and coordi-nation, the response is often hasty and haphazard.In light of these challenges, noted AmbassadorFrisch, regional collaboration and civil-militarycoordination are necessary. “Disasters do not know borders,” was the keymessage of Ingrid Nordström-Ho, head of theEmergency Services Branch, Civil–MilitaryCoordination Section in the Policy and PlanningUnit at OCHA. She underlined the need forregional cooperation to deal with large-scaledisasters. She used the example of the Asia-Pacificregion to illustrate how cooperation was enhancedafter the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, most notablythrough the establishment of the Asia-PacificConference on Military Assistance to Disaster ReliefOperations (APC-MADRO). The forum (based onthe Oslo Guidelines) aims to provide a frameworkfor stronger national, bilateral, and regional civil-military as well as military-military coordinationand wider collaborative regional efforts. In a demonstration of their political will to worktogether to improve disaster relief, the participantsin the APC-MADRO jointly created a “road map”for future cooperation. APC-MADRO provides agood example of how a regional hub (consultativegroup) can encourage the sharing and synchro-nization of information among all relevant parties(by developing an online calendar for CMCoordevents, training exercises, etc.) and develop acomprehensive strategy to promote and dissemi-nate the Oslo Guidelines throughout the region,including through translations of the guidelinesinto local languages. Status of force agreements(SOFA) regulate the deployment of supporting

MCDA assets as de facto first responders.Meanwhile exit strategies may help guaranteesuccessful transitions and withdrawals.6

Michael Thurman, practice coordinator of theCrisis Prevention and Recovery unit at UNDP inEurope and Central Asia, gave an overview of thedisaster risk reduction initiatives implemented inCentral Asia by UNDP. Thematically, UNDPprograms in Central Asia are focused ondeveloping national risk reduction strategies,enhancing risk assessment and informationmanagement, reducing vulnerability andincreasing resilience, enhancing local-level riskmanagement, and dealing with compound hazards(e.g., uranium legacy sites) and disaster recovery.7One of most relevant regional initiatives is theCentral Asia Regional Risk Assessment (CARRA).It is designed to provide evidence-based policy forrisk reduction, and to promote steps to mitigatethese risks at the regional level. Areas of focusinclude DRR, agriculture and food security, waterand energy projects, social protection activities,and the Central Asia Climate Risk ManagementProgram. Other initiatives include disaster riskmanagement programs in Kyrgyzstan andTajikistan, local-level risk management inKazakhstan (DIPECHO), the CADRRR, and aseismic risk reduction project in Uzbekistan. Javier Pérez, deputy head of the EuropeanCommunity Humanitarian Office’s (ECHO)Strategy, Co-ordination, and Inter-institutionalRelations Unit, presented the two main comple-mentary tools of the director-general at ECHO: (1)humanitarian aid, which is managed by theEuropean Commission (EC) outside of the EU and(2) civil protection, which is coordinated by theCommission inside and outside of the EU withmostly in-kind support. Mr. Pérez outlined howthese tools work together with military actors. Interms of humanitarian aid, activities are alwayscontext-dependent. Arrangements are thus madeseparately for each specific situation, especiallywhen the EU is also engaged through a militaryoperation.8 In regard to civil-military coordination

6 For more information, see Ingrid Nordström-Ho, “Regional Disaster Relief Networks and UN-CMCoord,” available upon request from the UN Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Regional Office for Caucasus and Central Asia in Almaty.

7 For more information, see Michael Thurman, “DRR in Central Asia-UNDP,” available upon request from the UN Office for the Coordination of HumanitarianAffairs, Regional Office for Caucasus and Central Asia in Almaty.

8 For more information, see Javier Pérez, “The EU and Disaster Response,” available upon request from the UN Office for the Coordination of HumanitarianAffairs, Regional Office for Caucasus and Central Asia in Almaty.

for civil protection, the EU has specific arrange-ments with the EU military staff for strategictransport and mobilization of other assets (tacticaltransport, medical units, logistics, engineering,communication, etc.). Within the context of theEuropean Union, fundamentals of civil protectioninclude the responsibility of and solidarity amongmember states who contribute through a voluntarymechanism; the need for receiving a clear call forassistance; and the European Commission as afacilitator. The EU/EC’s civil protection toolsrange from the Emergency Response Centre(ERC) and the Common Emergency andInformation System (CECIS is a needs-basedplatform to which members can pledge support) toa training program, approximately 150 civilprotection modules, and technical assistancesupport teams. A move from ad hoc responses tomore planned action has enabled increasedeffectiveness and efficiency. A dedicated office forstandby military liaison staff is located at the ERC.In addition to bilateral agreements, the officefacilitates cooperation in planning of militaryoperations. Mr. Pérez noted that all activities areconducted in full respect of the Oslo and MCDAguidelines, as well as humanitarian principles, andthey are embedded in UN frameworks and the EUConsensus on Humanitarian Aid—the backboneof EU interventions. Scott Cooper, director of outreach at theAustralian Civil-Military Centre (ACMC), spokeabout the background, purpose, principles, andactivities of the ACMC. Reiterating previousspeakers, Mr. Cooper emphasized the fundamentalprimacy of host nations and the importance ofpreparedness in CMCoord. The Centre’s mission isto support the development and regional coordina-tion of national civil-military capabilities toprevent, prepare for, and respond more effectivelyto conflicts and disasters overseas. It utilizes amulti-agency approach, with staff drawn from anumber of Australian government departmentsand agencies (Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade,Attorney-General, AusAID, and the Australian

Federal Police), the New Zealand government, andthe NGO sector through the Australian Council forInternational Development (ACFID).9 ACMC’sdevelopment of concepts and research follows sixguiding principles: (1) a collaborative and flexible approach, (2) a recognition of organizational and cultural

diversity, (3) a proactive multi-agency engagement, (4) a shared understanding, (5) a comprehensive outcome, and (6) a commitment to continuous improvement. Currently, ACMC is conducting two projects onregional frameworks for disaster management, andit is researching the role of social media in complexemergencies. ACMC is also engaged in lessons-learned activities and disseminating knowledgethrough tertiary education (i.e., a CMCoordmodule at university), its own course and trainingprograms, support of graduates, as well as publica-tions—such as the development of a “commonlanguage guide.”10

DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS

• Despite its rich diversity, Central Asia has theunique and tremendous advantage of having acommon working language.

• While NATO and the EU have disaster-relatedagencies, these do not necessarily cover theCaucasus and Central Asia. The point was madethat perhaps there could be a role for the OSCE,and there should be greater regional andsubregional cooperation.

• It was regretted that no representative of eitherthe Common Security Treaty Organization(CSTO) or the Shanghai Cooperation Organ -ization (SCO) took part in the meeting sincethese organizations could also play a role indisaster prevention.

• It was suggested that the so-called “AlmatyProcess”11 could be used as an intergovernmentalplatform for enhancing emergency preparedness

REGIONAL CIVIL-MILITARY COORDINATION IN DISASTERS 5

9 More information, including the center’s publications (e.g., research and lessons learned on civil-military matters) can be found at ACMC’s website, available athttp://acmc.gov.au .

10 The guide clarifies, inter alia, the difference between civil-military cooperation (CIMIC) and civil-military coordination (CMCoord).11 The Almaty Process was launched at the Ministerial Conference on Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration on June 5, 2013, co-organized by Kazakhstan, Office

of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Organization for Migration. It aims at establishing a regional platform for dialogue andcooperation on migration issues.

cooperation, particularly in light of the 2014transition in Afghanistan.

• Caution was raised about the potential role ofNATO troops in the region becoming involvedin disaster-related operations.

• It was suggested that it would be useful for anorganization (e.g., OCHA or the MCDAConsultative Group) to carry out a mappingexercise to identify what regional andsubregional coordination groups already exist.

The Future of HumanitarianCivil-Military Coordinationin Disaster Relief in CentralAsia

Over the last ten years, many countries in CentralAsia have played a crucial role in supporting theInternational Security Assistance Force supply linesinto/from Afghanistan. What role will NATOmilitaries play in Central Asia during/after thewithdrawal of their troops from Afghanistan? Whatwill be the role of intergovernmental organizationswith security mandates (e.g., CSTO and SCO) inCentral Asia? In 2013, the Central Asia Centre forDisaster Response and Risk Reduction wasestablished. How can the work of the center improvehumanitarian CMCoord?While the first two sessions looked at internationaland regional efforts to promote civil-militarycoordination for disaster relief (or, as one speakerput it to “coordinate, communicate, and compre-hend one another”) the third session focusedspecifically on the challenges and needs of CentralAsia and what steps could be taken to promotegreater cooperation for disaster relief. It was noted that implementing the OsloGuidelines in all five countries of the region wouldhelp to increase capacity and interoperability. Theneed for small, practical steps was also highlightedas a way of encouraging experts to work together.Cooperation with other neighbors (e.g.,Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Russia) was alsonoted as potentially useful. Experience from theSouth Caucasus suggests that despite political

difficulties disaster relief can also serve as aconfidence-building measure.12

The representative from NATO expressed itscontinued commitment to the region and presencein Afghanistan beyond 2014. If requested, NATOexpressed its willingness to support Central Asiancountries in disaster response activities. NATO’sEuro-Atlantic Disaster Response CoordinationCentre, which is composed of twenty-two partnersand allies, functions as a clearing house for thecoordination of humanitarian assistance. It isclosely cooperating with the NATO military office,OCHA, and other international organizations.After the drawdown of ISAF troops, a train-and-assist mission comprising some 10,000 personnelwill remain on the ground, provided that there iscontinued consent from the host government. Asenior civil representative for the Caucasus andSouth East Asia has been appointed and willremain to assist in the reconciliation process.Substantive expertise in preparedness could facili-tate joint exercises (conducted with Partnership forPeace countries), the development of standardoperating procedures (SOPs) and certificationmechanisms, as well as improvements in interoper-ability. The director general of Afghanistan’s NationalManagement Disaster Authority confirmed thathis country has national and provincial disastercommittees in place, however, with limitedcapacity. Considering the difficulty of disasterresponse in isolated mountainous settlements anddifficult security environments, it welcomedcontinued NATO support and outlined financialand logistical shortcomings as the primary needs,such as the need for military airlift support. Underits CMCoord activities, vulnerable groups such aswomen and children are explicitly addressed in aspecial package. The point was made that joiningCADRRR could help Afghanistan in improving itsdisaster management. The head of Iran’s National Disaster Manage -ment Organization stated that both a clear divisionof roles and the problematic perception of foreigntroops represent a central CMCoord challenge. Therepresentative of Iran subscribed to the need for

6 MEETING NOTE

12 Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia are developing a virtual risk map for the region.

clear CMCoord principles to effectively implementhumanitarian objectives. However, based on thesuccessful engagement of the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross and other civil organi-zations, the importance of nongovernmentalpartners was acknowledged. In Kazakhstan, mobile 24/7 civil defense units areavailable solely for the purpose of domestic disasterrelief. Separate search and rescue teams, on theother hand, are being deployed for internationaloperations to be certified in 2014. Kazakhstanfurther maintains an earthquake standby team aswell as a training center to raise public awareness. The Ministry of Emergency Situations ofKyrgyzstan has a coordinating role for disasterpreparedness and relief. Trainings and courses areoffered to overcome the challenge of civil-militarycoordination. The Disaster Response CoordinationUnit, an interagency coordination mechanism fordisaster response, works closely with the ministry.Furthermore, international methodologies arebeing introduced (e.g., multicluster initial rapidneeds assessments as well as post-disaster needsassessments). The Committee of Emergency Situations andCivil Defence of Tajikistan is central to a widerange of national institutions implementinginternational disaster relief programs. MCDAassets are considered to be a particularly importantcomplementary support tool to guarantee staffsecurity (e.g., Tajik, foreign, and NGO personnel)and are also being actively developed in theframework of NATO’s Partnership for Peaceprogram. This builds on Tajikistan’s traditionalCMCoord programs on responding to large-scaledisasters and humanitarian crises. Tajikistan wascommitted to give due consideration to the resultsof this workshop. In Uzbekistan, the Ministry of EmergencySituations, itself a civil-military organization, is acoordinating body that has concluded a number ofcooperation agreements with internationalpartners. Internally, there is mutual support andcooperation with the Ministries of Defence andInterior. Externally, international cooperation isconducted exclusively on a civilian basis (i.e.,bilateral agreements on operational information

exchange with Tajikistan regarding disasterresponse).PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVECMCOORD

In Central Asia, national bodies for emergencysituations are in place, but are thus far only trainedfor domestic operations. The “Soviet legacy”provides common conditions for interoperabilityand a framework for regional cooperation: thecountry’s national emergency structures aresimilar, and all experts speak Russian, have similartraining, and use similar equipment. Further, therecently launched Almaty Centre for DisasterResponse and Risk Reduction provides an excellenthub for regional cooperation. After comparing the individual countrysituations, participants worked together to identifyprinciples for effective CMCoord and to come upwith suggestions for possible future activities thatwould strengthen humanitarian civil-militarycoordination in Central Asia for disaster riskreduction:• Sovereignty and ownership: The host govern-

ment has the primary responsibility for disasterresponse. National governments need toproactively take ownership in the process.

• Complementarity: National and foreign MCDAassistance is supplementary to civilian capacities.Assistance should play a complementary andsupporting role, with a clear division of tasks.Personnel should be unarmed.

• Partnership: The important role of civil societypartners, politicians, and the mass media needsto be taken into account in all phases of disastermanagement.

• Professionalism: CMCoord must go hand inhand with the implementation of internationalguidelines and standards,13 as well as certificationof humanitarian actors.

• Contextual awareness: Adaptation of interna-tional guidelines to regional specificities isrequired to enhance efficiency in the local andregional context.

• “CCC”: Emphasis needs to be put on coordina-tion, communication, and comprehension for animproved partnership among all actors.

REGIONAL CIVIL-MILITARY COORDINATION IN DISASTERS 7

13 Professionalism should include standards for vulnerable groups as defined in UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1612.

Recommendations

To move forward, the roundtable concluded withrecommendations for future steps. The followingjoint activities could be organized with support bythe Almaty Centre for Disaster Response and RiskReduction: • Develop SOPs and SOFAs.• Hold joint exercises and training modules.• Establish certification mechanisms.• Set capacity-building measures on DRR.• Develop needs assessments.• Enhance interoperability mechanisms.• Develop evidence-based policies.• Establish regional expert networks.

• Mainstream disaster activities into developmentprograms.

• Plug into existing broader initiatives (e.g., theIstanbul Process, MCDA Consultative Group).

• Align national legal/operational frameworkswith international best practices/guidelines.

• Implement customs agreements betweencountries and the UN.

As a follow-up to the roundtable, theInternational Peace Institute proposed facilitating afive-day interactive workshop at the AlmatyCentre—inspired, inter alia, by the approach of theAustralian Civil-Military Centre. The event couldfocus on a pragmatic simulation exercise andinclude neighboring partners, such as Russia,China, and Turkey.

8 MEETING NOTE

Annex

PRESENTATIONS

All presentations are available upon request from the UN Office for the Coordination ofHumanitarian Affairs, Regional Office for Caucasus and Central Asia in Almaty.

(1) Global Trends of Humanitarian CMCoord in Disaster Relief Rudolf Müller (available in English and Russian)

(2) Regional Disaster Relief Networks and UN-CMCoord Ingrid Nordström-Ho (available in English and Russian)

(3) DRR in Central Asia—UNDP Michael Thurman (available in English and Russian)

(4) The EU and Disaster Response Javier Pérez (available in English)

9

Adelya AssanovaAdministration/Finance OfficerUN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

Aisha BekmakhanovaNational Operations OfficerInternational Organization for Migration (IOM)

Bilol BobojonAttachéDepartment of International Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tajikistan

Akhror BorkhanovAttachéDepartment for UN and International Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Uzbekistan

Almaz BurkutovSenior Regional Programme OfficerOffice of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

Scott CooperDirector of OutreachAustralian Civil-Military Centre

Toni FrischSenior AdvisorHumanitarian Aid, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)

Hassan GhadamiHeadNational Disaster Management Organization(NDMO), Iran

Irina GoryunovaProgram AnalystUnited Nations Development Programme(UNDP)

Assel IssabayevaAdministrative Clerk/SecretaryOCHA

Mohammad Daim KakarDirector GeneralNational Disaster Management Authority (ANDMA), Afghanistan

Walter KempDirector for Europe and Central AsiaInternational Peace Institute (IPI)

Abdusator KhushvakhtovDeputy ChairmanCommittee of Emergency Situations, Tajikistan

Aliya KozhakhmetovaProgramme AssistantUnited Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

Jun KukitaRepresentative in KazakhstanUNICEF

Tim LannanStrategic PlannerNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

Maximilian M. MedunaConsultantIPI

Evgeniy MelinkovHeadRepublican educational-methodological centre on civil protections, Kazakhstan

Abdurahim MuhidovRegional Coordinator, a.i. UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (ISDR)

Rudolf MüllerDeputy Director and ChiefEmergency Services Branch (ESB), OCHA

Ingrid Nordström-HoHeadPolicy and Planning Unit, Civil–Military Coordination Section (CMCS), ESB, OCHA

10

Participants

Zarina NurmukhambetovaCommunications AssociateOCHA

Seitkazhe OkassovHead of StaffMinistry of Emergency Situations, Kazakhstan

Emil OmuralievNational Professional OfficerDisaster Preparedness and Response,World Health Organization (WHO)

Jomart OrmonbekovRepresentative in KyrgyzstanUN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy forCentral Asia (UNRCCA)

Javier PérezDeputy HeadUnit A/1, Strategy, Co-ordination and Inter-institutional Relations, European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), European Commission

Nikolay PomoshchnikovHeadUN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

Rustam SafaraliyevDeputy ChiefCrisis Management Centre, Ministry of Emergency Situations, Azerbaijan

Ram SaravanamuttuCountry DirectorWorld Food Programme (WFP) Kyrgyzstan

Erbolat SembayevDirector, Department of International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kazahstan

Thomas ThompsonGlobal Logistics Cluster CoordinatorWFP

Michael ThurmanPractice CoordinatorCrisis Prevention and Recovery, UNDP in Europe and Central Asia (ECIS)

Jyldyz ToktorbaevaHeadDepartment of Logistic Support, Ministry of Emergency Situations, Kyrgyzstan

Stephen TullUN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in Kazakhstan

Marcel VaessenHeadRegional Office for Caucasus and Central Asia, OCHA

PARTICIPANTS 11

The INTERNATIONAL PEACE INSTITUTE (IPI) is an independent,international not-for-profit think tank with a staff representing more

than twenty nationalities, with offices in New York, facing United

Nations headquarters, and in Vienna. IPI is dedicated to promoting the

prevention and settlement of conflicts between and within states by

strengthening international peace and security institutions. To achieve

its purpose, IPI employs a mix of policy research, convening, publishing,

and outreach.

777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017-3521, USA

TEL +1-212-687-4300 FAX +1-212-983-8246

Freyung 3, 1010 Vienna, Austria

TEL +43-1-533-8881 FAX +43-1-533-8881-11

www.ipinst.org