regional humanitarian partnerships forum materials... · regional humanitarian partnerships forum...

REGIONAL HUMANITARIAN PARTNERSHIPS FORUMASIA-PACIFIC

SUMMARY REPORT

PHUKET, THAILAND 14-15 NOVEMBER 2013

In addition to the follow-up action points and overarching conclusions detailed in the report, OCHA will continue to reflect on the ideas and

suggestions raised at the Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum and refer to them in future work. We welcome suggestions, comments and

initiatives on how OCHA can best support humanitarian partnerships and encourage innovation in humanitarian action.

Please write to us at: [email protected]

mailto:ocha-roap%40un.org?subject=ocha-roap%40un.org

REGIONAL HUMANITARIAN PARTNERSHIPS FORUM Asia-Pacific 20133

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 5

I. Background 7

II. High-Level Opening Panel 8

III. Introductory Presentation & Focus Group Discussions 9

1. ARCHITECTURE 9

2. RESPONSE 10

3. PREPAREDNESS 10

4. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 10

IV. Thematic Discussions 11

1. CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING 11

2. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS 11

3. COMMUNICATIONS WITH (AFFECTED) COMMUNITIES 12

4. TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITARIAN INNOVATIONS 12

5. HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN CONFLICT SETTINGS 13

6. HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN URBAN SETTINGS 13


V. Regional Humanitarian Perspectives on the post-2015 Agendas 15

1. HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION II 15

2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 15

3. WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT 16


VI. Conclusions and Recommendations 17

Annex 1: Agenda 19

Annex 2: Participants List 20

Annex 3: Focus Group Discussions (Day 1) - Chairs and Rapporteurs 26

Annex 4: Thematic Discussions (Day 2) - Presenters, Moderators and Rapporteurs 27

Annex 5: Survey Results - Selected Questions 28

Annex 6: Terms of Reference for the Guide Editorial Board 42

Annex 7: Terms of Reference for the Regional Steering Group 43


ACRONYMS

AADMER ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response

ADINet ASEAN Disaster Info Network

ADMER Fund ASEAN Disaster Management and Emergency Relief Fund

ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

AMC-DRR Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction

APDRF Asia-Pacific Disaster Response Fund

ARDEX ASEAN Regional Disaster Emergency Response Simulation Exercises

ARF-DiREx ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Disaster Relief Exercise

ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations

ASEAN SASOP ASEAN Standard Operating Procedure for Regional Standby Arrangements and Coordination of Joint Disaster Relief and Emergency Response Operations

CAP Consolidated Appeal Process

CERF Central Emergency Response Fund

CSR Asia Corporate Social Responsibility in Asia

CTP Cash Transfer Programming

CwC Communications with (Affected) Communities

DREF IFRC Disaster Relief Emergency Fund

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

ERAT ASEAN Emergency Rapid Assessment Teams

EWS Early Warning System

FTS Financial Tracking Service

GDACS Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System

HAP/SCHR Humanitarian Accountability Partnership / Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response

HFA Hyogo Framework for Action

HINA Humanitarianism in the Network Age

IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee

ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross

IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

INSARAG International Search and Rescue Advisory Group

IRIN Integrated Regional Information Networks

MDG Millennium Development Goals

NGO Non-governmental Organization

OCHA UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

OCHA ROAP OCHA Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

OCHA ROP OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific

PDN Pacific Disaster Net

PPP Public-Private Partnerships

RCRC International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

RHPF Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum

RSG Regional Steering Group

SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

SADKN South Asian Disaster Knowledge Network

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

UN United Nations

UNDAC United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination

USAR Urban Search and Rescue

WEF World Economic Forum

WHS World Humanitarian Summit


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“Humanitarian response is not business as usual”(Deputy Secretary-General for ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Department Alicia Dela Rosa Bala)

The Asia-Pacific region has a vanguard role in improving the international humanitarian system. It epitomizes the multiple new realities that daily challenge so-called traditional humanitarian partners to think and act in new and innovative ways. National authorities - particularly in the increasing number of middle-income countries in the region - are now leading, coordinating and delivering humanitarian assistance to people in need. In this, they are supported by an increasingly diverse group of partners, including regional organizations, neighbouring states, local non-governmental organizations, community- and faith-based organizations, the private sector, diaspora networks, and disaster-affected people and communities themselves. New communications and distribution technologies offer potential solutions to long-standing challenges, if only emergency responders can position themselves to take advantage of the innovation and opportunity they promise. At the same time, new challenges have arisen as global socio-economic and environmental challenges both increase the magnitude and frequency of natural disasters and the potential for resource-based conflicts, while dwindling external resources and increasing internal demand lead to increasing competition for available humanitarian financing.

Amidst this new reality, international humanitarian organizations have increasingly acknowledged that they are but one spoke on a humanitarian wheel, while national authorities, protocols and systems occupy the central, axial position. Ensuring more effective, timely and predictable assistance for emergency response requires both internal realignment of humanitarian organizations’ mandates to prioritize technical support and capacity building, and embracing a more diverse group of partners in humanitarian action. The principled basis for humanitarian response still provides the framework, but the way that the growing community of responders interact continues to evolve.

Starting from this point of departure, which was conceptualized at the previous event in 2011, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) convened its fifth Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum (RHPF) for Asia and the Pacific on 14 and 15 November 2013 in Phuket, Thailand. With 104 participants representing 20 Member States and 47 international, regional and non-governmental organizations, private sector and academic institutions, the Forum provided an opportunity for broad-based stocktaking on how far the humanitarian community had come in adapting to new realities, as well as a forward-looking dialogue on emerging humanitarian priorities. The Forum’s outcomes, as outlined in this report, will support OCHA’s objective to use these community-wide deliberations to chart a consultative forward agenda for its work in Asia and the Pacific over the next two years.

Combining plenary and focus group discussions, the Forum asked participants to conduct a critical review of OCHA’s 2013 publication Disaster Response in Asia and the Pacific: a Guide to International Tools and Services, which was produced in response to a request by Member States participating in the fourth Forum (held in October 2011, in Shanghai, China). The Guide was intended to empower Member States as requesters, rather than receivers, of external assistance by providing a concise reference to the international tools and services available to support disaster preparedness and response and thereby facilitating decision-making.

The Forum also identified six emerging humanitarian themes of particular relevance to the region, which were the subject of thematic sessions organized on the second day. Each discussion featured keynote presentations, followed by a moderated discussion to stimulate thinking on how these issues could be addressed and/or lessons learned applied in other contexts.

The six themes were:

• cash transfer programming• public private partnerships• communications with affected communities• technology and humanitarian innovation• humanitarian action in conflict settings, and• humanitarian action in urban settings.

This report summarizes each of the plenary and focus group discussions, highlighting participants’ observations and recommendations and, where appropriate, translating them into follow-up action to be pursued by OCHA and partners in the coming years. An overview of the follow-up actions is presented in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report. Each action point has also been referenced in the body of the report in the relevant sub-chapter.

In addition to the specific follow-up actions, the Forum provided a chance for participants to jointly sketch some overarching conclusions about the future of humanitarian response - and the related roles of international, regional, national, and local actors, along the three main axes of (i) humanitarian response, (ii) preparedness and (iii) policy.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following points were presented and agreed in the concluding session:

RESPONSE

1. The existing capacity of the international system to respond to emergencies must be safeguarded to ensure that tools and services remain deployable, particularly for the large-scale disaster situations that were likely to occur in the region.

As a logical extension of this recommendation, the pool of staff trained to support and to use these tools and services should be enlarged and strengthened. National and local disaster managers should benefit from familiarization workshops and trainings designed to increase their understanding of how and when international and regional tools and services could most effectively be called upon to supplement national efforts. Technical and operational staff from governments, international, regional and local organizations, as well as the private sector, should be provided opportunities to participate in specialized trainings to enhance their knowledge base and expand the deployable pool of experts.

2. Efforts to enhance the inter-operability of international, regional and national tools and services should be intensified where possible.

This conclusion was intended to promote more systematic reflection on the interplay between tools and services held at the various levels (national, regional and international). As a suggested way forward, OCHA would propose the establishment of a regional steering group on interoperability, under the auspices of the IASC Regional Network and with participation from Member State representatives, which will be tasked to (i) develop a regional calendar of training and simulation exercises (which will also support the above recommendation related to expanding the pool of staff trained on regional and international tools and services), and (ii) organize regular consultative learning exercises (i.e. wash-ups) to consolidate the lessons learned from joint training and exercise participation and make recommendations to support enhanced inter-operability. As a related point, progress on inter-operability will require the commitment of all partners to advocate for - and open trainings and simulations to - wider participation from the humanitarian community.

PREPAREDNESS

3. International humanitarian organizations should enhance their work on supporting the development of national capacity for preparedness for response, and OCHA should ensure that such efforts are adequately coordinated.

To this end, OCHA should promote improved preparedness for response by continuing its ongoing work with humanitarian country teams, and enhancing its support to national authorities through capacity building in priority areas, as foreseen, forexample, by the OCHA-WFP pilot project on response preparedness for countries at high risk of large-scale disasters.1

POLICY

4. The capture of lessons learned, including both best and worst practices, from the Asia-Pacific region, should be strengthened and made more systematic in order to facilitate experience sharing among different parties, including Member States, international, regional and non-governmental organizations, the private sector, academic institutions and affected communities.

While emphasizing that, where possible, this capture and experience sharing should be facilitated through existing sectoral and/or thematic mechanisms and platforms, participants indicated that some additional or expanded platform(s) should be established, particularly to ensure cross-cutting consideration of key issues. OCHA should follow up in this regard with technical experts on knowledge management.

In the coming months, OCHA will work with partners, including the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Regional Network, to develop a detailed plan of action to take forward the action points identified in the Summary Report. It is envisaged that the plan of action would be presented to the Forum participants for review and comment by the end of the first quarter 2014.

1 The concept note for this project is available upon request.


I. BACKGROUND

OCHA has facilitated regional humanitarian partnership meetings in Asia-Pacific and other regions worldwide as a regular part of its work since 2006. The fifth Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum for Asia and the Pacific took place in Phuket, Thailand, on 14 and 15 November 2013. The Forum provided an opportunity to review progress since the fourth Forum, which was held in Shanghai in 2011, and continue regional dialogue on how to ensure the best fit between national, regional and international humanitarian response mechanisms.

A total of 104 participants, including representatives of 20 Member States from Asia and the Pacific 2 , as well as 47 international, regional and non-governmental organizations, private sector and academic institutions attended the Forum and helped to:

• review progress since the 2011 Shanghai meeting and discuss its outcomes (Day 1);

• develop a forward agenda for how collectively to approach existing and emerging challenges in the field of disaster preparedness and response (Day 2).

The Forum combined plenary and focus group sessions, interspersed with feedback and recap sessions. The agenda and the list of participants are attached as Annex 1 and Annex 2 respectively.

Participants were asked to complete a pre-Forum survey (tailored respectively to representatives of Member States, humanitarian organizations, and the private sector/academia), which aimed to identify key strengths and challenges for the humanitarian sector in the Asia-Pacific region, highlight specific thematic interests, and help to identify potential space for future collaboration among actors. The analysis of key survey results is provided at the end of the report (Annex 5). The full survey results are available on request.

2 With the exception of Germany, all Member States attending the Forum were from Asia and the Pacific, including: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Timor-Leste.

Copyright: OCHA 2013


“(…) we are learning the lessons and improving our ability to be prepared and respond” (Deputy Governor of Phuket Sommai Prijasilpa)

Ms. Prijasilpa noted that in pursuit of a common approach to disaster management and emergency response, Member States and Regional Organizations in this region are setting high standards globally. She also noted that strengthening national capacity is a necessity in view of the fact that governments are increasingly exercising their obligation to lead preparedness for and response to disasters in their countries.

“(...) a new way of thinking and working together” (Director of OCHA Geneva Mr. Rashid Khalikov)

Mr. Khalikov emphasized that increasingly inclusive and diverse humanitarian partnerships are crucial to improve future capacity to respond to those in need, particularly in light of the fact that the gap between needs and resources is growing every year. In this regard, he reassured the audience that OCHA remains committed to maximize all possible resources, and connect and convene expertise and capacity to meet needs as efficiently as possible.

The Forum opened with welcome and introductory remarks by Mr. Oliver Lacey-Hall, Head of OCHA’s Regional Office for Asia-Pacific (ROAP) and continued with a high-level panel comprising the Deputy Secretary-General for the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community, H.E. Ms. Alicia Dela Rosa Bala; the Deputy Governor of Phuket Province (Thailand), H.E. Ms. Sommai Prijasilpa; and the Director of OCHA Geneva, Mr. Rashid Khalikov.

The three panelists discussed the future of humanitarian response in the region and highlighted the importance of managing the relationship between national, regional and international relief efforts. They emphasized that, as countries gain experience in managing disaster response and improving response preparedness they should also consider how to effectively coordinate with an ever increasing array of humanitarian actors. The need to improve inter-operability between national, regional and international response mechanisms was another theme that stood out in their remarks, with enhancing inter-operability between humanitarian tools and services proposed as one key objective for further work.

“Asia Pacific is a dynamic region - risks are increasing and patterns are changing. Partnership and cooperation is crucial” (ASEAN Deputy Secretary-General Alicia Dela Rosa Bala)

In her speech, the ASEAN Deputy Secretary-General noted that the future of humanitarian response had a number of dimensions. Firstly, regional organizations were well positioned to assume an increasingly significant role in building trust and confidence of their Member States on humanitarian issues in ways which were not possible through global processes. This work should support the development of common policies and interventions. Secondly, regional coordination mechanisms also engendered an enhanced sense of ownership. The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) was ASEAN’s blueprint for collective work in this field in the ASEAN domain, and was a manifestation of such ownership and shared vision. Thirdly a strong regional basis for cooperation provided a clearer entry point for international support. The emphasis was on flexibility in partnership. Fourthly, the emergence of technology as a tool to improve disaster response and save lives needed to be more fully embraced. Finally, there was recognition of the need for synergy between international and regional organizations, with the former playing an important role in supporting the capacity development of the latter, and both supporting local and national response capacity. In addition, she urged governments and regional organizations to improve cooperation with the private sector, to work more closely with think tanks, researchers and academia, and to take advantage of both new and existing technologies.

II. HIGH-LEVEL OPENING PANEL



1. ARCHITECTURE

The general consensus was that the “International Humanitarian Architecture” chapter adequately captured the main applicable laws, resolutions and guidelines relevant for the region. During a discussion on regulatory frameworks, views on UN General Assembly resolution 46/1825 varied widely from ‘no change required’ to ‘needing substantive revision’. Overall, the group concluded that the resolution still provided the essential building blocks for humanitarian action, but that greater efforts should be made to apply the humanitarian principles, which formed the basis of the resolution, to the now wider humanitarian community in its engagement on preparedness and response. Additionally, measures should be taken to ensure that the roles and responsibilities, and the specific response mechanisms that the resolution proposed, were more fully and effectively implemented.

Other suggested improvements for consideration were:

• better reflection of the type and scope of national and regional regulatory frameworks, given the shift in Asia-Pacific countries towards seeking greater cooperation from within the region

• featuring mechanisms for inter-state and regional cooperation and regional agreements on disaster management more prominently

• provision of more explicit detail on the various types of support that regional and international organizations provided to governments, i.e. bilateral technical assistance, partnership strategies and coordination mechanisms

• inclusion of some detail on different sub-national arrangements for disaster management common to or recommended by Member States

• inclusion of further information on categories of actors not currently featured or only lightly covered in the Guide (e.g. affected communities, donors, sub-national governing authorities and military forces, as well as the Cluster Approach).

III. INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION & FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

The Forum’s substantive discussions kicked off on day one with a report on progress since the 2011 Forum in Shanghai, delivered by Mr. Lacey-Hall and an overview of humanitarian trends inAsia-Pacific, presented by Mr. Charles-Antoine Hofmann, Executive Coordinator for Disaster Response Dialogue.

Mr. Lacey-Hall highlighted that notable progress has been achieved since 2011 with the publication of Disaster Response in Asia and the Pacific: a Guide to International Tools and Services3

(the Guide) and Humanitarianism in the Network Age4 (HINA), two publications that responded to the recommendations put forward in the 2011 Forum. In addition to having presented the Guide (scope, structure and content) as a direct outcome from the Shanghai Forum, Mr. Lacey-Hall offered recommendations on how and when to access and use it. The presentation’s key messages were that (i) the Guide was a document developed to help UN Member States and their partners better understand the interaction between national, regional, and international response tools and (ii) if used as a reference document, it could help to improve the interoperability of tools and services for response and preparedness.

With respect to humanitarian trends in Asia-Pacific, Mr. Hofmann noted a series of challenges, including the growing number of international actors, emerging national coordination systems and a growing sense of mistrust between governments and humanitarian organizations. In relation to these challenges he concluded that there is a need to strengthen the relationship between and among various

actors and urged this to be done via dialogue. The Guide was recognized as a pertinent tool to help achieve consensus around norms, principles and response tools.

Following these presentations, Day 1 continued with extended focus group discussions on the Guide. The focus groups were aligned with the Guide’s three main chapters: Architecture, Tools and Services for Response, and Tools and Services for Preparedness. The following sub-sections describe the participants’ reception of the Guide and the revisions they proposed in each area. A list of the session chairs and reporting focal points is provided in Annex 3.

3 Available on www.unocha.org/asiadisasterguide4 Available on http://www.unocha.org/hina5 Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations [A/RES/46/182, 46th Session (1991)]



III. INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION & FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

2. RESPONSE

Overall, the group reported that the Guide and the chapter on response in particular feature relevant tools and services and provided concise and easy-to use information on them. The group agreed that no tool or service was more important than another as each was used in different contexts while responding to different needs.

Suggested improvements for consideration were:

• customization of the Guide for specific national or sub-regional contexts

• ensuring regular updates to include new tools and services, such as accountability standards

• elaboration on potential interoperability of tools (e.g. UNDAC and ERAT) while recognizing that not all tools could be made inter-operable

• providing more detail on humanitarian financing, as well as guidelines on the use of cash transfer programming (not currently covered)

• improving coverage of private sector initiatives (e.g. telecommunications, Google satellite imagery).

The group recognized that not all of the suggested changes and additions could be captured in one Guide. OCHA encouraged governments to take ownership of the Guide and customize it to their specific realities, with the interoperability issues clearly in mind. The task of leading the national customization should fall on the respective Member State, with OCHA and other international partners to provide technical support.

3. PREPAREDNESS

The group reported that it found this chapter of the Guide to be useful, and recognized that it was one of few available resources that provided a common basic understanding on the available tools and services for response preparedness.

The group recommended that:

• the Guide text be supplemented with information on relevant national tools and services (if Governments decided to develop national versions of the Guide)

• the Guide should be presented as an online, open-source and dynamic tool that could be updated by partners with relevant national and regional-based information (e.g. a Wiki function)

• there should be more detail on how to engage with coordination mechanisms and build partnerships with regional organizations and the private sector, as well as how to improve information management capacity and use new technologies

• the Guide should emphasize the importance of establishing pre-disaster relationships with all potential stakeholders, including affected communities.

Beyond the Guide and with respect to trainings for response preparedness and early warning systems (EWS), participants indicated a desire to focus on trainings and strengthening capacity, nationally-led simulation exercises that included multiple stakeholders (including non-traditional humanitarian actors like the private sector), and increased guidance for Member States on implementation and integration of available international response preparedness tools in their respective national strategies.

4. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

During the final plenary of the day, during which each of the Focus Groups presented their recommendations, followed by a wider plenary discussion on the recommendations, it was agreed that:

• OCHA should establish an Editorial Board to support development of future editions of the Guide, and that terms of reference for the Editorial Board would be circulated with the Summary Report (Annex 6)

• The Editorial Board should meet virtually every six months to review recommendations for inclusions / amendments to the online version of the Guide

• The Editorial Board should meet in person every two years to support OCHA to publish the next print edition of the Guide (second edition planned for 2015)

• Member States interested in adapting the Guide to a specific national context should contact OCHA for support, including access to the base files and graphic / style guidance.


IV. THEMATIC DISCUSSIONS

Following a recap of the discussion on the first day, the majority of the second day was devoted to thematic discussions on six emerging humanitarian issues or challenges in the Asia-Pacific context, including:

• cash transfer programming (CTP) • public-private partnerships (PPP)• communication with (affected) communities (CwC) • technology and humanitarian innovation • humanitarian action in conflict settings, and• humanitarian action in urban settings.

The following sub-sections briefly summarize the discussions in each thematic discussion and outline suggestions to take advantage of new opportunities and/or resolve existing challenges to improve humanitarian action that were proposed during the discussions. A list of feature presenters, moderators and focal points is provided in Annex 4.

1. CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING

In recent years there has been an increasing trend within the humanitarian sector to use cash transfer programmes to supplement relief efforts in the preparedness, response and recovery phases of a disaster. A group of some 30 people joined the discussion on how and when governments, donors, and humanitarian organizations should use cash as a form of humanitarian assistance.

The group discussed the benefits and challenges posed by CTP. They agreed that, in addition to similar challenges that affect in-kind contributions (e.g. verification, logistics, misuse, feedback mechanisms), CTP posed additional challenges that needed to be carefully reviewed and addressed on a case-by case basis. Such challenges included: socio-cultural barriers to accepting cash handouts, financial literacy, alignment with existing national social safety net programmes, coordination with private sector

in-kind assistance, understanding the effects of CTP on local economies, as well as conditionality issues and decision-making processes.

The general conclusions of the participants were that:

• CTP was most operative in the recovery phase of a disaster• When mainstreamed in preparedness, CTP was a crucial

service in the early stages of response as well

The key message that participants took away was that cash was one among several transfer modalities, which could be used either to supplement or in lieu of in-kind contributions. Where relevant, CTP should be employed. In order for CTP to work more effectively, humanitarian agencies and Member States agreed on the need to advocate for wider acceptance and adoption of new ways of working.

2. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

There was general consensus among the nearly 50 participants on the fact that governments, humanitarian organizations, and the private sector continued to struggle to find a common vocabulary. Several measures that aimed to support greater engagement between public, private and humanitarian actors were proposed, ranging from initiating multi-stakeholder dialogue with the private sector to putting in place legislative and institutional frameworks at all levels.

With respect to concrete future action it was proposed that:

• governments should include the private sector in contingency planning processes

• humanitarian actors and governments should ensure that the private sector stays updated on disaster-related information and benefits from trainings

• all parties should be aware of and commit to existing guidelines on public-private partnerships, including those developed under the aegis of the UN Global Compact and the OCHA-World Economic Forum (WEF) Guiding Principles for Public-Private Collaboration for Humanitarian Action6.

• governments, the private sector and humanitarian organizations should explore better ways to coordinate their action

• strategic and sector-focused engagement with the private sector should be prioritized

The group’s main recommendation was for the establishment of an inclusive mechanism to promote coordination among governments, humanitarian organizations and business for

6 Global Compact: www.unglobalcompact.org/OCHA-WEF Guiding Principles: http://business.un.org/en/documents/257

“Cash transfers are not the solution to every problem and no substitute for relief - they are a supplement” MG Aleem @PakistanNDMA #RHPFUN OCHA Asia Pacific (@OCHAAsiaPac)15 Nov 2013, 05:49 UTC. Tweet

“We need to find a common language and agree on aims, objectives and gains for each side” #RHPFUN OCHA Asia Pacific (@OCHAAsiaPac)14 Nov 2013, 03:32 UTC. Tweet

Copyright: Alejandro Hita 2013



humanitarian preparedness and response. In response, OCHA noted efforts at the global level to establish a multi-stakeholder framework and partnership on “Prepared Communities for Resilient Nations” as part of its collaboration with the WEF on promoting public-private partnerships for humanitarian action. Among the key elements of this framework figured the creation of a public-private partnerships coordination platform, which was expected to provide common tools, standards and norms; a resource library; a partner matchmaking facility; and a repository of public-private / private sector partnerships. This framework could form the basis for extension of the global process at the regional level in Asia-Pacific.

3. COMMUNICATIONS WITH (AFFECTED) COMMUNITIES

This session brought together 38 participants who jointly reviewed existing regional understanding of what communicating with communities affected by disasters meant and what needed to be done to achieve effective two-way communication.Participants agreed that communicating effectively and sharing relevant information with those who had been affected by the disaster or crisis was vital. In this regard, more time and effort should be invested in understanding people’s information needs and preferences in using traditional and new communication

technologies. The group also agreed that there was a need for rigorous assessment of communication needs and communication preferences within specific communities prior to the occurrence of disaster. To this end, the Forum participants agreed to work together to ensure that communities would be able to access the information and could provide feedback at all stages in the disaster risk reduction cycle: resilience building, disaster preparedness, response, recovery and reconstruction. This meant shifting the perspective away from disaster-prone and disaster-affected communities solely as receivers of information to partners who were consuming and generating information at the same time.

Emphasis was placed on laying the groundwork for CwC via improved cooperation on:

• pre-disaster assessments of communication needs and preferences

• building common and consistent messaging

• setting up strong coordination mechanisms

• building communication infrastructure, and

• raising awareness among vulnerable and at-risk communities

Government support, increased funding, and the involvement of a wider range of actors, including the private sector, were highlighted as key elements in achieving the steps recommended above to strengthen CwC in the region.

Despite consensus around the need to improve CwC, participants tended to focus on constraints and challenges rather than opportunities. This was indicative of the fact that CwC-related policies and practices were at an early stage in development.

4. TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITARIAN INNOVATIONS

In the field of disaster management, engaging with new technology has become an imperative: it can both help disaster managers to better understand the needs, aspirations, requirements, vulnerabilities and risks that a community faces, and improve the quality and delivery of assistance to affected communities. As noted in the 2013 OCHA publication Humanitarianism in the Network Age (HINA), however, the rapid pace of technological change, as well as the abundance of new digital technologies and communication systems, also raised a series of challenges for humanitarian action, including lack of organizational capacity to understand and use new technologies, resistance to adopt new methods, technological overload, and the risk of improper use of ‘big data’.

Several of the close to 30 participants in this group discussion said adopting new ideas and technologies was problematic for their organizations due to ‘too many options’, not all of which were easy to use, and an over-abundance of information that could not be easily filtered to inform decisions and processes. Lack of capacity to deal with ‘big data’ and reluctance to rely fully on technology to analyze complex data sets constituted another concern among governments and humanitarian organizations, as did the issue of protecting the privacy of data. When asked about factors that hindered innovation and change within their organization, participants identified staff capacity, infrastructure limitations, inadequate technologies, and community reluctance to adopt new technology.

Discussants argued that building on existing communication tools and infrastructure should be the starting point of any venture to enhance the use of technology to support preparedness

“We need a people-centred approach. We need to create a movement of people - that has to happen!”@JemilahMahmood @HFP_KCL #RHPF#commisaidUN OCHA Asia Pacific (@OCHAAsiaPac)15 Nov 2013, 05:21 UTC. Tweet

“Different actors need to communicate with communities with one voice” Moira Reddick @NepalDRR on 2-way comms #RHPF #commisaidUN OCHA Asia Pacific (@OCHAAsiaPac)15 Nov 2013, 05:56 UTC. Tweet

“To use technology in disaster response, we need to adapt it to the context, goals, culture and people”#RHPF #HINAUN OCHA Asia Pacific (@OCHAAsiaPac)15 Nov 2013, 06:01 UTC. Tweet



and response. “One size fits all” technological solutions did not work and each country and organization should support the development of appropriate technology and infrastructure. It was further suggested that tech-savvy actors should provide the relevant support to achieve this. Participants also requested guidelines be developed on how to collect and issue accurate and relevant information in pre-disaster and disaster situations, and how to start implementing technological and digital solutions.

The key observations for participants, tech colleagues and disaster managers alike, were:

• disaster management-related technology had to be flexible, simple, small and customizable

• disaster managers had to articulate what they want to achieve through technology and demand solutions fit for their needs

• improving cooperation with actors such as local and grass-root communities, academia, the private sector and volunteer and technical communities would help in identifying appropriate solutions and, at the same time, encourage innovation.

5. HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN CONFLICT SETTINGS

In addition to being vulnerable to natural hazards, Asia-Pacific is also a conflict-prone region. Often, governments and the humanitarian community find themselves responding to needs created by a disaster that occurs in areas affected by conflict. Positing that there is a need to have more sustained regional dialogue in a safe, neutral and enabling environment on the role of international humanitarian organizations in providing humanitarian response in conflict situations, the 2013 Forum included this session as an opportunity to bring together representatives of Member States, humanitarian organizations and some key academic organizations to brainstorm on possible opportunities to address this and related issues more systematically. Despite potential sensitivities, there was significant interest and participation in the session.

During the discussion, participants noted a need to:

• build trust between and among governments and the humanitarian community prior to responding to a complex emergency

• work toward a better understanding of conflict drivers

• address a perceived legal vacuum in the region on humanitarian law and human rights, particularly concerning internal conflict situations

The interrelated aspects of trust and relationship-building were articulated by the majority of participants, who noted that building relationships in advance and investing in planning is necessary to make sure that governments and humanitarian actors alike are aware of the international standards that apply during complex emergencies. Furthermore, consultation, communication and coordination at all levels (national, regional and international) and with all actors were essential to design specific tools and instruments of intervention to minimize the negative impacts of conflict on the civilian population.

The discussion was limited to acknowledging the importance of building national and local actors’ capacity to support civilian populations affected by complex emergencies.

Among potential opportunities to promote such approaches figured:

• building institutional and legal capacity at national and regional levels for conflict-sensitive practices

• creating platforms to support dialogue and collaborative learning between local authorities, communities and humanitarian actors at local levels

• investing in trainings on conflict management, and

• supporting local capacity building.

6. HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN URBAN SETTINGS

Statistically, Asia-Pacific is the world’s most disaster-prone region. Also home to half the world’s urban population and more than half of all mega-cities, this combination resulted in a heightened risk of urban disasters in the region. Recognizing that despite increasing focus on more effective urban planning to reduce population and infrastructure vulnerabilities to natural disasters, the capacity to effectively prepare for and respond to urban disasters remained limited, the session aimed to provide a space for interested parties to discuss the most urgent gaps and limitations in current urban response capacity, and propose ways forward in working together to enhance emergency preparedness and response capacity in complex urban landscapes.

The 28 participants identified two areas in which immediate improvements were necessary in order to promote well-prepared cities with better capacity to respond to disasters:

• better planning, and

• developing strong communication and coordination strategies

“There were 396 conflicts in 2012, 34% in Asia-Pacific” Jason Franz on humanitarian action in conflict settings @HIIK_eV #HINA #RHPFUN OCHA Asia Pacific (@OCHAAsiaPac)15 Nov 2013, 07:29 UTC. Tweet

“Not understanding the systems in place in the disaster affected countries is a second disaster itself”#RHPF #APHumForumUN OCHA Asia Pacific (@OCHAAsiaPac)14 Nov 2013, 05:21 UTC. Tweet




With respect to planning, participants noted specific activities that disaster managers should collaboratively work on in the coming years, including:

• establishing continuity planning for public services and facilities

• conducting multi hazard risk assessment in urban areas

• developing extensive-scenario contingency plans with clear guidelines to follow for different types of disasters

• signing agreements with neighbouring cities for burden-sharing during response and reconstruction in cases of disaster that left a city incapacitated, and

• updating national building codes and safety standards

The participants also emphasized that the measures prescribed above should be complemented at all stages with strategic communication, coordination and knowledge sharing with a wider community of stakeholders on the ground, from individual citizens to the business community. Local authorities should be supported to build capacity through trainings on preparedness. Enhanced communication approaches should transfer knowledge and preparedness to the local population via simulation exercises, awareness-raising and education campaigns. Defining community-based roles and responsibilities, training volunteers, and setting up public information centres were additional options proposed to enhance preparedness.


During the plenary reporting sessions that followed the thematic discussions, each group was requested to recommend at least one concrete follow up action that should be taken forward by OCHA and/or other key actors:

• Cash Transfer Programming: The Cash Learning Partnership, with support from OCHA and the IASC Regional Network, should (i) organize a dedicated workshop to discuss CTP-related issues, and (ii) expand the regional cash working group to include Member State representatives, as well as representatives from regional organizations and the private sector.

• Public-Private Partnerships: OCHA, in partnership with CSR Asia (and possibly a private sector counterpart) should convene a multi-stakeholder public-private consultation at the regional level in 2014 with the aim of supporting the development of a multi-stakeholder platform and facilitating exchange of best practice and lessons learned in public-private partnerships.

• Communication with (affected) Communities: OCHA should expand the regional CwC coordination mechanism and facilitate the sharing of lessons learned in the countries piloting new approaches on two-way communications with communities.

• Technology and Humanitarian Innovation: OCHA should facilitate consultations among stakeholders to identify appropriate partners from the humanitarian and technology sectors to develop an action plan for implementing the recommendations of the HINA report, particularly Recommendations #3 (To strengthen capacity within aid organizations and Governments to understand and use new information sources) and #4 (To develop guidelines to ensure information is used in an ethical and secure manner).

• Humanitarian Action in Conflict Settings: OCHA and the IASC Regional Network should work with other partners, including human rights and development actors, to identify additional opportunities to focus on issues related to humanitarian action in conflict settings at relevant future events, including at the 2015 Forum.

• Humanitarian Action in Urban Settings: ADPC should look at ways to expand its work on urban humanitarian preparedness to other countries in Asia.

There was also consensus from participants that, in future, more time should be dedicated to the thematic discussions to facilitate more in-depth reflection and discussions. As part of its follow-up actions, OCHA should work with the IASC Regional Network to ensure that the six issues featured during the Forum benefited from continued dialogue, research and application of innovative approaches.

Lack of capacity, trained personnel, and funding for urban humanitarian response, as well as the increased logistical challenges related to operating in densely-populated, debris-ridden environments were noted among the main challenges to implementation of the measures identified; regional and international support should be channeled to help resolve them.


This included training for senior officials, provincial officials, down to volunteers, as well as the possibility of conducting joint training and simulation exercises with as wide a group of actors as possible.

• Equipment: Finally, it was noted that to improve preparedness it is also necessary to invest in appropriate equipment (e.g. specific tools for search and rescue operations)

In conclusion, it was agreed that the conclusions from this session should be fed into the overall preparations for the 6th Asian Ministerial Conference on DRR (AMC-DRR), which will take place in Bangkok, Thailand, on 22-26 June 2014, with a view to seeing them reflected in the final recommendations from Asia-Pacific to the draft HFA2 document.

2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

The group concluded that incorporating a stand-alone humanitarian goal in the SDGs and developing an indicator to measure it would be a difficult, if not impossible, task. However, the group agreed that humanitarian issues should feature prominently in the post-MDG goals. Recommendations included influencing the development of goals around poverty and resilience, and cross-cutting goals that link humanitarian and longer-term development issues. Key points that require further consultations included how to measure success in partnerships, how to define and measure resilience, and how to address human rights, peace, security and vulnerability in disaster situations.

V. REGIONAL HUMANITARIAN PERSPECTIVES ON THE POST-2015 AGENDAS

The last session of the Forum aimed to result in inputs from the Asia-Pacific region to the post-2015 global summits on Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, Japan in March 2015), the Sustainable Development Goals (New York, General Assembly in September 2015) and Humanitarianism (Istanbul, Turkey in early 2016). To better facilitate substantive conversations in each of these major areas, the plenary was split into three focus group discussions aligned to the summits.

1. HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION II

The purpose of the discussion on the upcoming World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction was to reflect on how aspects of response preparedness, which was an integral element (pillar 5) of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015), needed to be updated to reflect lessons learned and strengthen linkages between the earlier and later phases of the disaster risk reduction cycle, and to make some recommendations about how to develop and input humanitarian perspectives in this regard into the intergovernmental, consultative process leading up to the summit.

Reviewing the current status of work, partners perceived progress on response preparedness as one of the achievements of the past decade, but still felt that governments, regional organizations and international partners needed to continue to retain an explicit focus on response preparedness in the HFA2, underscoring that it should at minimum be treated as a cross-cutting issue mainstreamed into recommendations for progress on newly-included thematic areas.

Reflecting on the initial conclusions of consultations undertaken with Member States in the region regarding preparedness priorities, the group broadly categorized them along four focus areas, adding their own priorities thereto:

• Joint planning: The group emphasized that governments required support to make planning more effective and inclusive of all actors, across the various levels and branches of government and involving neighbouring governments, international organizations, civil society, military forces, the private sector, and local communities. It was imperative for each country and context to fully define the roles and responsibilities of each actor and, where possible, agree on standard operating procedures for the preparedness phase of response.

• Information Management: The group felt that information management for preparedness needed to be improved to be more inclusive of knowledge and data sourced from various actors (i.e. increasing the data bank), while also adopting newer, more effective technologies to aid preparedness, such as early warning systems.

• Capacity Development: As a logical step following joint planning, the group felt it important for Governments to be supported in building their capacity in preparing for disasters.



V. REGIONAL HUMANITARIAN PERSPECTIVES ON THE POST-2015 AGENDAS

3. WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT

Regional consultations ahead of the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS), which were scheduled to take place in early 2016, would focus on four thematic areas - humanitarian effectiveness, reducing vulnerability and managing risk, transformation through innovation, and serving the needs of people in conflict. The regional consultations were expected to start in mid-2014, and would include a consultation for North and Southeast Asia, to be co-hosted by Japan and Indonesia (tentatively scheduled for July 2014 in Tokyo, Japan). Additionally, a Pacific consultation had been proposed as well. During the discussion, participants reviewed the four themes, and suggested that they were too broad at present and required some tailoring to the regional context. The group also recommended that the WHS allocate significant space for sharing of best practices, while taking into consideration past mistakes.



To achieve the above recommendations on integrating regional humanitarian perspectives into the agendas for the post-2015 DRR, development and humanitarian summits, the following actions should be taken at the regional level:

• Hyogo Framework for Action: Member States should reference the identified priorities as appropriate in the country papers being prepared for submission to the AMC-DRR, and advocate for these points to be included in the final HFA2 document to be adopted at the 2015 summit in Sendai; humanitarian organizations should also ensure that the preparedness priorities agreed at the Forum are reflected in their agency submissions to the HFA2 document via the headquarters-based process

• Sustainable Development Goals: Forum participants agreed to intensify their advocacy on resilience and to use every available platform to achieve regional consensus and effectively communicate the importance of having a humanitarian perspective inform the SDGs now being negotiated

• World Humanitarian Summit: Forum participants agreed on the need for regional leadership in preparing for the World Humanitarian Summit. As recommended by the global WHS Secretariat, a steering group should be established to guide the process of agenda-setting and preparations for the upcoming Asian regional consultation to be held in Tokyo, Japan (please see the draft terms of reference for the regional steering group, which are provide in Annex 7).


VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In the concluding session, the key themes that emerged during the two-day discussions were recapitulated and priorities and next steps for the region in the coming years outlined. OCHA reviewed each of the follow-up actions recommended by the focus groups and thematic discussion group, as well as in plenary, and requested confirmation of the organization-specific roles and responsibilities for follow-up. These are summarized in the table below.

FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS FROM THE 2013 FORUM

RESPONSIBLE RECOMMENDATION

Day 1 - Focus Group Discussions on the Guide (consolidated follow-up recommended by all three groups)

OCHAEstablish an Editorial Board to support development of future editions of the Guide, and that terms of reference for the Editorial Board would be circulated with the Summary Report (Annex 6)

Guide Editorial Board Members

Meet virtually every six months to review recommendations for inclusions / amendments to the online version of the Guide

Meet in person every two years to support OCHA to publish the next print edition of the Guide (second edition planned for 2015)

Member StatesContact OCHA to request support in adapting the Guide to specific national context, including access to the base files and graphic / style guidance.

Day 2 - Thematic discussions (follow-up recommended by each group)

Cash Learning Partnership(with support from OCHA & IASC Regional Network)

Organize a dedicated workshop to discuss CTP-related issues

Expand the regional cash working group to include Member State representatives, as well as representa-tives from regional organizations and the private sector

OCHA & CSR AsiaConvene a multi-stakeholder public-private consultation at the regional level in 2014 with the aim of sup-porting the development of the common platform and facilitating exchange of best practice and lessons learned in public-private partnerships

OCHAExpand the regional CwC coordination mechanism and facilitate the sharing of lessons learned in the countries piloting new approaches on two-way communications with communities

OCHAFacilitate consultations among stakeholders to identify appropriate partners from the humanitarian and technology sectors to develop an action plan for implementing the recommendations of the HINA report

OCHA & IASC Regional Network

Identify more opportunities to focus on issues related to humanitarian action in conflict settings at relevant future events, including the 2015 Forum

ADPC Look at ways to expand work on urban humanitarian preparedness to other countries in Asia

Day 2 - Focus Group Discussions on post-2015 DRR, development & humanitarian agendas(follow-up recommended by each group)

Member StatesReference the identified preparedness priorities in the country papers being prepared for submission to the AMC-DRR, and advocate for these points to be included in the final HFA2 document to be adopted at the 2015 summit in Sendai

Humanitarian OrganizationsEnsure that the identified preparedness priorities are reflected in agency submissions to the HFA2 docu-ment via the headquarters-based process

All Forum ParticipantsIntensify advocacy on resilience and use every available platform to achieve regional consensus and effectively communicate the importance of having a humanitarian perspective inform the SDGs now being negotiated

Japan, Indonesia, & OCHA(with support from IASC Regional Network & Forum Participants)

Establish a regional steering group to guide the process of agenda-setting and preparations for the up-coming Asian consultation for the WHS to be held in Tokyo, Japan


In addition, OCHA noted the emergence of several overarching strategic priorities for humanitarian capacity in the Asia-Pacific region throughout the Forum, including:

RESPONSE

1. The existing capacity of the international system to respond to emergencies must be safeguarded to ensure that tools and services remain deployable, particularly for the large-scale disaster situations that were likely to occur in the region.

As a logical extension of this recommendation, the pool of staff trained to support and to use these tools and services should be enlarged and strengthened. National and local disaster managers should benefit from familiarization workshops and trainings designed to increase their understanding of how and when international and regional tools and services could most effectively be called upon to supplement national efforts. Technical and operational staff from governments, international, regional and local organizations, as well as the private sector, should be provided opportunities to participate in specialized trainings to enhance their knowledge base and expand the deployable pool of experts.

2. Efforts to enhance the inter-operability of international, regional and national tools and services should be intensified where possible.

This conclusion was intended to promote more systematic reflection on the interplay between tools and services held at the various levels (national, regional and international). As a suggested way forward, OCHA would propose the establishment of a regional steering group on interoperability, under the auspices of the IASC Regional Network and with participation from Member State representatives, which will be tasked to (i) develop a regional calendar of training and simulation exercises (which will also support the above recommendation related to expanding the pool of staff trained on regional and international tools and services), and (ii) organize regular consultative learning exercises (i.e. wash-ups) to consolidate the lessons learned from joint training and exercise participation and make recommendations to support enhanced inter-operability. As a related point, progress on inter-operability will require the commitment of all partners to advocate for - and open trainings and simulations to - wider participation from the humanitarian community.

PREPAREDNESS

3. International humanitarian organizations should enhance their work on supporting the development of national capacity for preparedness for response, and OCHA should ensure that such efforts are adequately coordinated.

To this end, OCHA should promote improved preparedness for response by continuing its ongoing work with humanitarian country teams, and enhancing its support to national authorities through strengthening capacity in priority areas, as foreseen, for example, by the OCHA-WFP pilot project on response preparedness for countries at high risk of large-scale disasters.7

POLICY

4. The capture of lessons learned, including both best and worst practices, from the Asia-Pacific region, should be strengthened and made more systematic in order to facilitate experience sharing among different parties, including Member States, international, regional and non-governmental organizations, the private sector, academic institutions and affected communities.

While emphasizing that, where possible, this capture and experience sharing should be facilitated through existing sectoral and/or thematic mechanisms and platforms, participants indicated that some additional or expanded platform(s) should be established, particularly to ensure cross-cutting consideration of key issues. OCHA should follow up in this regard with technical experts on knowledge management.

In the coming months, OCHA will work with partners, including the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Regional Network, to develop a detailed plan of action to take forward the follow-up action points identified in the Summary Report. It is envisaged that the plan of action would be presented to the Forum participants for review and comment by the end of the first quarter 2014.

7 The concept note for this project is available upon request

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Thursday, 14 November 2013

Time Session Title

09:00-09:05 Security Briefing

09:05-09:15 Welcome and Introductions by Mr. Oliver Lacey-Hall, Head, OCHA Regional Office for Asia-Pacific (OCHA ROAP)

09:15-10:00High Level Opening Panel with Deputy Secretary-General for the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community H.E. Ms Alicia Dela Rosa Bala, Deputy Governor of Phuket H.E. Ms. Sommai Prijasilpa, and Director of OCHA Geneva Mr. Rashid Khalikov

10:00-10:15 Open floor

10:15-11:00 Group Tour of the Exhibition, Photo and Coffee Break

11:00-11:45

Humanitarian Trends in Asia-Pacific and Presentation of “Disaster Response in Asia and the Pacific: a Guide to International Tools and Services”Presenters: Mr. Oliver Lacey-Hall, Head, OCHA Regional Office for Asia-Pacific and Mr. Charles-Antoine Hofmann, Executive Coordinator, Disaster Response Dialogue

11:45-13:00Focus Group Discussions on the Guide(i) Chapter 1: Architecture (ii) Chapter 2: Response (iii) Chapter 3: Preparedness

13:00-14:30 Lunch

14:30-16:00Focus Group Discussions on the Guide(i) Chapter 1: Architecture (ii) Chapter 2: Response (iii) Chapter 3: Preparedness

16:00-16:30 Coffee Break

16:30-17:30 Plenary Feedback from the Focus Group Discussions 15

Friday, 15 November 2013

Time Session Title

09:00-09:30 Recap of Day 1

09:30-10:45 Thematic Discussions (i) Cash Transfer Programming (ii) Public-Private Partnerships

10:45-11:15 Coffee Break

11:15-12:30 Thematic Discussions (i) Communications with Affected Communities (ii) Technology and Humanitarian Innovation

12:30-13:00 Feedback from the morning Thematic Discussions

13:00-14:00 Lunch

14:00-15:15 Thematic Discussions (i) Humanitarian Action in Conflict Settings (ii) Humanitarian Action in Urban Settings

15:15-15:30 Feedback from the afternoon Thematic Discussions

15:30-16:30 Focus Group Discussions on the post-2015 DRR, development and humanitarian agendas

16:30-17:00 Feedback from the Focus Group Discussions

17:00-17.15 Closing Remarks

ANNEX 1: AGENDA

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

Time Event

18:30-21:00 Welcome Reception and Dinner


ANNEX 2: PARTICIPANTS LIST

Member States

M.G. Muhammad Saeed Aleem ChairmanPrime Minister’s Office, National Disaster Management [email protected]

Mr. Soe AungDirector GeneralMinistry of Social Welfare, Relief and [email protected]

Dr. Abas BasirChief of StaffSecond Vice President [email protected]

Mr. Sambuuyondon DoloonjinLieutenant Colonel, HeadOffice of the Deputy Premier, National Emergency Management Agency, State Reserve [email protected]

Mr. Steve DarvillHumanitarian adviserDepartment of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Humanitarian & Stabilisation [email protected]

Mr. Tshering DorjiHome SecretaryMinistry of Home & Cultural [email protected]

Mr. Umar Moosa FikrySenior Program OfficerMinistry of Defence and National Security Services, National Disaster Management Centre, Disaster Risk Reduction [email protected]

Mr. Khamphao Hompangna Deputy Director GeneralMinistry of Labour and Social Welfare, National Disaster Management Office (NDMO), Social Welfare [email protected]

Mr. Jong Song Gap CounsellorEmbassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of [email protected]

Dr. Mohammad Daim KakarDirector GeneralNational Disaster Management [email protected]

Mr. Kim Jae HonCounselor and Permanent Representative to UNESCAPEmbassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of [email protected]

H.E. Mr. Ma Norith Deputy Secretary General National Committee for Disaster Management, Office of the Council of MinistersRoyal Government of Cambodia [email protected]

Ms. Ng Geok MengAssistant DirectorMinistry of Home Affairs, Singapore Civil Defence [email protected]

Mr. Pg. Hj Shaharuddin bin Pg. MetaliAssistant Superintendent Fire and RescueMinistry of Home Affair, National Disaster Management Centre, Fire and [email protected]

Mr. Manoj Mohan MitraJoint Secretary (Relief)Ministry of Disaster Management and [email protected]

Mr. Montri NathanananFirst SecretaryMinistry of Foreign Affairs, Department of International Organizations, Development Affairs [email protected]

Mr. Arun PintaChief of Foreign Relations SectionMinistry of Interior of Thailand, Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM)[email protected]

Ms. Sommai PrijasilpaDeputy Governor [email protected]

Mr. Dody RuswandiDeputy for Prevention and PreparednessIndonesian National Board for Disaster Management (BNPB)[email protected]

Mrs. A.D.S SadeekaSenior AssistantSecretary of the Ministry of Disaster Management Ministry of Disaster [email protected]



Member States

Ms. Guohua SaiFirst SecretaryMinistry of Commerce, Department of International Trade and Economic [email protected]

Mr. M. Abdus SalamDirectorMinistry of Home Affairs, Fire Service and Civil Defence [email protected]

Mr. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage SugathadasaDirectorMinistry of Disaster Management, Disaster Management [email protected]

Mr. Promduag ThanaDirectorMinistry of Interior of Thailand, Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM), Regional Center [email protected]

Ms. Fathimath ThasneemDeputy MinisterMinistry of Defence and National Security Services, National Disaster Management Centre [email protected]

Mr. Namgay WangchukDirectorGeneral Ministry of Home & Cultural Affairs, Department of Disaster Management [email protected]

Mr. Arend WulffPolitical CounsellorThe Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany to [email protected]

Mr. Lourenco Cosme XavierChiefMinistry of Social Solidarity and Natural Disasters, National Disaster Operation Centre [email protected]

Mr. Loti YatesDirectorNational Disaster Management Office Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and [email protected]

Regional Organizations

Ms. Alicia Dela Rosa BalaDeputy Secretary-General for Socio-Cultural CommunityASEAN [email protected]

Mr. Singye DorjeeDirector, Environment, Natural Disaster and Biotechnology DivisionSAARC [email protected]

Ms. Adelina Dwi Ekawati KamalHead, Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance DivisionASEAN [email protected]

Mr. Dae-Joong LeeChief Political OfficerTrilateral Cooperation, [email protected]

Ms. Yeajin YoonPolitical Affairs OfficerTrilateral Cooperation, [email protected]

Ms. Lucia CipulloDisaster Law Delegate Asia-PacificAsia-Pacific Zonal OfficeInternational Federation of Red Cross & Red Crescent [email protected]

Mr. Nigel EdeAsia Pacific Zone Recovery CoordinatorAsia-Pacific Zone Disaster Management UnitInternational Federation of Red Cross & Red Crescent Societies [email protected]

Mr. Cedric PirallaHead, Chiang Mai Office, ThailandInternational Committee of the Red [email protected]

International Red Cross and Red Cresent Movement



United Nations Agencies and International Organizations

Ms. Agnes Asekenye-OonyuHeadOCHA Sri [email protected]

Ms. Radhika BehuriaProgramme SpecialistAsia-Pacific Regional Centre, Crisis Prevention & RecoveryUnited Nations Development Programme [email protected]

Mr. Alf Ivar BlikbergProgramme Officer ICT & DRR DivisionUN Economic and Social Commission for [email protected]

Ms. Charlotta BenedekHumanitarian Affairs OfficerPrivate Sector SectionOCHA [email protected]

Ms. Matilda BognerRegional Representative for South-East AsiaOffice of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, [email protected]

Ms. Jennifer BoseHumanitarian Reports OfficerInformation and Advocacy UnitOCHA [email protected]

Mr. Douglas BroderickResident CoordinatorUnited Nations Office in Indonesia [email protected]

Mr. Luc Chauvin Regional Emergency Adviser South Asia Regional OfficeUnited Nations Children’s [email protected]

Mr. Anthony Craig Chair, IASC Sub-Working Group on Preparedness World Food Programme [email protected]

Mr. Stewart Davies Regional Communication with Communities Officer Information and Advocacy UnitOCHA ROAP [email protected]

Mr. Rajan Gengaje Head OCHA Indonesia [email protected]

Mr. Sune Gudnitz HeadOCHA Regional Office for the [email protected]

Ms. Nadia Hadi Humanitarian Affairs Officer / ROAP Desk Officer Coordination and Response DivisionOCHA New [email protected]

Mr. Alejandro HitaVideographer [email protected]

Mr. Charles-Antoine HofmannExecutive CoordinatorDisaster Response [email protected]

Ms. Phimjai Kananurak Administrative AssociateOCHA ROAP [email protected]

Mr. Rashid Khalikov Director OCHA Geneva [email protected]

Ms. Kristen Knutson Humanitarian Affairs Officer / Head of UnitRegional Partnerships UnitOCHA ROAP [email protected]

Mr. Yoshihiro Kosaka HeadAsia-Pacific Regional Office for Capacity Building World Customs Organisation [email protected]

Ms. Shukuko Koyama Crisis Specialist Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific International Labour [email protected]



United Nations Agencies and International Organizations

Ms. Chatmanee Kunanukij Administrative Assistant OCHA ROAP [email protected]

Mr. Oliver Lacey-Hall HeadOCHA ROAP [email protected]

Mr. Romano Lasker Humanitarian Affairs Officer Regional Partnership Unit OCHA [email protected]

Ms. Alexandra Lazau-Ratz Consultant Regional Partnership UnitOCHA [email protected]

Mr. Antonio MassellaRegional Disaster Response Advisor Preparedness and Response Unit IOCHA ROAP [email protected]

Ms. Corinna Miguel-Quicho Senior Protection OfficerRegional Office for Asia United Nations High Commissioner for [email protected]

Mr. Sujit Mohanty Programme OfficerAsia-Pacific Regional OfficeInternational Strategy for Disaster [email protected]

Ms. Moira ReddickCoordinator Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium [email protected]

Mr. Somchai Soranundh Office Assistant OCHA ROAP [email protected]

Mr. Luc Stevens Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative United Nations in [email protected]

Ms. Esty Sutyoko Humanitarian Affairs Officer Partnerships Coordination SectionOCHA Geneva [email protected]

Mr. David Swanson Senior [email protected]

Ms. Manittha Tiomtat Conference Assistant OCHA [email protected]

Mr. Olivier Van Damme Programme Officer United Nations Institute for Training and Research [email protected]

Ms. Sudarat Wajapattana IT Assistant OCHA [email protected]

Mr. Masaki Watabe Humanitarian Affairs Officer OCHA Kobe (Japan) [email protected]

Ms. Krishanti Weerakoon Information and Coordination OfficerOCHA Sri Lanka [email protected]

Mr. Markus Werne Deputy Head of OfficeOCHA ROAP [email protected]



Non-governmental Organizations

Mr. Amod Mani Dixit General Secretary and Executive Director National Society for Earthquake Technology - [email protected]

Ms. Joanne Fairley Regional Director Lutheran World [email protected]

Mr. Ahmad Faizal PresidentMercy [email protected]

Ms. Lily Frey Advocacy Officer Cash Learning [email protected]

Mr. Laurence Gray Senior Policy AdvisorWorld Vision International, Asia and the Pacific Region, [email protected]

Mr. Manu Gupta Chair Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network [email protected]

Mr. Navaraj Gyawali Regional Director CARE International [email protected]

Mr. Sajedul Hasan Director Asian Disaster Preparedness [email protected]

Ms. Rahmawati HuseinAssistant Professor Muhammadiyah [email protected]

Mr. Andre Krummacher Regional Director ACTED, South/Southeast Asia [email protected]

Ms. Carla Lacerda Asia Regional Focal Point Cash Learning Partnership, Asia Regional Centre [email protected]

Ms. Julia Mayerhofer Programme Officer Asia Pacific Refugee Rights [email protected]

Mr. Murray Millar DirectorWorld Vision International, East Asia Regional Office, Regional Humanitarian & Emergency [email protected]

Mr. James Munn Regional Coordinator International Council of Voluntary [email protected]

Mr. Jay Narhan Team Leader, Applied Technology & Product DevelopmentWorld Vision International, Global Collaboration & Innovation [email protected]

Mr. Jair Parada Regional Finance Director ADRA Asia Regional [email protected]

Ms. Yumi Terahata Country Representative - Japan International Medical Corps (IMC)[email protected]

Ms. Kristy Van PuttenDeputy Risk and Vulnerability ManagerAustralia-Indonesia Facility for Disaster Reduction [email protected]

Mr. Haider W. Yaqub Deputy Regional Director Plan [email protected]



Academia Private Sector

Dr. Adam Burke Independent Specialist in Peace Building and Development The Policy [email protected]

Mr. Jason Franz Head of the Research Group “Conflicts in Asia & Oceania” Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK) [email protected]

Prof. Gu Linsheng Executive Director Institute for Disaster Management and [email protected]

Dr. Jemilah Mahmood Senior Research Fellow Kings College Humanitarian Futures Programme [email protected]

Dr. Pamela Milligan Director Centre For Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance [email protected]

Prof. Robert de Souza Executive Director National University of Singapore, Logistics Institute [email protected]

Mr. Michael Howden Managing DirectorAidIQ, Sahana Software [email protected]

Mr. Victor RembethNational Project Manager World Economic Forum Disaster Resource Partnership [email protected]

Mr. Carl Schelfhaut Vice PresidentInternational Relations, Policy & Sustainability Asia Pacific [email protected]

Ms. Leena Wokeck Executive Director Corporate Social Responsibility [email protected]


ANNEX 3: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (DAY 1) - CHAIRS AND RAPPORTEURS

Group 1 Architecture

ChairsMs. Lucia Cipullo, Disaster Law Delegate Asia-Pacific, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)

Mr. Sune Gudnitz, Head, OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific (OCHA ROP)

RapporteursMr. Stewart Davies, OCHA ROAPMs. Krishanti Weerakoon, OCHA Sri Lanka

Group 2 Tools and Services for Response

Chairs Mr. Markus Werne, Deputy Head, OCHA Regional Office for Asia-Pacific

RapporteursMs. Esty Sutyoko, OCHA Geneva

Mr. Rajan Gengaje, OCHA Indonesia

Group 3 Tools and Services for Preparedness

ChairsMr. Manu Gupta, Co-Chair, Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network (ADRRN)Mr. Anthony Craig, Co-Chair IASC Sub-Working-Group on Preparedness (World Food Programme)

RapporteursMr. Antonio Massella, OCHA ROAPMr. Masaki Watabe, OCHA Japan


ANNEX 4: THEMATIC DISCUSSIONS (DAY 2) - PRESENTERS, MODERATORS AND RAPPORTEURS

Session 1 Group A Cash Transfer Programming (CTP)

Presenter Major General Muhammad Saeed Aleem, Chairman, National Disaster Management Authority, Pakistan

Moderator Ms. Carla Lacerda, Asia Regional Focal Point, Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP)

Rapporteur Mr. Masaki Watabe, OCHA Japan

Session 1 Group B Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)

PresentersMs. Leena Wokeck, Executive Director, CSR Asia

Mr. Victor Rembeth, National Project Manager, World Economic Forum Disaster Resource Partnership

Moderator Mr. Antonio Massella, OCHA ROAP

Rapporteur Ms. Charlotta Benedek, OCHA Geneva

Session 2 Group A Communications with Affected Communities (CwC)

Presenter Ms. Moira Reddick, Coordinator, Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC) Secretariat

Moderator Mr. Stewart Davies, Regional Communication with Communities Officer, OCHA ROAP

Rapporteur Ms. Esty Sutyoko, OCHA Geneva

Session 2 Group B Technology and Humanitarian Innovation

PresentersMr. Michael Howland, Managing Director, AidIQMr. Jay Narhan, Team Leader, Applied Technology & Product Development, World Vision International

Moderator Ms. Kristy Van Putten, Deputy Risk and Vulnerability Manager, Australia-Indonesia Facility for Disaster Reduction

Rapporteur Mr. Antonio Massella, OCHA ROAP

Session 3 Group A Humanitarian Action in Conflict Settings

PresentersMr. Jason Franz, Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK) Mr. Adam Burke, Independent Specialist in Peacebuilding and Development

Moderator Dr. Jemilah Mahmood, King’s College Humanitarian Futures Programme

Rapporteur Mr. Sune Gudnitz, OCHA ROP

Session 3 Group B Humanitarian Action in Urban Settings

Presenter Mr. Sajedul Hasan, Director, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC)

Moderator Mr. Amod Mani Dixit, Executive Director, NSET, Nepal

Rapporteur Ms. Esty Sutyoko, OCHA Geneva


ANNEX 5: SURVEY RESULTS - SELECTED QUESTIONSAND RAPPORTEURS

In November 2013, OCHA administered an online survey on “Disaster Management Tools and Services in the Asia Pacific Region” as part of preparations for the 2013 Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum for Asia and the Pacific, which was held from 14 to 15 November 2013. The survey was tailored to three categories of participants attending the Forum: Member State representatives, international humanitarian actors, and private sector/academia.

In total, representatives of 16 governments, 30 ‘humanitarian organizations’ (encompassing participants from UN agencies and international organizations, regional organizations and non-governmental organizations), and 2 businesses/research institutes responded to the survey, of which 13, 21 and 2 completed the survey respectively.

An analysis of the consolidated responses from representatives of Member States and humanitarian organizations on selected questions pertinent to the main themes considered during the Forum is provided below. With a response rate between 35 per cent and 45 per cent, these results can be considered broadly indicative of practices and trends in the region. However, due to the low response rate from the private sector and academic

institutions (less than 10 per cent), their results have not been included. (Note: OCHA hopes to administer a similar survey to private sector representatives again in future.)

Of Member States respondents, 81 per cent represented the National Disaster Management Office or related disaster management centres, while 19 per cent represented the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Among humanitarian organizations, nearly half of respondents indicated they worked for an international organization (46 per cent), while 10 per cent indicated they represented regional or intergovernmental organizations. Another 10 per cent indicated they worked for local and national NGOs, and 10 per cent for UN agencies. The Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement represented 7 per cent of respondents.

In terms of geographic coverage, approximately half of respondents from both Member States and humanitarian organizations selected South-East Asia as the region in which they worked (56 per cent and 43 per cent respectively). In both surveys, the least represented region was the Pacific, with 6 per cent and 3 per cent respectively.

Analysis: The same pattern was seen in responses from both Member States and humanitarian organizations: overall, respondents indicated that response activities receive the greatest priority, closely followed by preparedness. Prevention and mitigation was third overall (although a substantial number of Member States did indicate this as a top priority) with recovery a distant fourth.


ANNEX 5: SURVEY RESULTS - SELECTED QUESTIONS AND RAPPORTEURS

Analysis: Internal readiness assessments by both Member States and international humanitarian actors indicate medium to high preparedness for response to small and medium disasters, and low to medium readiness for response to large-scale disasters. Member States indicated that readiness to provide relief in a conflict setting was low, while humanitarian organizations rated it medium. The majority of Member States also indicated no to low readiness to support response in other countries, although three respondents said their readiness to provide assistance to other countries was high.



Analysis: Generally, the responses indicated that Member States have participated actively in a variety of international preparedness and response trainings and simulations, with 50 per cent response rates for ASEAN’s Emergency Rapid Assessment Team (ERAT) trainings, UNDAC and INSARAG trainings, and greater than 50 per cent response rates for ARF-DiREx and ARDEX (consistent with the observed majority - 9 of 16 - of Member State respondents classifying their geographical position as being in Southeast Asia). More than 40 per cent also reported participating in IASC Emergency Simulation Exercises and UN Civil-Military Coordination trainings.International humanitarian organizations, on the other hand, reported much lower participation in these training and simulation opportunities (less than 20 per cent for UNDAC and less than 10 per cent for ERAT, INSARAG, ARF DiREx and ARDEX), which may be accounted for by the prioritization / tailoring of those trainings and exercises to Member States. However, the IASC Emergency Simulation Exercises - for which the highest participation rates was reported by respondents from international humanitarian actors – still accounted for less than 40 per cent participation, while “Other” was the other high-scoring opportunity (see description of individual responses provided under this category), which may indicate a need to increase the participation of international humanitarian actors in these trainings and exercises as a way of enhancing the inter-operability of international and national tools and services for preparedness and response.

*Respondents were allowed to select all applicable options.Under “Other” the following alternatives were suggested: TIEMS (The International Emergency Management Society); national and local level simulations and exercises; internal trainings on leadership and coordination in disasters; agency-specific risk-informed programming and Emergency Preparedness and Response training; and Trilateral Table Top Exercise (TTX).



*Respondents were allowed to select all applicable options.Under “Other” the following alternative was suggested: ASEAN Standard Operating Procedure for Regional Standby Arrangements and Coordination of Joint Disaster Relief and Emergency Response Operations (ASEAN SASOP)

Analysis: Asked only of Member States, responses to this question show than nearly 44 per cent of respondents said that none of the regional or international tools and services had been deployed in their country in the past five years, although one respondent did note that the ASEAN SASOP had been used.



*Respondents were allowed to select all applicable options.Under “Other” the following alternatives were suggested: multi-cluster rapid initial assessment (MIRA); DevInfo; Partnerships with research entities including GIS; internal updates and reports; DMIS and IFRC.org; Cash Atlas; CaLP discussion group; DesInventar; web Emergency Operations Centre (EOC).

Analysis: The Situation Report, which is published by OCHA, but primarily comprises information provided by the clusters, and ReliefWeb were identified as frequently used by both humanitarian organizations and Member States. IRIN and GIS technology were also important sources of information for humanitarian organizations (around 60 per cent) but less so for Member States. Platforms providing operational information also scored quite highly (i.e. humanitarianinfo.org, whose audience is primarily operational partners to an international response - some 33 per cent; and ADINet, which provides a similar service to ASEAN Member States – approximately 45 per cent).

Perhaps the biggest surprise was that more than 70 per cent of humanitarian organization respondents said they use social media to collect and provide disaster-related information, as did more than 30 per cent of Member States. This result highlights the importance of getting a better handle on the questions of how to use new technologies more effectively in humanitarian response, which the group participating in the thematic discussion on technology for humanitarian innovation discussed.



*Respondents were allowed to select all options applicable. Under “Other” the following alternatives and recommendations were suggested: fundraising, internal (organization), and private funds; agency-specific Emergency Response Funds; bilateral contributions.

Analysis: Among Member States, half of the respondents said that national disaster relief funds had been used to support emergency response in the past five years, and the same percentage said that the ASEAN-based funding mechanism (the ADMER Fund) had been used. More than 35 per cent said they had used funds from the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund and from the IFRC’s Disaster Relief Emergency Fund.

There is a declining trend in the use of international appeals mechanisms by Member States as demonstrated with less than 30 per cent of respondents having used UN Flash Appeals in the past five years. Among humanitarian organizations, however, international tools remain predominant with CAP (Consolidated Appeal Process), ERF (Emergency Response Fund) and UN Flash Appeals being the second most-used financial tools. Cash transfers and country-level pooled funds were equally used by humanitarian organizations in the past 5 years. One observation to add to this analysis is that respondents were somewhat confused by the question, with a large number of write-in responses, some of which could have been categorized under one of the choices. This highlights the need to clarify what and how to use existing financing mechanisms and available pools of humanitarian funding.



* In 2 instances Member State representatives mentioned that they are expecting to work in the future with the private sector and regional organizations. In 6 instances humanitarian organization representatives mentioned that they are expecting to work in the future with local and national authorities, governments, private sector, regional organizations and platforms, military or armed forces.

Analysis: In terms of the average rating, Member States indicated that they regularly worked with local and national authorities, UN agencies, regional organizations, and NGOs, and only sometimes with the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement, local and disaster-affected communities and military authorities. To a lesser extent, they worked with other governments, volunteer and technical communities, and the private sector. Even fewer Member States worked sometimes or regularly with academia, research institutes or think tanks. However, it should also be noted that, in terms of individual responses, between 14 and 18 (of 21 total) Member States respondents indicated they worked ‘regularly’ with local and national authorities, other governments, NGOs, UN agencies, and local people and disaster-affected communities.

Humanitarian organizations, on the other hand, indicated that they regularly worked with local and national authorities, governments, and fairly regularly with UN agencies, NGOs, and local and disaster-affected communities. Humanitarian organizations reported that they sometimes worked with the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement academia, research institutes or think tanks, volunteer and technical communities, and the private sector, but had less engagement with regional organizations and military or armed actors. It should be noted that a number of respondents identified areas in which they planned to work with new partners in the future, including private sector and regional organizations, governments and local authorities, and military or armed forces. These indications of intention are not represented in the above chart.



Analysis: This question was only posed to Member States to identify their perspectives on the existing capacity within their country/region. Close to half of respondents (47 per cent) identified military forces and local and national authorities as having the biggest capacity to support response within their respective countries. The Humanitarian Country Team and the UN agencies scored second and third, with 27 and 20 per cent respectively. Overall, Member States saw the military, UN agencies and the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement as actors with good and very good capacity to support response in the country (87 per cent, 80 per cent and 80 per cent of responses respectively).



*Respondents were allowed to select maximum 3 options. Under “Other” the following alternative was suggested: IASC system.

Analysis: Unsurprisingly, both Member States and international humanitarian actors identified local and national authorities as among the priority partners in supporting preparedness and response, which speaks to the prescribed role of national authorities as fundamentally responsible for supporting their own populations.

As the second priority, Member States identified military or armed forces. This type of partnership was not prioritized by international humanitarian actors, although we may hazard that, if asked specifically about response in a large-scale disaster, the ranking might increase significantly (e.g. as in the Philippines in the first weeks of the response to Typhoon Haiyan). International humanitarian actors instead identified local / disaster affected communities as their second priority partner, which both underscores the increased emphasis being given to accountability to affected populations, and indicates that a significant number of international humanitarian actors still see themselves as primarily oriented to direct response, rather than working in partnership with other actors to provide response.For Member States, the third ranking went to UN agencies, Humanitarian Country Teams and the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement, which we might generally combine into a single category of ‘international humanitarian actors’, while international humanitarian actors indicated that other humanitarian agencies (UN agencies or NGOs) were their third priority.

Surprisingly considering that the majority of Member States respondents come from ASEAN countries (as earlier observed), regional organizations ranked relatively low among priority partners for Member States as well as international humanitarian organizations. This result is even more interesting when considering the fact that Member States ranked regional organizations as actors with whom they regularly worked with to support preparedness for emergency response (previous question). Despite the increasing emphasis being placed on the role of regional organizations in policy circles, perhaps this low ranking indicates simply that, in general, the real capacity of regional organizations’ to support response has yet to equal expectations of their future importance to response.

Also a surprise was the very low prioritization given to the private sector as a partner in response, despite much public discussion on the importance and potential capacity of the private sector. Again, this may reflect the actual versus the perceived potential capacity of the private sector in future.



Analysis: Starting from a broad agreement with the private sector having a prominent role in disaster response (73 per cent and 76 per cent respectively), Member States and international humanitarian actors were asked to identify the areas in which stronger private sector engagement with the public sector would be most useful to support emergency response. While the top choices (develop good standards and practices and serve as a model for the sector (i.e. business continuity planning); awareness raising for resilient thinking / resilient economies; mobilizing financial resources) were fairly consistently scored by both Member States and international humanitarian actors, there does seem to be a divergent opinion on the importance of the private sector in providing services, which humanitarian agencies made their top choice, but Member States ranked only fourth.

Member States were further asked what they thought they should do to promote the engagement of private sector entities in response, and responded with support for more inclusive approaches to business involvement in national coordination mechanisms, as well as advocacy and awareness raising and provision of incentives and recognition for businesses that support humanitarian response efforts. There was less support for strengthening DRR legislation and policies as an encouragement for private sector engagement, which could indicate that Member States feel this is already adequately covered in national frameworks and the focus should instead be on familiarization efforts.

The responses provided by humanitarian organization representatives differed significantly. Their responses focused on partnerships and relationship building rather than legislation and providing incentives. Among humanitarian organizations, most felt that building relationships by identifying common interests and developing a common language, as well as advocacy and awareness-raising on the private sector’s role in disaster preparedness and response (e.g. business continuity, risk assessment and reduction) were most relevant to promote private sector engagement.

* This was an open-ended question: a number of recommendations were identified by respondents and they were grouped in the categories represented in the chart.



* This was an open-ended question; a number of recommendations were identified by respondents and they were grouped in the categories represented in the chart.** In relation to the question, one respondent from the humanitarian organizations category suggested that the question would be more relevant if it were to inquire about the speed with which CwC is developing rather than whether it is or not critical to effective humanitarian response.

Analysis: Having expressed strong support for the importance of two-way communications with communities for effective humanitarian response (Member States had 80 per cent positive response and humanitarian organizations 100 per cent to the initial question), the above categories were broadly identified as planned or being implemented to strengthen two-way communications. The most popular approach among Member States (blue) was community-based capacity building, with specific responses including identifying village leaders and assigning responsibilities within the community, as well as establishing disaster management teams in local communities. For humanitarian organizations (green), the initiatives most frequently noted referred to the inclusion of local authorities and community representatives in planning and design and the establishment of regular feedback mechanisms.



Analysis: This question was asked only of humanitarian organizations to assess the relative importance of different aspects of disaster management to the community. “Strengthening relationship with local and national authorities” stood out as a critical goal for 62 per cent of respondents. For just under half (43 per cent ) the following were also critical: “be well prepared to minimize loss of live, injury and property damage in a disaster,” “provide support for national governments to improve their own preparedness and response capacities” and “increase community disaster awareness.” This underscores the importance demonstrated elsewhere that organizations place on working with local and national authorities. The answers also showed more emphasis placed on increasing community disaster awareness (critical priority for 42.9 per cent) rather than improving communication with communities or increasing accountability, which were seen as critical to only 28.6 per cent of respondents.

Surprisingly, given the repeated calls for increased and more systematic efforts to collect and share lessons learned, best and worst practices, no respondent identified strengthening their organization’s relationship with academia as a critical priority, and only one respondent identified this as very important. Also surprising given the amount of interest and discussion it generated, less than 30 per cent of respondents indicated that strengthening relationships with the private sector was very important or critical to their organization.



*Respondents were allowed to select maximum 3 optionsUnder “Other” the following options were suggested: limited / unaccountable state governance; governments not investing in preparedness (funds but also policy); focus on response (funding, capacity and others) leaves little energy for preparedness and early response; lack of technology; ever changing profile of the population.

Analysis: All respondents agreed that lack / shortage of funding and limited organizational capacity were among the main challenges to building preparedness and designing early response plans. Further discussion on how best to fund preparedness work, including identifying new and maximizing existing funding sources, may be best taken forward in the context of preparations for the 2015 World Summit on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan. The OCHA-WFP project on response preparedness for countries at high risk of large-scale disasters specifically seeks to help strengthen skills and technical know-how for preparedness and response planning at the national level, amongst its four priority areas for joint action.

Similarly, reflecting on the ratio of capacity that should be dedicated to preparedness versus response and broader DRR efforts as part of those preparatory discussions may be merited given the strong identification by both Member States and humanitarian agencies of this as a main challenge. That Member States ranked lack of skills and technical know-how third in terms of main challenges is consistent with the consistent emphasis on the need to scale up and coordinate the trainings and technical capacity building offered to governments noted elsewhere in the report. An interesting point of divergence was that humanitarian agencies equally ranked poor coordination and communications among humanitarian actors as a main challenge, whereas Member States were less concerned by this.



*Respondents were allowed to select maximum 3 optionsUnder “Other” the following options were suggested: mainstreaming of resilience strategies in national development policies and plans; civil-military relations

Analysis: The results indicated that Member States would prioritize support to develop effective information management systems, capacity building and technical trainings, and to improve coordination between national, regional and international partners in the coming years. Similarly, humanitarian organizations prioritized enhancing the effectiveness of coordination between national, regional and international levels, and capacity building and technical trainings, but gave equal weight to improved information management, partnerships with the private sector and communication and coordination with national authorities as distinctly lower priorities.


ANNEX 6: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE GUIDE EDITORIAL BOARD

I. INTRODUCTION

In response to the tasking given to OCHA at the fourth Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum for Asia-Pacific8 to develop a concise reference document on the tools and services for disaster preparedness and response that are held at the international level and available to Member States upon request, OCHA published Disaster Response in Asia and the Pacific: a Guide to International Tools and Services (“the Guide”) in 2013.

The Guide was developed following an extensive process of consultation with more than 75 representatives of Member States and 50 representatives of regional organizations, United Nations agencies and international organizations, national and international non-governmental organizations, the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement and other humanitarian partners, and attempted to balance between providing a comprehensive and inclusive summary of all tools and services available at the regional and international levels, and remaining a concise, easy-to-use document.

Having released the Guide in April 2013, OCHA formally launched the Guide at the fifth Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum in Phuket, Thailand in November 2013, and requested the Forum participants to conduct a critical review and provide feedback on required revisions and ways to improve the Guide.

Generally, the Forum participants welcomed the Guide as a useful document that fulfilled the request made of OCHA. However, there were also a number of suggestions regarding additional information that could be provided in the online and future print editions of the Guide.

Welcoming this indication of buy-in and wishing to promote regional and national ownership of the Guide, OCHA proposed that a multi-stakeholder Editorial Board be established to support participative decision-making on future editions of the Guide.

II. PURPOSE

The role of the Editorial Board will be to support OCHA in:1. reviewing requests received from regional stakeholders

(Member States, humanitarian organizations and other interested entities) for additional tools, services and/or issues to be included in the online and/or print versions of the Guide,

2. advising on making the online Guide more dynamic,3. working with Member States and Regional Organizations to

identify opportunities to adapt the Guide to national and/or sub-regional contexts (where the Member State or Regional Organization commits internal resources and support the project) and ensure quality control over the resulting products,

4. drafting and editing the second edition of the Guide, which is due to be published in 2015, prior to the next Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum.

III. MEMBERSHIP

In order to ensure the Editorial Board is representative of the wider regional community, nominations of members are requested as follows:

• Up to three representatives of Member States, with roles in management or oversight of disaster management at the national level (diverse representation of Northeast, South, and Southeast Asia and the Pacific is preferred)9

• Up to two representatives of Regional Organizations

• Up to four representatives of humanitarian organizations (one UN agency, one NGO network, one NGO and one Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement)

• One representative from an Asian academic institution

Each member will be requested to serve for two-years; after the first year, half of the membership will be requested to either commit to a third year or step down after one, in order to ensure that 50 per cent of the membership is continuing and 50 per cent is new each year.

OCHA will chair the Editorial Board and act as its permanent Secretariat.

IV. WORKING MODALITIES

With the intention to keep requirements at a minimum, but with active participation required of the Editorial Board members, it is proposed that the Board meet virtually twice each year to support the semi-annual review of the online Guide, and in person once every two years to jointly edit the next edition of the Guide.

• Virtual Meetings

OCHA, as Secretariat, will circulate the agenda and background documentation, including a summary list of proposed edits (corrections and inclusions), to committee members via email at least 10 days ahead of the Editorial Board meeting.Following the 10-day review period, the Board will meet virtually via tele-/video-conference. At least three hours should be set aside for the Board meeting on the agreed date (half-day either a.m. or p.m. per the membership’s preference). Tentatively, these meetings should be scheduled at the end of January and July each year.

OCHA will make the agreed changes and/or updates within one month of the Editorial Board meeting.

• In-person meetings

OCHA will organize and sponsor the participation of Editorial Board members to the in-person meetings to be held every two years, preferably at the end of the first quarter. Members will be requested to confirm availability for the proposed meeting with at least six-months notice, and will be provided with an agenda and documentation for the meeting at least one month in advance.

8 The fourth Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum was held in 2011 in Shanghai, China.

9 China and the Maldives have already volunteered to serve as members of the Editorial during the first term.


ANNEX 7: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REGIONAL STEERING GROUP ON THE WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT REGIONAL CONSULTATION FOR NORTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA

I. INTRODUCTION

The UN Secretary-General has announced that a World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) will be held in early 2016 in Istanbul, Turkey. The purpose of the Summit is to set a forward-looking agenda for humanitarian action to collectively address future humanitarian challenges. The aim is to build a more inclusive and diverse humanitarian system committed to the humanitarian principles.

A WHS Secretariat has been established on behalf of the Secretary General to facilitate and coordinate regional and thematic consultations on four broad themes: humanitarian effectiveness; reducing vulnerability and managing risk; transformation through innovation; and serving the needs of people in conflict. Extensive consultations with a wide range of partners in the field and at Headquarters will be necessary to identify recommendations and develop a programme for the future of humanitarian action.

To support the convening and guide preparations for the regional consultations, regional steering groups will be constituted in each region hosting a consultation. Following consultations with Member States and humanitarian partners, OCHA has proposed to organize separate consultations for North and Southeast Asia10 (to be co-hosted by Japan and Indonesia) and the Pacific (hosting arrangements to be confirmed). The North and Southeast Asia consultation will be held in Tokyo, Japan in July 2014; the location and date for the Pacific is expected to be confirmed shortly.

II. PURPOSE OF THE REGIONAL STEERING GROUP (RSG) FOR NORTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA

The RSG for North and Southeast Asia will guide the conceptual and logistical planning for the regional consultation. The RSG is also expected to advise on practical modalities for following-up agreements in the wake of the regional consultation and the Summit itself.

Per the global guidance, the regional steering group will be expected to:

a. advise on the key regional aspects / issues to be prioritized under the four global Summit themes, including through consultations with the constituencies they represent and/or with which they are partnered

b. advise on the agenda for the regional consultationc. advise on participants for the regional consultationd. mobilize their regional networks to raise awareness on the

regional consultation and the WHS process, and encourage engagement from all relevant stakeholders

e. support the drafting of background documents (in the lead-up to) and the final report (after) the regional consultation

f. develop a network for coordination of necessary follow-up work (i.e. between the regional consultation and the Summit, and post-Summit).

III. COMPOSITION OF THE RSG

The RSG should comprise 12 members (representing their country/organization, but serving in an individual capacity) who will help set the agenda, determine criteria for the selection of participants, identify key issues of relevance in the region under each of the four summit themes, and endorse the outcome of the regional consultation.

The group will be jointly chaired by the co-hosts (Japan, Indonesia and OCHA), with representation from a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including:

• Up to three representatives of Member States, including the representatives of the co-hosts (Japan and Indonesia)11

• One representative of the OCHA Regional Office

• One representative of an Asian regional organization

• One representative of a military or civil defense organization12

• One representative of the United Nations Regional Directors’ Team

• One representative of an international NGO or NGO network

• One representative of a national civil society organization

• One representative of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement

• One representative of the private sector or an Asian academic institution with strong links to the private sector

• One representative of the WHS Secretariat (planning and outreach team)

IV. SELECTING RSG MEMBERS

In addition to ensuring geographic, organizational and gender diversity, RSG members will be chosen in order to ensure an appropriate mix of skills and backgrounds among the members. Each nominated representative should be prepared to:

• allocate approximately 10 to 20 per cent of their time to the RSG’s work

• be prepared to attend monthly virtual preparatory meetings and two in-person meetings (tentatively scheduled for March and May 2014)

• bring to bear individual knowledge on regional humanitarian priorities, key issues related to the Summit themes and/or have a strong background in emergency response (strategic or operational)

• mobilize their network to prepare for and encourage engagement of all relevant stakeholders in the regional consultations

10 Some 16 Member States are expected to be engaged through the North and Southeast Asia regional consultation, including: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Viet Nam.11 The Member State representatives should be individuals with a strategic and/or operational role in disaster risk reduction, disaster management, or reconstruction.12 The representative of the military or civil defense organization should be an individual who has previously and/or regularly participates in disaster preparedness and response work at the regional and/or international level. The inclusion of a military/armed forces representative is in recognition of the role that military and civil defence assets (MCDA) play as first responders in the regional context.


ANNEX 7: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REGIONAL STEERING GROUP ON THE WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT REGIONAL CONSULTATION FOR EAST AND SOUTHEAST ASIA

OCHA will be responsible for the final selection of the RSG members, and will serve as the secretariat for the RSG.

V. Working Modalities

The RSG will hold monthly virtual meetings, from an initial meeting in February 2014, on a schedule to be determined in consultation with the RSG members. OCHA will organize video and/or teleconference facilities to support these meetings.Additionally, there will be two in-person meetings of the RSG, each of which is expected to be a one-day event to be organized in a central location, which are expected to be held in March and May 2014 respectively. OCHA will organize these meetings logistically, with associated travel and accommodation costs to be borne by the hosting countries / organizations.

regional humanitarian partnerships forum materials... · regional humanitarian partnerships forum...

Documents