training needs analysis - reliefweb.int · analysis of disaster response training in the pacific...

Analysis of Disaster Response Training in the Pacific Island Region

Provisional Version September 2012

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Regional Office for the Pacific

September 2012

Analysis of Disaster Response Training in the Pacific Island Region • Provisional Version September 2012 | 2

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Coordination Saves Lives | www.unocha.org

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The consultant would like to thank all the individuals who agreed to be interviewed and gave of their time, energy and patience to assist with this project. Sincere thanks must also go to the individuals who responded to the Training Questionnaire on behalf of the organization they represented. Without the input from all these people this project would not have been possible. Special thanks must also go to the following people who provided information, support and guidance: Deborah Clifton IASC Gender Advisor Mosese Sikivou Manager, Community Risk Programme, SOPAC Kathryn Hawley Director, Pacific DRM Training Programme, TAF/OFDA Jutta May Information & Database Management Advisor, SOPAC John Norton Disaster Management Consultant, Norton Consulting John Titmus Emergency Coordinator, MCDEM (NZ) Matthew Lloyd International IT/Telecoms Manager; New Zealand Red Cross



TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 2

ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................................... 4

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 5

2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 7

3. PROJECT AIM .................................................................................................................................................... 10

4. METHOD .............................................................................................................................................................. 11

4.1 Literature Review: Identifying Perceived Gaps ......................................................................................... 11

4.2 Questionnaire and Interview: Finding Information on Training Activities .............................................. 11

4.3 Key Informant Interviews: Identifying Weaknesses in Disaster Response ........................................... 11

Table 1: Interviews by Organization and Sex of Respondents ................................................................. 11

5. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................ 12

5.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................... 12

5.2. Questionnaire and Interview: Finding Information on Capacity Development and Training Activities................................................................................................................................................................. 16

Table 2: General Comments on Pacific Disaster Response Training Activities .................................... 17

5.3 Key Informant Interviews: Identifying Weaknesses in Disaster Response ........................................... 20

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 23

Table 3: Correlation between Disaster Response Training and Perceived Areas of Weakness in 19 Different Disaster Response Functional Activities ................................................................................ 23

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................... 24

APPENDIX 1: THE TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................................... 29

APPENDIX 2: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................. 31

The research for this report was led by independent consultant Douglas Clark (Zeadin Consulting) and the OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific between December 2010 and March 2011.



ACRONYMS

ADRA

CROP Adventist Development Relief Agency Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific

CRP Community Risk Programme DM Disaster Management

DRM DRR

Disaster Risk Management Disaster Risk Reduction

FACT Field Assessment and Coordination Team FBO Faith-Based Organization

IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee IFRC The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

NDMO National Disaster Management Office NDMC National Development Management Committees

NGO Non-Government Organization PDN

PDRMP Pacific Disaster Net Pacific Disaster Risk Management Programme

PHT Pacific Humanitarian Team PIC Pacific Island Country

PNG OCHA

Papua New Guinea Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN)

OFDA OHCHR

Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN)

SOPAC

SPC

Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Applied Geoscience and Technology Division Secretariat of the Pacific Community

SPDRP South Pacific Disaster Reduction Program (UN) TAF The Asia Foundation UN

UNDP UNFPA UNHCR

United Nations United Nations Development Programme United Nations Population Fund United Nations High Commission for Refugees

UNICEF USAID

United Nations Children’s Fund United States Agency for International Development

WASH WFP

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Cluster World Food Programme



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Analysis of Disaster Response Training in the Pacific Island region was commissioned by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Regional Office for the Pacific. The primary aim of the analysis was to provide guidance for future disaster management training and capacity development initiatives by Pacific Island Countries (PICs), international and regional humanitarian and developmental organizations and donor partners.1 The analysis as such focuses on disaster preparedness and response. The data for this analysis was comprised of a desk review of relevant literature, information on disaster management training activities from 41 different organizations, and opinions on perceived weaknesses in disaster management from 82 personnel. The people interviewed were from government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), donors, United Nations (UN) agencies and the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC). Those interviewed were mostly based in five countries: Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Samoa, and New Zealand. Of the participants, 37 per cent were female and 63 per cent were male. Literature specific to the analysis of overall training needs in the PICs is limited. Most concentrate on specific courses or on the professional development needs of disaster management personnel. Additionally, only 11 people responded to a questionnaire. These two factors made it difficult to analyze a quantifiable amount of data. Nevertheless, the literature and questionnaire responses gave a broad picture of the type, range and specific aims and contents of disaster management training courses undertaken in the Pacific Island region. The low response to the questionnaires was

1 Although this report refers to disaster management in the ‘Pacific Island region’ it in fact refers mainly to the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Republic of Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. These were the 14 PICs covered by the UN Resident Coordinators based in Fiji and Samoa and the OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific at the time of analysis. It excludes Papua New Guinea and any of the French, United States, or United Kingdom territories as well as Australia and New Zealand.

compensated to a large extent by in-depth interviews with disaster management personnel. The interviews revealed perceived gaps and concerns in disaster management. While time and financial restraints did not allow for a detailed analysis of specific disaster management training needs, this report identifies specific areas for attention in disaster management training in the PICs, by identifying perceived gaps in disaster response. Fifteen recommendations are given in this report. It is acknowledged that some of these recommendations are already being implemented by various organizations throughout the Pacific Island region. However, a more coordinated approach still needs to be achieved to improve the effectiveness of disaster management in the Pacific Island region. The recommendations can be summarized as follows:

All training should be aligned toward the overall “professionalization” of disaster management, including an identifiable career path with sequential learning stages. As well, there should be a greater emphasis on leadership, management and coordination training.

Each country should develop a national disaster management plan which is robust and functionally relevant to the specific conditions and disaster scenarios in that country. The development of such a plan should be led by the local national disaster management authority and their key national partners, with support from regional and international partners.

Each country should develop a national disaster management training strategy which is based on relevant disaster risk analysis and scenarios. The strategy should include training initiatives by all disaster management stakeholders (government and non-government) and be led by the local national disaster management authority.



There should be increased and proactive coordination, including inter-agency and intra-sectoral cooperation for disaster response training linked to inter-agency contingency planning. This should be led by the national disaster management authorities and supported by national and international partners.

There should be greater variety of learning opportunities and methods explored, including:

Increased use of national inter-agency simulation exercises, with participation of relevant government agencies, Red Cross organisations, NGOs, Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs), regional and international humanitarian and development organizations, military and donor partners.

Use of experienced national officers as mentors in disaster response and as trainers for increased experiential cross-learning between countries.

Rigorous post-disaster analysis, consistent evaluation and practical lessons learned workshops, including the participation of neighbouring countries.

A Standardized Incident Management System and the development and training of emergency management organizations integrated in, or compatible with, the broader disaster management systems of the country and international assistance.

Gender analysis and protection skills should be mainstreamed into all training and capacity building activities.

Standardized approaches, systems and trainings for needs assessment, information management and analysis, and report-writing should be developed. Needs assessments should be based on lessons learned from recent humanitarian emergencies and developments in the humanitarian community to respond to the different needs and realities of women, men, boys and girls. Training of standardized approaches for national disaster management authorities and appropriate national government counterparts should occur, as well the support of ‘Training of Trainers’ at the national and provincial level.

Ensure that there is a common understanding of the Pacific Humanitarian Team (PHT) and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Cluster System in the PICs, with a dedicated capacity designated to each Cluster Lead Agency.

These recommendations aim to inform the strategy, planning, programmes and funding decisions of national disaster management authorities, Red Cross organizations, NGO’s, FBO’s, regional and international humanitarian and development organizations, and donor partners that support disaster management training and capacity development in PICs. This analysis does not attempt to address how these recommendations can be implemented or financed. Indeed, training is already part of many current and disaster management programmes in the Pacific Island region and these recommendations seek to inform the further improvement of these programmes.



2. INTRODUCTION

Globally, OCHA’s mandate includes supporting “a more systematic coordination of the common humanitarian programme”, recognizing that humanitarian response is underpinned by integrated analysis and rigorous learning. In line with OCHA’s mandate, the UN General Assembly has called on the United Nations and other entities to support the efforts of Member States to strengthen their capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters.2

As has been found around the world (including in PICs), efforts in developing disaster management capacities are often insufficiently coordinated and not coherent. Given the multitude of regional and national actors in PICs, the OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific supports its partners by providing analysis to increase the partner’s capacity to coordinate and implement humanitarian action. In order to fulfill these commitments, the OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific commissioned this analysis of disaster response training. Background The Pacific Island region can be split up into three sub-regions: Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia, each with their own cultural and historical identities. Island demographics and geographies also vary greatly. Micronesia is dominated by widely dispersed atoll-dwelling communities and Melanesian countries are characterized by more concentrated population centres on larger volcanic islands. Polynesian countries and territories are often composed of highly dispersed small island groups with large diaspora communities in Australia and New Zealand. Differing cultures, country sizes, geographic realities and economic resources have resulted in widely varied government structures and national disaster management capacity. The Pacific Island region is one of the world’s most susceptible regions to natural disaster. Even relatively minor emergencies can significantly affect populations and overwhelm national response capacity. In the past years, sudden-onset crises in PICs have included floods, cyclones, king tides, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis. Many of the

2 UN General Assembly Resolution 64/76

countries are directly affected by the South Pacific Convergence Zone meaning that seasonal tropical cyclones are a regular occurrence. As well, many countries lie along the ‘Pacific Ring of Fire’ - the junction of large tectonic plates and numerous other tectonic fissures which traverse the region to give rise to earthquakes and volcanoes; the former sometimes triggering tsunamis. Drought caused by El Niño and La Niña weather patterns affect different parts of the Pacific regularly. Storm surges, king tides and fires, as well as potential hazards of modern human activity such as deforestation, water table fluctuations, oil spills and escalating urbanization, all contribute negatively to a region still developing. PICs have also experienced political emergencies including coups d’état, civil unrest and armed violence. The number of people affected by these disasters is small, however given the size of the countries even minor damage could have large social and economic impacts. It is therefore important to consider exposure to natural disasters in the context of the country’s population size and national capacities. The vulnerability of PICs to natural disasters is further intensified by the highly dispersed areas over which people live, as well as the limited transport and communications infrastructure. The isolation of many communities complicates disaster management efforts. Natural disasters have a considerable impact on economic development in PICs, and often lead to the divestment of international partners and deterioration in the quality of life of women, men, girls and boys in the PICs. Internal migrants, the marginalized and the poor are more vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters as they are often not adequately included in disaster management efforts, live in poor quality housing in marginalized areas, and lack assets and access to land. Other external shocks resulting from the global economic, fuel and food crises have an immediate impact on the resilience of many PICs, given the small and dependent economies and high transaction costs to enjoy imported goods and services. Humanitarian assistance in the Pacific has proven complex. The Pacific reality of high



disaster risk implies that virtually every community can become vulnerable in a very short period of time due to external shocks. Most PICs lack the resources for ongoing coordination of disaster preparedness and response. This is partly due to multiple demands on under-resourced national disaster management authorities, including the coordination of disaster management, risk reduction, and increased focus on climate change adaptation initiatives; as well as the varied geographical and thematic focus of development organizations working in these areas. As a result, national level inter-agency coordination on these issues that is inclusive of all relevant partners is often weak. Governments frequently lack the capacity to provide assistance at the community level, and instead rely on often overburdened traditional structures and civil society organizations resulting in gaps in service delivery, monitoring and evaluation. National disaster management authority officials have repeatedly emphasized their lack of capacity to put in place systems for effective disaster preparedness, management, response and recovery. These gaps have been echoed by successive post-disaster evaluations, reviews, disaster management forums and lessons learned exercises.

Regional Capacity for Preparedness and Response Few international humanitarian organizations have a presence in multiple PICs, and none have a presence in all the PICs. Preparedness is improving but still has significant margin for further improvement. Many humanitarian and development partners are based in Fiji; others are in Australia, New Zealand, the USA or elsewhere in Asia, while some operate with multi-country offices or dedicated country programmes. A number of UN agencies, inter-governmental organizations, NGOs and FBOs operate with a combination of regional and multi-country programmes, surge capacities, and dedicated country offices. The understanding and linkages between different countries is often not well developed, although humanitarian organizations, donors and other relevant organizations actively collaborate through the mechanism provided by the Pacific Humanitarian Team (PHT). OCHA initiated the PHT, a regional humanitarian network in 2008. The PHT features regional, open-ended ‘Clusters’ that

remain active and collaborate in times of preparedness as well as response to support existing national structures to effectively respond to disasters. The cluster approach of the PHT was formally endorsed by the IASC

3

in January 2012. Under the PHT, regional Clusters and national counterparts are improving their preparedness and response capacity, with specific activities in various countries. Among others, OCHA Pacific and PHT partners are supporting information management and national coordination structures. The International Federation of Red Cross, UN agencies (UNICEF, WHO, UNFPA), some of the larger international NGO’s and Australia and New Zealand have pre-positioned emergency stocks in various PICs. Additionally, there is strong bilateral support from development partners such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the United States and France, including the use of military assets in disaster response operations in the Pacific Island region, such as under the France, Australia and New Zealand (FRANZ) Agreement. The Pacific Disaster Risk Management Partnership Network, facilitated by SPC/SOPAC, demonstrates that strong inter-governmental support exists. The UN system and the IFRC are well represented regionally with disaster risk management (DRM) programmes, and there is a small, collaborative, number of active and responsive national and international NGOs. A considerable amount of training in disaster response and its related activities has been undertaken across the Pacific Island region.

3 The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) is a

unique inter-agency forum for coordination, policy development and decision-making involving the key UN and non-UN humanitarian partners. The IASC was established in June 1992 in response to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/182 on the strengthening of humanitarian assistance. General Assembly Resolution 48/57 affirmed its role as the primary mechanism for inter-agency coordination of humanitarian assistance. Under the leadership of the Emergency Relief Coordinator, the IASC develops humanitarian policies, agrees on a clear division of responsibility for the various aspects of humanitarian assistance, identifies and addresses gaps in response, and advocates for effective application of humanitarian principles. Together with Executive Committee for Humanitarian Affairs (ECHA), the IASC forms the key strategic coordination mechanism among major humanitarian actors.



For instance, the Pacific Disaster Net (PDN) listed 184 training activities between 2007 and 2010, although some of these were held outside the region. Between 76 and 99 courses have been delivered by The Asia Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development, Office of the US Foreign Disaster Assistance (TAF/OFDA) in collaboration with SOPAC, at the request of governments since 1995. IFRC had no less than 24 training courses scheduled for 2011

and OCHA has facilitated several contingency planning exercises in five countries in the last three years. It is understood that many other organizations (government agencies, NGO’s, FBO’s, UN agencies, military, emergency services, bilateral donor partners) are involved in disaster response training, but their activities have not been systematically tracked.



3. PROJECT AIM

The aim of this analysis is to provide guidance and recommendations for future training and capacity development initiatives and strategies by PICs, humanitarian and development organizations and donor partners in disaster management. This analysis examines the existing disaster management training regime and the humanitarian/disaster management system in the Pacific Island region with a view to evaluating the system’s ability to undertake an effective, timely and comprehensive humanitarian response. By identifying perceived gaps in disaster response, this report identifies specific areas for attention in disaster management training in PICs and provides recommendations to strengthen overall disaster management. The term training refers to the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and competencies as a result of the teaching of vocational or practical skills and knowledge that relate to specific useful competencies. A skill is the learned capacity to carry out pre-determined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both and competency is the ability of an individual to perform a job properly. Professional development refers to skills and knowledge attained for both personal development and career advancement. Professional development encompasses all types of facilitated learning opportunities, ranging from college degrees to formal coursework, conferences and informal learning opportunities situated in practice. There are a variety of approaches to professional development, including consultation, coaching, communities of practice, lesson study, mentoring, reflective supervision and technical assistance. Capacity development is often defined as the process through which individuals, organisations and societies obtain, strengthen, and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time. Capacity development is a process of change, and

hence is about managing transformations. There can be short term results. But even short term capacity gains must be supported by a sustained resource, investment and political commitment to yield longer term results that truly impact on existing capacities. For the purpose of this report, ‘training’ is defined in its broadest perspective as any activity which positively changes the skills of disaster management personnel which ultimately leads to an increase in the effectiveness and efficiency of a disaster response by the humanitarian community. Therefore this will encompass activities which traditionally are not perceived as training such as the process of formulating a national disaster response plan which could be seen as a professional and capacity development activity.



4. METHOD

There were three research stages to the analysis of disaster response training, a literature review, a questionnaire, and a series of interviews with key informants.

4.1 Literature Review: Identifying Perceived Gaps The first stage was a desk review of relevant literature on disaster management training and the perceived gaps in disaster management in a PICs context.

4.2 Questionnaire and Interview: Finding Information on Training Activities The second stage was to compile a picture of disaster response training which has been undertaken recently. First, a questionnaire was designed and sent out to 41 different organizations covering both national and regional training. Of these 41 organizations, 7 were international NGOs, 8 were United Nations agencies, 11 were national disaster management authorities, 1 was a donor organization and 15 were Red Cross organisations. Where opportunities arose such as in country visits, this information was sought directly from the training provider through a personal interview. Both the questionnaire and the interviews sought to identify the basic details of the training course such as its aim and objectives, its duration, frequency and location, its perceived audience, a profile of participants, the teaching methodology, a brief outline of the course content and whether or not it is externally accredited.

4.3 Key Informant Interviews: Identifying Weaknesses in Disaster Response The third major research task was to establish the perceived weaknesses (needs) in disaster management (capacity) as they exist at the present time as a way of demonstrating training gaps. This information was gathered through interviews with key informants. There were three levels of interviews: Face to Face: Interviews in Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Fiji and Samoa were conducted. These countries were chosen due the frequency of natural disasters that have affected these PICs in recent years. In each of these PICs a range of disaster management personnel were interviewed. To ensure that opinions came from a wide range of people, individuals from national disaster management authorities and associated government agencies, UN agencies, NGOs, IFRC members and donors were interviewed. In all 74 people were interviewed. Telephone: Most of these interviews were with key disaster management personnel in New Zealand and Australia. Eight practitioners were interviewed via telephone. E-mail: This was mainly conducted with remaining PICs which were not visited in person and focused on the national disaster management authorities. In total 82 people were interviewed about their views on the perceived weaknesses in disaster management. The organizational alignment of the interviewees and their gender are illustrated in the table below.

Table 1: Interviews by Organization and Sex of Respondents

Organization Vanuatu Solomon Islands

Fiji Samoa Other Totals % of Total

IFRC 4 3 5 3 3 18 22%

Government 2 5 3 4 0 14 17%

NGO 4 5 3 4 3 19 23%

Donor 2 7 4 3 2 18 22%

UN 2 3 5 3 0 13 16%

Total: 14 23 20 17 8 82

Sex Vanuatu Solomon Islands

Fiji Samoa Other Totals % of Total

Female 7 10 3 10 0 30 37%

Male 7 13 17 7 8 52 63%



5. FINDINGS

5.1 Literature Review Analysis of Disaster Management Training Specifically with respect to analysis of disaster management training in the PICs context, there has been very little literature and none of any discernible note since 2003. In one report, Griffin (2001), see further below, focused on professional development needs within the disaster management community. However, it appears that no overall analysis of disaster management training directly relevant to the PICs has been undertaken in the last ten years. This may be in part due to global trends moving from solely focusing on response, to a greater incorporation of prevention, mitigation and disaster risk reduction. However, in the 1990’s (the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction) there was a flurry of activity. A Training Analysis was conducted by the Australian Institute of Emergency Management (Parker, 1997). Data was collected through a survey and focused on identifying the content of disaster management courses. Following on from this a 1998 Pacific disaster managers’ meeting addressed the status of disaster management training and highlighted the following needs:

Identification of training needs

More in-country training, adapted to local needs

Continued instructor recruitment and development

Integration of disaster management training into existing courses and institutions

Continuation of a regional training group

Evaluation of programmes

Further work from this was undertaken by Jerry Williams (1999) who stressed that a more coordinated approach to training identification, development, delivery and evaluation was required. Williams went on to state:

“Many different players in the region are conducting activities

related to disaster management training” but then went on to question the impact, “…one factor being a lack of comprehensive analysis of the needs across all of the players.”

The development of an annual framework evaluating the progression of knowledge management was proposed at a regional Training and Planning Meeting held in May 1999 and emphasized the following:

Identification of training needs

Course development

Course adaptation

Training policy and programme development

Integration of disaster management training into other agencies curricula

Establishment of national working groups

Establishment of a national focus and accreditation of disaster management programmes.

Following this, a detailed review of the TAF and OFDA ‘Regional Training Component’ of the SPDRP was undertaken by Dr. Richard Olson. His report released in 2000 echoed a number of issues raised in the earlier report by Williams. It highlighted the need for a coordinated effort for the delivery of disaster management professional development and the need for a long term institutional approach to that delivery. Olsen also highlighted the uneven distribution of disaster management training across the Pacific Island region and recommended that ‘the suite’ of programmes being delivered at that time be enlarged. In 2000 SOPAC’s new Disaster Management Unit, the successor programme of the SPDRP, commissioned Dr. Joe Griffin to undertake a Professional Development Needs Analysis (SOPAC Technical Report 349, 2001). This was an attempt to address the professional developmental needs of the disaster management community, focusing on the national disaster management authorities within the nations represented by SOPAC.



Griffin drew up a checklist of key competencies and professional development needs for national disaster management authority staff, for National Development Management Committees (NDMC) personnel and for organizations that have a disaster management role. For these he identified eight major areas: risk management, preparedness, community disaster management, response management, recovery management, communication and networking, administration and management and training and development. Within these there were a total of 91 identifiable competencies. Griffin also produced a number of useful templates and an evaluation framework. This was intended to be a framework for professional development, but has not been implemented in practice. Dr. Olson, an independent consultant for The Asia Foundation, undertook a further report in August 2003. This evaluated the TAF and OFDA programme for PICs between 1995 and 2003. The review developed an objective score (0-10) based on the subjective opinions in a 35 item questionnaire. The questionnaire was supplied by 57 of 152 (37.5%) previous participants in various TAF and OFDA courses. High positive scores were recorded in all subject areas explored

4. Apart from the

generally positive responses in this report, several specific findings are of interest.

1. Gender: Of the 57 respondents 15% were women. The female respondents reported that they saw less potential career advantages as a result of their course attendance.

2. Education: 74% of the respondents had post-secondary education and were evaluated in their workplace more positively following the training than those without this higher education.

3. Recent Disaster Experience: 68% of the respondents reported having worked in a disaster in the previous five years. It was revealed that recent disaster experience greatly increased a respondent’s appreciation of TAF and OFDA disaster management training.

4 Olsons’ Subject Areas Explored: (1) The Course Suite;

(2) The Instructor Cadre; (3) Program Impact; (4) Cost-Sharing and Buy-In; (5) Inter-Agency / Inter-Organization Coordination; (6) Internal Project Discipline and Management.

4. Further Education / Professional Development / Career Pathways: There was widespread support for the suggestion of ‘Recognition of Prior Learning’ for participants in the TAF/OFDA courses with Swinburne University of Technology in Australia in Disaster/Emergency Management.

5

The IFRC Lesson Learned Workshop report from the 2009 Earthquake and Tsunami in Samoa (Burton, 2009) clearly identifies the need to review “the disaster preparedness training courses curricula and learning methods being taught in the region to ensure that they are up to date and appropriate for the Pacific.” The 2010 ACFID and Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence study ‘Working Better Together: An NGO Perspective on Improving Australia’s Coordination in Disaster Response’ found that:

“Respondents (primarily Australian based NGOs) to the study highlighted that trainings and simulations in disaster preparedness have been undertaken in the past, including those internal to organisations and or confederation partners, RedR trainings, in-country trainings with partner agencies and sporadic inter-agency training programs and trainings with NDMOs. However notable, trainings and simulations were in large part not streamlined or consistent. Instead opportunities to engage in trainings and simulations were largely ad hoc, informal or reactive. Some suggested that the challenge became how to capitalise on thse trainings and mechanisms more broadly and transfer best practices leared thouhg these in-house activities to the larger external stakeholders.”

5 Eight disaster managers from Pacific Island

organizations enrolled in the Swinburne University programme in the last ten years, from 2000 - 2010, of which several graduated. Swinburne University discontinued the programme as of 2010.



Perceived Gaps in Disaster Management With respect to identifying perceived ‘gaps’ in disaster management in the Pacific Island region context, which may be filled by training programmes, there also appears to be comparatively minimal literature. For instance, for this research it was hoped that the regular occurrence of medium to large sized disasters across the Pacific Island region would have led to a number of ‘End of Mission’ or ‘Lessons Learned’ reports. Workshops and specialized focused reports have been more productive in identifying the perceived ‘gaps’ in disaster management. In reviewing this literature several recurrent themes appear: Several reports indicate the fundamental need for current and relevant Disaster Management Plans for PICs, based on country relevant disaster risk analysis and disaster scenarios, upon which all responses must hinge. Mathew Moihoi of the Papua New Guinea Geological Survey on commenting on the Aitape Earthquake in 1998 in which over 2,600 persons perished, highlighted the weaknesses in the government disaster plan and the need for strong government leadership. There were also the major recommendations (changes to the National Disaster Act and to the National Disaster Plan) that came out of the Lessons Learned workshop following the earthquake and tsunami of April 2007 in the Solomon Islands. In a Sector Focused Disaster Risk Management Workshop focusing on issues and gaps held in Samoa following the 2009 earthquake and tsunami, the need to develop current and relevant disaster plans is mentioned in almost all of the 16 different sectors which were represented (there were in all 234 gaps identified). The UNICEF document ‘Think Children!’ which surveyed five Pacific countries is more specific:

“Government disaster management plans currently do not reflect the crucial actions identified by the Core Commitments for Children framework….there being a focus on infrastructure and systems and not acknowledging the vulnerability of children,”

….and goes on to recommend the amendment of disaster legislation to reflect fundamental humanitarian principles. The need for professional development for disaster managers is a recurring theme in this literature. As recently as August 2010 this was the focus of the SOPAC 16

th Regional Disaster

Managers Meeting in Suva:

“Training and capacity development in disaster risk management remains an important concern for NDMOs and for key actors at national level within Pacific countries. In addition there is need for access to Leadership and Management skills training programmes.”

The meeting went on to outline in more detail what this should entail:

Leadership development

Management of people, resources and information

Communication and relationship skills

Programme and contract management

Strategic and analytical thinking

Experience and knowledge of developmental issues

Personal attributes of innovation, change, personal responsibility and information competency

Financial management

Facilitation This challenge has been recognized for some time. In 2002 the Pacific Programmes Learning Review conducted by Bjoern Ternstrom for the IFRC highlighted the difficulties in attracting and retaining qualified staff with the inference that proactive professional development was an area of concern, in the area of disaster management and more broadly. Although the UNICEF ‘Think Children!’ document is generally praiseworthy of the officers holding the NDMO position it is perceptive in not limiting this requirement to just senior officers,

“…it is about the ongoing capacity development of all stakeholders; emergency personnel, health-care workers, teachers, police, communities and children.”



The IFRC’s Lessons Learned Workshop Report (January 2010) following the Samoan earthquake and tsunami compiled by Cynthia Burton clearly expressed a concern at the level of professional development of some of its disaster response field staff:

“The International Federation and Partner National Societies ensure that all staff deployed to disaster sites during the emergency response stage have FACT (Field Assessment and Coordination Team) or Emergency Response Team Training as a minimum or the equivalent experience on movement disaster response operations.”

The Solomon Islands Tsunami Lessons Learned Workshop Report (2007) clearly recognized this in recommending:

“A need for training of individuals (professional development) within the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) and Provincial Disaster Committees as it is the basics of responding to a disaster.”

On a more practical note, many authors refer to the vexed question of disaster assessment, not just the need for a standardized and locally adapted format but for training in the methodology, such as through the inclusion of sex and age disaggregated data (Gibbs, 2009). Communication and Coordination are two topics regularly mentioned where there is considered to be a great need for improvement. Communication in this context refers to the human informational interaction not to aspects of communication ‘hardware’ or technology. Communication, the interchange of information, is essential for good coordination to occur. The need to develop good communication at all levels: interpersonal, within a department, between different government line ministries, between different stakeholders and with beneficiaries, are described as paramount characteristics in the literature that was reviewed. Likewise coordination is highlighted as needing attention by Burton (2010), Ternstrom (2002), Gibbs (2009), the reports from the Solomon Islands and the Samoa tsunamis, the

Professional Development Workshop (2010) and by the Humanitarian Response Review of 2005. Indeed, Gibbs outlines the need for this to occur both inside and outside of responses:

“Agencies should seek to minimize the additional burden (that capacity is stretched even at non disaster times) through coordination of not only response efforts, but training initiatives.” (Gibbs 2009).

Both Burton (2010) and Gibbs (2009) make strong cases for the greater integration of ‘protection’ in disaster response and training with special emphasis on gender, children and at risk groups and this is reiterated at a higher level:

“Protection requires special and urgent attention” (Humanitarian Review 2005).

Other areas mentioned in the literature which are relevant are:

The need for better systems for beneficiary registration (Burton 2010)

Better communication with beneficiaries (Moihoi (2007), Burton (2010), Solomon Island Tsunami Lessons Learned Workshop (2007) and 16

th Regional Disaster Managers

Meeting (2010)

The need to develop social mapping (Burton 2010)

An improved disaster response surge capacity (Burton 2010)

With regards to the latter point of improved surge capacity of national disaster management authorities and peer learning, following a recommendation by the 13

th

Regional Disasters Managers meeting (Majuro, June 2007) a facility was established by SOPAC in 2008 that allows national disaster management authorities to request and receive support from other countries to assist with the coordination of disaster response at the national level, funded by SOPAC.

6 To date this facility has not yet been

activated.

6 SOPAC (16 October 2008) Facility for inter NDMO

support for disaster response coordination



Statistics demonstrate that women constitute a disproportionate number of those killed as a result of disasters and that disasters accentuate existing inequalities such as gender based violence. There was, however, little sign in the accessible literature that training was integrating gender and protection issues or building capacities for safe and inclusive disaster management practices. In summary, the limited literature available has five clear common messages with respect to the gaps in disaster management training in a Pacific Island context:

1.The need for PICs to have in place effective disaster management plans and standard operating procedures (SOPs) that are known and commonly agreed and understood by all relevant disaster management actors

2.A strong emphasis on professional development training for all disaster management personnel with an emphasis on leadership and managerial skills that is directly linked to disaster management plans and SOPs as mentioned above.

3.The need for standardized, but locally relevant, assessment formats and an understanding of assessment methodology by the assessors.

4.Communication skills training is paramount at every level and is a precursor to effective coordination in response operations and preparedness initiatives. As such it should be a relevant component in training and capacity development initiatives.

5.Gender and protection issues require special, urgent and genuine inclusion into the disaster response modus operandi.

It is important to recognize that research, findings and recommendations for strengthening professional development undertaken in the last 15 years are still relevant in today’s context, despite a changing humanitarian and disaster management environment. Since the research was conducted, some steps have been taken to address the inadequacies it outlined. However, it is important that the disaster management community continues to review this research, findings and recommendations to ensure that training is enhanced.

5.2. Questionnaire and Interview: Finding Information on Capacity Development and Training Activities Forty-one questionnaires were sent out to organizations that participate in, and run disaster management training in December 2010. Only thirteen responses were received, despite follow up e-mails being sent. Of these 13, three NGOs, one donor, one Cluster Lead organization, two UN organizations and six IFRC organizations responded. There were additional interviews with some key training providers and training methodology was discussed with most of the interviewees during the four country visits. The disaster management training profile of the Pacific Island region has proven to be extremely difficult to analyze as much required information remains elusive, as demonstrated through the low response rate to the questionnaire. There does however appear to be two general patterns. First, there are those courses which are initiated, designed and presented mainly as ‘in-house’ for particular organizations and which focus on that organization’s specific needs (although in many cases personnel external to those organizations are invited to attend). Most UN, NGOs and Red Cross organizations courses are of this nature. Second, in contrast, are courses run by a training institution with no direct involvement in disaster response per se. The best known example of this type is the courses run by the TAF/OFDA Pacific Disaster Risk Management Programme in collaboration with SOPAC (now part of SPC). These courses have been pitched towards national and local disaster management authorities’ personnel, local NGOs, Red Cross organizations, the private sector and other key stakeholders as identified by the national disaster management authorities. Because the responses given below are from a small and possibly skewed sample, the results cannot be considered to be accurately representative and can only portray a general picture of disaster management training presently being undertaken in the Pacific Island region. It was therefore not possible to conduct an appropriate statistical analysis on the results. The questions below are those that were presented in the questionnaire. The results in the ‘General Response’ column are in some



cases, such as questions 2 and 19, too lengthy to be indicated here as each answer is specific

to a particular course.

Table 2: General Comments on Pacific Disaster Response Training Activities

Question General Response

1. Types of Training Conducted (Brackets indicate the Organization primarily responsible for running the course)

· Evacuation Exercises (Pacific Community-focused Integrated Disaster Risk Reduction / National Council of Churches in Australia)

· Emergency Plan Development (Adventist Development Relief Agency)

· Simulation Exercises (Adventist Development Relief Agency) · Emergency Response Training (Oxfam) · Contingency Planning (Oxfam) · Security Plan Training (Oxfam) · Protection in Natural Disasters (United Nations Office of the

High Commissioner for Human Rights) · Disaster Manager’s Induction (IFRC) · International Delegate Training (IFRC) · Regional Disaster Response Team (IFRC) · Emergency Response Team (IFRC) · National Disaster Response Team (IFRC) · Air Crash Simulation Exercises (Govt) · Pacific Disaster Response Training (IFRC) · IT & Telecommunications (IFRC) · Weapons of Mass Destruction (IFRC) · Introduction to Disaster Services (IFRC) · Airport Disaster Response (IFRC) · Introduction to Disaster Management (TAF/OFDA) · Emergency Operations Centre (TAF/OFDA) · Initial Damage Assessment (TAF/OFDA) · Training for Instructors (TAF/OFDA) · Risk Programme Management (TAF/OFDA) · Exercise Management (TAF/OFDA) · SPRINT: Sexual and Reproductive Health Programme in Crisis

and Post-Crisis Situations (United Nations Population Fund, Pacific Sub-Regional Office)

· UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination, induction and refresher courses (OCHA / United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination)

· Pacific Emergency and Disaster Management (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees / OCHA)

2. Duration of the course

From 1 day to 2 weeks but on average of 4 days

3. Is the course run regionally, nationally or locally?

The majority of courses were run nationally in the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, Tonga, the Cook Islands, the Republic of Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Australia, New Zealand, Samoa and Palau. Three were conducted regionally and three sub-regionally. The United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination courses are run globally and regionally and include nominated individuals from the Pacific.



4. If the course is run regionally, where do participants come from?

Regionally focused courses included personnel from Vanuatu, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand

5. Where is the course usually run?

Courses were usually run in the capital of the country.

6. Is the course a prerequisite or requirement for other more advanced courses?

Majority answered no (but in the IFRC Emergency Response Team training was a pre-requisite for IFRC Regional Response Team training).

7. Who is the intended or target audience for the course?

Approximately 50 percent were for ‘internal’ staff only whereas the remaining 50 percent involved a ‘full range’ of participants.

8. What is the usual number of participants?

From 2 to 50, with an average of about 20.

9. What is the approximate gender ratio of participants?

Approximately half the respondents stated there was a 50/50 split, whereas the remainder indicated an approximate 2/3 male to 1/3 female ratio.

10. Are there any participants from outside of your organization? If so from where?

A large proportion of respondents indicated that a range of external disaster management stakeholders were invited to their courses; the most common being the country or regional disaster management authority.

11. What is the usual number of trainers or facilitators?

From 1 to 10, but with a median of 3.

12. Are the course facilitators from within your organization?

Almost all used their own trainers with only one respondent using an independent training provider (RedR).

13. How would you describe the ‘style’ of the training?

Very few respondents described purely theoretical courses; most included field exercises or practical simulations.

14. Does the course have a specific ‘in field’ component?

Approximately 75 percent of courses had an ‘in field’ component.

15. Does the course have a ‘real life’ simulation exercise component?

The majority indicated that courses had a ‘real life’ simulation exercise component.

16. How long has your organization been conducting this course?

From 1 to 7 years with an average of 4 years.

17. How frequently is this course run?

Annually was the most common response but several indicated it was variable dependent upon funding.

18. Is this course recognized by any externally accredited educational institution?

No courses cited were recognized in this way.

The data collected is only a small picture of disaster management training in the Pacific Island region. Indeed, on Pacific Disaster Nets

DRM Calendar of Events along, between 2007 and 2010, 184 training activities were listed between 2007 and 2010.



From the data that was collected through the literature review, questionnaire and interviews, the following conclusions can be made: 1. There has been a wide range of disaster

response ‘subjects’ presented by different agencies in the Pacific Island region. The following list indicates the various topics covered by these courses, which were gathered as part of this analysis:

(Note, the 5 headings below are a loose categorization and in no way indicate any formalized disaster response training structure.)

a) Field Activities:

First Aid, Search and Rescue, Assessment Techniques, Resource Mobilization, Relief Distribution, Situation Reports and Care of Mass Casualties

b) Headquarter Activities:

Leadership Management, Response Management, Teamwork, Interagency Coordination, Financial and Administrative Recording, Meetings and Briefings, Information Analysis, Community Engagement, International Appeals, Plan of Action, Service Delivery Plans and Access to Resources.

c) Background Information:

Disaster Management Cycle, Hazard Identification, Risks and Vulnerability, Government Disaster Management Plans, Humanitarian Principles (Accountability, Code of Conduct, Sphere Standards, Minimum Standards in Disaster Relief), Recognition of Vulnerable Groups, Risk Management Principles, Principles of Coordination, Advocacy and Gender Awareness.

d) Tools:

Emergency Communications Equipment, Incident Management Systems, Information Management, Emergency Operations Centres, Satellite Phones, Global Positioning Systems, VHF Radio and Logistics.

e) General:

Country Disaster Specifics, History of Disasters in the Pacific, Media,

Mandates of Specific Organizations, Security Issues, Protection Issues, Evacuation Centres, Violence Against Women, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bacteriological and Radiological Agents.

Training has occurred in all the countries covered by this analysis with perhaps a higher concentration in those countries which are more prone historically to be affected by disasters (e.g. Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands).

2. This training has mainly been undertaken by a small number of actors such as the TAF/OFDA programmes in collaboration with SOPAC, the Red Cross, ADRA, Oxfam and specific United Nations agencies.

3. These trainings have been available generally to not only the personnel from those organizations conducting the training but to a broader audience, especially national government officials (in the case of the TFA/OFDA courses the primary target audience include national government personnel including response agencies, local NGOs, Red Cross personnel, private sector, statutory authorities and other key national partners and stakeholders. The invitees are dictated by the national disaster management authorities.

4. None of the courses are accredited or mapped to recognized tertiary academic institutions, apart from the TAF/OFDA supported course with Swinburne University’s Graduate Certificate in Disaster Management programme.

7

5. A large proportion of the presenters of training material are not Pacific Islanders. The majority are expatriates on comparatively short contracts with their respective organizations (and are sometimes not from the region).

6. Although most courses incorporate practical exercises and scenario components there have been few ‘real life’

7 Since 2010 the Swinburne programme is no longer

offered. However, eight disaster management staffs have been supported to complete this program, with several successfully completing their training.



scenario based trainings, especially those incorporating an ‘all agency approach’ and joint training.

7. As far as can be ascertained none of the countries in which these trainings have occurred has a disaster management training plan and / or strategy. As a result many of the trainings appear to be of a ‘stand alone’ nature and are not therefore an integrated component, with relevant and appropriate positional timings, of any overall plan.

8. There does not appear to be a coordinated or coherent training approach (either nationally or regionally) by the various stakeholders (both recipients and providers) involved in disaster management training.

5.3 Key Informant Interviews: Identifying Weaknesses in Disaster Response From the 82 interviews conducted for this project, several recurrent themes emerged. These were: 1. All acknowledged the position of the

government of a disaster affected country as the lead agency for any response. However it was also emphasized that although the national disaster management authority was the focal point there also needed to be a buy-in of all actors, especially the line ministries of that country. The majority expressed concern at the national disaster management authority’s real ability to properly coordinate any response which was also exacerbated by weak communication. There was also concern that most professional development and opportunities had focused on the senior positions in the national disaster management authorities, leaving a weak middle management and little surge capacity. The disaster response capacity at the Provincial and community level in most cases required substantial training. The embryonic Emergency Operations Centres within the national disaster management authority needed realistic simulation exercises.

2. Coordination was perhaps the one single topic which was referred to most often. All acknowledged that with a variety of different agencies responding to a disaster, a coordinated response was essential if the needs were to be fulfilled in a timely and efficient manner. All acknowledged also, as indicated above, that it should be the government which should be coordinating the operation. Some interviewees also pointed out that an equally important point was for agencies to be prepared to be coordinated and that at times this was resisted. Few interviewees, however,

The Asia Foundation (TAF) – USAID Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) Course: The TAF/OFDA Pacific Disaster Risk Management Programme (PDRMP) in collaboration with SPC/SOPAC is the only training programme in the region that has been consistently on offer to PICs and the disaster management community since 1995. As of December 2011, there were six courses offered, with a new one being developed (Disaster Risk Reduction) and one being ‘reviewed and revisited’ upon request from countries (Evacuation Center Management). The existing courses as of December 2011 were:

Introduction to Disaster Management: Introduced in 1996; 4-5 presentations a year, total 28-35 courses.

Emergency Operations Centres: Introduced in 2002 with 2-3 presentations a year, total 16-21 courses.

Initial Damage Assessment: Introduced in 2001 with 2-3 presentations a year, total 18-24 courses.

Training for Instructors: Introduced in1995 with 1-3 presentations a year, total 10-25 courses.

Risk Programme Management: Introduced in 2007 with 1 regional presentation, total 1 course.

Exercise Management: Introduced in 20001 with 1 presentation a year, 4 regional courses; 3 national courses.



were clear about how good coordination could come about; it being considered a sort of nebulous ability which developed as a result of good leadership and management skills. In that respect, an undercurrent theme during many of the interviews was the understanding that a good disaster response requires good management and leadership. Both these attributes are not of course specific to disaster response. However many acknowledged that not enough emphasis was placed on these skills and attributes as opposed to strictly disaster response ‘themes’ in training.

3. Frequently mentioned in the same breath as coordination was communication. Many saw poor communication as a fundamental flaw in disaster response operations. This was referred to at all levels; between individuals within an agency, between differing agencies and with beneficiaries. With poor communication there was no chance of a coordinated operation.

4. The interviewees also had a considerable contribution to make regarding disaster management training. A general concern was that much of the training (and opportunities) were attended to by the same personnel - often the higher echelons of the disaster management community. As well, many disaster response trainings are centralized in capital cities or towns. By moving it away from there it would ‘empower’ the local authorities more. Related to this, stakeholders such as local NGOs were often quoted as underutilized in disaster response.

5. This created, as mentioned above, a capacity void at the middle and lower levels. The need for training for local level managers was frequently cited. Training was seen as too ‘isolationist’ and that training partnership with true coordination and cooperation should be encouraged between different agencies. Joint or inter-agency and whole of Government (and non-government) simulation exercises should be encouraged, as this would also be essential for development and

understanding of coordination structures.

6. Every stakeholder interviewed expressed frustration with assessments. This frustration was expressed in three specific areas. The first concerned the time interval before any coherent picture emerged of the true situation on the ground due to the variety of non-compatible formats being used by different disaster response players. The second concerned the lack of required and considered essential information, such as the need to have disaggregated data with respect to age and gender, which was lacking in some assessment methodologies. The third concern was to do with assessment methodology with a clear message that undertaking a meaningful assessment required special skills and aptitudes of

the assessors which could only be obtained by appropriate training. The newly adopted regional IASC cluster system elicited considerable attention. There still appeared to be a poor understanding of how the Pacific Humanitarian Team actually functioned. This referred not only to its ‘response role’ but also of its responsibilities outside of those times; the clusters seen as being purely responsive and not proactive enough in their wider anticipated role. It was strongly felt that each Pacific Humanitarian Team cluster lead agency should have a dedicated cluster lead position in residence in the Pacific Island region

The above five themes were raised by a number of interviewees and so are considered to be the main overarching concerns with disaster management in the Pacific Island region. However a number of other concerns (which could be ameliorated by training) were raised by a smaller number of interviewees. These are as follows:

a) Protection issues and gender aspects need to be addressed more appropriately in disaster response, assessment, reporting and training.



b) All personnel undertaking training must have a cultural understanding and all training at the community level should incorporate or acknowledge traditional knowledge.

c) First aid training at the community level is still required.

d) Media training needed for spokespeople.

e) Tracing and Restoring Family Links needs training

f) Search and Rescue training needed.

g) Pastors at community level should be trained in psychosocial techniques

h) For long term effectiveness training programmes should be directed to staff and pupils in schools.



6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The research for this project involved three sets of raw data, including a literature review, a questionnaire and interviews with people who work in the disaster management sector. The data collected is summarized and overlaid onto the key humanitarian areas of work involved in disaster management in the chart below, indicating where there are areas of need and concern. The table below lists 19 ‘functional activities’ undertaken in the emergency stage by the humanitarian response community following a disaster. Some of the activities are conventional, well defined areas of response, many of them being humanitarian clusters. Others are less defined and are overarching activities, but nevertheless essential, such as coordination, leadership and management. The second column indicates the amount of training that that particular functional activity

has had over the last few years in the Pacific Island region. There are three subjective scores; low, medium and high. Once again, it is important to point out that the data is comprehensive and therefore the scores given here are only indicative from the limited information which has been received. ‘Low’ indicates, for example, that this particular functional activity has received a minimal amount of training. The third column also has a three point subjective scoring of low, medium and high. These scores indicate the level of concern as an area of weakness that was expressed in the interview data from 82 informant interviews. ‘High’ indicates that there was widespread concern, as a perceived weakness, in that particular functional activity in disaster response.

Table 3: Correlation between Disaster Response Training and Perceived Areas of Weakness in 19 Different Disaster Response Functional Activities

Functional Activities in Emergency Response

Perceived Weakness (Low, Medium, High)

Training Exposure (Low, Medium, High)

Assessment & Needs Analysis High High

Relief Distribution High High

Report Writing High High

Coordination High Low

Leadership High Low

Management High Low / Medium

Information Management High Low / Medium

Logistics Medium / High Low

Shelter Low / Medium Low

Understanding of International Response Systems

Low / Medium Low

Health and Nutrition Low / Medium Medium / High

Agriculture Low Low

Early Recovery Low Low

Emergency Education Low Low

Protection Low Low

Search and Rescue Low Low

Understanding of Humanitarian Principles

Low Low

WASH Low Medium

First Aid Low Medium / High Note: The results in this table are taken from personal subjective opinions and therefore show only a general picture. There are individuals, and even organizations, which advocate for a specific functional activity in disaster



response to require more training attention, but if it was not mentioned by the majority of responders in this project, it was not noted as a priority need.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion 1: Disaster Management Training is Part of a Strategic Development Approach

There has been considerable time, effort and resources invested in disaster management training across the Pacific Island region over the last decade. The attainment of the skills and knowledge for disaster management by individuals is at present an ad hoc process. However, professional development is a graduated sequential process; it is slow and gradually builds upon previously learnt knowledge and experience. The acquisition by disaster response personnel of appropriate skills and attributes is a developmental process.

The research, findings and recommendations for strengthening professional development undertaken in the last 15 years are currently still relevant.

Conclusion 2: National Disaster Management Authority Leads and National and International Partners Support

It is generally accepted that the national disaster management authority in any country is the fundamental operational management leader in any disaster. However, this cannot be achieved unless there is a clear, relevant, current, robust and practical national disaster management plan in place that is agreed on by all disaster management actors. The fundamental basis of any effective disaster response is built upon such a plan. A strong national disaster management authority cannot be built unless this foundation exists and relevant training should support this. Only when this is in place can all actors work together in an effective and coordinated manner to ensure the best outcome for the affected country. In addition, even when a national management disaster plan exists, the real involvement of other partners should be concerned:

o Of special concern are the Line Ministries of a country. Their involvement in non disaster times is paramount and should not be just fleeting when a disaster occurs.

o Equally, NGOs and the Red Cross must be genuinely part of the whole process; in both ‘peace time’ (preparedness) and during disasters. Their involvement must not be a token presence.

Professional development of national disaster management authority staff at all levels has to be considered of paramount importance and is a long term endeavor – it is a development issue.

Recommendations: (1) Recognize that developing a disaster

response capacity is a long term process that requires a strategic and programmatic approach All organizations that contribute toward the development of disaster response capacity through training should understand that this is a long term developmental process and be prepared to be genuinely involved over the long term, engaging in a commonly agreed upon strategy that is led by the national disaster management authority and supported by national, regional and international partners

(2) Disaster management as a recognized profession

Disaster management should become a recognized profession and therefore governments and development partners should identify or explore the development of an appropriate course of study by a recognized tertiary institution in the Pacific Island region and provide scholarships for selected Pacific Island individuals to undertake this course of study.

Recommendations: (3) Reinforce government as the lead agency

All agencies which work in disaster response



Conclusion 3: Coordinated Training

There is little or no attempt among the various agencies to genuinely coordinate the various components of disaster management training. The inclusion of participants from outside of the presenting organization at courses is essential, but does not address this problem. Notwithstanding the great deal of training at many levels, there is a lack of an inter-agency coordinated approach to disaster management training.

Differing agencies have a great deal of knowledge and experience but this is not always shared in a coordinated way.

There is no such thing as a Disaster Management Training Plan for any country which involves an ‘inter-agency’ approach which is essential for a coordinated response. Too frequently training sessions are isolated disjointed activities without any long term ‘big picture’ planning.

Disaster response training in the Pacific has recently started to recognize cross-cutting topics, encompassing overarching issues such as gender and protection. However, there is little evidence that gender and protection issues are already being effectively mainstreamed.

Most training in the Pacific is still focused on the ‘mechanical aspects’ of disaster response. This means that there is little emphasis placed on leadership and overall management of a disaster situation; little effort has been made to give disaster response personnel the skills, knowledge and confidence to manage a total operation.

Conclusion 4: Learning Opportunities and Methods of Training

The best learning environment for disaster response personnel is ‘the real thing’ followed by a good ‘lessons learned’ exercise. This has been seen in recent disasters in the Pacific Island region, yet there are few ‘inter-agency’ exercise trainings.

There has been a noticeable surge in the confidence and ability of the disaster managers from PICs. This has been due to the training, mentoring and resourcing by partners over the years as well as experience gained in responses to more recent disasters in their countries.

Monitoring and evaluation of training to realistically appraise the benefits has been weak. In Pacific Island culture, where overt public criticism of ‘authority’ (in this case

Recommendations:

(5) Develop a long term training plan for each country with a programmatic approach

A long term disaster management professional development and training plan must be developed by each country, led by the national disaster management authority and supported by national, regional and international partners and aligned to the national disaster management plan. Any organization that wishes to conduct any form of disaster management training in that country should ensure that it is in line with the national plan and contributes to the overall strengthening of the disaster management system in a country and that gender and protection issues are mainstreamed in all training. Regional collaborations such as the Pacific Platform for Disaster Risk Management, or the Pacific Humanitarian Team should support the PICs to do this.

must genuinely recognize that the leading agency is the NDMO of that country and should, in any training which they undertake, work towards obtaining that ultimate goal.

(4) Develop a national disaster management plan

Each country should develop a national disaster management plan which is current, robust and functionally relevant to the specific conditions of that country, based on disaster risk analysis, disaster scenarios and contingency planning and agreed and owned by all relevant disaster management partners. It is led by the National Disaster Management Authority and supported by national, regional and international partners.



training providers) is considered ‘impolite’, it is difficult to get a good picture of the impact of training undertaken.

Many organizations worldwide, which are in the front line of disaster response, have in place incident management systems. These systems have a structure and a logical sequential series of actions to perform in any given incident and are supported by standard operating procedures. This avoids the common practice of ‘making it up as you go along’. It is a key indicator of a professional organization.

There is little surge capacity in the national disaster management authorities.

There is a need for leadership and management training for disaster management officers at all levels.

Poor coordination in disaster response was perhaps the biggest single issue which was raised by the interviewees. Coordination here refers to all levels, from within small teams, to a province, to a national and international level. Coordination is a disaster response management skill and should be included in overall management training.

Good communication skills, supported by information management, should be paramount at every level and are a precursor to enable harmonious coordination in response operations and preparedness initiatives, such as training.

Conclusion 5: Assessments and Needs Analysis

There is a clear need for a standardized assessment methodology (not necessarily regionally but at least within a country). This must be such that all agencies involved in disaster response accept it and use it appropriately. This

(7) Develop leadership and managerial skills

As part of the long term professional development of disaster response personnel, there should be greater emphasis on developing leadership, managerial and humanitarian coordination skills. A relevant course should also be developed and offered to Pacific disaster management coordinators. (8) Encourage training mentors and first-hand experience Experienced National Disaster Management Officers should be invited as training mentors and peer support in emergencies for their colleagues in other Pacific Island countries. Existing opportunities, such as the use of the SOPAC facility for this purpose should be explored. (9) Standardized incident management systems in the Pacific That various models of Standardized Incident Management Systems appropriate to the Pacific setting be explored with the view to having a standardized system

across the Pacific. Appropriate training should go concurrently for appropriate staff with this initiative. (10) Ensure ‘lessons learnt’ are shared Following a (significant) disaster, an independent appraisal in the form of a ‘lessons learnt’ workshop or evaluation of the overall response operation should occur and other disaster response personnel from the region should be involved.

Recommendations: (6) Conduct more inter-agency exercises

Greater emphasis should be placed on joint simulation exercises and training that include all relevant agencies in country, that are professionally run, and that have a rigorous feedback and appraisal mechanism. Again, NDMO should take a leading and pivotal role supported by national, regional and international partners. Creating a challenging operational exercise, involving all relevant agencies, will help increase learning in a realistic way, as well as aid in coordination training.



Recommendations: (14) Continue to clarify the PHT and IASC Cluster System in the Pacific

A concerted effort through joint training, contingency planning and awareness raising should be made to address the confusion that exists concerning the role and modus operandi of the Pacific Humanitarian Team and the IASC Cluster System in the Pacific by OCHA and relevant cluster lead agencies (UNICEF, WHO, IFRC, UNDP, OHCHR, UNHCR,

should allow for a quicker analysis of the situation upon which an appropriate response can be undertaken.

There needs to be training and capacity development in assessment techniques and methodology for field personnel; it is not simply a question of ‘filling in a form’.

The analysis of the data from assessments and the subsequent management decisions still remains a weak point and requires strengthening.

At the field level of disaster response there is still much confusion and delay caused by a variety of assessment formats and methodology. This causes delays in the development of a needs analysis upon which an appropriate response can be launched. Accepting that each agency has a specific focus and capacity to respond, the rapid and consistent analysis of Needs Assessment data obtained through a unified process must ultimately be advantageous.

Conclusion 6: The IASC Cluster System in the Pacific

At a country level there is still much misunderstanding about what the international and regional humanitarian IASC Cluster system and Pacific Humanitarian Team are and how these work.

Cluster lead agencies need to be more proactive, especially in non-disaster times, concerning their roles and obligations to support national disaster coordination.

The Pacific Humanitarian Team and the clusters should be flexible in their support the national coordination arrangements.

(12) Provide training in assessment techniques and methodologies

Enable the development of national assessment processes through the training of national disaster management authorities and appropriate national government counterparts in assessment techniques and methodologies, including those supported by regional humanitarian actors developed in Recommendation 13.

(13) Support Training of Trainers

Further the roll-out of needs assessment techniques and methodologies developed by national governments through the support of Training of Trainers at the national and provincial levels.

Recommendations: (11) Develop a needs assessment process

Development of a model of needs assessment process adapted to the needs of the Pacific peoples and countries and based on lessons learnt from recent humanitarian emergencies and developments in the humanitarian community (including methodologies, forms, agreed phasing of assessments during the emergency and expected outputs from each phase). This needs assessment methodology needs to be owned by the national (and regional) actors and supports the decision making process within the government agencies which are called on to respond. Assessment phases, methodologies for assessing needs and the expected level of detail from each phase and the expected level of involvement of each actor must be understood and agreed upon at the national and regional levels.



Save the Children, WFP, FAO), particularly with national coordination structures.

(15) Appoint a full time position designated to each Lead Cluster agency

A full time position for each Pacific Humanitarian Team cluster be appointed so that each lead cluster agency can take a more proactive role in preparedness and the training of the specific skills in disaster response pertaining to that cluster.



APPENDIX 1: THE TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE

Please fill in one sheet per training programme / package which your organization currently offers or has undertaken in the last five years. This questionnaire concerns courses or exercises which your organization runs, it is NOT a list of courses attended by your staff. The courses which you list can be either directly considered as main core disaster response activities (such as assessment techniques) or may be cross cutting issues (such as gender, HIV etc) which are relevant to the emergency stage of a disaster response. Part A: Organization and Contact Details

1. Name of Your Organization:

2. What is your organization’s core role/s in disaster response in the Pacific region?

3. Name of person filling in this questionnaire:

4. Your Position/Title within the above organization:

5. Number of years in above position:

6. Contact details: Email: Telephone: Fax number:

7. Where is your organization based in the Pacific Island region? (Country / City / Town):

Part B: Individual Course Details

This should be any course or exercise which has a training component; the focus of which is to improve the skills and expertise of the participants and/or your organization’s response capacity in the emergency stage of a disaster response. (The answer box size has been reduced for this report).

1. Title or name of Training Course / Package / Simulation Exercise?

2. Official aim of the course or the course objectives?

3. Duration of course in days?

4. Is the course conducted regionally / nationally / locally?

5. If the course is conducted across the region from which countries do the majority of the participants originate?

6. Where is the course normally conducted?

7. Is this course a prerequisite or requirement for other more advanced courses you may run? If so what is the title of the more advanced course/s?

8. Who is the intended or target audience for this course?



9. Usual number of participants:

10. What is the approximate gender ratio of the participants?

11. Are there participants from outside of your organization who attend this training course? If so, from what other organization/s and approximate numbers?

12. What is the usual number of facilitators/trainers?

13. Are the course facilitators/trainers from within your own organization or do you use ‘external’ facilitators? If you use external facilitators what organization are they from?

14. How would you describe the ‘style’ of the training? Is it a desktop exercise, mainly practically based or a ‘classroom style’ training (if a combination approximate proportions?):

15. Does the course have an outside ‘field’ or practical external exercise component? If so approximately what percentage or proportion of the total course is this component?

16. Does the course have a ‘real life’ simulation component and if so what proportion of the total course time does it take?

17. How long has your organization been conducting this course?

18. How frequently is this course run?

19. Please indicate the major subject areas of the course.

20. Is this course officially recognized by any external accredited educational institution, if so which one?

21. Are there any other comments you would like to make regarding training courses which you have run over the last 3-5 years?



APPENDIX 2: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

The following documents were used as background reading to this project as well as being referenced within this analysis: Australian Red Cross (2008). Traditional knowledge and Red Cross disaster preparedness in the Pacific, Victoria.

Burton, Cynthia (2009) Lessons Learned Samoa Earthquake and Tsunami Operation, Samoa.

Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies (2010). Humanitarian Capacity Building Programme Final Report, United Kingdom.

Government of Samoa (2011). Report on Sector Focused DRM Issues and Gaps, Samoa.

Government of Solomon Islands (2010). National Disaster Management Office: Corporate Plan 2010 – 2015 and 2010 Work Plan, Solomon Islands.

Government of Solomon Islands (2010). National Disaster Risk Management Plan, Solomon Islands.

Griffin, Joe Dr. (2001). SOPAC Technical Report 349: Professional Development Needs Analysis, Suva.

IASC Gender Standby Capacity Project, Why does gender matter in crisis situations?, Geneva.

National Disaster Council and National Disaster Management Office, Solomon Islands (2007). Solomon Islands Tsunami Lessons Learned Workshop Report, Solomon Islands.

Olsen, Richard Dr. (2000). Review of the OFDA/TAF “Regional Training Component” of the South Pacific

Disaster Reduction Program, California.

Olsen, Richard Dr. (2003). The TAF/OFDA Disaster Training Program for the Pacific Islands, 1995-2003: An Evaluation, Suva.

Pacific Humanitarian Team (2008). Terms of Reference for the Regional Clusters, Suva.

Pacific Humanitarian Team (2008). Terms of Reference for the Heads of Organizations Group, Suva.

Pacific Humanitarian Team (2008). Terms of Reference for the Inter Cluster Coordination Group, Suva.

Pacific Humanitarian Team (2010). Inter-Agency Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan for Humanitarian Assistance in the Pacific, Suva.



Parker, J. (1997). Needs Assessment; Australian Emergency Management Institute, Included in ‘Report on South Pacific Disaster Management Training Meeting, Mt Macedon.

SOPAC (2010).Report on Pacific Platform for Disaster Risk Management and Professional Development Workshop, Suva.

SOPAC and UNISDR (2010). Report on 16th Regional Disaster Managers Meeting, Suva.

UNDP (2010). Power, Voice and Rights: A Turning Point for Gender Equality in the Asia and the Pacific, Colombo.

UNICEF (2009). Think Children! Using the Core Commitments for Children to review Government Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans and Capacity, Suva.

UNICEF (2010). Food and Nutrition Security for Pacific Island Nations and Territories, Suva.

Williams, Jerry (1999). SOPAC Disaster Management Programme Disaster Management Unit

Training Activity (DMUTA) Study Report. Suva.

World Health Organization (2009). A practical guide for country-level implementation of the Health Cluster, France.

World Health Organization (2011), Health Cluster Toolkit, Philippines.



OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific

Level 5, Kadavu House 414 Victoria Parade

c/o UNDP Private Mail Bag

Suva, Fiji Islands

Tel: +679 331 6760 Fax: +679 330 9762

[email protected]

www.phtpacific.org • www.unocha.org

training needs analysis - reliefweb.int · analysis of disaster response training in the pacific...

Documents