Summary Report 2013 Asia-Pacific OCHA Regional Policy ... Report 2013... · ... Results of Survey on Humanitarian Risks and Vulnerabilities in the Asia-Pacific ... Forum for Asia-Pacific

1

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

Coordination Saves Lives | www.unocha.org

Summary Report

Contents BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION AND KEYNOTE PANEL: FUTURE VISIONS FOR THE HUMANITARIAN SYSTEM ... 4 SESSION 1: APPROACHES TO VULNERABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 SESSION 2: UNDERSTANDING EFFECTIVE RESPONSE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL ...................... 11 SESSION 3: TOWARDS A MORE “INTEROPERABLE”, INCLUSIVE AND “SERVICE-ORIENTED” INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ...................................................................................................................... 16 SESSION 4: ENCOURAGING INNOVATION - LEARNING FROM NEW ACTORS AND OTHER SECTORS ................................................................................................................................................. 20 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................ 24 ANNEX 1 - Results of Survey on Humanitarian Risks and Vulnerabilities in the Asia-Pacific Region, May 2013 ........................................................................................................................................................... 26

BACKGROUND As the latest in a series of Global and Regional Policy Forums, the Policy Analysis and Innovation Section of OCHA’s Policy Development and Studies Branch (PAIS/PDSB) and the OCHA Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (ROAP) convened a 2013 Regional Policy Forum for Asia-Pacific on 28-29 May 2013 in Bangkok, with the following goals: 1. To strengthen relationships with partners, including national NGOs working both in the humanitarian and development fields, regional humanitarian practitioners, academics/think tanks, and private sector actors. 2. To identify key issues and concerns from these participants with regard to improving the contribution that international humanitarian organizations may be able to play in supporting disaster preparedness and humanitarian response in the region. 3. To identify key policy trends and concerns that impact on humanitarian work in the region and where OCHA may be able to further support existing coherence between national, regional and international coordination and policy analysis. 4. To work towards a shared vision for a reformed international element of the global humanitarian response system in preparation for the first World Humanitarian Summit in 2015.

2013 Regional Humanitarian Policy Forum for Asia and the Pacific Bangkok, 28-29 May 2013

2



The two-day workshop brought together 60 individuals, representing 17 different countries and territories in the region.1 Participants came from national and regional humanitarian organizations, national academic institutions, civil society groups, the private sector, as well as representatives of select international organizations, to discuss issues around improving the effectiveness of humanitarian partnerships in Asia-Pacific.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During a wide-ranging discussion among the participants, a number of key themes emerged in the discussion. These included: Increasingly empowered governments and a more limit ed role for international humanitarian aid Governments in the region were increasingly capable of responding to disasters and coordinating international aid themselves, when needed. In addition, they were increasingly unwilling to “request” international assistance, preferring to simply “welcome” international aid, which had legal implications for how and when humanitarians could respond and might require a rethinking of the basic framework for international assistance. In general, the role of the international system was increasingly seen as providing capacity building and technical support for local and national actors, dissemination of best practice and standard setting and advocacy, rather than direct assistance. There was therefore a need to consider what humanitarian principles meant in this type of work. It was recognized however that independent international humanitarian actors were still important in conflict settings. The need for localization and community empowerment There was an emphasis on the need to address risk, vulnerability and preparedness at the local level. This was true in part because small and medium disasters were an overlooked area that hit the most vulnerable populations the most, exacerbated poverty and could also build to create the conditions for large scale disasters if not addressed. There was a strong debate over the best way to strengthen local communities, with several participants noting that local actors could often be unreliable and misinformed and there was a need to develop standards, educational tools and structures that could work effectively with a largely untrained and volunteer base. This would also require better training for local government, and streamlined procedures for linking national and local government agencies in a crisis. Several people also cited the need to look at emerging models, such as youth or religious groups, the use of social media and other factors that were changing the way communities organized themselves. A related discussion emphasized the need to better understand how and why communities responded or did not respond to information on hazards and risks, and how to ensure that communication and education campaigns actually led to better results. It was acknowledged that the international community did not have the capacity to engage systematically at the local level, but that it could help by developing standards, trainings and supporting local and regional networks.

1 Australia, Bangladesh, People's Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New

Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Chinese Taipei and Thailand.

3



Need for stronger legal frameworks at the national and regional levels In a number of contexts, the need to clarify and strengthen the legal frameworks for managing disaster aid and response were raised. This included the need for wider adoption of national disaster management laws, with clear frameworks governing international actors; streamlining of domestic coordination structures and improved inter-ministerial cooperation and better education at all levels on existing rules and legislation. Participants also acknowledged the increasing role of regional mechanisms, particularly the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) and the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre). But they noted that there were still a lot of questions around what the actual functions of regional bodies were, particularly vis-à-vis national governments. There was a call for greater international support in developing national legal frameworks and disseminating and advocacy for good practices. Improved coordination and engagement with the priva te sector and other new partners The private sector was recognized as an increasingly central player in all stages of humanitarian action. Participants emphasized the need to both increase engagement, but also ensure that there were clear structures and legal guidance around public-private partnerships. Noting that the private sector was overwhelmingly driving development, participants noted that companies could contribute either to increasing or decreasing disaster risk, so there was a need for strong engagement on the development and disaster risk reduction (DRR) sides to encourage a greater focus of corporate social responsibility on disasters. There were a number of discussions on the need to find ways to give companies a financial interest in improving preparedness and response capacities, either through legal mechanisms such as Disaster Impact Evaluations, certification schemes such as “tsunami-ready hotels” or other approaches. While it was recognized that humanitarians had a great deal to learn from the private sector in terms of risk management, logistics and other areas, there was a need to create platforms that matched private sector capacities with gaps in humanitarian response. Others noted that there might be a need to develop new professional specializations that could be hired either by private companies or humanitarian actors. In general, with both private sector as well as other emerging partners, such as religious or diaspora groups, there was a need for the international humanitarian community to help set standards and certification systems, provide training and generally foster greater professionalization. This would include ensuring that existing coordination mechanisms were inclusive and effective in bringing together these different groups. Next steps The Forum ended with a commitment from participants to continue to work to bring together academics, NGOs, private sector companies and others in the region to advance a common agenda on improving the effectiveness of humanitarian response, possibly starting with an informal online platform. There was strong interest expressed in bringing these issues to discussions involving Member States and to other forums. OCHA committed to continuing the conversation and to looking at options for developing stronger mechanisms to facilitate specific technical exchanges or policy development around specific issues.

OCHA Regional Humanitarian Policy Forum for Asia and the Pacific 2013 | 4

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

INTRODUCTION AND KEYNOTE PANEL: FUTURE VISIONS FOR THE HUMANITARIAN SYSTEM The Forum began with a keynote panel that introduced several future visions for the humanitarian system from an international, regional and national perspective. The panel consisted of Oliver Lacey-Hall, Head of OCHA ROAP; Dr. Manu Gupta, Director, Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network (ADRRN); and Dr. Amnat Barlee, Director, Thailand Red Cross. The three panelists discussed the question of what the future of humanitarian response was and what the appropriate role was for the international system. Oliver Lacey-Hall introduced the forum by noting that there was increasing vulnerability to disasters and the expectation was that there would be increasing demand for humanitarian assistance. The humanitarian operating environment had also gotten more complex. Responders were more numerous and diverse – more governments, private sector actors, national militaries – and these humanitarian efforts needed to be coordinated. Technological advances were also changing the nature of assistance – the use of mobile phones and cash transfers for example, had the potential to completely change how assistance is delivered in many sectors. He suggested that there were three main contexts where humanitarians were working, each of which has different requirements and challenges:

• Natural disasters and hazards – In these contexts, governments were increasingly assuming the lead role and there is a growing focus on the importance of preparedness and risk reduction. Humanitarians were increasingly called on to provide capacity building to national actors and to find ways to support a government-led response.

• Conflicts– In conflicts, the core humanitarian principles continue to be critical, as well as the need to think of new approaches to access vulnerable populations.

• Vulnerability contexts – In these contexts, people in acute poverty are tipped into crisis by a combination of factors – economic, environmental or political. These crisis were often cyclical and the challenge was around working better with development actors to address the root causes of a crisis as well as immediate need.

In the future, he emphasized that there would both be more capacity and more need, as the number of middle income countries with the capacity and desire to lead in disaster and humanitarian response was increasing, but at the same time, increasing inequality means that the absolute number of people in need is likely to increase and many fragile states will remained trapped in cycles of vulnerability. The resources available to the international system are not likely to increase at the same pace, requiring a new focus on effectiveness and innovation. Dr. Gupta presented as a representative of the civil society voice from the Asia-Pacific region, as ADRRN is a network of 53 national and local civil society organizations from 19 countries. He emphasized that there were both mounting losses from disaster, as well as new actors in response, and a much more aware and informed sector. Key among the new challenges in the region was the need to develop new tools to respond in urban settings, as illustrated by the recent building collapse in Dhaka and other incidents. On new partners, he noted the increasing importance of the private sector as a driver of investment and development as well as key responder. He emphasized that a real partnership with the private sector would require that they disclose the real risk of their investments, but that increasing private investment in resilience was a positive sign. He also noted the need for a real system of partnership between academics



and NGOs, who currently worked too often in silos. He emphasized that despite the focus on big catastrophic events, the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013 had estimated that the actual cost of disasters was 50% higher than international reported figures, because they didn’t cover small and local disasters that didn’t require national or international assistance. Yet, these were largely uninsured losses that were often devastating for the poorest and most vulnerable. Increasingly in the region, disasters and conflicts were happening in the same place and same communities, and these were, respectively, the environmental and social manifestation of flawed policies and development strategies. There were also new issues that would become increasingly important, particularly nuclear energy, as there were lots of new plants being built, including in India, Indonesia and Bangladesh. He noted that progress on accountability had been limited because humanitarians often used standard templates for action that were not really appropriate to local contexts. Inclusion and inequality were also still major problems, as aid was still not sufficiently targeted to the most needy. Other technological developments, like social media, had empowered potential partners and actors, but also created new challenges. Local people-based movements were often uneven or based on incorrect analysis, sensationalism and short-sighted local leadership. But if these movements went wrong then the fault lay with professional organizations for failing to recognize their potential and keep them informed. He identified five key asks for a future humanitarian system:

1. Greater responsiveness by states on humanitarian action that also addressed beneficiary feedback and root causes of disasters.

2. Enhanced focus on responding to small and medium disasters and not just L3s. 3. More investment in building capacity, training and leadership at the local level. 4. Build on networks and partnerships with small institutions rather than with just big ones. 5. To expect the unexpected, and develop new tools for urban, nuclear, and climate

disasters. Dr. Amnat Barlee provided an introduction to the Thai Red Cross and their approach to systematic disaster management. He outlined the different responsibilities in the cycle of disasters from preparedness through rehabilitation and the role of different stakeholders from the community to academics or professional institutions. In covering the different types of resources necessary for response, he emphasized the importance of marketing and making sure that people understood what humanitarian organizations did, noting that in Thailand many people were not really aware of what the Red Cross was or how it functioned. He emphasized that there was a lack of clarity within the international system on how different organizations related, particularly to national counterparts. While there was much talk about coordination and cooperation, most organizations still worked in silos and didn’t really engage with each other. He called for greater cooperation and for ensuring that the people in need were at the center of planning and that the outcome of the process was better services for them. During the ensuing discussion, a number of broad issues emerged. One was the importance of addressing issues around urban slums, which often saw people concentrated in the most hazard-prone areas, such as river banks. But often times people were hesitant to move even if given the chance as these areas conversely offered more access to economic activity. Finding a way to address the economic challenges and encourage sustainable resettlement would be a key issue to addressing DRR in urban settings. In response to a question on the role of regional mechanisms, the panelists noted that they were gaining in importance and that some regional organizations, such as the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management (AHA), were



developing some capacity to act as coordinators or responders in their own right. Nonetheless, it was emphasized that there was a real question on what the role of regional assistance was beyond information sharing and facilitating partnerships when national governments were taking the lead. On the importance of localization and focusing on smaller disasters, it was emphasized that the local level was where risks started accumulating and could lead to much bigger catastrophes, such as the way that building collapses in Port au Prince, Haiti were ignored for years until the earthquake.



SESSION 1: APPROACHES TO VULNERABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OVERVIEW AND KEY QUESTIONS The session looked at different approaches to modelling risk and vulnerability, with cases on how these are used in country to reduce risk and improve efficiency in humanitarian response. The discussion covered different models for thinking about risk from both natural hazards and other drivers of vulnerability, like poverty, environmental decline and conflict. The key questions for the session were: 1. Are current monitoring and early warning systems sufficiently robust to support better preparedness action? 2. How can we better track and anticipate new challenges? 3. What policy changes are necessary to reorient national and international systems around a risk management approach to enable better preparedness? PANEL COMPOSITION Ms. Kirsten Gelsdorf Chief a.i., OCHA PAIS (Chair) Mr. John Marinos Information Management Officer, OCHA-ROAP Mr. Aslam Perwaiz Disaster Management Expert, Asia Disaster Prevention Centre (ADPC) Mr. Mihir Bhatt Managing Trustee, All India Disaster Mitigation Institute (AIDMI) SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION In the first session, panellists presented on a range of topics from global approaches to analysing risk at the country level to new ideas to reducing vulnerability. At the outset, the Chair stressed that this was a critical juncture and an exciting opportunity to rethink the way the humanitarian sector understood risk. There was new recognition of the role of drivers of humanitarian need and a range of new tools, techniques and models, as well as increasing partnership between humanitarian and development actors, such as around resilience. All of this had opened a window to capitalize on increasing political will to move from a system of reaction and response to one of prevention and management. In the first presentation, John Marinos from OCHA ROAP introduced the Global Focus Model (GFM). The model was developed to help OCHA internally decide how to allocate its resources, particularly the determination on the opening or closing of different offices. Until the model was created in 2007, there had been no evidence base to support such decisions. Recently the model was adopted as the Open Humanitarian Risk Index (OHRI) by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC). The model collects information on natural hazards, conflicts, vulnerability and capacity, as well as indicators from the humanitarian system such as whether there are Humanitarian Coordinators in place or clusters activated. The data came from a range of open source and official statistics. The GFM produced “Focus Rankings” of different countries either overall or in the different categories. ROAP took a pro-active approach to preparedness towards countries that were identified as high focus, while it was reactive to those that were lower



ranked. In fact, 96% of ROAP deployments ended up being in focus countries. Challenges included that the GFM had not been made available publically, although that would change when it was released as the OHRI. In addition, there had been challenges in working with the private sector in developing the model, particularly in issues over intellectual property rights. Aslam Pervaiz of the Asian Disaster Prevention Center, spoke on vulnerability – being exposed by choice or force to hazards as a result of physical, social, economic and environmental factors. He stressed that the increasing losses from disaster events in Asia demonstrated that the region hadn’t yet overcome the challenges in managing risks. Disasters were increasingly hitting the poor the hardest and creating a vicious cycle that kept people vulnerable. He emphasized that development, depending on how it was done, could either increase or decrease vulnerability. He stressed that localization of disaster risk reduction (DRR) was important, because it was at the local level that the real costs were being borne. He emphasized that urban poverty often represented a particular acute state of vulnerability. For example, the recent development boom in Myanmar had reduced risks in the Delta, but massively increased them in Yangon, which was short of hospitals, for example. He emphasized that for humanitarian action to address vulnerability it needed to adapt in the areas of:

• Disaster Risk Governance, including legal frameworks for public-private partnerships • Development and Disaster Linkages • Improved approaches and science for early warning, with a focus on extending warnings

to the local level • Minimum standards and protocols

Finally, Mihir Bhatt of the All India Disaster Mitigation Institute, gave a presentation on new approaches to understanding risks from natural hazards. He underscored that regional challenges were best tackled by local knowledge and capacity and that approaches to reducing risk should be grounded in local contexts, with a focus on poor and excluded citizens. He outlined six areas priority areas for further work:

1. Climate Smart Disaster Management Approach – The adoption of a new perspective which encourages the integration of climate change adaptation to disaster risk reduction initiatives to achieve overall development objectives.

2. Small and Micro-Businesses Focused Approach – This approach recognized the critical importance of small businesses without insurance in supporting local economies. AIDIMI was conducting study with UNDP on this. Need a regional scoping study

3. Micro-insurance and cash transfer approach – There was a need to look at how to extend disaster insurance to poor and vulnerable communities. This also included cash based approaches such as cash transfers, cash-for-work, asset transfer programs and other ways of using financial tools to respond to disaster.

4. Rights and Risk Reduction Approach – More needed to be done to understand rights during disasters and what this meant in different Asian contexts, particularly.

5. Data Transparency Approach – The need for open data on disasters was evident across the region and data transparency, monitoring mechanisms and accurate reporting of activities and finances by all parties were essential. There was an opportunity for data exchange, as humanitarians will need data on a range of issues such as nuclear power, irrigation and coastal development, while humanitarian data may be useful for these sectors as well.

6. Sanitation and Water Security Approach – There hasn’t been enough focus in urban areas and particularly for drinking water, where there is a real possibility of a slow onset, but hugely impactful disaster.



During the session, in addition to the two plenary discussions, participants were also divided into break-out groups and were asked to answer the question “What policy changes are necessary to reorient national and international systems around a risk management approach to enable better preparedness?” The following themes emerged as key issues during the discussions: Accountability - Accountability to local communities needs to be increased by using both old and new approaches. This should be done pre-disaster through preparedness projects as well as in a response context. There was a call for more effective and cost-efficient monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that were fully integrated into programming. On the flip side, there were also calls to find mechanisms and approaches to allow affected populations to do their own monitoring, with some participants talking about the need to create “a demand for accountability”. In national contexts, there needed to be mechanisms for raising the voices of civil society and CSO groups within government planning processes. Effective use of information and communications – A number of participants emphasized the gap in communications and the need to ensure that information was actually used by communities to minimize risk. This required new approaches and techniques as well as better engagement with local institutions and society. It also needed new thinking on strategies to communicating risk while minimizing the potential for abuse or creation of panic. Contextualization and localization – There was a strong discussion on the need to differentiate different contexts and to ensure that all approaches were locally grounded. For example, different types of disasters impacted different categories of poor and vulnerable. Earthquakes often had the greatest impact on those who could afford to live in high-rises, rather than the truly destitute in makeshift homes. Several participants stressed that often national level policy had not been translated to the local level, so there was a need to encourage government to develop legislation or legal frameworks that targeted the sub-national and local levels and was aimed at re-orienting the system towards preparedness. Similarly, the international humanitarian system needed to translate its tools, mechanisms and standards (such as SPHERE) into more understandable, simple and applied tools for national and local governments and actors. Several participants emphasized that international actors needed to rethink their roles and find ways to build and strengthen the capacity of local partners to be the first responders or long-term risk management agencies for their communities. Integration of DRR into national mechanisms – There were a number of projects to better integrate DRR into national development planning, but more work was needed in this area. There was also a general concern about the lack of coordinated inter-ministerial disaster management policy in various countries. One participant suggested the development of trainings to sensitize civil servants at various levels on DRR and preparedness issues. Corruption – There was a discussion around the role of corruption in impacting on disasters, and how it would be possible for humanitarians and disaster managers to address it without being accused of violating the sovereignty of states. Several people suggested a need to help foster a more open conversation on this issue, particularly at the national level. There was also a need to engage with donors so they identified what ‘acceptable’ levels of loss or diversion were in different contexts and that funds were available for monitoring and accountability programs. One participant suggested that a better system for resource disbursement and logistics, perhaps drawn from approaches developed in the private sector, could also strengthen resource accountability and reduce corruption.



Integration of academic research and practice – A number of people noted the need to better integrate the work of academic institutions with governments, NGOs and other frontline actors. One participant mentioned the need for more action research that brought academics into projects directly. Several existing initiatives were mentioned, including the Indonesian Disaster Management Center, which brought together 80 universities to coordinate research programs to advance understanding of disaster response and to better engage in community work. Another participant called for academics to take a more proactive advocacy position on key issues around risk management with governments. Better funding for DRR – A number of participants raised concerns that there was insufficient funding for preparedness and risk reduction. As 85-90% of development funds were driven by the private sector, a key issue was how to ensure adequate resources were included in private planning. A number of ideas were floated in the discussion including legislation to mandate a DRR budget in major infrastructure project, more use of disaster impact assessments that are linked to funding. There was a need to make a case for DRR as a shared value with the private sector. Others suggested the need to create a new funding instrument to help channel funds for collective and coordinate preparedness and DRR activities, similar to the CERF. Alternatively, existing mechanisms could be expanded to cover more than emergency projects. Inclusivity - In general, there was a consensus that future policies should be inclusive of non-traditional actors such as the private sector, faith-based organizations, communities, development contractors, and other quasi-humanitarian actors. This would require more investment in professional standards, training and certification to ensure basic professional standards. Other people suggested the importance of developing standardized approaches to risk management data so that multiple actors could contribute to making it more robust. For the private sector in particular, a number of people stressed the need to have a clear legal frameworks and independent assessment of public-private partnerships. Better risk management tools– A number of speakers noted the need to translate private sector tools and methodologies on risk management to support humanitarian action. Other participants suggested the need to develop risk models together with governments so that they gain greater acceptance, especially by middle income countries that may be reluctant to request international assistance. Another key factor would be building a body of evidence of the impact of collective DRR and preparedness work to help influence donors and host governments. Interoperability – A number of participants raised the concept of interoperability, where different actors retained operational interdependence but effectively work together where necessary. This was a stronger model than an integrated approach that often had the effect of placing organizations, locked in fixed relationships to one another, at the center, rather than allowing a more person centered approach. While at the international or national level, interoperability might require formal coordination mechanisms, at the local level it was more about basic guidelines and training, and should be seen as a way of working rather than a formal system. Understood this way, the development of appropriate materials and guidance was seen as a way that the international system that could practically support local and national level networks.



SESSION 2: UNDERSTANDING EFFECTIVE RESPONSE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL OVERVIEW AND KEY QUESTIONS In light of growing national and regional capacity for disaster response, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, the role of the international humanitarian system has shifted to take on more of an ‘auxiliary role’ in supporting national governments and organizations. At the same time, local NGOs/CSOs in the region are adopting an increasingly central role in response. While the international system can bring resources and specialized knowledge, it often lacks understanding of the local context or clear protocols for how to engage with local actors. These challenges are even greater in complex crises or conflicts. This session focused on the experiences and challenges of national NGOs and civil society organizations in engaging with international and regional actors. It focused on the following key questions: 1. Who are the critical actors in the early national-led phases of response, and how well are they coordinating? 2. What are the primary challenges to effective engagement and coordination between national and international humanitarian actors? 3. How can the international system work better with and support national humanitarian responders? PANEL COMPOSITION Mr. Babar Kabir Director, BRAC - Bangladesh (Chair and Panelist) Ms. Hening Parlan Executive Director, Humanitarian Forum Indonesia Mr. Thuta Aung Managing Director, Hamsa Hub – Myanmar SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION The panel began with a presentation by Mr. Babar Kabir, of BRAC, on “Human Achievements in Natural Disaster Response in Bangladesh”. He explained that despite its great vulnerability to climate change due to its geography, Bangladesh had made continuous progress in preparedness and risk resilience. He noted the different between Cyclone Aila in 2009 which had done colossal damage compared to Cyclone Mahasen in 2013, where preparedness had been good and more than 700,000 people at had been moved to shelter essentially overnight. This was a sign of a paradigm shift in disaster management from reactive to proactive. He also emphasized that there was increasing focus on nationally-led response, which was a question of ego as well as capacity, as requesting international aid was seen as a sign of weakness. Recent legislative changes, such as the amendment of the disaster management act in 2012 to take into account earthquake preparedness and drills, had provided an important tool for accountable disaster management. A better understanding of risks had driven this, as Bangladesh was overdue for an earthquake and a major event could see up to 80% of buildings in Dhaka collapse. The system in Bangladesh, through the Standing Order on Disasters, allocated different response roles to different stakeholders, and NGOs like BRAC had formal roles as implementing partners of the Government. For example, BRAC was being recognized as a designated agency to extend their early warning SMS system, sent in local languages, to



respond to disasters. Despite improvements, problems remained, including a lack of integrated efforts; uncoordinated responses, particularly with the armed forces; lack of clear oversight by Government; and that there was only a minimum amount of documentation and data collection on activities, such as real time case studies or examination of failures. He noted that increasingly international agencies, like UNICEF, were using BRAC to actually do service delivery, as the UN operated primarily at the capitol level. However, while large organizations like BRAC could have the efficiency of mass scale, this also served to divert work from smaller NGOs closer to the local level. In her presentation, Hening Parlan of the Humanitarian Forum Indonesia, which is an interfaith forum for humanitarian organizations with twelve organizations trying to link better with INGOs, UN and national actors, outlined the disaster response system in Indonesia. She explained that while the National Board for Disaster Management (BNPB) and the Disaster Mitigation Agency (BPBD) were the main focal points on DRR, there were 25 other departments involved, including Internal Affairs which dealt with local autonomy. The Government had also passed regulations covering the respective roles of Government, civil society, international responders and the private sector in disaster response. She emphasized that despite these clear legal frameworks there was often a lack of understanding on what these policies meant, particularly at the local level. She also emphasized that while coordination frameworks were important they couldn’t just be about meetings, but had to be about building trust and partnerships. As an example, she noted the problems that came from thinking of communities as targets for data collection and assessment. Recently the Education Department had asked international NGOs to stop doing education assessments in some cases as there were too many happening. Thuta Aung, from Hamsa Hub, a social enterprise that helps CBOs/charities to become self-sufficient through social enterprise/cooperative models, spoke on the role of youth-led organizations in disaster response in Myanmar. He explained that Cyclone Nargis had been a major turning point that got more people engaged in civic activities, driven by increased use of social media to assist with funding and coordination. In the recent Pakkoku floods, there had been a dramatic increase in the use of youth-led groups, often organized out of universities to support the response. These were generally joint efforts by consortiums of different groups. Utilizing these youth groups provided many advantages, including being low-cost as they were largely voluntary, and having strong local knowledge. They were also very efficient at specialized tasks, like data collection. A downside was that they had limited capacity to respond away from centers, such as cities and universities, so in the Cyclone Giri response there hadn’t been much youth group involvement. Regulations also made it difficult to register as an NGO, so many of these groups were not formally incorporated, which could make it difficult for them to partner with more established organizations. During the discussion a range of issues were raised, but the key themes emerged of 1) the changing relationship between national and international actors; 2) the changing role of local and new actors in humanitarian response; 3) the role of leadership in ensuring an effective response. During the session, participants divided into three smaller break-out groups to address, respectively, the questions. The changing relationship between national and inte rnational actors Several participants noted that in the region many countries, including Indonesia, were no longer “calling” or “requesting” international assistance but were saying that they would “welcome” it. People noted that the international system had been set up so organizations often required a formal “request” from the government before responding, so this shift had real legal ramifications. A number of people suggested that international organizations and donors



needed to review the language in their legal frameworks and adjust them to this new reality. It was also suggested that this pointed to a need to re-conceptualize “international assistance” as “cooperation” or find other ways of making assistance seem acceptable and reducing the stigma. This would also require finding new ways to explain to the public and to sensitize the media, which had a tendency to use very loaded language. However, some noted that without the formal request it was hard to know at what level to coordinate with, and could result in a lack of clarity on responsibilities. A few people noted that regional legal frameworks could also be appropriate and acceptable mechanisms for national governments to integrate and manage international assistance at the national level, and suggested looking at the model of the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER). Another model was the Red Cross movement, which had been very successful in channeling incoming assistance to its own national society and local chapters in impacted countries. Others raised the question on how humanitarian principles would work in this type of situation where the government was being thought about as a “partner”. Others stressed that “government-led” should not be conflated with “people-led” and there was a need to develop an evidence base around what was really effective and appropriate. Similarly, a few participants expressed concern that the discussion around government-led response tended to be more about natural disaster management and there was a need to still have serious thought around the rule of humanitarian groups in dealing with conflicts or in doing advocacy when governments were complicit in creating humanitarian need. In response to a question on what value the international system added to national responses, one participant noted that international actors had strong systems and a lot of knowledge, such as around how to do proper monitoring and evaluation, that could be taught to local NGOs. In this sense, international actors needed to play a stronger role in adapting global and regional systems and frameworks to sub-national language and contexts. Other felt that the United Nations role should be largely limited to providing funding and technical support to Government. Others suggested that international organizations had a role in doing more constructive advocacy around key challenges, but there was a need for greater harmonization in messaging.

The changing role of local actors and new partners in humanitarian response; In general, the discussion emphasized a need for different ways of thinking about new partners (which was the preferred term over “new actors”) and for a more systematic approach to engagement. Several participants suggested the need to create platforms to ensure that different actors who wanted to engage in humanitarian response, such as the private sector, had the minimum training and competencies to effectively coordinate with other actors. This would require coming to an agreement on what core competencies were needed, and then developing systems for vetting, certification and training. There was also a need to create structures that could match needs and capacities, particularly with the increasing number of specialized actors and technical groups out there. In some cases, this might be as simple as creating contact databases or systems to allow people to know how to reach experts or matching academics with specific problems. In other cases, it might require creating new categories of experts, who have developed a special focus in elements of disaster or crisis response, and who could be employable both in the private sector and by humanitarians. Finally, it was emphasized that the relationship-building needed to be a two-way street – while it was incumbent on humanitarian to ensure that new partners were represented, those groups also had to bring humanitarian actors to their meetings and groups where appropriate. This would require a process of familiarization, trust building and developing more of a common language.



As a concrete proposal, one participant suggested doing a scoping study of new partners, such as diaspora, religious groups or volunteer and technical communities, in different national contexts, to get a better sense of who they are and what they were doing. Similarly, there was a call for more research to build the evidence base around whether and how inclusivity actually strengthened humanitarian response. Private sector A key point in the discussion on new actors revolved around the importance of engaging with the private sector, and a need to develop a more nuanced understanding of the relationships and interests involved. Several participants underlined a need to be clear about the different levels or types of partnership with the private sector. There was a need for platforms to help match capacities and to provide private sector actors interested in supporting humanitarian response with a clear entry point into the system. A number of speakers noted that there were confused perceptions of private enterprise. Businesses were not only about making money, but had a real interest in social responsibility. Still other stressed that businesses needed support on corporate social responsibility in this sector, as there was still not a lot of understanding on what they could do. Humanitarians would also need to think through what the implications of humanitarian principles were in engagement with the private sector, as companies were not always neutral actors. There were also a lot of opportunities for adapting existing initiatives designed to support regional business, such as the APEC Business Travel Card, which allows business travelers pre-cleared, facilitated short-term entry to participating member economies, to be used to support humanitarian responders. Media One of the issues discussed was the role of the media and its impact on how information on risk and humanitarian response was communicated. One participant suggested that the media often sensationalized disasters and that NGOs and civil society needed to provide data to keep the discussion grounded. But having an active mainstream media could also help address rumors and increase transparency. In that regard, some participants mentioned the development of Media Forums in Indonesia and elsewhere which allowed internal coordination between media outlets during a disaster to reduce the spread of rumors. Several participants noted the increasing importance of social media and how governments were increasingly using outlets, such as Facebook, to make announcements. Social media had also empowered more spontaneous forms of organization, like the volunteer youth groups described in the presentation. Youth groups and communities On the role of youth groups, some participants, while acknowledging their power, noted that youth groups had also been involved in organizing violence and in anti-UN or NGO campaigns in Myanmar. In fact, countries where young adults comprise more than 40% of the population had been found to be 2.5 times more likely to experience a civil conflict. Also, while youth groups did have some local legitimacy, oftentimes groups of university students who came into an area were still seen very much as outsiders. Still this was also an argument for the need to capitalize on and engage with youth and other volunteer groups. In terms of preparedness, this could be extended to doing disaster preparedness work in primary and secondary schools and developing appropriate curriculum and tools. Communities could also be trained to do needs assessment and produce data and reporting, which would hopefully be open to responders.



The role of leadership in ensuring an effective res ponse Several people stressed that the greatest challenges to an effective response were around leadership. Some of these related to the lack of leadership development and support, while others noted structural issues, such as the challenges around empowering local government or field actors. An example was given that after an earthquake in West Java, many of the groups planning the response were meeting in Jakarta with no sense of what the situation on the ground was. Other participants raised the issue of the lack of effective collective leadership among the humanitarian community, but acknowledged that while the ideal set up would be to have this embedded within government structures, the humanitarian imperative also required many organizations to take actions outside of this type of accountability framework. There was a need to develop standard operating procedures to support command and control structures down to the local level. In addition it was critical to make sure leaders had accurate and rapid access to information. An example given was of the response structure that had been developed for BRAC. Smart phones had been given to all sub-districts, which allowed for immediate need assessments, which were then fed to the BRAC situation room, which could monitor in real time and reallocate assets as necessary. BRAC was currently in discussions to have this data also fed directly to the Prime Minister’s office. Another way of addressing leadership was through mentorship and mechanisms for developing leadership skills. As an example, one recent project in the Philippines had incorporated leadership development for people in the community into the shelter program to build long-term local capacity.



SESSION 3: TOWARDS A MORE “INTEROPERABLE”, INCLUSIVE AND “SERVICE-ORIENTED” INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

OVERVIEW AND KEY QUESTIONS Recent disasters and conflicts in Asia have pointed to the emergence of new patterns and approaches in response to crisis. Volunteer groups and organizations are being formed rapidly in the aftermath of a disaster. Diaspora groups and technical volunteers are able to provide resources and help coordinate relief efforts from thousands of miles away. At the same time, national private sector companies are becoming more engaged in preparing for and leading disaster responses. All of which is happening in a context of more engaged national authorities, and increasing capacity for response by (sub)regional organizations such as ASEAN. At the same time, the international system is already struggling to adapt to new approaches in risk management and working with national and local organizations, as discussed during the first day’s sessions. There is a clear need to revisit the make-up of the existing international system to redefine its optimal role and how it can better support effective humanitarian response from the community level up. 1. What implications does the increasing focus on nationally-led response have for the humanitarian principles? 2. What are the emerging gaps in capacity and coordination at national and/or regional level that require international support? 3. How can existing international tools and services be adapted, and what new services and capacities are needed? 4. In light of each of the above, how should we understand and measure effectiveness in the future? PANEL COMPOSITION • Mr. Gerry Velasquez (Chair) Senior Regional Coordinator, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) • Ms. Tessa Kelly Coordinator for Asia-Pacific, Disaster Law Program • Mr. Robert Taylor Deputy Executive Director, Mercy Malaysia SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION In her presentation, Tessa Kelly (IFRC), looked at the questions around legal preparedness and the role of the international disaster response law. In the context of the increasing number of international responders, whether private sector, individual, religious groups or otherwise, the absence of clear procedures for regulating the inflow of aid is becoming more problematic. Based on six years of research by the IFRC, a range of legal problems for the entry of disaster relief were found, including visas, customs, taxes, recognition of professional qualifications, etc. After the Tsunami in 2004, hundreds of containers of relief goods never even made it through customs. In other cases, NGOs have received bills for tens of thousands of dollars just for transiting goods through third countries. There are also issues on the international side of



inappropriate items, ignoring of quality standards and a lack of respect for domestic authorities. The bottom line was that aid is slower, more expensive and less effective if there isn’t an appropriate legal regime. However, there is no comprehensive legal regime at the global level, just a patchwork of global and regional institutions with aspects of international humanitarian law, refugee law, and sectoral laws (such as the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation). There had also been increases in regional law like AADMER, but which only applied to limited group of member states. Even when there were clearly laws that applied, officials at the border were not always aware of them. To address this gap, the IFRC had developed the Guidelines for the domestic facilitation and regulation of international disaster relief and initial recovery assistance (IDRL) – to provide guidance for states on how to prepare their domestic laws and procedures for international assistance. A Model Act for international disaster assistance was developed by the IFRC together with OCHA and had been launched in 2013. In the Asia-Pacific, Indonesia was a model country with a clear law based on IDRL, while Cambodia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the Cook Island had draft laws. But improving the legal framework was a long-term progress that would require sustained political will and a commitment to implementation and socialization at the sub-national level. Looking to the future, there was also some work being done by the International Law Commission on draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters. She concluded by raising the question of whether it would be useful to consider a global treaty on international disaster response. Robert Taylor, the General Manager for Mercy Malaysia, provided an overview of their work and on the perspective of a regional NGO. He noted that Mercy Malaysia was driven by a sense of solidarity with the crises-affected communities in ASEAN and elsewhere, and had developed strong bonds and informal diplomatic relationships with governments in the region to allow them to work. He noted that not all countries in the region subscribed to IHL and human rights law so Mercy Malaysia operated within a different context to the broader international community. They felt that as a southern NGO, they were perceived as a neutral implementing partner, which was helped by the fact that most staff were local volunteers. On the question of interoperability, he noted that they had limited capacity and it was challenging to be benchmarked or held to the same standard as larger INGOs. It was also difficult to become implementing partners or to access strategic levels of funding, particularly medium or long term support for projects in Sudan, Afghanistan or Somalia. He suggested that there was a need for a professional platform for local agencies to engage with INGOs and to share practices and experiences, particularly in terms of operating standards, not just about field practice, but of basic management infrastructure. He also noted the need to adapt global standards, such as SPHERE, which were developed originally with the African context in mind, to Asia. The discussion was organized around the four key questions, and during the session participants were again split into break-out groups, to look in depth on the four topics. What implications does the increasing focus on nati onally-led response have for the humanitarian principles? During the small group discussions, several participants emphasized that in the Asia-Pacific region, governments generally led the response and defined the space for other national actors to operate in by interpreting global principles and introducing local standards. Disaster management in particular was seen as a core part of the enforcement of state legitimacy, rather than something driven by humanitarian principles. At the same time, states were obliged to respect international obligations. It was acknowledged that national-led responses often favoured certain communities and thus could endanger humanitarian principles. Governments should make sure that standards are reflected in legislation and implemented down to the local level. International actors and national actors, such as Red Cross/Crescent Societies had a



clear role in advocating on principles. As an example, it was noted that during the Thai floods in 2011, migrant workers did not want to access help through assistance centers to avoid registration/expulsion orders. One way of doing this was to empower local civil society to monitor and evaluate principles. In the Philippines, civil society organizations are represented in the Council for Disaster Management. Nonetheless, there was often a lack of resources to reach international standards in many cases, and there might be some need to recognize where there were clear aspirations and good faith efforts being made.

What are the emerging gaps in capacity and coordina tion at national and/or regional level that require international support? The discussion centered around three main gaps – technical services, legal frameworks and inclusive coordination structures. Although many governments in the region were able to provide basic response, gaps remained related to more technical areas of response, including coordination, IM, protection, fund raising, etc. Another key area mentioned was rapid damage assessment where international response support still played an important role. There was also a need to improve coordination among national actors, especially NGOs, private sector actors, etc. These actors are often marginalized in formal coordination mechanisms (e.g. APG, clusters, etc.). In addition, locally based organizations may not always see the value of coordination with international actors as they are responding directly to the needs of communities. Legal frameworks were also identified as a key issue, both to ensure the effective delivery of international aid and to ensure inclusion of NGOs in coordination arrangements. It was recommended that NGOs and international actors should seek involvement in the development of national legal frameworks and share lessons and best practices from other parts of the world. One participant suggested the need for a high-level event to analyze domestic disaster response law in the region. Another key issue was the need to invest in socialization of existing laws and improving implementation. This could include developing more courses on international humanitarian and disaster law for universities. How can existing international tools and services b e adapted, and what new services and capacities are needed? During the small group discussion, the conversation focused on the newly released OCHA publication, “Disaster Response in Asia and the Pacific: A Guide to International Tools and Services”, and participants focused on the fact that in many cases key actors were simply unfamiliar with the existing range of international tools, and that this needed to be addressed before tools were changed or created. There was a need to (i) ensure a wide dissemination of the Guide in various platforms (government, NGO (local, national, regional, and from developed countries), academia, private sector) to various actors and (ii) to get the validation of these existing tools from the various stakeholders. The Guide, as it stood, did not cater to the humanitarian community as a whole, and participants suggested that there was latent demand from local NGOs and academia (among others) to adapt it. It was agreed by all that this adaptation cannot be done by OCHA, but had to be done in conjunction with a local “champion”, be it from the NDMO, academia or a national



humanitarian actor. One participant suggested adapting the Guide to a checklist type of form that would illustrate how different strata of humanitarian actors (local, national, regional and international) would link up with various tools and services that are relevant and/or accessible to them. This would be useful to link to the most grassroots level actors that were the least empowered to access international tools and services. Several participants raised the need for data standardization and for a better dissemination of existing standards, rather than seeking new solutions. On the issue of multiplicity of similar tools, a parallel was made with a competitive market place, so that as long as there were core standards and they were generally accessible, that having multiple options might support a more effective response. In light of each of the above, how should we unders tand and measure effectiveness in the future? It was difficult to define humanitarian effectiveness when there is no standard definition of what ‘humanitarian’ meant in today’s context (some felt strongly it was ‘immediate life-saving response’ while others felt it was ‘a longer term resilience approach’.) Everyone emphasized the need to take the context and type of response into account, as well as ensure that effectiveness was understood not only from the donor perspective. There might be a need to have separate indicators for different client groups, such as government or affected communities. Most participants agreed that an effectiveness measurement system that was fit for purpose required two dimensions: empirical measures and indicators as well as a holistic, qualitative metric. On the question of how to understand effectiveness in resilience, it was noted that as part of the development of the new Hyogo Framework for Action that they were developing metrics for measuring DRR and that humanitarians needed to engage in that process. Some participants emphasized that if we were talking about measuring effectiveness, there needed to be a real investment and shift in the organizational structure of the international system to be more about funding and professionalization in bringing groups up to international standards. Others emphasized the need for strengthened monitoring and evaluation frameworks and improved methodological approaches that were tied to clear objectives.



SESSION 4: ENCOURAGING INNOVATION - LEARNING FROM NEW ACTORS AND OTHER SECTORS

OVERVIEW AND KEY QUESTIONS In an era of rapid change, many experts have noted that the humanitarian sector lacks a strategic way of adapting. There is a need to better understand where change is required to modernize humanitarian action, and identify solutions (innovations) that force the system to adapt and advance. Innovations might focus on providing new or better products and services, processes, ways of positioning work, or business models that have the potential to encourage advances in humanitarian performance. To be attractive, innovations should be aligned with articulated needs for change and rooted in a basic understanding of current humanitarian practice. At the same time, because of the relatively small size of the humanitarian sector, there are relatively few companies or institutions developing specialized tools, so cross-fertilization from other sectors is also necessary to stimulate innovative thinking. The session looked at the different approaches to encouraging innovation in the humanitarian sector and some of the new ways of working that were coming from private sector actors. 1. What areas of humanitarian response offer the greatest opportunity for innovation? 2. Why is the pace of innovation so slow in the humanitarian sector and how can we speed it up? PANEL COMPOSITION Ms. Rebecca Barber (Chair) Humanitarian Policy Advisor, Save the Children International Ms. Jemilah Mahmood Fellow, Kings Humanitarian Futures Project Mr. Bei Xiao Chao Director for Social Responsibility, Sina Weibo - China Dr. Thavirap Tantiwongse Public Affairs Director, GlaxoSmithKline – Thailand Mr. Ramon Isberto Head of Public Affairs, SMART telecom – Philippines SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION In the concluding session, the speakers discussed the nature of innovation and the way it was being used in the humanitarian sector – with a particular focus on how private sector actors were changing their approach to crisis and disaster response.



Jemilah Mahmood, from the Kings College Humanitarian Futures Project, spoke about the Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF). She explained that it reflected an attempt to use money to try to initiate change and drive innovation. She noted that while the HIF covered the full range of innovations, which could be process or conceptual innovations, most of the applications were based on technology and many of them were not very innovative. HIF had three grants to address different phases of the innovation cycle – recognition, development and diffusion, with the development grants being the largest. She explained some of the successful winners, which included an SMS feedback proposal in Somalia and an early warning system for fishermen in Bangladesh. She outlined the barriers to innovation included that the key experts were not connected, that there was not enough incentive as donors would continue to fund mediocre programmes that they were comfortable with; and that there had not been systematic efforts to identify gaps and spaces for innovation. The process was complex and needed facilitation. It also had a strong element of risk as many projects would not succeed and it was necessary to find ways to learn from the failures as well. The HIF was now looking at picking some focused areas, such as WASH, Shelter, Food or Urban response as the next key areas and developing some new funding streams and more integrated approaches to accelerating development. There was a need to separate the quick win challenges from the high impact, but more complex problems that required brokered multi-disciplinary R&D and greater involvement from the private sector or social enterprise. She concluded by asking to what extent can the challenges the humanitarian system faces be ‘solutionized’ or whether many of these problems were rather in the nature of the challenges or in the unwillingness of humanitarian agencies to really change. Bei Xiao Chao, the Director for Social Responsibility, Sina Weibo, spoke on their new micro-finance platform. After outlining the history of Sina Weibo, which now had 537 million users, he gave a case study on the response to the Ya’an earthquake, by which 2.31 million people had been affected. He noted their Micro-Charity Platform, which had been launched in February 2012, had initiated 36 quake relief projects with the help of institutions and individuals for the hardest-hit city of Ya'an, and had raised more than 100 million RMB within 57 hours. The platform was based around three pillars – Information, Channel and Transparency. Information was about using Weibo’s users to provide rapid and accurate information on the disaster – in the case of one town, Weibo users had been the first to flag the major damage there, triggering a government response that saved over a hundred people. The Channel pillar was about creating a direct link from users to organizations and relief projects to allow for donations. Finally, they were committed to ensuring transparency in how the money was spent, so financial information was available online, there was a system of independent auditing in place and users could be in touch directly with projects or Weibo staff if they had questions. In one year, the platform had raised 136 million RMB from nearly 2 million active users and supported 4,018 programs. The scale of the response had forced the government to recognize that the private sector was an increasingly important partner in disaster response. Dr. Thavirap Tantiwongse, the Public Affairs Director for GlaxoSmithKline, Thailand, provided an overview of the approach used by research-based companies that were working on innovation to address global health challenges. He emphasized that these companies were constantly working across sectors and areas, to adapt the best ideas and technology to the global health challenges. He noted the use of the real time telemetry systems used in F1 racing cars to support paediatric early warning systems that could keep up a detailed live feed of information even as children were being moved to or from the operating room. He also noted other new developments, such as electronic tattoos and soluble electronics that were ideal for use in conflict zones and genetically modified tobacco plants that produce anti-HIV drugs. The core challenge was finding ways to identify and work with very different people. In addition, accurate targeting of resources was critical in innovation, so in public-private partnerships a key step was helping industry to understand the problem.



Finally, Ramon Isberto, Head of Public Affairs, SMART telecom, provided an overview of the changing approach to disaster response by private companies in the Philippines. He noted that due to the regular impact of typhoons, floods and other disasters, the Philippines had a lot of practice in disaster response. The traditional disaster response by the private sector had been mostly around delivery of humanitarian goods, but several recent disasters including the flooding in Metro Manila from Typhoon Katsana, as well as the Japanese Tsunami and the Thai floods, had been a wakeup call to businesses to think more seriously about business continuity. As part of the Corporate Network for Disaster Response (CNDR), they saw two key issues for business. The first and greatest contribution of the private sector in disaster was to keep operating and get back to normal as quickly as possible. The second was to strengthen family resilience among their employees. For small and medium enterprises (SME), these were often the same, as employees were unlikely to show up if their families weren’t accounted for. CNDR had initiated a project called Noah’s Ark to help local communities in vulnerable areas prepare for floods. They did this by following the trail of disasters and setting up workshops in areas where there had been flooding recently and there was still a sense of urgency. The project helped develop safe evacuation centres, develops workshops and community plans and actually conducts drill to test the ideas that had been developed. Overall, the strategy was around investing in preparedness and supporting SMEs to be able to quickly recover and support their communities. Fostering innovation in humanitarian response In the discussion, that followed participants raised the question of whether new innovations, particularly in the health field would be affordable enough for use in humanitarian crises. In response, it was noted that most multinationals involved in industrializing innovation were open to providing discounts to humanitarians, but that they needed solid estimates of how much would need to be produced and a commitment to a certain scale. As an example, there was an existing project around “advance market commitment” with WHO and Save the Children that projected a three year estimate of how much meningococcal vaccine would be needed, which allowed pharmaceutical companies to commit to producing more at reduced prices. This was particularly useful for vaccines where there was relatively little market demand from developed countries. There was also increasing uses of open source research, where the patents and intellectual property could be potentially be available for humanitarian uses at little or no cost. Others emphasized that considering the amount of money available in the private sector for corporate social responsibility, cost was unlikely to be a factor, particularly for dual use products. Other innovations would in fact reduce baseline costs dramatically and free up resources. Several participants emphasized that the lack of trust between different sectors and the lack of process innovation was the big gap. It was emphasized that all of the problems around technology were really around people and getting organizations to actually adopt new technologies into their processes. For example, using SMS systems to collect real time farm price data was technically easy, but getting people to consistently and accurately do the reporting was incredibly difficult. On the question of how to best foster innovation, a number of suggestions were made, including the use of hackathons or other events to mobilize volunteer technical resources, or spinning off smaller innovation teams or units so they would not be hampered by bureaucracy. Others stressed that innovation had to be tied to clear goals and the measures of outcomes and effectiveness. It had to be focused towards improving the core work of the organization and not just innovation for innovations sake. Strengthening engagement with the private sector



There was also a discussion on how to best engage with the private sector, with some noting that there had yet to be much focus from corporate social responsibility programs on disaster management. Others noted that while the private sector had plenty of resources, there was no common language. Also while assistance had traditionally been based on donations, but it could be a business if communities demanded resilience and preparedness and those initiatives that made money were more sustainable. Participants noted that many companies had foundations that were run by people with an NGO or DRR background and would be a good point of entry. In other cases, it was a matter of identifying what the comparative advantage of different actors was. For example in the Philippines, after Typhoon Bopha a private sector consortium was building homes on government provided lands, but they needed assistance from NGOs and civil societies to help organize and prepare residence.



NEXT STEPS In the concluding session of the Forum, participants were asked to provide ideas on how to follow up on the discussions and strengthen partnerships in the region. Suggestions around some of the main themes that came out of the Forum included: Increasingly empowered governments and a more limit ed role for international humanitarian aid

• Support research and further discussion on how to strengthen country systems and do local-level capacity building.

• Develop a framework or matrix of contextual issues at the Asia-Pacific region in order to better understand the type of challenges and the appropriate role of different parts of the system.

Need for stronger legal frameworks at the national and regional levels

• Support legislative coordination at the national level. • Continue to promote awareness of existing international agreements and tools.

Local-level capacity building

• The policy community and OCHA need to consider how to support local-level capacity building as a priority. While the international community may not have the capacity to engage systematically at the local level, additional focus should be put on supporting national and regionally developed standards, trainings and networks.

• Bring the same set of issues to a forum that includes government and national actors, as well as smaller CSOs.

• Consider supporting country-based or issue focused groups to continue the discussions and these themes.

• Support further research into how to support and empower networks of smaller actors Improved coordination and engagement with the priva te sector and other new partners

• Create an informal platform, perhaps on social media, to continue to facilitate communication and discussion among the participants

• Develop an improved sharing mechanism between the private sector and humanitarians. • Develop guidelines or principles for Public-Private Partnerships for humanitarian

assistance • Develop an evidence base on humanitarian response and preparedness through more

joint research between NGOs, humanitarian agencies and academics. Based on these suggestions and the discussion in the forum, OCHA has also identified the following next steps: • Broader more inclusive policy platforms: Building on the success of the Bangkok Forum, ROAP should continue to make efforts to include a wider range of actors in its forums



and meetings, not only in terms of developing ideas, but also in policy implementation. Topics for discussion at future Forums should be linked into discussions at the Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forums, which targeted Governments as the primary audience. ROAP will continue to hold a regular Policy Forum. • Best-Practice: OCHA should consider how it can best foster best practice at the regional and global level. Best practice should also include views, ideas, and initiatives from private sector companies and academics. This could include developing a regional expertise sharing mechanism or on-line platform. • Linkage of Policy Forums/Meta-Analysis : PDSB will ensure that the outcomes of the Bangkok Forum are fed into the development of the September 2013 Dakar Forum and December 2013 Global Policy Forum, as well as the November 2013 Regional Humanitarian Partnership Workshop – and the 2015 World Humanitarian Summit. In addition PDSB will prepare a Meta-Analysis Report pulling together the main themes from all 2011-2013 Policy Forums and suggesting concrete policy actions.



ANNEX 1 - Results of Survey on Humanitarian Risks and Vulnerabilities in the Asia-Pacific Region, May 2013 Introduction In May 2013, the OCHA Policy Analysis and Innovation Section conducted a survey of sixty-five humanitarian and disaster response and preparedness experts from academia, NGOs, think tanks and the private sector, representing 20 different countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The survey was conducted as part of the preparations for the 2013 Regional Humanitarian Policy forum for Asia and the Pacific, held on 28-29 May 2013. An analysis of the results of the survey is provided below.

SECTION 1- BACKGROUND

Question 1 - What type of organization do you work for?

Question 2 - What region are you from or based in?



SECTION 2 – RISKS AND VULNERABILITIES

Question 3 - What type of disaster do you consider to be the greatest risk for your country?

Questions 4 and 5 - Rank how vulnerable you conside r your country to be to a large-scale disaster within the next 5-10 years and how likely it would be that your country would require substantial international ass istance



Question 6 - How effective do you think existing ea rly warning and vulnerability tracking systems in your country are?

Question 7 - What are the factors that you see incr easing disaster risk and vulnerability in your country?



Question 8 - What are the greatest obstacles to red ucing disaster risk and vulnerabilities in your country?

Under “Other” the following alternatives were suggested:

• Lack of CBDRM practices, Lack of DRR programs and activities at the community level • Leadership in the Government, weakness of DM organization • no trust bases relationship between public and private sector • Poor Governance • Insufficient community based risk reduction programming • Lack of effective legal framework to address DRR • Lack of sharing best practices/lesson learned • Complacency • Lack of coordination among sectoral development efforts

Question 9 - Please rate the current level of capac ity at national level in your country to respond to a large-scale disaster.



Question 10 –What do you consider are the key compo nents of an effective response? This was an open-ended question, but some analysis of the key concepts cited and the most commonly used terms is provided.

Most commonly used terms

Awareness Capacity Clear Communication

Effective Funding Government Local

Management Preparedness Private Sector Reduction Resilience Response Understanding



SECTION 3 - AREAS FOR INNOVATION IN HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE

Question 11 - In your opinion, what are the top thr ee areas of innovation with the potential to transform the way that humanitarian re sponse is done?

Under “Other” the following alternatives were suggested:

• support of the private sector to become more resilient • less corruption • Strengthen in country and local response system and structure • Improved needs assessment methodologies (open source, public domain, using ICT tools,

dynamic, multi-stakeholder) • reform international donor mechanism to improve resiliency and reduce dependency

Question 12 - Based on your response to question 10, give a speci fic example of - an existing project that you consider represents an important potential innovation or - a specific area of humanitarian work where the re is a need for innovative approaches This question received a wide range of answers. Two specific projects that were mentioned by several respondents were:

• The Program for Enhancement of Emergency Response (PEER) to institutionalize disaster response capacities at national and local/community levels.

• The Red Cross Red Crescent's Trilogy Emergency Response Application (TERA) - SMS mobile technology and the American Red Cross disaster application for the Smartphone.

Others suggested areas where there was a need for innovative approaches, including:

• Health o Addressing migrant health o Psychosocial Project for typhoon victims



• Information, communication and modelling o Scenario Modelling research and risk management o Beneficiary Communication o Big data and organization and collection of data. o Early warning/Early Action

• Local and community based approaches

o Local approaches such as stories, folklore, tradition, beliefs to increase awareness of risk Local market & market mechanism to source aid particularly in remote areas/islands

o Promotion of indigenous technology for local development. o Youth led initiatives o Strengthening community-based mechanisms and capacities in mitigating future risks. o Capacity building of local actors o Improved shelters and long term rehabilitation efforts o Integrating disaster response as a critical surge/emergency mechanism in a larger and

holistic disaster preparedness development approach

• Private sector and market mechanisms o Cash and food for work approaches o Tsunami ready hotels o Engagement of private sector actors in Disaster Risk Reduction and Risk Transfer o Integrated approach on community-based disaster preparedness with health programs in

developing countries

Documents

Summary Report 2013 Asia-Pacific OCHA Regional Policy ... Report 2013... · ... Results of Survey on Humanitarian Risks and Vulnerabilities in the Asia-Pacific ... Forum for Asia-Pacific