Asia Pacific Humanitarian Coordination Study 2010

Introduction.  
In its role as chair of the OCHA Donor Support Group (ODSG) 2009–2010, the Australian government commissioned this study focusing on humanitarian coordination issues and challenges in the Asia-Pacific region. The study team conducted more than 130 interviews with government and aid agency representatives in Nepal; Indonesia (including with field-level researchers); regional offices in Bangkok, Thailand; and in UN headquarters in New York.

Regional vulnerabilities and capacities.
Asia-Pacific is the world’s most natural disaster-prone region. Between 2000 and 2008, 40 percent of registered disaster events occurred in the region. It also accounted for a third of the world’s ongoing conflicts in 2008. Emerging trends, notably urbanization, climate change, and demographic shifts, are creating new and shifting vulnerabilities to disasters. Due to climate change, delta regions in South, East and South-East Asia are expected to be at risk of increased flooding; food security will be threatened by increased drought; and the small island states in the Pacific will be at increased risk of inundation, storm surges, erosion, and other coastal hazards.

Much of the region has experienced rapid economic growth in recent decades, and a growing number of countries have substantial resources to bring to bear in disaster response. The region has seen substantial progress in strengthening disaster preparedness and national response capacity. There is also growing military capacity for, and involvement in, disaster response throughout the region and a growing role for regional bodies such as ASEAN.

OCHA in the Asia-Pacific.
In the Asia-Pacific region, OCHA has a country presence in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Myanmar, Indonesia, and the Philippines, with a sub-regional office in the Pacific Island of Fiji and a support cell in Papua New Guinea. The regional office in Bangkok, Thailand, with a staff of twenty-five, is primarily charged with providing support to the rest of the region. Globally, the introduction of the cluster approach to sectoral coordination in late 2005 both cemented OCHA’s role in field-level coordination and increased expectations to the point where its capacities in the field have been severely stretched in some places, including in the Asia-Pacific. As compared to other regions, OCHA has a particularly small footprint in a vast area having considerable diversity, with particular vulnerability to natural disasters, as well as continuing conflicts. OCHA currently has 172 national and international staff in the Asia-Pacific region compared to 884 in Africa.

Regional and field-level coordination. 
National disaster-management agencies, sometimes with national militaries, often drive the coordination of humanitarian response in the region. Recognising this, OCHA is increasingly seeking to develop national capacities for response, to complement efforts to develop the international system’s own surge capacity. During relatively high profile disasters, however, such as the 2009 West Sumatra earthquake, OCHA has found it difficult to balance support for greater national leadership with the immediate demands of coordinating a huge influx of international aid actors. The international system tends to default to coordinating international agencies, using English as the operational language, which can marginalize national actors and sometimes leads to parallel government and international responses.
The cluster approach has been largely accepted in the Asia-Pacific region; in the Philippines a cluster coordination system has even been embedded in national legislation. Across the region, the lack of a clear institutional lead, at the global level, for protection in natural disasters has posed problems. Delays in staff deployment at times continue to seriously hinder OCHA’s role in field-level coordination.

Leadership.
Within the region, attempts to strengthen the leadership role in humanitarian response efforts played by UN Resident Coordinators (RCs) and Humanitarian Coordinators (HCs) have been mixed. In Myanmar the acting HC played a crucial role in negotiations with government, highlighting the importance of HC leadership and humanitarian skills. By contrast, in Laos an RC and UN Country Team focused on development and limited in their understanding of emergency issues, were reluctant to switch gears for an emergency, leading to a slow response in the aftermath of Typhoon Ketsana.

Funding.
A variety of governments, such as Nepal and Indonesia, have shown a desire for modalities for declaring emergency needs and welcoming international assistance that do not— in their perception—reflect poorly on them or undermine their sovereignty. These political sensitivities speak to a need for innovation in the traditional coordinated processes for mobilizing international aid resources. In recognition, humanitarian financing in the region has seen a shift away from traditional Consolidated Appeal Processes (CAPs) and Flash Appeals (FAs) to a greater reliance on the CERF (Central Emergency Response Fund) and other pooled-funding mechanisms, as well as bilateral funding patterns unique to the region.

Information management.
The OCHA regional office has developed a tool for analysing disaster risk called the Global Focus Model which analyses hazards, vulnerabilities, and response capacity at the country level using quantitative indicators. OCHA uses this model to prioritise, to argue for field presence, and to decide where to focus scarce resources. It also helps as OCHA dialogues with partners and donors. At the regional level, OCHA has made increased investments in data preparedness and has carried out data readiness assessments in a number of contexts.

Experience within the region in successfully coordinating assessments has been mixed. In the West Sumatra response in Indonesia, attempts by OCHA and other agencies to undertake joint rapid needs assessments were problematic. Other recent disaster responses have been more positive. For example, in Myanmar, a joint assessment (PONJA) was seen as enabling a common agreement about needs. OCHA has been less focused on monitoring but this is an area where both OCHA staff and external interviewees felt that OCHA needs to tread carefully to avoid being seen as playing a policing role.

Advocacy. 
Some respondents felt that OCHA’s role in relation to humanitarian advocacy in the region is unclear. However, respondents noted that OCHA’s regional office has given strong guidance around the need for international humanitarian agencies to improve engagement with governments and has been a strong advocate for the IFRC’s International Disaster Response Law (IDRL) process. There is a tendency both within the region and internationally to neglect conflict-related problems within the Asia-Pacific. OCHA therefore has an advocacy role in continuing to draw attention to neglected conflicts.

Civil-military coordination. National military actors are increasingly engaging in humanitarian activities in the Asia-Pacific region; in many countries militaries are given the mandate to be first responders. OCHA’s regional office noted a need for stronger engagement with military actors around their roles in disaster management and preparedness. OCHA and the UN more generally are not well enough resourced to do this effectively. Respondents stated a need to develop greater interoperability between regional military forces and to build upon good experiences with joint exercises. And as region also provides a large proportion of UN peacekeeping forces, there is a need to work with troop-contributing countries on standards.

Preparedness.
The OCHA regional office has been closely involved in supporting stronger preparedness, including contingency planning, at national levels. UNDAC personnel, in close dialog with governments, have undertaken preparedness assessments in five countries. OCHA, through the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) process, is also making efforts to better integrate disaster management into the development frameworks of governments and the UN. UN Country Teams and Resident Coordinators are being more strictly appraised, bringing greater accountability for the quality of preparedness. OCHA has been using the Global Focus Model to ensure that priority countries have strong contingency plans in place that are regularly updated. There’s also a perception on the part of the OCHA regional office that UN Country Teams are starting to have greater in-country ownership of plans and to better include NGO partners. As ever, there is a danger that contingency planning can become a formulaic exercise and a need to invest further in improving the quality of such processes.

Transition.
Conflict-affected countries such as Nepal and Sri Lanka have raised questions about the appropriate way to phase down OCHA’s presence. Countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Bangladesh, where natural disasters are recurrent, raise different questions concerning the challenge of transition. In countries with frequent natural disasters, a strong argument exists for a permanent OCHA presence and/or innovative ways to continue providing support, such as the introducing Humanitarian Support Units within RC offices.

Conclusion.
The growing sensitivities over sovereignty, strength, capacity, and assertiveness of many countries in the Asia-Pacific mean that OCHA needs to continue to adapt and refine how it supports humanitarian coordination. The key strategic task facing OCHA and its humanitarian partners in the Asia-Pacific is to forge stronger and more constructive relationships with governments that support and extend national capacities to assist and protect citizens in times of disaster.

International humanitarian action in general, and OCHA in particular, continue to be needed. The region’s vulnerability to natural disasters, the humanitarian consequences of conflicts, and new emerging vulnerabilities relating to climate change all suggest the need for the UN and its humanitarian partners to maintain a capacity to respond. While recent years have seen much improvement in policies, legislation, and rhetorical commitments to disaster management, more support is required from donors and international agencies to effectively put these into practice. The region’s growing economic and political importance means that international humanitarian actors need to increase their engagement with key governments (and regional actors), both as potential donors and as shapers of policy on international and regional humanitarian action.

View complete document click here