OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 2
In addition to the follow-up action points and overarching
conclusions detailed in the report, OCHA will continue to
reflect on the ideas and suggestions raised at the Regional
Humanitarian Partnerships Forum and refer to them in future
work.
We welcome suggestions, comments and initiatives on how
OCHA can best support humanitarian partnerships and
encourage innovation in humanitarian action.
Please write to us at: ocha-roap@un.org
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 3
Summary Report
Contents
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................4
I.
Background ....................................................................................................................................7
II.
High-Level Opening Panel .........................................................................................................8
III.
Introductory Presentation & Focus Group Discussions ...........................................................10
1.
ARCHITECTURE ....................................................................................................................................... 10
2.
RESPONSE ............................................................................................................................................... 11
3.
PREPAREDNESS ....................................................................................................................................... 11
4.
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 12
IV.
Thematic Discussions ...............................................................................................................13
1.
CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING ........................................................................................................... 13
2.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................................................ 13
3.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH (AFFECTED) COMMUNITIES ............................................................................ 14
4.
TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITARIAN INNOVATIONS ................................................................................ 15
5.
HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN CONFLICT SETTINGS ................................................................................... 16
6.
HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN URBAN SETTINGS........................................................................................ 16
7.
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 17
V.
Regional Humanitarian Perspectives on the post-2015 Agendas .............................................19
1.
HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION II ...................................................................................................... 19
2.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS .................................................................................................... 20
3.
WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT........................................................................................................... 20
VI.
Conclusions and Recommendations .........................................................................................21
Annex 1: Agenda.................................................................................................................................24
Annex 2: Participants List ...................................................................................................................26
Annex 3: Focus Group Discussions (Day 1) – Chairs and Rapporteurs .............................................32
Annex 4: Thematic Discussions (Day 2) – Presenters, Moderators and Rapporteurs .........................33
Annex 5: Survey Results - Selected Questions ...................................................................................34
Annex 6: Terms of Reference for the Guide Editorial Board .............................................................50
Annex 7: Draft Terms of Reference for the Regional Steering Group ................................................52
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 4
Executive Summary
"Humanitarian response is not business as usual"
(ASEAN Deputy Secretary-General, Alicia Dela Rosa Bala)
The Asia-Pacific region has a vanguard role in improving the international humanitarian system.
It epitomizes the multiple new realities that daily challenge so-called traditional humanitarian
partners to think and act in new and innovative ways. National authorities – particularly in the
increasing number of middle-income countries in the region – are now leading, coordinating and
delivering humanitarian assistance to people in need. In this, they are supported by an
increasingly diverse group of partners, including regional organizations, neighbouring states,
local non-governmental organizations, community- and faith-based organizations, the private
sector, diaspora networks, and disaster-affected people and communities themselves. New
communications and distribution technologies offer potential solutions to long-standing
challenges, if only emergency responders can position themselves to take advantage of the
innovation and opportunity they promise. At the same time, new challenges have arisen as
global socio-economic and environmental challenges both increase the magnitude and
frequency of natural disasters and the potential for resource-based conflicts, while dwindling
external resources and increasing internal demand lead to increasing competition for available
humanitarian financing.
Amidst this new reality, international humanitarian organizations have increasingly
acknowledged that they are but one spoke on a humanitarian wheel, while national authorities,
protocols and systems occupy the central, axial position. Ensuring more effective, timely and
predictable assistance for emergency response requires both internal realignment of
humanitarian organizations’ mandates to prioritize technical support and capacity building, and
embracing a more diverse group of partners in humanitarian action. The principled basis for
humanitarian response still provides the framework, but the way that the growing community of
responders interact continues to evolve.
Starting from this point of departure, which was conceptualized at the previous event in 2011,
the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) convened its fifth
Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum (RHPF) for Asia and the Pacific on 14 and 15
November 2013 in Phuket, Thailand. With 104 participants representing 20 Member States and
47 international, regional and non-governmental organizations, private sector and academic
institutions, the Forum provided an opportunity for broad-based stocktaking on how far the
humanitarian community had come in adapting to new realities, as well as a forward-looking
dialogue on emerging humanitarian priorities. The Forum’s outcomes, as outlined in this report,
will support OCHA’s objective to use these community-wide deliberations to chart a
consultative forward agenda for its work in Asia and the Pacific over the next two years.
Combining plenary and focus group discussions, the Forum asked participants to conduct a
critical review of OCHA’s 2013 publication Disaster Response in Asia and the Pacific: a Guide
to International Tools and Services, which was produced in response to a request by Member
States participating in the fourth Forum (held in October 2011, in Shanghai, China). The Guide
was intended to empower Member States as requesters, rather than receivers, of external
assistance by providing a concise reference to the international tools and services available to
support disaster preparedness and response and thereby facilitating decision-making.
The Forum also identified six emerging humanitarian themes of particular relevance to the
region, which were the subject of thematic sessions organized on the second day. Each
discussion featured keynote presentations, followed by a moderated discussion to stimulate
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 5
thinking on how these issues could be addressed and/or lessons learned applied in other
contexts. The six themes were:
 cash transfer programming
 public private partnerships
 communications with affected communities
 technology and humanitarian innovation
 humanitarian action in conflict settings, and
 humanitarian action in urban settings.
This report summarizes each of the plenary and focus group discussions, highlighting
participants’ observations and recommendations and, where appropriate, translating them into
follow-up action to be pursued by OCHA and partners in the coming years. An overview of the
follow-up actions is presented in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report.
Each action point has also been referenced in the body of the report in the relevant sub-chapter.
In addition to the specific follow-up actions, the Forum provided a chance for participants to
jointly sketch some overarching conclusions about the future of humanitarian response – and the
related roles of international, regional, national, and local actors, along the three main axes of (i)
humanitarian response, (ii) preparedness and (iii) policy.
The following points were presented and agreed in the concluding session:
Response
1. The existing capacity of the international system to respond to emergencies must be
safeguarded to ensure that tools and services remain deployable, particularly for the
large-scale disaster situations that were likely to occur in the region.
As a logical extension of this recommendation, the pool of staff trained to support and to use
these tools and services should be enlarged and strengthened. National and local disaster
managers should benefit from familiarization workshops and trainings designed to increase
their understanding of how and when international and regional tools and services could
most effectively be called upon to supplement national efforts. Technical and operational
staff from governments, international, regional and local organizations, as well as the private
sector, should be provided opportunities to participate in specialized trainings to enhance
their knowledge base and expand the deployable pool of experts.
2. Efforts to enhance the inter-operability of international, regional and national tools and
services should be intensified where possible.
This conclusion was intended to promote more systematic reflection on the interplay
between tools and services held at the various levels (national, regional and international).
As a suggested way forward, OCHA would propose the establishment of a regional steering
group on interoperability, under the auspices of the IASC Regional Network and with
participation from Member State representatives, which will be tasked to (i) develop a
regional calendar of training and simulation exercises (which will also support the above
recommendation related to expanding the pool of staff trained on regional and international
tools and services), and (ii) organize regular consultative learning exercises (i.e. wash-ups)
to consolidate the lessons learned from joint training and exercise participation and make
recommendations to support enhanced inter-operability. As a related point, progress on
inter-operability will require the commitment of all partners to advocate for – and open
trainings and simulations to – wider participation from the humanitarian community.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 6
Preparedness
3. International humanitarian organizations should enhance their work on supporting the
development of national capacity for preparedness for response, and OCHA should
ensure that such efforts are adequately coordinated.
To this end, OCHA should promote improved preparedness for response by continuing its
ongoing work with humanitarian country teams, and enhancing its support to national
authorities through capacity building in priority areas, as foreseen, for example, by the
OCHA-WFP pilot project on response preparedness for countries at high risk of large-scale
disasters.1
Policy
4. The capture of lessons learned, including both best and worst practices, from the AsiaPacific region, should be strengthened and made more systematic in order to facilitate
experience sharing among different parties, including Member States, international, regional
and non-governmental organizations, the private sector, academic institutions and affected
communities.
While emphasizing that, where possible, this capture and experience sharing should be
facilitated through existing sectoral and/or thematic mechanisms and platforms, participants
indicated that some additional or expanded platform(s) should be established, particularly to
ensure cross-cutting consideration of key issues. OCHA should follow up in this regard with
technical experts on knowledge management.
In the coming months, OCHA will work with partners, including the Inter-Agency Standing
Committee (IASC) Regional Network, to develop a detailed plan of action to take forward the
action points identified in the Summary Report. It is envisaged that the plan of action would be
presented to the Forum participants for review and comment by the end of the first quarter 2014.
1
The concept note for this project is available upon request.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 7
I.
Background
OCHA has facilitated regional humanitarian partnership meetings in Asia-Pacific and other
regions worldwide as a regular part of its work since 2006. The fifth Regional Humanitarian
Partnership Forum for Asia and the Pacific took place in Phuket, Thailand, on 14 and 15
November 2013. The Forum provided an opportunity to review progress since the fourth Forum,
which was held in Shanghai in 2011, and continue regional dialogue on how to ensure the best
fit between national, regional and international humanitarian response mechanisms.
A total of 104 participants, including representatives of 20 Member States from Asia and the
Pacific2, as well as 47 international, regional and non-governmental organizations, private sector
and academic institutions attended the Forum and helped to:


review progress since the 2011 Shanghai meeting and discuss its outcomes (Day 1);
develop a forward agenda for how collectively to approach existing and emerging
challenges in the field of disaster preparedness and response (Day 2).
The Forum combined plenary and focus group sessions, interspersed with feedback and recap
sessions. The agenda and the list of participants are attached as Annex 1 and Annex 2
respectively.
Participants were asked to complete a pre-Forum survey (tailored respectively to representatives
of Member States, humanitarian organizations, and the private sector/academia), which aimed to
identify key strengths and challenges for the humanitarian sector in the Asia-Pacific region,
highlight specific thematic interests, and help to identify potential space for future collaboration
among actors. The analysis of key survey results is provided at the end of the report (Annex 5).
The full survey results are available on request.
2
With the exception of Germany, all Member States attending the Forum were from Asia and the Pacific,
including: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Timor-Leste.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 8
II.
High-Level Opening Panel
The Forum opened with welcome and introductory remarks by Mr. Oliver Lacey-Hall, Head of
OCHA’s Regional Office for Asia-Pacific (ROAP) and continued with a high-level panel
comprising the Deputy Secretary-General for the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community, H.E. Ms.
Alicia Dela Rosa Bala; the Deputy Governor of Phuket Province (Thailand), H.E. Ms. Sommai
Prijasilpa; and the Director of OCHA Geneva, Mr. Rashid Khalikov.
The three panellists discussed the future of humanitarian response in the region and highlighted
the importance of managing the relationship between national, regional and international relief
efforts. They emphasized that, as countries gain experience in managing disaster response and
improving response preparedness they should also consider how to effectively coordinate with
an ever increasing array of humanitarian actors. The need to improve inter-operability between
national, regional and international response mechanisms was another theme that stood out in
their remarks, with enhancing inter-operability between humanitarian tools and services
proposed as one key objective for further work.
“Asia Pacific is a dynamic region – risks are increasing and patterns are changing. Partnership and
cooperation is crucial” (ASEAN Deputy Secretary-General Alicia Dela Rosa Bala).
In her speech, the ASEAN Deputy Secretary-General noted that the future of humanitarian
response had a number of dimensions. Firstly, regional organisations were well positioned to
assume an increasingly significant role in building trust and confidence of their Member States
on humanitarian issues in ways which were not possible through global processes. This work
should support the development of common policies and interventions. Secondly, regional
coordination mechanisms also engendered an enhanced sense of ownership. The ASEAN
Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) was ASEAN's
blueprint for collective work in this field in the ASEAN domain, and was a manifestation of
such ownership and shared vision. Thirdly a strong regional basis for cooperation provided a
clearer entry point for international support. The emphasis was on flexibility in partnership.
Fourthly, the emergence of technology as a tool to improve disaster response and save lives
needed to be more fully embraced. Finally, there was recognition of the need for synergy
between international and regional organisations, with the former playing an important role in
supporting the capacity development of the latter, and both supporting local and national
response capacity. In addition, she urged governments and regional organizations to improve
cooperation with the private sector, to work more closely with think tanks, researchers and
academia, and to take advantage of both new and existing technologies.
“(…) we are learning the lessons and improving our ability to be prepared and respond”
(Deputy Governor of Phuket Sommai Prijasilpa)
Ms. Prijasilpa noted that in pursuit of a common approach to disaster management and
emergency response, Member States and Regional Organizations in this region are setting high
standards globally. She also noted that building national capacity is a necessity in view of the
fact that governments are increasingly exercising their obligation to lead preparedness for and
response to disasters in their countries.
"(...) a new way of thinking and working together"
(Director of OCHA Geneva Mr. Rashid Khalikov)
Mr. Khalikov emphasized that increasingly inclusive and diverse humanitarian partnerships are
crucial to improve future capacity to respond to those in need, particularly in light of the fact
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 9
that the gap between needs and resources is growing every year. In this regard, he reassured the
audience that OCHA remains committed to maximize all possible resources, and connect and
convene expertise and capacity to meet needs as efficiently as possible.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 10
III. Introductory Presentation & Focus Group Discussions
The Forum’s substantive discussions kicked off on day one with a report on progress since the
2011 Forum in Shanghai, delivered by Mr. Lacey-Hall and an overview of humanitarian trends
in Asia-Pacific, presented by Mr. Charles-Antoine Hofmann, Executive Coordinator for Disaster
Response Dialogue.
Mr. Lacey-Hall highlighted that notable progress has been achieved since 2011 with the
publication of Disaster Response in Asia and the Pacific: a Guide to International Tools and
Services3 (the Guide) and Humanitarianism in the Network Age4 (HINA), two publications that
responded to the recommendations put forward in the 2011 Forum. In addition to having
presented the Guide (scope, structure and content) as a direct outcome from the Shanghai
Forum, Mr. Lacey-Hall offered recommendations on how and when to access and use it. The
presentation’s key messages were that (i) the Guide was a document developed to help UN
Member States and their partners better understand the interaction between national, regional,
and international response tools and (ii) if used as a reference document, it could help to
improve the interoperability of tools and services for response and preparedness.
With respect to humanitarian trends in Asia-Pacific, Mr. Hofmann noted a series of challenges,
including the growing number of international actors, emerging national coordination systems
and a growing sense of mistrust between governments and humanitarian organizations. In
relation to these challenges he concluded that there is a need to strengthen the relationship
between and among various actors and urged this to be done via dialogue. The Guide was
recognized as a pertinent tool to help achieve consensus around norms, principles and response
tools.
Following these presentations, Day 1 continued with extended focus group discussions on the
Guide. The focus groups were aligned with the Guide’s three main chapters: Architecture, Tools
and Services for Response, and Tools and Services for Preparedness. The following subsections describe the participants’ reception of the Guide and the revisions they proposed in
each area. A list of the session chairs and reporting focal points is provided in Annex 3.
1. ARCHITECTURE
The general consensus was that the “International Humanitarian Architecture” chapter
adequately captured the main applicable laws, resolutions and guidelines relevant for the region.
During a discussion on regulatory frameworks, views on UN General Assembly resolution
46/1825 varied widely from ‘no change required’ to ‘needing substantive revision’. Overall, the
group concluded that the resolution still provided the essential building blocks for humanitarian
action, but that greater efforts should be made to apply the humanitarian principles, which
formed the basis of the resolution, to the now wider humanitarian community in its engagement
on preparedness and response. Additionally, measures should be taken to ensure that the roles
and responsibilities, and the specific response mechanisms that the resolution proposed, were
more fully and effectively implemented.
Other suggested improvements for consideration were:
3
Available on www.unocha.org/asiadisasterguide
Available on http://www.unocha.org/hina
5
Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations [A/RES/46/182,
46th Session (1991)].
4
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 11





better reflection of the type and scope of national and regional regulatory frameworks,
given the shift in Asia-Pacific countries towards seeking greater cooperation from within
the region
featuring mechanisms for inter-state and regional cooperation and regional agreements
on disaster management more prominently
provision of more explicit detail on the various types of support that regional and
international organizations provided to governments, i.e. bilateral technical assistance,
partnership strategies and coordination mechanisms
inclusion of some detail on different sub-national arrangements for disaster management
common to or recommended by Member States
inclusion of further information on categories of actor not currently featured or only
lightly covered in the Guide (e.g. affected communities, donors, sub-national governing
authorities and military forces, as well as the Cluster Approach).
2. RESPONSE
Overall, the group reported that the Guide and the chapter on response in particular feature
relevant tools and services and provided concise and easy-to use information on them. The
group agreed that no tool or service was more important than another as each was used in
different contexts while responding to different needs.
Suggested improvements for consideration were:





customization of the Guide for specific national or sub-regional contexts
ensuring regular updates to include new tools and services, such as accountability
standards
elaboration on potential interoperability of tools (e.g. UNDAC and ERAT) while
recognizing that not all tools could be made inter-operable
providing more detail on humanitarian financing, as well as guidelines on the use of cash
transfer programming (not currently covered)
improving coverage of private sector initiatives (e.g. telecommunications, Google
satellite imagery).
The group recognized that not all of the suggested changes and additions could be captured in
one Guide. OCHA encouraged governments to take ownership of the Guide and customize it to
their specific realities, with the interoperability issues clearly in mind. The task of leading the
national customization should fall on the respective Member State, with OCHA and other
international partners to provide technical support.
3. PREPAREDNESS
The group reported that it found this chapter of the Guide to be useful, and recognized that it
was one of few available resources that provided a common basic understanding on the
available tools and services for response preparedness.
The group recommended that:


the Guide text be supplemented with information on relevant national tools and services
(if Governments decided to develop national versions of the Guide)
the Guide should be presented as an online, open-source and dynamic tool that could be
updated by partners with relevant national and regional-based information (e.g. a Wiki
function)
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnership Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 12


there should be more detail on how to engage with coordination mechanisms and build
partnerships with regional organizations and the private sector, as well as how to
improve information management capacity and use new technologies
the Guide should emphasize the importance of establishing pre-disaster relationships
with all potential stakeholders, including affected communities.
Beyond the Guide and with respect to trainings for response preparedness and early warning
systems (EWS), participants indicated a desire to see strengthened focus on trainings and
capacity building, nationally-led simulation exercises that included multiple stakeholders
(including non-traditional humanitarian actors like the private sector), and increased guidance
for Member States on implementation and integration of available international response
preparedness tools in their respective national strategies.
4. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
During the final plenary of the day, during which each of the Focus Groups presented their
recommendations, followed by a wider plenary discussion on the recommendations, it was
agreed that:




OCHA should establish an Editorial Board to support development of future editions of
the Guide, and that terms of reference for the Editorial Board would be circulated with
the Summary Report (Annex 6)
The Editorial Board should meet virtually every six months to review recommendations
for inclusions / amendments to the online version of the Guide
The Editorial Board should meet in person every two years to support OCHA to publish
the next print edition of the Guide (second edition planned for 2015)
Member States interested in adapting the Guide to a specific national context should
contact OCHA for support, including access to the base files and graphic / style
guidance.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 13
IV. Thematic Discussions
Following a recap of the discussion on the first day, the majority of the second day was devoted
to thematic discussions on six emerging humanitarian issues or challenges in the Asia-Pacific
context, including:






cash transfer programming (CTP)
public-private partnerships (PPP)
communication with (affected) communities (CwC)
technology and humanitarian innovation
humanitarian action in conflict settings, and
humanitarian action in urban settings.
The following sub-sections briefly summarize the discussions in each thematic discussion and
outline suggestions to take advantage of new opportunities and/or resolve existing challenges to
improve humanitarian action that were proposed during the discussions. A list of feature
presenters, moderators and focal points is provided in Annex 4.
1. CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING
In recent years there has been an increasing trend within the humanitarian sector to use cash
transfer programmes to supplement relief efforts in the preparedness, response and recovery
phases of a disaster. A group of some 30 people joined the discussion on how and when
governments, donors, and humanitarian organizations should use cash as a form of humanitarian
assistance.
The group discussed the benefits and challenges posed by CTP. They UN OCHA Asia Pacific
agreed that, in addition to similar challenges that affect in-kind (@OCHAAsiaPac):
contributions (e.g. verification, logistics, misuse, feedback "’Cash transfers are not the
to every problem and
mechanisms), CTP posed additional challenges that needed to be solution
no substitute for relief - they
carefully reviewed and addressed on a case-by case basis. Such are a supplement’ MG Aleem
challenges included: socio-cultural barriers to accepting cash @PakistanNDMA #RHPF.“ 15
handouts, financial literacy, alignment with existing national social Nov 2013, 05:49 UTC. Tweet
safety net programmes, coordination with private sector in-kind assistance, understanding the
effects of CTP on local economies, as well as conditionality issues and decision-making
processes.
The general conclusions of the participants were that:


CTP was most operative in the recovery phase of a disaster
When mainstreamed in preparedness, CTP was a crucial service in the early stages of
response as well
The key message that participants took away was that cash was one among several transfer
modalities, which could be used either to supplement or in lieu of in-kind contributions. Where
relevant, CTP should be employed. In order for CTP to work more effectively, humanitarian
agencies and Member States agreed on the need to advocate for wider acceptance and adoption
of new ways of working.
2. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
There was general consensus among the nearly 50 participants on the fact that governments,
humanitarian organizations, and the private sector continued to struggle to find a common
vocabulary. Several measures that aimed to support greater engagement between public, private
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 14
and humanitarian actors were proposed, ranging from initiating multi-stakeholder dialogue with
the private sector to putting in place legislative and institutional frameworks at all levels.
With respect to concrete future action it was proposed that:





governments should include the private sector in contingency planning processes
humanitarian actors and governments should ensure that the private sector stays updated
on disaster-related information and benefits from trainings
all parties should be aware of and commit to existing guidelines on public-private
partnerships, including those developed under the aegis of the UN Global Compact and
the OCHA-World Economic Forum (WEF) Guiding Principles for Public-Private
Collaboration for Humanitarian Action.6
governments, the private sector and humanitarian organizations should explore better
ways to coordinate their action
strategic and sector-focused engagement with the private sector should be prioritized
The group’s main recommendation was for the establishment of an
inclusive mechanism to promote coordination among governments,
humanitarian organizations and business for humanitarian
preparedness and response. In response, OCHA noted efforts at the
global level to establish a multi-stakeholder framework and
partnership on “Prepared Communities for Resilient Nations” as part
of its collaboration with the WEF on promoting public-private
partnerships for humanitarian action. Among the key elements of this
framework figured the creation of a public-private partnerships coordination platform, which
was expected to provide common tools, standards and norms; a resource library; a partner
matchmaking facility; and a repository of public-private / private sector partnerships. This
framework could form the basis for extension of the global process at the regional level in AsiaPacific.
UN OCHA Asia Pacific
(@OCHAAsiaPac) : "PublicPrivate Partnerships: ‘We
need to find a common
language and agree on aims,
objectives and gains for each
side’ #RHPF". 14 Nov 2013,
03:32 UTC. Tweet
3. COMMUNICATIONS WITH (AFFECTED) COMMUNITIES
This session brought together 38 participants who jointly reviewed existing regional
understanding of what communicating with communities affected by disasters meant and what
needed to be done to achieve effective two-way communication.
Participants agreed that communicating effectively and sharing UN OCHA Asia Pacific
relevant information with those who had been affected by the (OCHAAsiaPac) : "’We need a
disaster or crisis was vital. In this regard, more time and effort people-centred approach. We need to
should be invested in understanding people’s information needs create a movement of people – that
has to happen!’ @JemilahMahmood
and preferences in using traditional and new communication @HFP_KCL #RHPF #commisaid". 15
technologies. The group also agreed that there was a need for Nov 2013, 05:21 UTC. Tweet
rigorous assessment of communication needs and
communication preferences within specific communities prior to the occurrence of disaster. To
this end, the Forum participants agreed to work together to ensure that communities had access
to information and could provide feedback at all stages in the disaster risk reduction cycle:
resilience building, disaster preparedness, response, recovery and reconstruction. This meant
shifting the perspective away from disaster-prone and disaster-affected communities solely as
receivers of information to partners who were consuming and generating information at the
same time.
Emphasis was placed on laying the groundwork for CwC via improved cooperation on:
6
Global Compact: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/
OCHA-WEF Guiding Principles: http://business.un.org/en/documents/257
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 15





pre-disaster assessments of communication needs and preferences
building common and consistent messaging
setting up strong coordination mechanisms
building communication infrastructure, and
raising awareness among vulnerable and at-risk communities
UN OCHA Asia Pacific
(OCHAAsiaPac) : "’Different
actors need to communicate
with communities with one
voice’ Moira Reddick
@NepalDRR on 2-way
comms #RHPF #commisaid".
15 Nov 2013, 05:56 UTC.
Tweet
Government support, increased funding, and the involvement of a
wider range of actors, including the private sector, were highlighted
as key elements in achieving the steps recommended above to
strengthen CwC in the region.
Despite consensus around the need to improve CwC, participants
tended to focus on constraints and challenges rather than
opportunities. This was indicative of the fact that CwC-related
policies and practices were at an early stage in development.
4. TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITARIAN INNOVATIONS
In the field of disaster management, engaging with new technology has become an imperative: it
can both help disaster managers to better understand the needs, aspirations, requirements,
vulnerabilities and risks that a community faces, and improve the quality and delivery of
assistance to affected communities. As noted in the 2013 OCHA publication Humanitarianism
in the Network Age (HINA), however, the rapid pace of technological change, as well as the
abundance of new digital technologies and communication systems, also raised a series of
challenges for humanitarian action, including lack of organizational capacity to understand and
use new technologies, resistance to adopt new methods, technological overload, and the risk of
improper use of ‘big data’.
Several of the close to 30 participants in this group discussion said UN OCHA Asia Pacific
adopting new ideas and technologies was problematic for their (OCHAAsiaPac) : ""To
organizations due to ‘too many options’, not all of which were easy to use technology in disaster
use, and an over-abundance of information that could not be easily response, we need to
adapt it to the context,
filtered to inform decisions and processes. Lack of capacity to deal with goals, culture and people"
‘big data’ and reluctance to rely fully on technology to analyze complex #RHPF #HINA". 15 Nov
data sets constituted another concern among governments and 2013, 06:01 UTC. Tweet
humanitarian organizations, as did the issue of protecting the privacy of
data. When asked about factors that hindered innovation and change within their organization,
participants identified staff capacity, infrastructure limitations, inadequate technologies, and
community reluctance to adopt new technology.
Discussants argued that building on existing communication tools and infrastructure should be
the starting point of any venture to enhance the use of technology to support preparedness and
response. “One size fits all” technological solutions did not work and each country and
organization should support the development of appropriate technology and infrastructure. It
was further suggested that tech-savvy actors should provide the relevant support to achieve this.
Participants also requested guidelines be developed on how to collect and issue accurate and
relevant information in pre-disaster and disaster situations, and how to start implementing
technological and digital solutions.
The key observations for participants, tech colleagues and disaster managers alike, were:


disaster management-related technology had to be flexible, simple, small and
customizable
disaster managers had to articulate what they want to achieve through technology and
demand solutions fit for their needs
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 16

improving cooperation with actors such as local and grass-root communities, academia,
the private sector and volunteer and technical communities would help in identifying
appropriate solutions and, at the same time, encourage innovation.
5. HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN CONFLICT SETTINGS
In addition to being vulnerable to natural hazards, Asia-Pacific is also a conflict-prone region.
Often, governments and the humanitarian community find themselves responding to needs
created by a disaster that occurs in areas affected by conflict.
UN OCHA Asia Pacific
Positing that there is a need to have more sustained regional
(OCHAAsiaPac) : "’There were
396 conflicts in 2012, 34% in
dialogue in a safe, neutral and enabling environment on the role of
Asia-Pacific’ Jason Franz on
international humanitarian organizations in providing humanitarian
humanitarian action in conflict
response in conflict situations, the 2013 Forum included this session
settings @HIIK_eV #HINA
as an opportunity to bring together representatives of Member
#RHPF". 15 Nov 2013, 07:29
States, humanitarian organizations and some key academic
UTC. Tweet
organizations to brainstorm on possible opportunities to address this
and related issues more systematically. Despite potential sensitivities, there was significant
interest and participation in the session.
During the discussion, participants noted a need to:



build trust between and among governments and the humanitarian community prior to
responding to a complex emergency
work toward a better understanding of conflict drivers
address a perceived legal vacuum in the region on humanitarian law and human rights,
particularly concerning internal conflict situations
The interrelated aspects of trust and relationship-building were articulated by the majority of
participants, who noted that building relationships in advance and investing in planning is
necessary to make sure that governments and humanitarian actors alike are aware of the
international standards that apply during complex emergencies. Furthermore, consultation,
communication and coordination at all levels (national, regional and international) and with all
actors were essential to design specific tools and instruments of intervention to minimize the
negative impacts of conflict on the civilian population.
The discussion was limited to acknowledging the importance of building national and local
actors’ capacity to support civilian populations affected by complex emergencies. Among
potential opportunities to promote such approaches figured:




building institutional and legal capacity at national and regional levels for conflictsensitive practices
creating platforms to support dialogue and collaborative learning between local
authorities, communities and humanitarian actors at local levels
investing in trainings on conflict management, and
supporting local capacity building.
6. HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN URBAN SETTINGS
Statistically, Asia-Pacific is the world’s most disaster-prone region. Also home to half the
world’s urban population and more than half of all mega-cities, this combination resulted in a
heightened risk of urban disasters in the region. Recognizing that despite increasing focus on
more effective urban planning to reduce population and infrastructure vulnerabilities to natural
disasters, the capacity to effectively prepare for and respond to urban disasters remained limited,
the session aimed to provide a space for interested parties to discuss the most urgent gaps and
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 17
limitations in current urban response capacity, and propose ways
forward in working together to enhance emergency preparedness and
response capacity in complex urban landscapes.
The 28 participants identified two areas in which immediate
improvements were necessary in order to promote well-prepared cities
with better capacity to respond to disasters:


better planning, and
developing strong communication and coordination strategies
UN OCHA Asia Pacific
(OCHAAsiaPac) : "’Not
understanding the systems
in place in the disaster
affected countries is a
second disaster itself’
#RHPF #APHumForum".
14 Nov 2013, 05:21 UTC.
Tweet
With respect to planning, participants noted specific activities that disaster managers should
collaboratively work on in the coming years, including:




establishing continuity planning for public services and facilities
developing extensive-scenario contingency plans with clear guidelines to follow for
different types of disasters
signing agreements with neighbouring cities for burden-sharing during response and
reconstruction in cases of disaster that left a city incapacitated, and
updating national building codes and safety standards
The participants also emphasized that the measures prescribed above should be complemented
at all stages with strategic communication, coordination and knowledge sharing with a wider
community of stakeholders on the ground, from individual citizens to the business community.
Local authorities should be supported to build capacity through trainings on preparedness.
Enhanced communication approaches should transfer knowledge and preparedness to the local
population via simulation exercises, awareness-raising and education campaigns. Defining
community-based roles and responsibilities, training volunteers, and setting up public
information centres were additional options proposed to enhance preparedness.
Lack of capacity, trained personnel, and funding for urban humanitarian response, as well as the
increased logistical challenges related to operating in densely-populated, debris-ridden
environments were noted among the main challenges to implementation of the measures
identified; regional and international support should be channelled to help resolve them.
7. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
During the plenary reporting sessions that followed the thematic discussions, each group was
requested to recommend at least one concrete follow up action that should be taken forward by
OCHA and/or other key actors:



Cash Transfer Programming: The Cash Learning Partnership, with support from
OCHA and the IASC Regional Network, should (i) organize a dedicated workshop to
discuss CTP-related issues, and (ii) expand the regional cash working group to include
Member State representatives, as well as representatives from regional organizations and
the private sector.
Public-Private Partnerships: OCHA, in partnership with CSR Asia (and possibly a
private sector counterpart) should convene a multi-stakeholder public-private
consultation at the regional level in 2014 with the aim of supporting the development of
a multi-stakeholder platform and facilitating exchange of best practice and lessons
learned in public-private partnerships.
Communication with (affected) Communities: OCHA should expand the regional
CwC coordination mechanism and facilitate the sharing of lessons learned in the
countries piloting new approaches on two-way communications with communities.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 18



Technology and Humanitarian Innovation: OCHA should facilitate consultations
among stakeholders to identify appropriate partners from the humanitarian and
technology sectors to develop an action plan for implementing the recommendations of
the HINA report, particularly Recommendations #3 (To build capacity within aid
organizations and Governments to understand and use new information sources) and #4
(To develop guidelines to ensure information is used in an ethical and secure manner).
Humanitarian Action in Conflict Settings: OCHA and the IASC Regional Network
should work with other partners, including human rights and development actors, to
identify additional opportunities to focus on issues related to humanitarian action in
conflict settings at relevant future events, including at the 2015 Forum.
Humanitarian Action in Urban Settings: ADPC should look at ways to expand its
work on urban humanitarian preparedness to other countries in Asia.
There was also consensus from participants that, in future, more time should be dedicated to the
thematic discussions to facilitate more in-depth reflection and discussions. As part of its followup actions, OCHA should work with the IASC Regional Network to ensure that the six issues
featured during the Forum benefited from continued dialogue, research and application of
innovative approaches.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 19
V.
Regional Humanitarian Perspectives on the post-2015
Agendas
The last session of the Forum aimed to result in inputs from the Asia-Pacific region to the post2015 global summits on Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, Japan in March 2015), the
Sustainable Development Goals (New York, General Assembly in September 2015) and
Humanitarianism (Istanbul, Turkey in early 2016). To better facilitate substantive conversations
in each of these major areas, the plenary was split into three focus group discussions aligned to
the summits.
1. HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION II
The purpose of the discussion on the upcoming World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction
was to reflect on how aspects of response preparedness, which was an integral element (pillar 5)
of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015), needed to be updated to reflect lessons
learned and strengthen linkages between the earlier and later phases of the disaster risk
reduction cycle, and to make some recommendations about how to develop and input
humanitarian perspectives in this regard into the intergovernmental, consultative process leading
up to the summit.
Reviewing the current status of work, partners perceived progress on response preparedness as
one of the achievements of the past decade, but still felt that governments, regional
organizations and international partners needed to continue to retain an explicit focus on
response preparedness in the HFA2, underscoring that it should at minimum be treated as a
cross-cutting issue mainstreamed into recommendations for progress on newly-included
thematic areas.
Reflecting on the initial conclusions of consultations undertaken with Member States in the
region regarding preparedness priorities, the group broadly categorized them along four focus
areas, adding their own priorities thereto:




Joint planning. The group emphasized that governments required support to make
planning more effective and inclusive of all actors, across the various levels and
branches of government and involving neighbouring governments, international
organizations, civil society, military forces, the private sector, and local communities. It
was imperative for each country and context to fully define the roles and responsibilities
of each actor and, where possible, agree on standard operating procedures for the
preparedness phase of response.
Information Management. The group felt that information management for preparedness
needed to be improved to be more inclusive of knowledge and data sourced from various
actors (i.e. increasing the data bank), while also adopting newer, more effective
technologies to aid preparedness, such as early warning systems.
Capacity Development: As a logical step following joint planning, the group felt it
important for Governments to be supported in building their capacity in preparing for
disasters. This included training for senior officials, provincial officials, down to
volunteers, as well as the possibility of conducting joint training and simulation
exercises with as wide a group of actors as possible.
Equipment: Finally, it was noted that to improve preparedness it is also necessary to
invest in appropriate equipment (e.g. specific tools for search and rescue operations)
In conclusion, it was agreed that the conclusions from this session should be fed into the overall
preparations for the Asian Ministerial Conference on DRR (AMC-DRR), which was to take
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 20
place in Bangkok, Thailand in June 2015, with a view to seeing them reflected in the final
recommendations from Asia-Pacific to the draft HFA2 document.
2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
The group concluded that incorporating a stand-alone humanitarian goal in the SDGs and
developing an indicator to measure it would be a difficult, if not impossible, task. However, the
group agreed that humanitarian issues should feature prominently in the post-MDG goals.
Recommendations included influencing the development of goals around poverty and resilience,
and cross-cutting goals that link humanitarian and longer-term development issues. Key points
that require further consultations included how to measure success in partnerships, how to
define and measure resilience, and how to address human rights, peace, security and
vulnerability in disaster situations.
3. WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT
Regional consultations ahead of the World Humanitarian Summit, which was scheduled to take
place in early 2016, would focus on four thematic areas – humanitarian effectiveness, reducing
vulnerability and managing risk, transformation through innovation, and serving the needs of
people in conflict. The regional consultations were expected to start in mid-2014, and would
include a consultation for East and Southeast Asia, to be co-hosted by Japan and Indonesia
(tentatively scheduled for July 2014 in Tokyo, Japan). Additionally, a Pacific consultation had
been proposed as well. During the discussion, participants reviewed the four themes, and
suggested that they were too broad at present and required some tailoring to the regional
context. The group also recommended that the WHS allocate significant space for sharing of
best practices, while taking into consideration past mistakes.
4. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
To achieve the above recommendations on integrating regional humanitarian perspectives into
the agendas for the post-2015 DRR, development and humanitarian summits, the following
actions should be taken at the regional level:



Hyogo Framework for Action: Member States should reference the identified priorities
as appropriate in the country papers being prepared for submission to the AMC-DRR,
and advocate for these points to be included in the final HFA2 document to be adopted
at the 2015 summit in Sendai; humanitarian organizations should also ensure that the
preparedness priorities agreed at the Forum are reflected in their agency submissions to
the HFA2 document via the headquarters-based process
Sustainable Development Goals: Forum participants agreed to intensify their advocacy
on resilience and to use every available platform to achieve regional consensus and
effectively communicate the importance of having a humanitarian perspective inform the
SDGs now being negotiated
World Humanitarian Summit: Forum participants agreed on the need for regional
leadership in preparing for the World Humanitarian Summit. As recommended by the
global WHS Secretariat, a steering group should be established to guide the process of
agenda-setting and preparations for the upcoming Asian regional consultation to be held
in Tokyo, Japan (please see the draft terms of reference for the regional steering group,
which are provide in Annex 7).
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 21
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
In the concluding session, the key themes that emerged during the two-day discussions were
recapitulated and priorities and next steps for the region in the coming years outlined.
OCHA reviewed each of the follow-up actions recommended by the focus groups and thematic
discussion group, as well as in plenary, and requested confirmation of the organization-specific
roles and responsibilities for follow-up. These are summarized in the table below.
Follow-Up Actions from the 2013 Forum
RESPONSIBLE
RECOMMENDATION
Day 1 - Focus Group Discussions on the Guide
(consolidated follow-up recommended by all three groups)
OCHA
Guide Editorial
Board Members
Member States
Establish an Editorial Board to support development of future editions of
the Guide, and that terms of reference for the Editorial Board would be
circulated with the Summary Report (Annex 6)
Meet virtually every six months to review recommendations for
inclusions / amendments to the online version of the Guide
Meet in person every two years to support OCHA to publish the next
print edition of the Guide (second edition planned for 2015)
Contact OCHA to request support in adapting the Guide to specific
national context, including access to the base files and graphic / style
guidance.
Day 2 - Thematic discussions
(follow-up recommended by each group)
Cash Learning
Partnership
(with support from
OCHA & IASC
Regional Network)
Organize a dedicated workshop to discuss CTP-related issues
Expand the regional cash working group to include Member State
representatives, as well as representatives from regional organizations
and the private sector
OCHA & CSR
Asia
Convene a multi-stakeholder public-private consultation at the regional
level in 2014 with the aim of supporting the development of the common
platform and facilitating exchange of best practice and lessons learned in
public-private partnerships
OCHA
Expand the regional CwC coordination mechanism and facilitate the
sharing of lessons learned in the countries piloting new approaches on
two-way communications with communities
OCHA
Facilitate consultations among stakeholders to identify appropriate
partners from the humanitarian and technology sectors to develop an
action plan for implementing the recommendations of the HINA report
OCHA & IASC
Regional Network
Identify more opportunities to focus on issues related to humanitarian
action in conflict settings at relevant future events, including the 2015
Forum
ADPC
Look at ways to expand work on urban humanitarian preparedness to
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 22
other countries in Asia
Day 2 - Focus Group Discussions on post-2015 DRR, development & humanitarian
agendas
(follow-up recommended by each group)
Member States
Reference the identified preparedness priorities in the country papers
being prepared for submission to the AMC-DRR, and advocate for these
points to be included in the final HFA2 document to be adopted at the
2015 summit in Sendai
Humanitarian
Organizations
Ensure that the identified preparedness priorities are reflected in agency
submissions to the HFA2 document via the headquarters-based process
All Forum
Participants
Intensify advocacy on resilience and use every available platform to
achieve regional consensus and effectively communicate the importance
of having a humanitarian perspective inform the SDGs now being
negotiated
Japan, Indonesia,
& OCHA
(with support from
IASC Regional
Network & Forum
Participants)
Establish a regional steering group to guide the process of agenda-setting
and preparations for the upcoming Asian consultation for the WHS to be
held in Tokyo, Japan
In addition, OCHA noted the emergence of several overarching strategic priorities for
humanitarian capacity in the Asia-Pacific region throughout the Forum, including:
Response
1. The existing capacity of the international system to respond to emergencies must be
safeguarded to ensure that tools and services remain deployable, particularly for the
large-scale disaster situations that were likely to occur in the region.
As a logical extension of this recommendation, the pool of staff trained to support and to use
these tools and services should be enlarged and strengthened. National and local disaster
managers should benefit from familiarization workshops and trainings designed to increase
their understanding of how and when international and regional tools and services could
most effectively be called upon to supplement national efforts. Technical and operational
staff from governments, international, regional and local organizations, as well as the private
sector, should be provided opportunities to participate in specialized trainings to enhance
their knowledge base and expand the deployable pool of experts.
2. Efforts to enhance the inter-operability of international, regional and national tools and
services should be intensified where possible.
This conclusion was intended to promote more systematic reflection on the interplay
between tools and services held at the various levels (national, regional and international).
As a suggested way forward, OCHA would propose the establishment of a regional steering
group on interoperability, under the auspices of the IASC Regional Network and with
participation from Member State representatives, which will be tasked to (i) develop a
regional calendar of training and simulation exercises (which will also support the above
recommendation related to expanding the pool of staff trained on regional and international
tools and services), and (ii) organize regular consultative learning exercises (i.e. wash-ups)
to consolidate the lessons learned from joint training and exercise participation and make
recommendations to support enhanced inter-operability. As a related point, progress on
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 23
inter-operability will require the commitment of all partners to advocate for – and open
trainings and simulations to – wider participation from the humanitarian community.
Preparedness
3. International humanitarian organizations should enhance their work on supporting the
development of national capacity for preparedness for response, and OCHA should
ensure that such efforts are adequately coordinated.
To this end, OCHA should promote improved preparedness for response by continuing its
ongoing work with humanitarian country teams, and enhancing its support to national
authorities through capacity building in priority areas, as foreseen, for example, by the
OCHA-WFP pilot project on response preparedness for countries at high risk of large-scale
disasters.7
Policy
4. The capture of lessons learned, including both best and worst practices, from the AsiaPacific region, should be strengthened and made more systematic in order to facilitate
experience sharing among different parties, including Member States, international, regional
and non-governmental organizations, the private sector, academic institutions and affected
communities.
While emphasizing that, where possible, this capture and experience sharing should be
facilitated through existing sectoral and/or thematic mechanisms and platforms, participants
indicated that some additional or expanded platform(s) should be established, particularly to
ensure cross-cutting consideration of key issues. OCHA should follow up in this regard with
technical experts on knowledge management.
In the coming months, OCHA will work with partners, including the Inter-Agency Standing
Committee (IASC) Regional Network, to develop a detailed plan of action to take forward the
follow-up action points identified in the Summary Report. It is envisaged that the plan of action
would be presented to the Forum participants for review and comment by the end of the first
quarter 2014.
7
The concept note for this project is available upon request.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 24
Annex 1: Agenda
Wednesday 13 November 2013
18:30-21:00
Welcome Reception and Dinner
Thursday
14 November 2013
09:00-09:05
Security Briefing
09:05-09:15
Welcome and Introductions by Mr. Oliver Lacey-Hall, Head, OCHA Regional Office
for Asia-Pacific (OCHA ROAP)
09:15-10:00
High-Level Opening Panel with Deputy Secretary-General for the ASEAN SocioCultural Community H.E. Ms Alicia Dela Rosa Bala, Deputy Governor of Phuket H.E.
Ms. Sommai Prijasilpa, and Director of OCHA Geneva Mr. Rashid Khalikov
10:00-10:15
Open floor
10:15-11:00
Group Tour of the Exhibition, Photo and Coffee Break
11:00-11:45
Humanitarian Trends in Asia-Pacific and Presentation of “Disaster Response in Asia
and the Pacific: a Guide to International Tools and Services”
Presenters: Mr. Oliver Lacey-Hall, Head, OCHA Regional Office for Asia-Pacific and
Mr. Charles-Antoine Hofmann, Executive Coordinator, Disaster Response Dialogue
11:45-13:00
Focus Group Discussions on the Guide
(i) Chapter 1: Architecture (ii) Chapter 2: Response (iii) Chapter 3: Preparedness
13:00-14:30
Lunch
14:30-16:00
Focus Group Discussions on the Guide
(i) Chapter 1: Architecture (ii) Chapter 2: Response (iii) Chapter 3: Preparedness
16:00-16:30
Coffee Break
16:30-17:30
Plenary Feedback from the Focus Group Discussions 15
Friday
15 November 2013
09:00-09:30
Recap of Day 1
09:30-10:45
Thematic Discussions (i) Cash Transfer Programming (ii) Public-Private Partnerships
10:45-11:15
Coffee Break
11:15-12:30
Thematic Discussions (i) Communications with Affected Communities (ii) Technology
and Humanitarian Innovation
12:30-13:00
Feedback from the morning Thematic Discussions
13:00-14:00
Lunch
14:00-15:15
Thematic Discussions
(i) Humanitarian Action in Conflict Settings (ii) Humanitarian Action in Urban Settings
15:15-15:30
Feedback from the afternoon Thematic Discussions
15:30-16:30
Focus Group Discussions on the post-2015 DRR, development and humanitarian
agendas
16:30-17:00
Feedback from the Focus Group Discussions
17:00-17:15
Closing Remarks
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 25
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 26
Annex 2: Participants List
Member States
M.G. Muhammad Saeed Aleem
Chairman
Prime Minister's Office, National Disaster Management
Authority
chairman@ndma.gov.pk
Mr. Jong Song Gap
Counsellor
Embassy of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
thadrk@yahoo.com
Mr. Soe Aung
Director General
Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement
soeaung.drr.mm@gmail.com
Dr. Mohammad Daim Kakar
Director General
National Disaster Management Authority
kmd786@yahoo.com
Dr. Abas Basir
Chief of Staff
Second Vice President Office
abas.basir@gmail.com
Mr. Norith Ma
Advisor to National Committee for Disaster Management
Office of the Prime Minister, National Committee for
Disaster Management
ma.norith@ncdm.gov.kh
Mr. Sambuuyondon Doloonjin
Lieutenant Colonel, Head
Office of the Deputy Premier, National Emergency
Management Agency, State Reserve Department
nema_mongolia@yahoo.com
Ms. Ng Geok Meng
Assistant Director
Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore Civil Defence Force
ng_geok_meng@scdf.gov.sg
Mr. Steve Darvill
Humanitarian adviser
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Humanitarian &
Stabilisation Division
steve.darvill@ausaid.gov.au
Mr. Pg. Hj Shaharuddin bin Pg. Metali
Assistant Superintendent Fire and Rescue
Ministry of Home Affair, National Disaster Management
Centre, Fire and Rescue
shaharuddin.metali@ndmc.gov.bn
Mr. Tshering Dorji
Home Secretary
Ministry of Home & Cultural Affairs
tsheringdorji3@gmail.com
Mr. Manoj Mohan Mitra
Joint Secretary (Relief)
Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief
mmmitra02@gmail.com
Mr. Umar Moosa Fikry
Senior Program Officer
Ministry of Defence and National Security Services,
National Disaster Management Centre, Disaster Risk
Reduction Team
umar.fikry@ndmc.gov.mv
Mr. Montri Nathananan
First Secretary
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of International
Organizations, Development Affairs Division
Montri@mfa.go.th
Mr. Khamphao Hompangna
Deputy Director General
Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, National Disaster
Management Office (NDMO), Social Welfare Department
phao_ndmo@yahoo.com
Mr. Arun Pinta
Chief of Foreign Relations Section
Ministry of Interior of Thailand, Department of Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM)
arunpinta@gmail.com
Mr. Kim Jae Hon
Counsellor and Permanent Representative to UNESCAP
Embassy of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
thadrk@yahoo.com
Ms. Sommai Prijasilpa
Deputy Governor Phuket
secretary_pr@hotmail.com
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 27
Mr. Dody Ruswandi
Deputy for Prevention and Preparedness
Indonesian National Board for Disaster Management
(BNPB)
dodyruswandi@gmail.com
Ms. Fathimath Thasneem
Deputy Minister
Ministry of Defence and National Security Services,
National Disaster Management Centre
fathmath.thasneem@ndmc.gov.mv
Mrs. A.D.S Sadeeka
Senior Assistant
Secretary of the Ministry of Disaster Management
Ministry of Disaster Management
samanthisadeeka@yahoo.com
Mr. Namgay Wangchuk
Director
General Ministry of Home & Cultural Affairs, Department
of Disaster Management
nwangchuk@mohca.gov.bt
Ms. Guohua Sai
First Secretary
Ministry of Commerce, Department of International Trade
and Economic Affairs
saiguohua@mofcom.gov.cn
Mr. Arend Wulff
Political Counsellor
The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany to
Thailand
pol-2@bangk.auswaertiges-amt.de
Mr. M. Abdus Salam
Director
Ministry of Home Affairs, Fire Service and Civil Defence
Directorate
dgfire_service@yahoo.com
Mr. Lourenco Cosme Xavier
Chief
Ministry of Social Solidarity and Natural Disasters, National
Disaster Operation Centre
lourenco.xavier@mss.gov.tl
Mr. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Sugathadasa
Director
Ministry of Disaster Management, Disaster Management
Centre
sugath@dmc.gov.lk
Mr. Loti Yates
Director
National Disaster Management Office Ministry of
Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and
Meteorology
directorndc@solomon.com.sb
Mr. Promduag Thana
Director
Ministry of Interior of Thailand, Department of Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM), Regional Center 11
thana_p@hotmail.com
Regional Organizations
Ms. Alicia Dela Rosa Bala
Deputy Secretary-General for Socio-Cultural Community
ASEAN Secretariat
alicia.bala@asean.org
Mr. Dae-Joong Lee
Chief Political Officer
Trilateral Cooperation, Secretariat
djlee@tcs-asia.org
Mr. Singye Dorjee
Director,
Environment,
Biotechnology Division
SAARC Secretariat
dirbhu@saarc-sec.org
Ms. Yeajin Yoon
Political Affairs Officer
Trilateral Cooperation, Secretariat
yj@tcs-asia.org
Natural
Disaster
and
Ms. Adelina Dwi Ekawati Kamal
Head, Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance
Division
ASEAN Secretariat
lina@asean.org
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 28
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
Ms. Lucia Cipullo
Disaster Law Delegate Asia-Pacific
Asia-Pacific Zonal Office
International Federation of Red Cross & Red Crescent
Societies
lucia.cipullo@ifrc.org
Mr. Cedric Piralla
Head, Chiang Mai Office, Thailand
International Committee of the Red Cross
cpiralla@icrc.org
Mr. Nigel Ede
Asia Pacific Zone Recovery Coordinator
Asia-Pacific Zone Disaster Management Unit
International Federation of Red Cross & Red Crescent
Societies
nigel.ede@ifrc.org
United Nations Agencies & International Organizations
Ms. Agnes Asekenye-Oonyu
Head
OCHA Sri Lanka
asekenye-oonyu@un.org
Mr. Luc Chauvin
Regional Emergency Adviser
South Asia Regional Office
United Nations Children's Fund
lchauvin@unicef.org
Ms. Radhika Behuria
Programme Specialist
Asia-Pacific Regional Centre, Crisis Prevention &
Recovery
United Nations Development Programme
radhika.behuria@undp.org
Mr. Anthony Craig
Chair, IASC Sub-Working Group on Preparedness
World Food Programme
anthony.craig@wfp.org
Mr. Alf Ivar Blikberg
Programme Officer
ICT & DRR Division
UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia-Pacific
blikberg@un.org
Mr. Stewart Davies
Regional Communication with Communities Officer
Information and Advocacy Unit
OCHA ROAP
davies1@un.org
Ms. Charlotta Benedek
Humanitarian Affairs Officer
Private Sector Section
OCHA Geneva
benedek@un.org
Mr. Rajan Gengaje
Head
OCHA Indonesia
gengaje@un.org
Ms. Matilda Bogner
Regional Representative for South-East Asia
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,
bogner@un.org
Mr. Sune Gudnitz
Head
OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific
gudnitz@un.org
Ms. Jennifer Bose
Humanitarian Reports Officer
Information and Advocacy Unit
OCHA ROAP
bose@un.org
Ms. Nadia Hadi
Humanitarian Affairs Officer / ROAP Desk Officer
Coordination and Response Division
OCHA New York
hadin@un.org
Mr. Douglas Broderick
Resident Coordinator
United Nations Office in Indonesia
broderick@un.org
Mr. Alejandro Hita
Videographer
hita.alejandro@gmail.com
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 29
Mr. Charles-Antoine Hofmann
Executive Coordinator
Disaster Response Dialogue
ca.hofmann@ifrc.org
Ms. Corinna Miguel-Quicho
Senior Protection Officer
Regional Office for Asia
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
miguel@unhcr.org
Ms. Phimjai Kananurak
Administrative Associate
OCHA ROAP
kananurak@un.org
Mr. Sujit Mohanty
Programme Officer
Asia-Pacific Regional Office
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
mohanty@un.org
Mr. Rashid Khalikov
Director
OCHA Geneva
khalikov@un.org
Ms. Moira Reddick
Coordinator
Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium
moira.reddick@one.un.org
Ms. Kristen Knutson
Humanitarian Affairs Officer / Head of Unit
Regional Partnerships Unit
OCHA ROAP
knutson@un.org
Mr. Somchai Soranundh
Office Assistant
OCHA ROAP
soranduh@un.org
Mr. Yoshihiro Kosaka
Head
Asia-Pacific Regional Office for Capacity Building
World Customs Organisation
kosaka@rocbap.org
Mr. Luc Stevens
Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative
United Nations in Thailand
luc.stevens@one.un.org
Ms. Shukuko Koyama
Crisis Specialist
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
International Labour Organization
koyama@ilo.org
Ms. Esty Sutyoko
Humanitarian Affairs Officer
Partnerships Coordination Section
OCHA Geneva
sutyoko@un.org
Ms. Chatmanee Kunanukij
Administrative Assistant
OCHA ROAP
kunanukij@un.org
Mr. David Swanson
Senior Editor
IRIN
swanson@un.org
Mr. Oliver Lacey-Hall
Head
OCHA ROAP
lacey-hall@un.org
Ms. Manittha Tiomtat
Conference Assistant
OCHA ROAP
tiomtat@un.org
Mr. Romano Lasker
Humanitarian Affairs Officer
Regional Partnership Unit
OCHA ROAP
lasker@un.org
Mr. Olivier Van Damme
Programme Officer
United Nations Institute for Training and Research
olivier.vandamme@unitar.org
Ms. Alexandra Lazau-Ratz
Consultant
Regional Partnership Unit
OCHA ROAP
lazau-ratz@un.org
Ms. Sudarat Wajapattana
IT Assistant
OCHA ROAP
wajapattana@un.org
Mr. Antonio Massella
Regional Disaster Response Advisor
Preparedness and Response Unit I
OCHA ROAP
massella@un.org
Mr. Masaki Watabe
Humanitarian Affairs Officer
OCHA Kobe (Japan)
watabem@un.org
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 30
Ms. Krishanti Weerakoon
Information and Coordination Officer
OCHA Sri Lanka
weerakoon@un.org
Mr. Markus Werne
Deputy Head of Office
OCHA ROAP
werne@un.org
Non-governmental organizations
Mr. Amod Mani Dixit
General Secretary and Executive Director
National Society for Earthquake Technology – Nepal
adixit@nset.org.np
Ms. Carla Lacerda
Asia Regional Focal Point
Cash Learning Partnership,
asia@cashlearning.org
Ms. Joanne Fairley
Regional Director
Lutheran World Relief
jfairley@lwr.org
Ms. Julia Mayerhofer
Programme Officer
Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network
julia@aprrn.info
Mr. Ahmad Faizal
President
Mercy Malaysia
faizal8084@yahoo.com
Mr. Murray Millar
Director
World Vision International, East Asia Regional Office,
Regional Humanitarian & Emergency Affairs
Murray_Millar@wvi.org
Ms. Lily Frey
Advocacy Officer
Cash Learning Partnership
advocacy.usa@cashlearning.org
Mr. James Munn
Regional Coordinator
International Council of Voluntary Agencies
jamie.munn@icvanetwork.org
Mr. Laurence Gray
Senior Policy Advisor
World Vision International, Asia and the Pacific Region,
laurence_gray@wvi.org
Mr. Jay Narhan
Team Leader, Applied Technology & Product Development
World Vision International, Global Collaboration &
Innovation
jay_narhan@wvi.org
Mr. Manu Gupta
Chair
Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network
manu@seedsindia.org
Mr. Jair Parada
Regional Finance Director
ADRA Asia Regional Office
jair@adraasia.org
Mr. Navaraj Gyawali
Regional Director
CARE International
ngyawali@care.org
Ms. Yumi Terahata
Country Representative - Japan
International Medical Corps (IMC)
yterahata@internationalmedicalcorps.org
Mr. Sajedul Hasan
Director
Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre
shasan@adpc.net
Ms. Kristy Van Putten
Deputy Risk and Vulnerability Manager
Australia-Indonesia Facility for Disaster
Kristy.VanPutten@ausaid.gov.au
Ms. Rahmawati Husein
Assistant Professor
Muhammadiyah Indonesia
amahusein@umy.ac.id
Mr. Haider W. Yaqub
Deputy Regional Director
Plan International
Haider.Yaqub@plan-international.org
Mr. Andre Krummacher
Regional Director
ACTED, South/Southeast Asia
andre.krummacher@acted.org
Asia
Regional
Centre
Reduction
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 31
Academia
Dr. Adam Burke
Independent Specialist
Development
The Policy Practice
adamitobur@yahoo.com
in
Peace
Building
and
Dr. Jemilah Mahmood
Senior Research Fellow
Kings
College
Humanitarian
jemilah.m@gmail.com
Futures
Programme
Mr. Jason Franz
Head of the Research Group "Conflicts in Asia &
Oceania" Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict
Research (HIIK) franz@hiik.de
Dr. Pamela Milligan
Director
Centre For Excellence in Disaster Management and
Humanitarian Assistance
Pamela.Milligan@coe-dmha.org
Prof. Gu Linsheng
Executive Director
Institute for Disaster Management and Reconstruction
gulinsheng67@scu.edu.cn
Prof. Robert de Souza
Executive Director
National University of
rdesouza@nus.edu.sg
Singapore,
Logistics
Institute
Private Sector
Mr. Michael Howden
Managing Director
AidIQ, Sahana Software Foundation
michael@aidiq.com
Mr. Carl Schelfhaut
Vice President
International Relations, Policy & Sustainability Asia Pacific
DHL
Carl.Schelfhaut@dhl.com
Mr. Victor Rembeth
National Project Manager
World Economic Forum Disaster Resource Partnership
vrembeth@gmail.com
Ms. Leena Wokeck
Executive Director
Corporate Social Responsibility Asia
lwokeck@csr-asia.com
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 32
Annex 3: Focus Group Discussions (Day 1) – Chairs and
Rapporteurs
Group 1
Chairs
Rapporteurs
Architecture
Ms. Lucia Cipullo, Disaster Law Delegate Asia-Pacific, International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
Mr. Sune Gudnitz, Head, OCHA Regional Office for the Pacific (OCHA ROP)
Mr. Stewart Davies, OCHA ROAP
Ms. Krishanti Weerakoon, OCHA Sri Lanka
Group 2
Tools and Services for Response
Chair
Mr. Markus Werne, Deputy Head, OCHA Regional Office for Asia-Pacific
Ms. Esty Sutyoko, OCHA Geneva
Mr. Rajan Gengaje, OCHA Indonesia
Rapporteurs
Group 3
Chairs
Rapporteurs
Tools and Services for Preparedness
Mr. Manu Gupta, Co-Chair, Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network (ADRRN)
Mr. Anthony Craig, Co-Chair IASC Sub-Working-Group on Preparedness (World Food
Programme)
Mr. Antonio Massella, OCHA ROAP
Mr. Masaki Watabe, OCHA Japan
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 33
Annex 4: Thematic Discussions (Day 2) – Presenters,
Moderators and Rapporteurs
Session 1
Group A
Presenter
Moderator
Rapporteur
Session 1
Group B
Presenters
Moderator
Rapporteur
Session 2
Group A
Presenter
Moderator
Rapporteur
Session 2
Group B
Presenters
Moderator
Rapporteur
Session 3
Group A
Presenters
Moderator
Rapporteur
Cash Transfer Programming (CTP)
Major General Muhammad Saeed Aleem, Chairman, National Disaster Management
Authority, Pakistan
Ms. Carla Lacerda, Asia Regional Focal Point, Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP)
Mr. Masaki Watabe, OCHA Japan
Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)
Ms. Leena Wokeck, Executive Director, CSR Asia
Mr. Victor Rembeth, National Project Manager, World Economic Forum Disaster
Resource Partnership
Mr. Antonio Massella, OCHA ROAP
Ms. Charlotta Benedek, OCHA Geneva
Communications with Affected Communities (CwC)
Ms. Moira Reddick, Coordinator, Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC)
Secretariat
Mr. Stewart Davies, Regional Communication with Communities Officer, OCHA
ROAP
Ms. Esty Sutyoko, OCHA Geneva
Technology and Humanitarian Innovation
Mr. Michael Howland, Managing Director, AidIQ
Mr. Jay Narhan, Team Leader, Applied Technology & Product Development, World
Vision International
Ms. Kristy Van Putten, Deputy Risk and Vulnerability Manager, Australia-Indonesia
Facility for Disaster Reduction
Mr. Antonio Massella, OCHA ROAP
Humanitarian Action in Conflict Settings
Mr. Jason Franz, Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK)
Mr. Adam Burke, Independent Specialist in Peacebuilding and Development
Dr. Jemilah Mahmood, King’s College Humanitarian Futures Programme
Mr. Sune Gudnitz, OCHA ROP
Session 3
Group B
Humanitarian Action in Urban Settings
Presenter
Moderator
Rapporteur
Mr. Sajedul Hasan, Coordinator, Asia Disaster Prevention Centre (ADPC)
Mr. Amod Mani Dixit, Executive Director, NSET, Nepal
Ms. Esty Sutyoko, OCHA Geneva
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 34
Annex 5: Survey Results - Selected Questions
In November 2013, OCHA administered an online survey on “Disaster Management Tools and
Services in the Asia Pacific Region” as part of preparations for the 2013 Regional Humanitarian
Partnership Forum for Asia and the Pacific, which was held from 14 to 15 November 2013. The
survey was tailored to three categories of participants attending the Forum: Member State
representatives, international humanitarian actors, and private sector/academia.
In total, representatives of 16 governments, 30 ‘humanitarian organizations’ (encompassing
participants from UN agencies and international organizations, regional organizations and nongovernmental organizations), and 2 businesses/research institutes responded to the survey, of
which 13, 21 and 2 completed the survey respectively.
An analysis of the consolidated responses from representatives of Member States and
humanitarian organizations on selected questions pertinent to the main themes considered
during the Forum is provided below. With a response rate between 35 per cent and 45 per cent,
these results can be considered broadly indicative of practices and trends in the region.
However, due to the low response rate from the private sector and academic institutions (less
than 10 per cent), their results have not been included. (Note: OCHA hopes to administer a
similar survey to private sector representatives again in future.)
Of Member States respondents, 81 per cent represented the National Disaster Management
Office or related disaster management centres, while 19 per cent represented the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Among humanitarian organizations, nearly half of respondents indicated they
worked for an international organization (46 per cent), while 10 per cent indicated they
represented regional or intergovernmental organizations. Another 10 per cent indicated they
worked for local and national NGOs, and 10 per cent for UN agencies. The Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement represented 7 cent of respondents.
In terms of geographic coverage, approximately half of respondents from both Member States
and humanitarian organizations selected South-East Asia as the region in which they worked (56
per cent and 43 per cent respectively). In both surveys, the least represented region was the
Pacific, with 6 per cent and 3 per cent respectively.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 35
Analysis: The same pattern was seen in responses from both Member States and humanitarian
organizations: overall, respondents indicated that response activities receive the greatest
priority, closely followed by preparedness. Prevention and mitigation was third overall
(although a substantial number of Member States did indicate this as a top priority) with
recovery a distant fourth.
Analysis: Internal readiness assessments by both Member States and international humanitarian
actors indicate medium to high preparedness for response to small and medium disasters, and
low to medium readiness for response to large-scale disasters. Member States indicated that
readiness to provide relief in a conflict setting was low, while humanitarian organizations rated
it medium. The majority of Member States also indicated no to low readiness to support
response in other countries, although three respondents said their readiness to provide assistance
to other countries was high.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 36
*Respondents were allowed to select all applicable options.
Under “Other” the following alternatives were suggested: TIEMS (The International Emergency Management
Society); national and local level simulations and exercises; internal trainings on leadership and coordination in
disasters; agency-specific risk-informed programming and Emergency Preparedness and Response training; and
Trilateral Table Top Exercise (TTX).
Analysis: Generally, the responses indicated that Member States have participated actively in a
variety of international preparedness and response trainings and simulations, with 50 per cent
response rates for ASEAN’s Emergency Rapid Assessment Team (ERAT) trainings, UNDAC
and INSARAG trainings, and greater than 50 per cent response rates for ARF-DiREx and
ARDEX (consistent with the observed majority – 9 of 16 – of Member State respondents
classifying their geographical position as being in Southeast Asia). More than 40 per cent also
reported participating in IASC Emergency Simulation Exercises and UN Civil-Military
Coordination trainings.
International humanitarian organizations, on the other hand, reported much lower participation
in these training and simulation opportunities (less than 20 per cent for UNDAC and less than
10 per cent for ERAT, INSARAG, ARF DiREx and ARDEX), which may be accounted for by
the prioritization / tailoring of those trainings and exercises to Member States. However, the
IASC Emergency Simulation Exercises – for which the highest participation rates was reported
by respondents from international humanitarian actors – still accounted for less than 40 per cent
participation, while “Other” was the other high-scoring opportunity (see description of
individual responses provided under this category), which may indicate a need to increase the
participation of international humanitarian actors in these trainings and exercises as a way of
enhancing the inter-operability of international and national tools and services for preparedness
and response.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 37
*Respondents were allowed to select all applicable options.
Under “Other” the following alternative was suggested: ASEAN Standard Operating Procedure for Regional
Standby Arrangements and Coordination of Joint Disaster Relief and Emergency Response Operations (ASEAN
SASOP)
Analysis: Asked only of Member States, responses to this question show than nearly 44 per cent
of respondents said that none of the regional or international tools and services had been
deployed in their country in the past five years, although one respondent did note that the
ASEAN SASOP had been used.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 38
*Respondents were allowed to select all applicable options.
Under “Other” the following alternatives were suggested: multi-cluster rapid initial assessment (MIRA); DevInfo;
Partnerships with research entities including GIS; internal updates and reports; DMIS and IFRC.org; Cash Atlas;
CaLP discussion group; DesInventar; web Emergency Operations Centre (EOC).
Analysis: The Situation Report, which is published by OCHA, but primarily comprises
information provided by the clusters, and ReliefWeb were identified as frequently used by both
humanitarian organizations and Member States. IRIN and GIS technology were also important
sources of information for humanitarian organizations (around 60 per cent) but less so for
Member States. Platforms providing operational information also scored quite highly (i.e.
humanitarianinfo.org, whose audience is primarily operational partners to an international
response – some 33 per cent; and ADINet, which provides a similar service to ASEAN Member
States – approximately 45 per cent).
Perhaps the biggest surprise was that more than 70 per cent of humanitarian organization
respondents said they use social media to collect and provide disaster-related information, as did
more than 30 per cent of Member States. This result highlights the importance of getting a better
handle on the questions of how to use new technologies more effectively in humanitarian
response, which the group participating in the thematic discussion on technology for
humanitarian innovation discussed.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 39
*Respondents were allowed to select all options applicable.
Under “Other” the following alternatives and recommendations were suggested: fundraising, internal
(organization), and private funds; agency-specific Emergency Response Funds; bilateral contributions.
Analysis: Among Member States, half of the respondents said that national disaster relief funds
had been used to support emergency response in the past five years, and the same percentage
said that the ASEAN-based funding mechanism (the ADMER Fund) had been used. More than
35 per cent said they had used funds from the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund and
from the IFRC’s Disaster Relief Emergency Fund.
There is a declining trend in the use of international appeals mechanisms by Member States as
demonstrated with less than 30 per cent of respondents having used UN Flash Appeals in the
past five years. Among humanitarian organizations, however, international tools remain
predominant with CAP (Consolidated Appeal Process), ERF (Emergency Response Fund) and
UN Flash Appeals being the second most-used financial tools. Cash transfers and country-level
pooled funds were equally used by humanitarian organizations in the past 5 years. One
observation to add to this analysis is that respondents were somewhat confused by the question,
with a large number of write-in responses, some of which could have been categorized under
one of the choices. This highlights the need to clarify what and how to use existing financing
mechanisms and available pools of humanitarian funding.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 40
* In 2 instances Member State representatives mentioned that they are expecting to work in the future with the
private sector and regional organizations. In 6 instances humanitarian organization representatives mentioned that
they are expecting to work in the future with local and national authorities, governments, private sector, regional
organizations and platforms, military or armed forces.
Analysis: In terms of the average rating, Member States indicated that they regularly worked
with local and national authorities, UN agencies, regional organizations, and NGOs, and only
sometimes with the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement, local and disaster-affected
communities and military authorities. To a lesser extent, they worked with other governments,
volunteer and technical communities, and the private sector. Even fewer Member States worked
sometimes or regularly with academia, research institutes or think tanks. However, it should
also be noted that, in terms of individual responses, between 14 and 18 (of 21 total) Member
States respondents indicated they worked ‘regularly’ with local and national authorities, other
governments, NGOs, UN agencies, and local people and disaster-affected communities.
Humanitarian organizations, on the other hand, indicated that they regularly worked with local
and national authorities, governments, and fairly regularly with UN agencies, NGOs, and local
and disaster-affected communities. Humanitarian organizations reported that they sometimes
worked with the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement academia, research institutes or think
tanks, volunteer and technical communities, and the private sector, but had less engagement
with regional organizations and military or armed actors.
It should be noted that a number of respondents identified areas in which they planned to work
with new partners in the future, including private sector and regional organizations,
governments and local authorities, and military or armed forces. These indications of intention
are not represented in the above chart.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 41
Analysis: This question was only posed to Member States to identify their perspectives on the
existing capacity within their country/region. Close to half of respondents (47 per cent)
identified military forces and local and national authorities as having the biggest capacity to
support response within their respective countries. The Humanitarian Country Team and the
UN agencies scored second and third, with 27 and 20 per cent respectively. Overall, Member
States saw the military, UN agencies and the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement as actors
with good and very good capacity to support response in the country (87 per cent, 80 per cent
and 80 per cent of responses respectively).
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 42
*Respondents were allowed to select maximum 3 options.
Under “Other” the following alternative was suggested: IASC system.
Analysis: Unsurprisingly, both Member States and international humanitarian actors identified
local and national authorities as among the priority partners in supporting preparedness and
response, which speaks to the prescribed role of national authorities as fundamentally
responsible for supporting their own populations.
As the second priority, Member States identified military or armed forces. This type of
partnership was not prioritized by international humanitarian actors, although we may hazard
that, if asked specifically about response in a large-scale disaster, the ranking might increase
significantly (e.g. as in the Philippines in the first weeks of the response to Typhoon Haiyan).
International humanitarian actors instead identified local / disaster affected communities as their
second priority partner, which both underscores the increased emphasis being given to
accountability to affected populations, and indicates that a significant number of international
humanitarian actors still see themselves as primarily oriented to direct response, rather than
working in partnership with other actors to provide response.
For Member States, the third ranking went to UN agencies, Humanitarian Country Teams and
the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement, which we might generally combine into a single
category of ‘international humanitarian actors’, while international humanitarian actors
indicated that other humanitarian agencies (UN agencies or NGOs) were their third priority.
Surprisingly considering that the majority of Member States respondents come from ASEAN
countries (as earlier observed), regional organizations ranked relatively low among priority
partners for Member States as well as international humanitarian organizations. This result is
even more interesting when considering the fact that Member States ranked regional
organizations as actors with whom they regularly worked with to support preparedness for
emergency response (previous question). Despite the increasing emphasis being placed on the
role of regional organizations in policy circles, perhaps this low ranking indicates simply that, in
general, the real capacity of regional organizations’ to support response has yet to equal
expectations of their future importance to response.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 43
Also a surprise was the very low prioritization given to the private sector as a partner in
response, despite much public discussion on the importance and potential capacity of the private
sector. Again, this may reflect the actual versus the perceived potential capacity of the private
sector in future.
* This was an open-ended question: a number of recommendations were identified by respondents and they were
grouped in the categories represented in the chart.
Analysis: Starting from a broad agreement with the private sector having a prominent role in
disaster response (73 per cent and 76 per cent respectively), Member States and international
humanitarian actors were asked to identify the areas in which stronger private sector
engagement with the public sector would be most useful to support emergency response. While
the top choices (develop good standards and practices and serve as a model for the sector (i.e.
business continuity planning); awareness raising for resilient thinking / resilient economies;
mobilizing financial resources) were fairly consistently scored by both Member States and
international humanitarian actors, there does seem to be a divergent opinion on the importance
of the private sector in providing services, which humanitarian agencies made their top choice,
but Member States ranked only fourth.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 44
Member States were further asked what they thought they should do to promote the engagement
of private sector entities in response, and responded with support for more inclusive approaches
to business involvement in national coordination mechanisms, as well as advocacy and
awareness raising and provision of incentives and recognition for businesses that support
humanitarian response efforts. There was less support for strengthening DRR legislation and
policies as an encouragement for private sector engagement, which could indicate that Member
States feel this is already adequately covered in national frameworks and the focus should
instead be on familiarization efforts.
The responses provided by humanitarian organization representatives differed significantly.
Their responses focused on partnerships and relationship building rather than legislation and
providing incentives. Among humanitarian organizations, most felt that building relationships
by identifying common interests and developing a common language, as well as advocacy and
awareness-raising on the private sector’s role in disaster preparedness and response (e.g.
business continuity, risk assessment and reduction) were most relevant to promote private sector
engagement.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 45
* This was an open-ended question; a number of recommendations were identified by respondents and they were
grouped in the categories represented in the chart.
** In relation to the question, one respondent from the humanitarian organizations category suggested that the
question would be more relevant if it were to inquire about the speed with which CwC is developing rather than
whether it is or not critical to effective humanitarian response.
Analysis: Having expressed strong support for the importance of two-way communications with
communities for effective humanitarian response (Member States had 80 per cent positive
response and humanitarian organizations 100 per cent to the initial question), the above
categories were broadly identified as planned or being implemented to strengthen two-way
communications. The most popular approach among Member States (blue) was communitybased capacity building, with specific responses including identifying village leaders and
assigning responsibilities within the community, as well as establishing disaster management
teams in local communities. For humanitarian organizations (green), the initiatives most
frequently noted referred to the inclusion of local authorities and community representatives in
planning and design and the establishment of regular feedback mechanisms.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 46
Analysis: This question was asked only of humanitarian organizations to assess the relative
importance of different aspects of disaster management to the community. “Strengthening
relationship with local and national authorities” stood out as a critical goal for 62 per cent of
respondents. For just under half (43 per cent ) the following were also critical: “be well prepared
to minimize loss of live, injury and property damage in a disaster,” “provide support for national
governments to improve their own preparedness and response capacities” and “increase
community disaster awareness.” This underscores the importance demonstrated elsewhere that
organizations place on working with local and national authorities. The answers also showed
more emphasis placed on increasing community disaster awareness (critical priority for 42.9 per
cent) rather than improving communication with communities or increasing accountability,
which were seen as critical to only 28.6 per cent of respondents.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 47
Surprisingly, given the repeated calls for increased and more systematic efforts to collect and
share lessons learned, best and worst practices, no respondent identified strengthening their
organization’s relationship with academia as a critical priority, and only one respondent
identified this as very important. Also surprising given the amount of interest and discussion it
generated, less than 30 per cent of respondents indicated that strengthening relationships with
the private sector was very important or critical to their organization.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 48
*Respondents were allowed to select maximum 3 options
Under “Other” the following options were suggested: limited / unaccountable state governance; governments not
investing in preparedness (funds but also policy); focus on response (funding, capacity and others) leaves little
energy for preparedness and early response; lack of technology; ever changing profile of the population.
Analysis: All respondents agreed that lack / shortage of funding and limited organizational
capacity were among the main challenges to building preparedness and designing early response
plans. Further discussion on how best to fund preparedness work, including identifying new and
maximizing existing funding sources, may be best taken forward in the context of preparations
for the 2015 World Summit on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan. The OCHA-WFP
project on response preparedness for countries at high risk of large-scale disasters specifically
seeks to help strengthen skills and technical know-how for preparedness and response planning
at the national level, amongst its four priority areas for joint action.
Similarly, reflecting on the ratio of capacity that should be dedicated to preparedness versus
response and broader DRR efforts as part of those preparatory discussions may be merited given
the strong identification by both Member States and humanitarian agencies of this as a main
challenge. That Member States ranked lack of skills and technical know-how third in terms of
main challenges is consistent with the consistent emphasis on the need to scale up and
coordinate the trainings and technical capacity building offered to governments noted elsewhere
in the report. An interesting point of divergence was that humanitarian agencies equally ranked
poor coordination and communications among humanitarian actors as a main challenge,
whereas Member States were less concerned by this.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 49
*Respondents were allowed to select maximum 3 options
Under “Other” the following options were suggested: mainstreaming of resilience strategies in national
development policies and plans; civil-military relations
Analysis: The results indicated that Member States would prioritize support to develop
effective information management systems, capacity building and technical trainings, and to
improve coordination between national, regional and international partners in the coming years.
Similarly, humanitarian organizations prioritized enhancing the effectiveness of coordination
between national, regional and international levels, and capacity building and technical
trainings, but gave equal weight to improved information management, partnerships with the
private sector and communication and coordination with national authorities as distinctly lower
priorities.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 50
Annex 6: Terms of Reference for the Guide Editorial Board
I.
Introduction
In response to the tasking given to OCHA at the fourth Regional Humanitarian Partnership
Forum for Asia-Pacific8 to develop a concise reference document on the tools and services for
disaster preparedness and response that are held at the international level and available to
Member States upon request, OCHA published Disaster Response in Asia and the Pacific: a
Guide to International Tools and Services (“the Guide”) in 2013.
The Guide was developed following an extensive process of consultation with more than 75
representatives of Member States and 50 representatives of regional organizations, United
Nations agencies and international organizations, national and international non-governmental
organizations, the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement and other humanitarian partners, and
attempted to balance between providing a comprehensive and inclusive summary of all tools
and services available at the regional and international levels, and remaining a concise, easy-touse document.
Having released the Guide in April 2013, OCHA formally launched the Guide at the fifth
Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum in Phuket, Thailand in November 2013, and
requested the Forum participants to conduct a critical review and provide feedback on required
revisions and ways to improve the Guide.
Generally, the Forum participants welcomed the Guide as a useful document that fulfilled the
request made of OCHA. However, there were also a number of suggestions regarding additional
information that could be provided in the online and future print editions of the Guide.
Welcoming this indication of buy-in and wishing to promote regional and national ownership of
the Guide, OCHA proposed that a multi-stakeholder Editorial Board be established to support
participative decision-making on future editions of the Guide.
II.
Purpose
The role of the Editorial Board will be to support OCHA in:
(i)
reviewing requests received from regional stakeholders (Member States, humanitarian
organizations and other interested entities) for additional tools, services and/or issues to
be included in the online and/or print versions of the Guide,
(ii)
advising on making the online Guide more dynamic,
(iii) working with Member States and Regional Organizations to identify opportunities to
adapt the Guide to national and/or sub-regional contexts (where the Member State or
Regional Organization commits internal resources and support the project) and ensure
quality control over the resulting products,
(iv) drafting and editing the second edition of the Guide, which is due to be published in
2015, prior to the next Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum.
III.
Membership
In order to ensure the Editorial Board is representative of the wider regional community,
nominations of members are requested as follows:
8
The fourth Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum was held in 2011 in Shanghai, China.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 51

Up to three representatives of Member States, with roles in management or oversight of
disaster management at the national level (diverse representation of Northeast, South,
and Southeast Asia and the Pacific is preferred)9

Up to two representatives of Regional Organizations

Up to four representatives of humanitarian organizations (one UN agency, one NGO
network, one NGO and one Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement)

One representative from an Asian academic institution
Each member will be requested to serve for two-years; after the first year, half of the
membership will be requested to either commit to a third year or step down after one, in order to
ensure that 50 per cent of the membership is continuing and 50 per cent is new each year.
OCHA will chair the Editorial Board and act as its permanent Secretariat.
IV.
Working Modalities
With the intention to keep requirements at a minimum, but with active participation required of
the Editorial Board members, it is proposed that the Board meet virtually twice each year to
support the semi-annual review of the online Guide, and in person once every two years to
jointly edit the next edition of the Guide.

Virtual Meetings
OCHA, as Secretariat, will circulate the agenda and background documentation, including a
summary list of proposed edits (corrections and inclusions), to committee members via email at
least 10 days ahead of the Editorial Board meeting.
Following the 10-day review period, the Board will meet virtually via tele-/video-conference. At
least three hours should be set aside for the Board meeting on the agreed date (half-day either
a.m. or p.m. per the membership’s preference). Tentatively, these meetings should be scheduled
at the end of January and July each year.
OCHA will make the agreed changes and/or updates within one month of the Editorial Board
meeting.

In-person meetings
OCHA will organize and sponsor the participation of Editorial Board members to the in-person
meetings to be held every two years, preferably at the end of the first quarter. Members will be
requested to confirm availability for the proposed meeting with at least six-months notice, and
will be provided with an agenda and documentation for the meeting at least one month in
advance.
* *** *
9
China and the Maldives have already volunteered to serve as members of the Editorial during the first term.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 52
Annex 7: Terms of Reference for the Regional Steering
Group on the World Humanitarian Summit Regional
Consultation for East and Southeast Asia
I.
Introduction
The UN Secretary-General has announced that a World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) will be
held in early 2016 in Istanbul, Turkey. The purpose of the Summit is to set a forward-looking
agenda for humanitarian action to collectively address future humanitarian challenges. The aim
is to build a more inclusive and diverse humanitarian system committed to the humanitarian
principles.
A WHS Secretariat has been established on behalf of the Secretary General to facilitate and
coordinate regional and thematic consultations on four broad themes: humanitarian
effectiveness; reducing vulnerability and managing risk; transformation through innovation; and
serving the needs of people in conflict. Extensive consultations with a wide range of partners in
the field and at Headquarters will be necessary to identify recommendations and develop a
programme for the future of humanitarian action.
To support the convening and guide preparations for the regional consultations, regional
steering groups will be constituted in each region hosting a consultation. Following
consultations with Member States and humanitarian partners, OCHA has proposed to organize
separate consultations for North and Southeast Asia10 (to be co-hosted by Japan and Indonesia)
and the Pacific (hosting arrangements to be confirmed). The North and Southeast Asia
consultation will be held in Tokyo, Japan in July 2014; the location and date for the Pacific is
expected to be confirmed shortly.
II.
Purpose of the Regional Steering Group (RSG) for North and Southeast Asia
The RSG for North and Southeast Asia will guide the conceptual and logistical planning for the
regional consultation. The RSG is also expected to advise on practical modalities for followingup agreements in the wake of the regional consultation and the Summit itself.
Per the global guidance, the regional steering group will be expected to:
a. advise on the key regional aspects / issues to be prioritized under the four global
Summit themes, including through consultations with the constituencies they
represent and/or with which they are partnered
b. advise on the agenda for the regional consultation
c. advise on participants for the regional consultation
d. mobilize their regional networks to raise awareness on the regional consultation and
the WHS process, and encourage engagement from all relevant stakeholders
e. support the drafting of background documents (in the lead-up to) and the final report
(after) the regional consultation
f. develop a network for coordination of necessary follow-up work (i.e. between the
regional consultation and the Summit, and post-Summit).
III.
Composition of the RSG
The RSG should comprise 12 members (representing their country/organization, but serving in
an individual capacity) who will help set the agenda, determine criteria for the selection of
10
Some 16 Member States are expected to be engaged through the North and Southeast Asia regional consultation,
including: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Lao
Democratic People’s Republic, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore,
Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Viet Nam.
OCHA Regional Humanitarian Partnerships Forum Asia-Pacific 2013 | 53
participants, identify key issues of relevance in the region under each of the four summit
themes, and endorse the outcome of the regional consultation.
The group will be jointly chaired by the co-hosts (Japan, Indonesia and OCHA), with
representation from a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including:










Up to three representatives of Member States, including the representatives of the
co-hosts (Japan and Indonesia)11
One representative of the OCHA Regional Office
One representative of an Asian regional organization
One representative of a military or civil defense organization12
One representative of the United Nations Regional Directors’ Team
One representative of an international NGO or NGO network
One representative of a national civil society organization
One representative of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement
One representative of the private sector or an Asian academic institution with strong
links to the private sector
One representative of the WHS Secretariat (planning and outreach team)
IV.
Selecting RSG Members
In addition to ensuring geographic, organizational and gender diversity, RSG members will be
chosen in order to ensure an appropriate mix of skills and backgrounds among the members.
Each nominated representative should be prepared to:




allocate approximately 10 to 20 per cent of their time to the RSG’s work;
be prepared to attend monthly virtual preparatory meetings and two in-person
meetings (tentatively scheduled for March and May 2014)
bring to bear individual knowledge on regional humanitarian priorities, key issues
related to the Summit themes and/or have a strong background in emergency
response (strategic or operational)
mobilize their network to prepare for and encourage engagement of all relevant
stakeholders in the regional consultations
OCHA will be responsible for the final selection of the RSG members, and will serve as the
secretariat for the RSG.
V.
Working Modalities
The RSG will hold monthly virtual meetings, from an initial meeting in February 2014, on a
schedule to be determined in consultation with the RSG members. OCHA will organize video
and/or teleconference facilities to support these meetings.
Additionally, there will be two in-person meetings of the RSG, each of which is expected to be a
one-day event to be organized in a central location, which are expected to be held in March and
May 2014 respectively. OCHA will organize these meetings logistically, with associated travel
and accommodation costs to be borne by the hosting countries / organizations.
11
The Member State representatives should be individuals with a strategic and/or operational role in disaster risk
reduction, disaster management, or reconstruction.
12
The representative of the military or civil defense organization should be an individual who has previously and/or
regularly participates in disaster preparedness and response work at the regional and/or international level. The
inclusion of a military/armed forces representative is in recognition of the role that military and civil defence assets
(MCDA) play as first responders in the regional context.