OCHA

Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Philippines The Asia-Pacific region is the most disaster prone in the world. Natural hazards such as earthquakes, tsunamis, tropical storms, flooding, landslides and volcanic eruptions affect millions of people every year. In 2010 the Asia-Pacific region laid claim to six of the 10 most deadly global disasters. These events are becoming more frequent and severe, compounded by the effects of climate change and growing population density. Conflicts, political instability and pandemics in the region also have dire humanitarian consequences. In 2010, Asia and the Pacific accounted for a third of the world’s ongoing conflicts, the highest of any single region^[1]. OCHA set up its Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (ROAP) in 2005. Based in Thailand, the offices focuses on emergency response, response preparedness and building partnerships at the regional level.

_{[1]Heidelberg Institute, Conflict Barometer 2010}

CONTEXT ANALYSIS

Hazards and Vulnerability

Between 2000 and 2010, 40 per cent of the world’s registered disaster events occurred in the Asia-Pacific region^[2]. Population growth, environmental degradation, and the growth of mega cities in low-lying flood plains and earthquake zones have increased the exposure of millions to natural hazards. It is estimated that the Asia-Pacific region accounted for some 85 per cent of people killed in natural disasters between 2000 and 2009 worldwide. In 2008 the figure was 98 per cent. The poorest segments of society remain the most vulnerable and natural disasters represent a significant obstacle to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the region.

Asia and the Pacific also accounted for a third of the world’s ongoing conflicts in 2010 — the highest of any single region^[3]. The majority of these conflicts were of low intensity and contained within individual countries such as Indonesia, the Solomon Islands and Lao PDR. Asia and the Pacific was also home to a higher number of medium- and high-intensity conflicts than that of sub-Saharan Africa. These included Myanmar, Thailand, the Philippines and India. These conflicts contributed toward about 4.6 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the region, approximately 16 per cent of the global total in 2010^[4].

On a positive note, some conflicts have finally ended, notably the 26-year civil war in Sri Lanka and the 10-year civil war in Nepal. However, many countries in the region continue to face long-term challenges relating to poverty, unresolved land ownership and ethnic or religious marginalization that can affect men, women and children in profoundly different ways.

Asia and the Pacific is also increasingly exposed to new and emerging threats. The risk of a severe influenza pandemic has not diminished. Conditions in the region make it the most probable flash point for new and potentially deadly pandemic virus mutations. Climate change poses another considerable challenge. By the 2050s, freshwater availability in large parts of Asia, particularly in large river basins, is projected to decrease^[5]. Heavily populated mega-delta regions in South, East and South-East Asia are expected to be at great risk of increased flooding. Elsewhere, food security is threatened due to the potential impact of drought, often related to deforestation. The threat of technological disasters, some triggered by major natural hazards such as the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, poses another significant challenge.

An expected rise in sea levels is threatening vital infrastructure, settlements and livelihoods in the region. By midcentury, climate change is projected to reduce water resources in many small islands to the point where they become insufficient to meet demand during low-rainfall periods. Communicating the challenges faced by Pacific Island States will remain a key focus, including the cost and logistical constraints of assisting isolated island populations.

Growing National and Regional Capacity

During recent decades, the region has experienced rapid economic growth. Significant progress has been made in disaster management, addressing development challenges and towards achieving several MDGs, including those focused on alleviating poverty and extending education, health care and access to clean water.

Due to growing resources, regional Member States are also playing an increasingly important role as providers of bilateral and, to a lesser extent, multilateral assistance. Existing and emerging donors in the region are set to assume a more prominent global role, both politically and as a potential source of humanitarian funding. Some economists estimate Asia’s share of world GDP (26 per cent) to be on a par with the European Union and the United States, and is forecast to reach 36 per cent by 2030^[6]. Already, OCHA is refining its strategy for closer partnerships with a number of key countries.

Implications of Regional Trends

The capacity to respond to natural disasters is growing in many countries. However, other factors (such as urbanization) are increasing exposure to natural hazards. This poses a major challenge regionally and threatens to undermine developmental progress. There is an opportunity to learn from successful cases in the region where strengthened disaster-response capacities and community-level mitigation measures have reduced vulnerability despite increased exposure to natural hazards.

Partnership with National Governments

Increasingly, national governments appear willing to take the lead in disaster response. This, coupled with political and other factors, is prompting the need to review the role of international response tools in the region. Formal requests for international assistance are becoming less frequent. In line with the efforts of the Red Cross International Disaster Response Law project, there is a need to engage with crisis-prone countries prior to disasters, ensuring they are better able to request international assistance in a timely and legally appropriate manner.

There is a growing acceptance of international humanitarian support where the UN and IASC members can augment national capacities in a discreet fashion. The broad acceptance of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) is a positive example of this trend and can help facilitate dialogue between humanitarian actors. In 2010, CERF allocated $54.8 million, representing 13.2 per cent of worldwide funding, to support response efforts in Asia and the Pacific. Disaster responses also provide opportunities for international humanitarian teams to work alongside Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) counterparts and contribute to relationship-building.

Relevance of International Tools

In the Asia and Pacific environments, the emphasis is moving away from providing external support during a crisis. It is moving towards strengthening partnerships at the country and regional levels and supporting governments and regional organizations to be better prepared. To be accepted in times of crisis, international response tools must be perceived to support national efforts. GA resolution 46/182 outlines the responsibility of governments to play the leading role in providing assistance to their affected population. International humanitarian assistance capacity therefore needs to be inclusive, responsive and flexible so that assistance can be dovetailed with, rather than provided parallel to, national efforts.

Regional Capacity for Preparedness and Response

In addition to improving conditions for a large portion of the region’s population, rapid development has resulted in substantial progress on strengthening disaster preparedness and national response capacity. Member States^[7]covered by ROAP have established national disaster management authorities (NDMAs), charged with building capacity and coordinating domestic response activities. This development is coupled with growing military capacity for, and involvement in, disaster response throughout the region.

Capacity of Regional Bodies

Regional cooperation in Asia and the Pacific is still in the early stages of development. Bilateral aid remains dominant, with only a small part of overseas development assistance being directed through multilateral channels. Cooperation on disaster management is seen as an important avenue to develop stronger regional relationships.

Several regional bodies are of significance to OCHA and the humanitarian community as actual, or potential, partners for sub-regional coordination of disaster management and emergency response efforts These include ASEAN and its main body for regional dialogue — the ASEAN Regional Forum and the SAARC. In the Pacific, key bodies include the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the Pacific Islands Applied Geo-science Commission (SOPAC), which has been integrated into the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). Also of increasing significance is the East Asia Summit, for which Australia has made clear its aspirations regarding disaster management. However, the strengthening of this forum into a meaningful regional body is likely to take a long time.

Regional entities are seeking a greater role in mobilizing and coordinating disaster responses within their region, including developing operational capacity. In response to Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, ASEAN deployed an Emergency Rapid Assessment Team (ERAT), established the Humanitarian Task Force and Tripartite Core Group (TCG) and was directly involved in humanitarian projects in the cyclone-affected area.

An additional example of this greater role becomes clear when studying recent developments among ASEAN member states. The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) came into force on 24 December 2009, after being ratified by all 10 Member States. AADMER provides the sub-region’s first regional disaster management framework. It contains provisions on disaster risk identification; monitoring and early warning; prevention and mitigation; preparedness and response; rehabilitation, technical cooperation and research; coordination mechanisms; and simplified customs and immigration procedures.

An ambitious AADMER implementation workplan that seeks to operationalize the agreement is currently underway. Key mechanisms that ASEAN is currently developing include the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance, which “facilitates co-operation and coordination among the parties, and with relevant United Nations and international organizations, in promoting regional collaboration”, and ERAT teams that perform a similar function to UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination teams. Much of AADMER’s operational framework is captured in ASEAN’s Standard Operating Procedure for Regional Standby Arrangements and Coordination of Joint Disaster Relief and Emergency Response Operations, also known as the SASOPs.

Although the capacity of regional entities to take the lead in humanitarian response coordination is largely untried, OCHA has a clear role in supporting and helping to guide these initiatives. During the UN-ASEAN Summit in October 2010, a joint statement by the Secretaries-General of the UN and ASEAN called for coordinated UN support to ASEAN. ROAP is playing a key role in taking this work forward through its co-chair role in the Regional Coordination Mechanism, its Secretariat function for the regional IASC Network and participation in the Regional Directors Team (RDT).

In the Pacific, countries such as the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Federated States of Micronesia, are likely to require support to develop and sustain individual national capacities in key areas of disaster management. Disaster-response capacities are spread across the region and are often led by major regional powers such as Australia and New Zealand, making regional cooperation essential. Key partnerships with regional bodies continue to bolster the ongoing OCHA-initiated process of regional inter-agency contingency planning for humanitarian assistance. They include PIF, SOPAC, the FRANZ Group (formed by the Governments of France, Australia and New Zealand), Pacific Emergency Management Training Advisory Group and SPC on emergency training, civil-military coordination and Urban Search and Rescue.

_{[2]EM-DAT; ISDR “2010 Disasters in Numbers”}

_{[3]Heidelberg Institute, Conflict Barometer 2010}

_{[4]IDMC – December 2010}

_{[5]IPCC Climate Change Synthesis Report 2007}

_{[6]Real Projected GDP Shares and Growth Rates of GDP Shares, US Agricultural Service, 2009}

_{[7]ROAP covers 36 Member States in Asia/Pacific. This includes four countries in which OCHA has a Country Office (Philippines, Myanmar, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka).}

STRATEGY

Current Focus

In 2011, OCHA jointly covered 36 countries and 14 territories in Asia and the Pacific with 113 national and international staff. It operates through four Country Offices and one Regional Office, as well as an OCHA presence in Fiji and HSUs in Papua New Guinea and Nepal. OCHA maintains a presence in five of the top 10 countries in the region identified by the OCHA Global Focus Model (GFM).

Response and Response Preparedness

In 2012, ROAP will focus on its priority area of work, to be ready to surge upon request in line with the Regional Office Policy Instruction. ROAP will apply a more systematic and predictable approach to how surge capacity is deployed in response to new emergencies, particularly with regard to the size, composition and leadership of fielded teams. Drawing on logic used for the Preparedness Initiative, which focuses on how best to achieve positive response outcomes in emergencies, some relatively far-reaching changes are foreseen in the way response capacity is conceptualized, managed and deployed. A first draft concept note has been developed and shared internally as the basis for a further discussion on rationalizing OCHA’s response capacity.

ROAP will aim to ensure that OCHA Country Offices can adequately fulfil response and preparedness functions from within, thus requiring ROAP to surge less in the medium to longer term. Vulnerable countries that need response preparedness will be provided with continued support, in line with GFM priorities and available resources. In the medium to longer term, ROAP will consider resource requirements to roll out the Country-Level Integrated Preparedness Package for Emergency Response (CLIPPER) in priority countries.

Regional Partnerships

In 2012-2013, ROAP will seek partnerships with countries that are relatively well prepared, either bilaterally or by utilizing their capacities through regional fora, primarily the SPC, ASEAN, the East Asia Summit and SAARC.
ROAP’s current support to the non-governmental sector in Asia is through the Asia Disaster Risk Reduction Network — a partnership that ROAP aims to strengthen. In the Pacific, the Pacific Humanitarian Forum has made significant progress in working with the NGO community.

ROAP aims to engage more strategically with regional organizations in order to:

-increase their capacity to support roll out of the provisions of regional agreements, such as the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response

-ensure that regional and international disaster-response systems are optimally aligned, thus providing requesting states with a clear understanding of what assistance is available from which source(s)

- work with the international humanitarian community to develop a strategy for greater collaboration with regional bodies for natural disaster response in Asia, and a continued, well-funded and durable coordination mechanism for the Pacific.

Training and Capacity-Building

In 2012-2013, ROAP will prioritize training and capacity-building as a key element in the office’s strategy with regional organizations, academia, civil society and other partners. Civil-Military Coordination (CMCoord) may provide an initial entry point, with further work on standard setting and certification as well as harmonizing current guidelines, approaches and training activities.

The region sees its future as a centre of excellence in disaster preparedness and response. ROAP will focus on improved standards-based training for national disaster-management teams and their local-level counterparts. This will involve transferring relevant knowledge and skills from international humanitarian organizations and actors to regional and national counterparts through a coherent framework. ROAP will work closely with other members of the international system, such as UNDP and ISDR.

Regional Humanitarian Coordination Networks

In 2012, ROAP will seek to transform the regional IASC network into a body that can develop a strong agenda around priority humanitarian issues — coordination, preparedness and response — with high-level participation from directors of regional humanitarian agencies.

ROAP will engage the RDT in order to drive the preparedness agenda within the UN system. This includes identifying region-specific ways to ensure that response preparedness and other elements of the preparedness agenda are more closely aligned than is currently the case^[8]most likely through greater engagement in the CCA/UNDAF process.

The RDT also offers strategic opportunities to improve support to and accountability of RC/HCs. To better use this mechanism, ROAP will be more consistent in its engagement with the RDT and will ensure more systematic input into RC/HC evaluations.

ROAP will work closely with the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), using its convening power in the region in support of a clearer and more relevant agenda in preparedness.

ROAP will also develop a clear and coherent CMCoord strategy that brings together CMCoord counterparts from the region prior to and during crises.

Information Management

The focus has shifted from strengthening internal response preparedness to developing information management capacity at the country level through CLIPPER. This will be initiated by a workshop in Quarter 4 of 2011 with participants from the national statistical and mapping agencies of all ROAP focus countries. The workshop aims to strengthen their involvement in response and response preparedness, and to begin practical work on issues such as common operational datasets and needs assessments at country level.

Coordination of needs assessments was explicitly tasked to OCHA by GA resolution 46/182. The IASC's Needs Assessment Task Force has now established a framework, resources and tools that are already having an impact in the region. Taking into account existing national capacities and methodologies, ROAP will work with partners at the regional level to promote assessment approaches that are reliable, predictable and accountable.

OCHA is introducing performance frameworks to support its planning and operations. ROAP will keep abreast of this process and strengthen its collection, management and information analysis. ROAP will continue to manage the GFM on behalf of the organization and maintain operational data — such as common operational datasets — necessary for response operations, but will also work to increase the range, coherence and use of data. This information will support internal decision-making (where OCHA works, how OCHA uses resources and reports on performance) and external analysis and reporting to make a more compelling and evidence-based case for OCHA's work in the region.

Communications

In a changing information environment, the office collectively needs to recognize that the value of OCHA’s work has to be clearly communicated internally, to all of its partners, to crisis-affected people and to the general public in the region. This requires clear and coherent messaging, the identification of appropriate dissemination channels and the resources needed to do this work. Increasing the sophistication and coherence of OCHA’s information products will be a priority requiring close collaboration with OCHA offices, particularly the Communications and Information Services Branch.

In 2012, ROAP will also consider the growing use of smart phones and social media networks, particularly in relation to communications with and by affected populations, and in the context of the IASC Accountability to Affected Populations agenda.

_{[8]The outcome of the current IASC Principals discussions on this issue may have a major bearing on the regional approach pursued.}

PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK

Result 1: Humanitarian coordination leaders (RC, HCTs, cluster leads) enabled to respond to emergencies in a timely and coordinated fashion
Preparedness
Indicator 1a. Number and percentage of priority countries with minimum preparedness package delivered.
BASELINE 2011	36 countries in the region, 12 of which are priority countries in 2011. These are Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Bangladesh, PNG, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, Lao PDR, DPRK, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Solomon Islands. Target in 2011: PNG and Mongolia (CLIPPER pilots).
TARGET 2012-13	2012: 7 out of 12 (47 per cent) 2013: 12 out of 12 (100 per cent)
Indicator 1b. Number of person days deployed for delivery of minimum preparedness package.
BASELINE 2011	Mission days to stay constant, but focused on smaller number of high-risk countries.
TARGET 2012-13	160 person days
Indicator 1c. Number of priority countries with complete common operational datasets (available and maintained).
BASELINE 2011	Countries with COD: Myanmar, Cambodia, DPRK, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Lao PDR, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, PNG and Solomon Islands.
TARGET 2012-13	Once the 12 priority countries have been addressed, ROAP will aim to maintain these datasets.
Indicator 1d. Number of common agreements with key regional stakeholders (IASC) for collective response.
BASELINE 2011	OCHA Pacific: Agreement by Pacific Humanitarian Team members on ToRs (should be formalized by ERC in 2011).
TARGET 2012-13	Two additional agreements from OCHA Pacific (Fiji): MOU with SPC/SOPAC, MOU with Vanuatu Humanitarian Team.
Indicator 1e. Percentage of client satisfaction for RCs and UNCT/HCTs training.
BASELINE 2011	80 per cent
TARGET 2012-13	Improve satisfaction to 90 per cent

Response
Indicator 1f. Percentage of appeals and needs assessments for which common operational datasets are used.
BASELINE 2011	60 per cent of those involving ROAP, including assessments developed as part of preparedness measures.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: 80 per cent used for appeals and needs assessments in Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Kiribati, Tonga and Fiji. 2013: 90 per cent
Indicator 1g. Percentage of humanitarian strategy documents (FA, Contingency Plans) using sex and age disaggregated data.
BASELINE 2011	80 per cent
TARGET 2012-13	90 per cent
Indicator 1h. Percentage of RCs activating government agreed HCT-like coordination structures within 24 hours from the onset of a crisis.
BASELINE 2011	All RCs are expected to activate an HCT-like structure in the event of a crisis. Training provided to RCs through CLIPPER, etc. RCs for Pacific will activate Pacific Humanitarian Team response for all emergencies requiring international assistance.
TARGET 2012-13	Maintain 100 per cent through training and awareness raising (e.g. CLIPPER).
Indicator 1i. Percentage of FAs or Humanitarian Action Plans drafted within 96 hours of request from RC or HCT.
BASELINE 2011	FAs are not likely to be used in the Pacific; PHT has agreed to draft a Humanitarian Action Plan instead for major events.
TARGET 2012-13	90 per cent
Indicator 1j. Percentage of CERF applications submitted within 72 hours of request from RC or HCT.
BASELINE 2011	Governments in the region are familiar with the CERF process, but more work is being done on this through preparedness activities.
TARGET 2012-13	90 per cent

Result 2: Regional Office equipped to rapidly support emergency response capacity in crisis-affected countries
Indicator 2a. Percentage of RO staff with required skills to deliver OCHA tools and services in accordance with minimum training package.
BASELINE 2011	Not applicable. The outcome of a pilot will determine the training package development needs.
TARGET 2012-13	ROAP will ensure 100 per cent of its staff members are skilled to deliver the minimum preparedness package.
Indicator 2b. Average number of hours for RO to respond to surge request for a new or deteriorating crisis.
BASELINE 2011	Major emergencies in 2011 (pre-MYR) include the Japan earthquake and tsunami (March 2011). Decision to respond within 48 hours.
TARGET 2012-13	24 to 48 hours
Indicator 2c. Number of person days deployed to respond to surge request for a new or deteriorating crisis.
BASELINE 2011	300 person days
TARGET 2012-13	400 person days
Indicator 2d. RO Business Continuity Plan tested once per year and deficiencies addressed.
BASELINE 2011	Once per year
TARGET 2012-13	Testing will take place twice a year and adjustments made according to outcomes of tests.

Result 3: Reliable and timely information is used to support vulnerability analysis for better preparedness and response
Indicator 3a. Frequency of update of vulnerability data.
BASELINE 2011	The Global Focus Model (GFM) will form the basis for ROAP’s vulnerability analysis. The model was created by ROAP for use in the region. Maplecroft will manage and update the GFM on an annual basis in collaboration with ROAP starting in 2011.
TARGET 2012-13	Annually
Indicator 3b. Percentage of contingency plans containing agreed vulnerability indicators.
BASELINE 2011	Not applicable for 2011.
TARGET 2012-13	20 per cent. Contingency planning will be carried out in CLIPPER countries and additional Pacific Island Countries.
Indicator 3c. Number of development frameworks incorporating vulnerability/risk analysis.
BASELINE 2011	UNDAF rolled out in six countries in 2010 (Bangladesh, Lao PDR, Mongolia, Thailand, Philippines and Vietnam).
TARGET 2012-13	New UNDAFs will be rolled out in 2012. Pacific UNDAF in 2013.

Result 4: Regional bodies and national governments willing and better able to access and utilize international humanitarian response services and tools before, during and after crises
Indicator 4a. Number of agreements concluded with regional organizations on cooperation in preparedness and response.
BASELINE 2011	Not applicable
TARGET 2012-13	Two SOPs with ASEAN and SPC/SOPAC on roles and responsibilities in response signed. An additional agreement signed in 2013 with SAARC if politically feasible.
Indicator 4b. Number of regional organizations taking account of international tools in regional contingency planning.
BASELINE 2011	ASEAN (specifically the Provisional AHA Centre).
TARGET 2012-13	By 2013: one additional organization.
Indicator 4c. Number of countries taking account of international tools in national contingency planning.
BASELINE 2011	Most countries in the region take international tools “into account”. This includes those not expected to request international assistance (e.g. India and China). Further mapping work will be needed in order to provide accurate targets for this indicator.
TARGET 2012-13	24 countries
Indicator 4d. Number of national simulation exercises that take into account international tools.
BASELINE 2011	Most countries in the region take international tools “into account”. This includes those not expected to request international assistance (e.g. India and China). Further mapping work will be needed in order to provide accurate targets for this indicator.
TARGET 2012-13	24 countries
Indicator 4e. Percentage of RC/HC countries in which National Disaster Management Adviser and local responders are trained on international tools and services.
BASELINE 2011	56 per cent
TARGET 2012-13	83 per cent
Indicator 4f. Number and percentage of crisis-affected countries triggering international tools and services.
BASELINE 2011	Six: Japan (UNDAC and INSARAG), Philippines (CERF-UF), DPRK (CERF-RR), Myanmar (CERF-UF/RR), Sri Lanka (CERF-UF/RR) and Nepal (CERF-UF).
TARGET 2012-13	Depends on the occurrence of disaster, but no less than five.

Result 5: Resources and support available from a wider group of Member States, private-sector organizations and civil society for emergency response and preparedness
Indicator 5a. Number of Member States in region providing resources to international humanitarian response.
BASELINE 2011	24 Member States
TARGET 2012-13	Attract two additional Member States.
Indicator 5b. Total amount of Consolidated and Flash Appeal requirements worldwide funded by countries in the region.
BASELINE 2011	$350 million
TARGET 2012-13	$400 million
Indicator 5c. Number of countries within your region participating in UNDAC/ INSARAG/ SBPP.
BASELINE 2011	Seven countries participate in at least one mechanism - Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, Philippines, RoK (UNDAC and SBPP). INSARAG includes a far greater number.
TARGET 2012-13	India as an additional partner.
Indicator 5d. Communication strategy updated annually.
BASELINE 2011	A regional communications strategy was developed in 2011 and is being rolled out.
TARGET 2012-13	A regional communications strategy will be revised in 2012 to include the HSUs and Fiji Office, and updated annually.

PLANNED STAFFING AND TOTAL COSTS

Total Staff	Professional		National		General Service		GTA		UNV	Total
Total Staff	XBPB	XBAB	XBPB	XBAB	XBPB	XBAB	XBPB	XBAB	UNV	Total
Total Staff 2012	16	1	5	0	0	0	6	7	1	36
Total Staff 2013	19	1	5	0	0	0	8	7	1	41

XBPB: Extrabudgetary Programme Budget | XBAB: Extrabudgetary Administrative Budget | GTA = General Temporary Assistance | UNV: United Nations Volunteers

Total Costs (US$)	Programme costs	administrative Costs	Total

Total Costs 2012	7,161,703	714,876	7,876,579
Total Funds Requested 2012			7,161,703
Total Costs 2013	6,651,056	664,599	7,315,655
Total Funds Requested 2013			6,651,056