270 likes | 446 Views
IA-RTE Philippines of the HR to Typhoons Ketsana and Parma. debriefing IASC New York 26/02/2010. Index. RTE Purpose / process Context Funding Needs and prioritization Response Coordination Support to national capacity Next steps. 1) RTE purpose.
E N D
IA-RTE Philippines of the HR to Typhoons Ketsana and Parma debriefing IASC New York 26/02/2010
Index • RTE Purpose / process • Context • Funding • Needs and prioritization • Response • Coordination • Support to national capacity • Next steps
1) RTE purpose • Provide a snap shot of the current situation including real/time feedback and learning to the UNCT and to the IASC locally. • support of the operational planning of the HCT… • Improve ongoing and similar future responses.
Evaluation process • Desk review • 42 ssi (Government, donors, UN, RC, NGOs) • Workshop hosted by NDCC • Field visit to Laguna, NCR and Rizal (higher D & L) • 30 focus groups and interviews in 10 locations with 200 people affected by the disaster (whole cycle of displacement) • Presentation of initial findings MNL, BKK & GVA comments and validation
2) Context • Archipelagic country • Middle income country on the low end of MDG • 12th largest population (highest natality rate in Asia), double within 30 Y • HDI 90th down to 105th • 43% of the pop lives below the poverty line • Fragmented political environment • Ongoing conflicts
Western Pacific typhoon belt and NW fringes of the Pacific ring of fire Recurrent slow & fast onset disasters In areas with high poverty incidence vicious cycle of limited economic opportunity exacerbated by the impact of disasters. Disaster hot spot
The disasters • Sequential Ketsana, Parma & Mirinae • 963 people killed; 46,203 houses have been completely destroyed, 10 M people affected • Looses represented 2.7% of the GDP • Large geographical distribution but different impact (resilience and preparedness).
3) Funding • Initial funding flows activated the int’l response but did not allow to build up an integrated one. • FA 1 / FA revised 37% funded (4th underfunded) • FA timely but overstretched • Even if initial consultation (Gov’t/UN), it did not point out critical gaps (considering the ongoing response) • Uneven distribution/ gaps • Low media coverage, end of FY, donor fatigue, MIC, small pool of donors, simultaneous disasters, PDNA (section of FA integrated), GoRP capacity to respond, perceived as individual agencies shopping list • CERF…9th largest recipient?
Funding recommendations“More focused and targeted” • HC with OCHA support, develop a UN humanitarian funding strategy (ERF?) before next DSG visit • Global, regional and country level. Clarify division of labor FA/PDNA (recovery). Develop SOP with WB. ERC and OCHA regional / country offices • In similar emergencies: (RC with HCT) the preliminary FA should focus essentially on the most critical needs (2-3 weeks period), revised appeal based on thorough assessment. Present FA in an integrated, prioritized and complementary way
4) Needs assessments, prioritization & planning • Good sharing of info but insufficient analysis & prioritization (Flat figures, flows). • Full picture of needs and gaps missing • NA sectoral conducted in parallel and fragmented (few joint),, # varied. Little consolidation (even within clusters). UNDAC, RDRT… • Assumptions were made about needs rather than consultations • Missing linkages and analysis between needs identified, capacity to respond, presence, coverage and gaps
Conclusion and recommendations Need for more holistic and targeted approach. • Before next D. OCHA should support gov’t to improve its’ information management. So that it can promptly identify outstanding needs to prioritize & bridge sectoral and geographic gaps • In similar emergencies IASC should carry out more joint assessments and develop standard templates (inter & intra) • To avoid duplications do OCHA with CL 4 Ws (who, what, where and when) in a RT fashion (i.e. Myanmar • All HCT components should strive to inform people what they will receive (accountability…)
5) Response: • Faster for Parma than for Kestana (overwhelmed, unprepared and UN not timely, RC mobilized through NS, NGOs) as already in Op’l mode. No EWS for the first • It improved the collaboration between the Government and the UN. • The UN managed to mobilize through it’s surge capacity. • Local R swift - int’l often reactive “running behind the challenges”
(ii) response • S&R through ONS • FI (locally procured) & NFI (Hygiene, repair kits distributed) to complement the primary emergency response mainly done by the LGU’s • Logistic support was key to reach areas of difficult access • Challenges in WASH (ECs) - slugging positively dealt with (Manila water). • Emergency and transitional shelter were provided upon EC closure in some areas • Good collaboration with DSW on registration - (displacement tracking system). • TA to NDCC - staff and mapping
Response (iii) • FRI and NFRI much appreciated. Supply driven: immediate needs largely met, but not based on consultation. Duplications and uncoordinated assistance reported – particularly at Barangay level • Fragmented, varied by sector and geographically. Different levels of coverage and standards (i.e Marikina & Pasig). Concentrated in EC / affected areas. “Too much food” • Most of the affected population got back to their daily life and places of origin rather fast (coping mechanisms – short emergency). • Still challenge protracted displacement
Conclusions and recommendations • Today respective CL should support the gov’t to bridge the gaps in shelter, protection and livelihood. • In future em. HCT reduced scope and better targeted may increase the quality of outputs and outcomes. Stronger participation is also needed • IASC members should adapt standards according to national context and identify suppliers (stand by agreements) • CL and OCHA coordinate assistance by sharing information both at national, regional, provincial and local level.
6) Coordination • Place for the international community to “plug in” to the national effort. • Means of coordination improved over time • Surge capacity allowed a quick shift from Dev’t to Emergency- turnover! • Cluster’s role, mandate and mechanisms not sufficiently disseminated to international / national actors • Some actors bypassed the DCC-structure challenging coordination (specially smaller NGOs).
Coordination (ii): Clusters • A total of 8 (12) clusters were activated. Adequate #? • 2 configurations conflict / natural disasters. // systems • Clusters integrated a variety of org. • Some clusters well focused, other too multi-dimensional, no clear mandate, outcome and output. • Cluster coordination present at capital level but lost progressively grip in the field (disconnect) • Limited OCHA presence
Coordination (iii): Clusters • Geographic and sector gaps irregularly addressed • Partnership between the UN/RC and NGOs functioned sporadically • Strategic field coordination and prioritization was mostly absent • Did not act as provider of last resort, quality control absent, impartiality questioned (funding)
Coordination (3): Meetings • Too many, long & centralized. Type of info and no clearly defined agenda and output. • Initially number of participants was high - saw an opportunity for information gathering and funding opportunities. Progressively reduced to implementation partners. • Level of staff and turnover represented a major concern
Conclusions and recommendations • In middle income countries clusters focus just on ST emergency (smaller #) • All CL Gov and IASC should explain the role, modalities of the clusters before the next disaster • One focal point between Government and the UN • Clusters should avoid becoming additional layers of the response (activate int’l or use nat’l?) The challenge is to move coordination beyond the national level (reg/prov/loc) • CL pre-plan agenda and output, less meetings, share information more strategically
7) Support to National Capacity • Government responsibility to coordinate and to respond but different levels of capability observed • Level of preparedness in urban settings v. rural areas • Local response often robust through LGU & Barangay – but often uncoordinated • Added value making the international community easier for GoRP to deal with • Who does what not clear to all
Conclusion and recommendations • Opportunity for IASC to support Government’s DM capacity (all levels) UN agencies focus on DRR in UNDAF (05/10 with a more holistic approach (RR integrated with S and E dev. plans), need to coordinate with WB and RC. • IASC/HCT develop contingency plan now with Gov. before the next disaster strikes. Who would do what, where, when, with whom and how. Define ‘tipping point’, pre-plan division of labor, responsibilities and ‘nature’ of aid (int’l and national) • What would happen without the clusters? Questioning the “business model” More sustainable to reduce risk than respond to emergencies
8) Next steps • Draft report due by 10/03 • Comments IA by 17/03 • Final report by 24/03