SCHEDULE

Following the successful presentations by many experts of various fields covering topics of Disaster Management such as risk reduction, preparedness, response and recovery/reconstruction, the participants of the workshop were split into four groups where each group was assigned a topic. These were (a) Disaster Risk Reduction, (b) Disaster Preparedness, Cc) Disaster Response and (d) Disaster Recovery/Reconstruction.
The groups discussed their respective topic among themselves and nominate a speaker to present their discussions on the below four questions -

1. Based on the presentation and discussions from the previous day, what do you think are the challenges/difficulties and weakness that you observe or experience on how CSOs and the military work together looking at your groups assigned theme.

2. What are the groups recommendations in order to address the challenges/difficulties and weakness that you identified.

3. What are the potential activities that the military and CSOs can work together that will contribute in reducing emergency and disaster risks, recovering after disaster, community preparedness and making communities safer.

4. How can ASEAN and ASEAN Member States can contribute to bridge the link between the military and CSOs cooperation.

After two hours of discussion and debate, the following groups presented their discussion, which is as below

Group A: Disaster Risk Reduction
Challenges / Weaknesses / Difficulties

• Who takes the lead?

• State has the primary role to protect the State- but should recognize the role of CSOs in DRR.

• DRR Capacity building for the military personnel

• Miscommunication or lack of communication between CSOs and the military

• How can EWS benefit the local communities? How can the EWS reach the communities the soonest possible time?

• Access to information that the military may have (Hazards x Exposures x Vulnerabilities) - to come up with evidence-based DRR measures

• Engaging the military in pre-disaster infrastructure work for DRR for hard-to-reach areas.

• How can we access military assets (ie. vehicles, communication systems, non-combatant expertise for infrastructure development) for DRR?

• Accessing CSOs expertise on disaster-resilient infrastructure.

Recommendations

• Philippines and Brunei are to ratify the AADMER

• Narrow the gap between the military and CSOs

• Identify appropriate focal persons for DRR work that CSOs and the military can communicate with

• Inter-Agency body (national body for the Government: President/Prime Minister for the CSGs for DRR)

• Regional network for hazard detection (region - countries - local communication)

• Encourage sharing of hazard information in real-time; risk assessments; capacity assessments to institutions working in DRR (ie, increase participation of military and other institutions)

• Profiles on ASEAN countries are made accessible to CSGs: data on policy, bureaucratic systems, military establishments, local governments, etc. DRR lead agency should take part in any ASEAN meeting encouraging CSGs and military cooperation

Group B : Disaster Preparedness
Challenges / Weaknesses / Difficulties

• Absence of regional and country information sharing system for disaster management including Geographical Information System IGISI data

• Absence of trust building including sharing capabilities and resources

• Poor awareness of style/methods of working among CSGs and the military

• Poor understanding about agency’s capacity and resources

• Absence of Systematic Command and Control: Unified command, Operational planning, incident action plan in CSGs

• Perception and attitude towards each other to work together

• Poor shared understanding a way to work with organizations

• Unclear roles and responsibility at lower level

• Difficult to share resources

• Limited interagency cooperation and also varying at different member countries

• Inadequate organization structure of CSGs meeting the DM requirements

• Resource constraints

• Poor accountability in CSDs

• Political interference

• Roles and responsibilities for CSGs and the military are differing time span

Recommendations

• Removing confusion and misunderstanding in defining CSGs and identification process

• Building trust through exercises, mock drills, operation centre between CSDs and whole security sectors (eg. military and police) start working prior to disaster

• Encourage open-minded working attitude through more interaction and discussion

• Promote awareness for relationship between CSDs and military through media, public relations and joint message

• Accept the fact that the CSGs and the military each has complementary resources/strength (eg. better visibility for sharing resources)

• More flexible governmental regulations and procedures, financial governance daring crisis while maintaining accountability

• Better systematic command and control through a unified command centre (joint/combined command assessing each other capability, resource cost allocation, define specific CSGs to be included)

• Inter-agency cooperation, accountability in joint efforts

• SGPs and codes for best practices ICGBPI for sharing resources (military procedures)

• ASEAN to institutionalize involvement of CSDs in Disaster preparedness process

• Establish common procedures for command and control and wide dissemination among concerned stakeholders

• Review of ASEAN Charter Article 16 and appendix 2 include CSDs working on DM

• Publish magazines, newsletters, and etc. to update DM information with specific focus on Military and CSGs Cooperation Facilitate conferences and workshops at regional level (ASEAN initiatives for cooperation)

• ASEAN documents should be translated into regional/country languages for better understanding

Group C.  - Disaster Response
Challenges / Weaknesses / Difficulties

• It is hard to know who CSGs are. What is the definition of CSGs? Who are defined under the label “CSGs”? For example, CSDs are broader than NGGs: they include also community-based and grassroots organizations.

• The need of preparedness and agreed plan of operation

• There is a varying level of awareness and understanding among the responders with regard to disaster response and the need of affected population.

• Cultural differences between the military and CSDs, both in terms of principles and approaches.

• Military has strength in terms of readiness, resources, well-trained personnel etc, bat it also has constraint in terms of duration of response. The CSGs have strength in terms of connection to community, but constraint in terms of resources.

• The need to develop a mechanism to materialize the framework on which state and CSDs agree.

Recommendations

• The states should have directory or mapping of CSOs with their mandates and capabilities. The states should also develop its own an accreditation standard of the CSOs. At the latest stage, ASEAN countries can work together to determine the accreditation standard at the ASEAN level, according to AADMER.

• Preparation of protocol/agreement needed in advance between the military and CSOs. There should be a clear-cut understanding for timeline for entrance and exit of the military.

• There should be an awareness-raising forum to enhance understanding the unity of effort between defence establishments and CSOs.

• The military and CSOs should have a joint humanitarian planning committee before and during the disaster and the preparedness stage

• There should be more inclusiveness and participation of the CSOs in ASEAN activities

• Utilize the existing mechanism in ASEAN such as through the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM) and ASEAN Defence Senior Official’s Working Group Meeting (ADSOM) to explore and facilitate the cooperation with the CSOs in the area of preparedness and response

• Joint and combined exercises between the military and CSOs in ASEAN in order to promote better mutual understanding. E.g. ASEAN Regional Disaster Emergency Simulation Exercise (ARDEX)

• The need for evaluation and accreditation system in the mechanism

Group D : Disaster Recovery/Reconstruction
Challenges/Weakness/Difficulties

• The role of the military in the reconstruction phase – political commitment

• The military role to address the needs of the community

• Social problem? Cultural issue. Hardware from military and the software/knowledge from CSOs

• Budgetary constraints for the military in the reconstruction phase

• Lack of understanding and awareness between CSOs and the military limiting the CSOs involvement with the military for disaster recovery/reconstruction

• Mindset/Attitude – There is no space for cooperation in conflict areas

• Participation of survivors in their own recovery program after the exit of CSOs and the military

Recommendations

• For each country, identify which CSOs or NGOs are specialized in which area of expertise

• In the joint planning between CSOs and the military, ensure the CSOs or NGOs are recognized/accepted by the particular country

• Avoid lack of coordination and complications

• Government policy, the government should know how to handle the disasters

• ASEAN recognizes the CSOs as dialogue partners

• ASEAN should break the barriers for future effective cooperation eg taxes

• Establish point of contact of the military and the CSOs forum between nations

• Need to have more programs where the military and CSOs can promote sharing of experience and expertise among the different countries

• ASEAN Secretariat to develop a profiling/catalogue of NGOs and CSOs within different regions who are capable in handling disaster recovery and reconstruction

• Create awareness among CSOs of existing ASEAN mechanisms on disaster recovery and reconstruction

• ASEAN support including minority and other excluded groups in the recovery process

download full report Co-Chair Summary Report

• 7 Jun 2009
• 8 Jun 2009
• 9 Jun 2009