Philippe Boulle IDNDR Rebuilding After Disasters And Wars

SEVENTH SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL IDNDR DISASTER MANAGEMENT MEETING

Record of Meeting

NADI, FIJI 23-25 September 1998

INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR NATURAL DISASTER REDUCTION

2

SEVENTH SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL IDNDR DISASTER MANAGEMENT MEETING

TANOA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL NADI, FIJI

23-25 September 1998

Record of Meeting

Jointly sponsored by the Australian IDNDR Co-ordination Committee, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) through the United Nations Disaster

Management Program - South Pacific Office (UNDMP-SPO) and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID),

with support from Emergency Management Australia (EMA) and the Queensland Department of Emergency Services.

5

6

SEVENTH SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL IDNDR DISASTER MANAGEMENT MEETING

Nadi, Fiji

RECORD OF MEETING (23-25 SEPTEMBER 1998)

OPENING CEREMONY The official opening ceremony for the Seventh South Pacific Regional IDNDR Disaster Management Meeting was held at the Tanoa International Hotel in Nadi, Fiji, on the 23 September 1998. Mr. Jone Bolaitamana, Principal Assistant Secretary of the Fiji Ministry of Regional Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs, acted as master of ceremonies and introduced special guests. Mr. Alan Hodges, Chair of the Australian IDNDR Co-ordination Committee and Director General of Emergency Management Australia (EMA), have opening comments. He mentioned the special significance of these Meetings, and reflected on how they show the increasing maturity of disaster management in the region. He also remarked that it is a privilege for the Australian IDNDR program to be involved, and hoped to continue that involvement to the end of the International Decade. Mr. Shahrokh Mohammadi, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Deputy Resident Representative, Suva, also gave opening comments. He reminded delegates of the genesis of the UN South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme (SPDRP) in 1994, and broadly outlined its achievements. He remarked that the 1998 Terminal Evaluation of the SPDRP had noted its achievements and recommended that its work needed to continue. He stated that UNDP is committed to supporting the continuance of SPDRP work. Mr. Francesco Pisano, Secretary, IDNDR Scientific and Technical Committee, Geneva, delivered the keynote address for Mr. Philippe Boulle, Director of the Secretariat for the IDNDR, Geneva. He referred to the IDNDR success in promoting a global recognition that vulnerability reduction is possible, and that there was a large amount of work involved in achieving this. He spoke of the need to continue IDNDR initiatives beyond the Decade. He also stated that the UN is currently looking closely at measures to assess the progress of the IDNDR and to consolidate its achievements. The late Hon. Mesake E. Baisagale, Fiji’s Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs, officially opened the Meeting. He stated that the IDNDR brought new dimensions to disaster management concepts in Fiji, and gave particular emphasis to the importance of training. He also mentioned that Fiji, like other countries of the region, still needed technical assistance and funding in its disaster management development efforts. The Minister also described the dimensions of the tragedy in Fiji caused by the current drought.

7

SESSION ONE CONFERENCE FORMALITIES 1.1 Appointment of Chairperson The outgoing Chair from the Sixth South Pacific Regional IDNDR Disaster Management Meeting, Mr. Alan Hodges of Australia, called the Meeting to order and asked for nominations for a new chairperson. The Meeting invited Mr. Josefa Serulagilagi (Permanent Secretary of the Fiji Ministry of Regional Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs) as chairperson. Mr. Serulagilagi thanked the outgoing Chair, on behalf of the Meeting, for his efforts in chairing the previous Meeting. 1.2 Review of Recommendations and Action from the 1997 Meeting Report The Chair invited Mr. Phil Stenchion of EMA to assist the Meeting in reviewing the Sixth IDNDR Meeting recommendations. The recommendations were reviewed as follows: 1. The Meeting agreed to amend the Regional Disaster Management Sub-Committee’s TOR and

requested that SOPAC work with the Sub-Committee on how SOPAC could undertake its co-ordinating role.

The Director of SOPAC, Mr. Alf Simpson, informed delegates that this had been actioned and that the results would become clear during the Meeting, as SOPAC will outline its disaster management mandate. 2. The Meeting agreed on the need to establish a close working relationship between the

Regional IDNDR Meeting and the SOPAC Governing Council, possibly as a Technical Advisory Group, and to co-ordinate timing of meetings and representation.

Mr. Simpson informed delegates that this issue would also be discussed later during the Meeting. 3. The Meeting passed a resolution for submission to the SOPAC Governing Council Meeting on

the regional co-ordination of disaster management activities, noting comments outlined in the Meeting.

Mr. Simpson informed delegates that this issue would also be discussed later during the Meeting. 4. The Meeting endorsed in principle the four components of the SPDRP project document as

broad priorities identified by member countries for advice to donors, noting amendments, guiding principles for implementation, and unresolved issues as outlined in the Meeting report.

Mr. Joseph Chung, Chief Technical Advisor for the SPDRP, informed delegates that the Proposal for a Long-Term Disaster Management Framework for the South Pacific Region and country priorities had been used in designing SPDRP-Phase II. 5. The Meeting agreed that each country would provide a list of priorities to UNDHA-SPPO to

assist in the revision of the project document, recognising that countries have their own national priorities.

8

Mr. Chung informed delegates that this had been actioned. 6. The Meeting agreed that UNDHA-SPPO would co-ordinate redrafting of the project

document for submission to UNDP and other donors by the end of October 1997, noting comments in the Meeting report.

Mr. Chung informed delegates that this had been actioned. 7. The Meeting agreed to invite the Prime Minister of Tuvalu to act as chief advocate and that

UNDHA-SPPO could establish administrative arrangements to support the Prime Minister in this role.

Mr. Chung informed delegates that this is still to be actioned. 8. The Meeting agreed that a regional co-ordination unit could play an important role in

disseminating information on dates and agenda of relevant meetings where formal channels were ineffective.

This recommendation required no action. 9. The Meeting endorsed the proposed area of emphasis and consultant’s recommendations for

Disaster Management Information Systems in the South Pacific region. This recommendation required no action. 10. The Meeting endorsed recommendations that countries undertake program management skills

training and appealed to donors to fund this training as a protection of their investment in the SPDRP-Phase II.

Ms. Joanne Burke, Field Adviser for USAID/OFDA, informed delegates that this had not yet proceeded, and that there is now some doubt of the need. 11. The Meeting agreed that a forum for NDMOs be held to facilitate input to SPDRP-Phase II. Mr. Chung informed delegates that NDMOs had provided sufficient input to the SPDRP-Phase II since the previous Meeting. 12. The Meeting agreed that PIC delegates report back to their respective countries on concerns

about the future of the program if funding was to be available due to SOPAC's involvement. Delegates were informed that the events of the last year had removed these concerns. 13. The Meeting proposed that in future years a drafting committee be set up to facilitate the

drafting of a summary record for tabling before the close of the Meeting. Mr. Russell Howorth of SOPAC outlined for delegates the arrangements for producing a summary record and invited delegates to contribute to the arrangements if they felt it necessary. Delegates were satisfied that the outlined arrangements would meet the requirement.

9

14. The Meeting accepted the Samoan representative’s offer to host the Seventh IDNDR Meeting

pending formal approval from Cabinet and the Fiji representative’s offer of Fiji as an alternative location.

This recommendation required no further action. 1.3 Adoption of the 1997 Meeting Report The Meeting agreed that the report, as circulated, was an accurate record of the Sixth South Pacific Regional IDNDR Disaster Management Meeting. 1.4 Introduction and Adoption of 1998 Meeting Agenda Mr. Atu Kaloumaira of the SPDRP introduced the meeting agenda and outlined its’ structure. The Meeting agreed to the agenda. SESSION TWO PRESENTATIONS BY SPDRP PARTNER ORGANISATIONS 2.1 Presentation by Mr. Alf Simpson, Director, SOPAC Mr. Simpson made a presentation on the future of SPDRP within SOPAC. He commented that he was hopeful that his remarks would allay any concerns held by delegates over the new arrangements for SPDRP-Phase II. He noted that disaster management is only one of ten focus areas within SOPAC, although a key area. He remarked that the next few months or more would be a transition period as the transfer arrangements were further developed. He discussed the possible future role of meetings such as the current Regional IDNDR Meetings once the Decade had finished, and outlined the useful role that Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) played within SOPAC. Mr. Simpson invited delegates to consider by the end of the Meeting whether they saw these meetings becoming a TAG, adding that he believed there would be a continuing need for such meetings beyond 2000. General discussion showed support for continuing opportunities for NDMOs to meet at the regional level. The Chair suggested delegates to consider the matter in detail during later working sessions. The Meeting agreed to the Chair’s suggestion. 2.2 Presentation by Mr. John Davidson, Counsellor, Australian High Commission,

Suva Mr. Davidson made a presentation on the AusAID perspective on partnerships with donor agencies. He informed delegates that since the last IDNDR meeting, AusAID had conducted a review of its methods of supporting disaster management activities in the region to see where AusAID could add value, and what might be the most effective way. He emphasised that the review was of AusAID program methods, not of disaster management programs themselves, and that AusAID was focused on building partnerships in its programs. He outlined the TOR for the review and some of the key recommendations. He stated that AusAID would in future provide funding for disaster management activities through the Disaster Reduction Unit (DRU) of

10

SOPAC. He further stated that AusAID fully supports SOPAC’s disaster management mandate. Administrative management of AusAID disaster management programs will be transferred from Canberra to AusAID in Suva, in order to improve AusAID assistance. AusAID will approach regional partners such as FRANZ and the UN to establish an effective monitoring mechanism. The Meeting endorsed AusAID’s planned changes to its disaster management programs. 2.3 Presentation by Ms. Isabel Calvert, First Secretary, New Zealand High

Commission, Suva The representative from New Zealand, Ms. Isabel Calvert, sent her apologies for not being able to attend the Meeting. However her presentation on “New Zealand's Priorities in Disaster Mitigation” was tabled at the Meeting. She outlined the range of measures in the area of disaster management that currently existed under NZODA. These included emergency and disaster relief funds, disaster mitigation support and direct support to SOPAC and the SPDRP. She advised that New Zealand had supported the South Pacific Disaster Reduction Program over the past four years and intends to continue doing so throughout Phase II of the project. For the future however, one of New Zealand’s concerns was to ensure that the most efficient and effective service be offered to the region in disaster management – from preparedness to mitigation and relief. SESSION THREE SPDRP OVERVIEW AND COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS

3.1 Implementation Overview on SPDRP-Phase II and the 1999 Work Program Ms. Angelika Planitz of the SPDRP made a presentation outlining SPDRP-Phase II objectives, current activities, and work program and budget for 1999. The presentation described the major implementation emphasis for the second phase program. These are: - assisting in the development of nationally implemented disaster management programs which provide a

comprehensive picture of all in-country activities;

- introducing a monitoring system for better accountability and response to ongoing needs of PICs;

- establishing a network of collaboration which broadens the support base for national programs; and

- redirecting disaster management activities towards the community level.

Following this, the 1999 proposed activities and budget were briefly presented and delegates were asked to review these for adoption by Friday morning so they can be put to the SOPAC Governing Council for final approval. In general discussion delegates were informed that the program was formulated from the needs identified in the SPDRP-Phase I Terminal Evaluation and from discussions with national working groups. The Meeting agreed to consider approval of the program later in the Meeting after all other issues had been discussed and resolved.

11

3.2 Briefings on National Programs and Implementation Strategies The heads of National Disaster Management Offices, emphasising this year's meeting theme of Partnership in National Disaster Management Programming, introduced NGO representatives from their countries before presenting their national programs and strategies. Briefings were given by delegates from the Cook Islands, Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Each country provided details on current and planned activities and identified constraints and needs for assistance. The briefings raised a number of issues relevant to the status of disaster management within the region. There has been noteworthy progress in many countries in recent years. However, the progress in some countries is less distinct, as was identified in the Terminal Evaluation of the SPDRP-Phase I. An increasing focus on strengthening partnerships has been evident and showed first successes. Development issues, such as food security, have now been integrated into mainstream disaster management concepts. All country papers that were provided to the meeting organisers are attached in the Annex. SESSION FOUR AGENCY PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP IN

NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMING A series of presentations were made by regional non-governmental organisations on effective outreaching to the community level and partnership with government. 4.1 Pacific Island Association of NGOs (PIANGO) Mr. Robert Mister, Project Manager, Overseas Service Bureau (OSB) provided a PIANGO perspective. He outlined the role of PIANGO in linking disaster management activities of NGOs and government. He stated that the earlier AusAID-funded NGO Disaster Preparedness Training Program had strengthened NGO capacities, increased disaster management awareness, promoted local-level mitigation activities, increased government recognition of the roles of NGOs in disaster management, and improved co-ordination and co-operation between government and NGOs. He emphasised the need for governments to recognise the unique characteristics of NGOs in developing working relationships. He also emphasised that successful government/NGO partnerships are more important than ever, given the increasing focus on disaster management at the community level. In discussion Mr. Chung reinforced the importance of NGOs to regional and country programs, and asked delegates and their accompanying NGO representatives to hold discussions with his staff before the end of the Meeting to refine the SPDRP work program. 4.2 Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (FSP) Ms. Kathy Fry, Regional Manager, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific International (FSPI) provided an FSP perspective. She outlined FSP's organisation and identified the partnerships involved, as well as the project sectors and focus areas. A case study of FSP's involvement in Tropical Cyclone Namu (1985) illustrated the many practical ways NGOs can assist governments during response and recovery activities. Such NGO assistance also lends itself to similar involvement during preparedness activities.

12

4.3 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) Mr. Alan Bradbury, Regional Disaster Preparedness Delegate of the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) provided an IFRC perspective. He emphasised that the greatest strength of the Red Cross is its volunteer base through wide networks at local levels. He stated the Red Cross “golden rule” that the responsibility for disaster management lies with government, while Red Cross would provide auxiliary support to government efforts within the limits of its seven principles. He described the Red Cross community-based self-reliance program, of which disaster management is a part. He suggested a number of ways, most already being practised in the region, in which National Red Cross Societies could provide assistance to NDMO efforts, as well as ways in which NDMOs could assist the Red Cross to provide better assistance in disaster management. Some lively discussion on the interpretation of the “golden rule” ensued, with the Solomon Islands NGO representative questioning the absolute primacy of government in disaster management. End of Day One Mr. Stenchion provided a short overview of the day’s discussions and undertook to provide delegates with a more detailed summary before the Session Four reconvenes on Day Two. The Chair thanked delegates and presenters for their contributions. 4.4 Emergency Management Australia Mr. Alan Hodges provided a perspective on EMA involvement in disaster management activities in the region. He emphasised that EMA sees disaster management as core business and one of three key outcomes in the current EMA corporate plan. EMA philosophy for the last few years has been to provide a range of assistance to country-endorsed programs under the SPDRP umbrella, with funding from AusAID under a Record of Understanding. Mr. Hodges also outlined the contributions made by the Australian IDNDR Co-ordinating Committee, and emphasised that the Australian IDNDR Strategic Plan had identified the South Pacific as a high priority region. As to the future, EMA will continue to provide the same type of support, in partnership with other service providers, ultimately aiming at achieving a transfer of skills and knowledge. Mr. Hodges identified some examples of the type of training assistance EMA might provide within the SPDRP work plan, and restated the need for external funding for EMA overseas work. In general discussion Mr. Brown of Cook Islands thanked Mr. Hodges for EMA support in the past and referred to the usefulness of EMA’s Information Centre. He also stressed the importance of external assistance being delivered by people who are familiar with the region and accepted by the countries. Mr. Simpson referred to a meeting between SOPAC and EMA earlier this year, supporting the partnership approach of both organisations. 4.5 USAID - Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance Ms. Joanne Burke provided an overview of the development of training activities within the SPDRP-Phase I, the OFDA partnership with UNDHA-SPPO and more recently EMA, and outlined the way ahead. She informed delegates that much of her remarks were from the SPDRP training component's perspective rather than OFDA. She summarised the SPDRP-Phase I training achievements, noting that these did not include the training conducted within other components. She highlighted that the goal throughout had been and will be to achieve self-sufficiency through partnerships and the institutionalising of disaster management training. For the way ahead she identified four priority areas for the period 1999-2001: (1) establishment

13

of a Regional Training Co-ordination Unit, (2) the continuation of the Regional Training Advisory Group, (3) curriculum development of priority courses identified by countries, and (4) in-country training. She discussed the major issues to be resolved, the constraints, and possible methodologies. OFDA financial support for training will continue to the end of 1999, and Ms. Burke outlined how this support will be implemented. In response to questions in general discussion Ms. Burke highlighted that decisions on priorities belonged to individual countries but that assistance for the identification of those priorities will be available. By the end of SPDRP-Phase II, it is hoped to overcome the level of current assistance and reach a level of maintenance support. Mr. Tuifagalele of Fiji stressed, in the interests of consistency and ease of adaptation of materials, the need for training assistance from other providers to take the same approach as throughout SPDPR-Phase I. 4.6 Academically Accredited Courses in Disaster Management Mr. Tony Madigan of Community Safety Training and Consultancies provided an overview on how professional recognition of disaster management training could be achieved in the region. He presented to the Meeting the findings of a study, that resulted from an Australian IDNDR project. He outlined the advantages of such recognition, illustrated current developments in Australia as an example, and suggested that the region could take advantage of Australian initiatives. He explained a sample framework to suggest how accreditation could look in the future, using core and elective example subjects, and emphasised that recognition of prior learning would be essential. EMA undertook to ensure that results from Mr. Madigan’s work would be passed to the Regional Training Co-ordination Unit. In general discussion the Hon. Dr. Narsey Warden re-iterated the importance of regional ownership of training, and suggested delegates could consider making full use of existing training institutions within countries for disaster management training. 4.7 The Pacific Coastal Communities Project Mr. Graham Shorten, Coastal Engineering Geologist of SOPAC outlined the work being undertaken in the Pacific Cities Project, which ties together a range of hazard-related projects and applies GIS technology to the results. He stressed that the project does not consider hazards in isolation, but addresses vulnerabilities as well. He then provided an overview of the proposed Pacific Coastal Communities Project, which intends to assess the risk to coastal communities by applying GIS technology to results. He raised the issue of ensuring that scientific response to disasters needs to be planned as other aspects of disaster response. He also stressed that as evidence of partnership possibilities, linkages to the SPDPR-Phase II community work would be sought. He identified expected outputs of the project and provided examples of how they could contribute to disaster management, especially in developing public education and awareness programs. 4.8 Media and the Community Mr. Ian Rolls of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) provided an overview of the work SPC is currently undertaking in collaboration with the EU funded Tropical Cyclone Warning Upgrade Project and the SPDRP in the area of public education and awareness program development. He described the capacities of the Regional Media Centre and its Graphic Arts Unit. Under consultancy arrangements, specific materials will be produced for each country and introduced within the region where appropriate. Follow-up activities will be identified as appropriate.

14

4.9 Information Technology and Exchange Ms. Ellen Lynch from the Centre of Excellence in Hawaii, outlined the Centre’s disaster management-related work. She explained that the Centre was attending this Meeting as a result of partnership discussions held with Mr. Chung of the SPDRP and that she was impressed with the level of disaster management development in the region. Ms. Lynch illustrated that the Centre has many affiliations and partnerships, and operates as the “glue” when any of these are working in a disaster management related field. She outlined the Centre’s operating principles, accomplishments, and current activities, stressing the particular expertise in civil-military collaboration. She provided a number of examples on how the Centre could link with disaster management work in the region, adding that the Centre would only act in a way complementary to other programs. 4.10 Web Site for Disaster Information Mr. Peter Saville of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community demonstrated to delegates an example of a web- site which could be used as an information access and exchange medium. 4.11 Development of Disaster Management Information System Mr. Les Allinson and Mr. Zaid Ali provided an overview of current SOPAC work in assisting the SPDRP to implement the recommendations of the Sixth Regional IDNDR Meeting on information technology. Three main activities were either completed or planned: a workshop in Cook Islands on remote sensing and GIS (completed), a similar workshop for Niue (planned), and work to upgrade information technology in the SPDRP office (underway). The workshop concept can be applied to other countries. The SPDRP office is being brought into the SOPAC information system, which will significantly enhance its information management capacity. 4.12 GIS and Remote Sensing Applied in Disaster Management Mr. Wolf Forstreuter of SOPAC presented possible applications of GIS and remote sensing technology. He illustrated in a case study on floods how the sensible application of the technology, with science and disaster management working together, could provide more accurate flood warnings and contribute to development and mitigation decisions. He explained some of the technology available, and how SOPAC currently assists in its application. 4.13 Upgrading Tropical Cyclone Warning Systems Mr. Neville Koop, Project Co-ordinator of the Tropical Cyclone Warning Upgrade Project, briefed delegates on the European Union (EU) funded project which is currently halfway through its four-year term. He stated that the commitment of the EU is a significant investment in the region. He also explained that in the interest of successful partnerships it is planned to bring the project under the SOPAC umbrella. Mr. Koop outlined the underlying philosophy of the project that a warning system not only involves meteorological technology, but also disaster managers and the community. The project, therefore, concentrates on strengthening the partnership between weather services and disaster management and, through the SPDRP, is developing public education and awareness initiatives.

15

Prior to the Regional IDNDR Meeting the project conducted its Annual Meeting of Disaster Managers and Meteorologists, which produced a list of recommendations. Mr. Koop tabled the recommendations as an input to this Meeting's deliberations (see Annex). 4.14 Water Resources Management Mr. David Scott of SOPAC presented an overview of the possible impacts of climate change on Pacific communities. He highlighted the reactions to the 1997/98 El Nino event, which raised key questions. His presentation provided a variety of perspectives on drought from different sectors and interest points. Mr. Scott also discussed the linkages of climate change and drought, demonstrating that the issues of precipitation levels, water resources, and drought effects on vulnerable communities all had overall management implications. He showed that drought impacts could be analysed from either a precipitation or effects viewpoint. He further suggested that potential consequences could be reduced by adopting coping strategies as well as by adapting to consequences. He also provided a brief case study on water resources in Rarotonga (Cook Islands) to illustrate how SOPAC is assisting in water resource management. This particular project had identified some short-term management options, as well as information needs for similar studies to be conducted. SESSION FIVE COMMENTS BY OBSERVERS 5.1 Mr. Kazuhiro Kitazawa of JAMSTEC asked what delegates saw as their particular hazard focus,

and why the deliberations so far seemed to concentrate on response issues at the expense of other aspects of disaster management. Mr Brown of Cook Islands explained that, on the contrary, the major focus over recent years had been on IDNDR ideals and objectives. While ensuring that response measures were addressed, countries had put a major effort into the establishment of programs, which dealt with prevention and mitigation aspects of disaster management. He also emphasised that countries of the region, under SPDRP guidance, had taken an all hazards, comprehensive, and integrated approach to disaster management.

5.2 Mr. Shane Cronin of Massey University asked whether the managers of the SOPAC cities and

coastal communities projects had considered how the results of such expensive research would contribute to vulnerability reduction through useful application. Mr Shorten replied that this issue had not been ignored and acknowledged that it needed more attention. He further commented that bringing regional disaster management co-ordination under the SOPAC umbrella would not only add value to the work of SPDRP, but also show hazard researchers how their results will be applied in vulnerability reduction, thus providing more impetus to useful research.

5.3 Mr. Neville Koop of the Tropical Cyclone Warning Upgrade Project commented that the phrase

“El Nino” was becoming more widely used, but that the understanding of the El Nino effects, and how they can vary by location, was not as widespread. He suggested that disaster management related activities in the region could include an effort to explain the complexities of El Nino, and that the Meeting could consider a formal statement to that effect. Mr. Scott of SOPAC supported this suggestion, adding that El Nino potential effects should be explained to a wider audience than disaster managers wherever practical.

5.4 Mr. Douglas Allen of the American Red Cross thanked the Meeting convenors for allowing him to

attend. He informed delegates and observers of his knowledge of similar IDNDR initiatives in developing countries and regions in other parts of the world, and stressed that as a neutral observer

16

he was impressed by this region for its obvious progress and achievements in accordance with IDNDR goals. He added that he particularly admired the Meeting’s focus on partnerships between science, governments, mainstream disaster management, and NGOs. He wished delegates continued success in the future.

SESSION SIX PARTNERSHIPS IN NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT

PROGRAMS - THEME SPEAKERS 6.1 Principles and Applications to Consolidating Mutual Assistance in Disaster

Management within the Pacific Mr. John Campbell, Head of the Geography Department of Waikato University, New Zealand provided an interpretation of the subject. The idea of mutual assistance in disaster reduction roots in the objective to reduce dependency among vulnerable “entities” such as people, groups, economic sectors and countries. Numerous traditional disaster management systems existed in the past, and many relied on mutual assistance practised in a variety of spatial scales. Some of these practices still remain (some in modified form) while others have fallen into disuse. New systems of mutual assistance (e.g. remittances) have also emerged. Mr. Campbell’s presentation outlined the types of mutual assistance (from financial through to intellectual), possible focus areas (from relief to disaster management planning) and scales (from inter-personal to relationships between the region and the international community). Mr Campbell examined these contexts in terms of their appropriateness and applicability to countries of the region. He argued that while the notion of mutual assistance finds considerable approval in international organisations and among NGOs, there are numerous constraints to achieving workable, practicable and beneficial outcomes through mutual assistance. He reminded delegates that disaster vulnerability cannot be treated in isolation from the ongoing social and economic processes of change confronting most Pacific communities. He stressed, that activities to promote mutual assistance in disaster reduction are unlikely to succeed unless a broader commitment to co-operation is achieved. 6.2 Politics, Policies and Practicalities of Developing Partnerships within Pacific

Island Communities Hon. Dr. Wadan Narsey from Fiji provided his perspective of the subject. Dr. Narsey prefaced his presentation by commenting that the deliberations of the Meeting had indicated to him that delegates were seeking an ideal in disaster management, that this ideal may not be easily achieved, and that delegates must appreciate the realities under which they operated. He referred to earlier Meeting discussions on the primacy of government responsibility in disaster management and suggested that delegates consider approaching disaster management with a view to ensuring that disaster management responsibilities were allocated to those organisations best suited to carrying them out effectively, government or otherwise, and that partnerships using this approach had the best chance of achieving the goal of alleviation of suffering. He further suggested that delegates try to convince all governments that the provision of disaster management services is little different from the provision of any other community service, regardless of funding sources, and need not be automatically considered as government business, while accepting that ultimately government is always responsible to the people it governs. The current drought in Fiji is presenting the country with a dimension and complexity of problems not seen since at least one hundred years. Dr. Narsey chose the sugar industry in Fiji as an example of how response to a creeping and insidious disaster can be managed well or not well at all. The direct effects

17

within the industry have cost 150 million Fiji dollars so far, with more than 50,000 households in need of emergency food and water relief. Crop rehabilitation costs are expected to be unprecedented. The vast majority of affected farmers are those least able to cope because of vulnerabilities existing before the drought. Consequential effects of the drought are still to be appreciated and extend over many sections of the community in ways not immediately obvious. As an example, schools are closing because children have no bus fare, and are unable to be provided with lunches. Farm labourers have generally not been considered in calculations of those directly affected. NGOs and their potential for effective assistance appear to have been marginalised due to a lack of appreciation of the extent of the drought effects and where NGOs can assist. The Fiji Council of Social Services (FCOSS) is an example of an existing network of potential avenues for assistance that is underused in these circumstances. Dr. Narsey believes that the involvement of international donors, governments and others, has not been as effective as it might have been in this drought. The processes and realities of formal government do not always lend themselves to fast and effective reaction, despite the best of intentions, and often the public and donor perception of government reaction to circumstances does not reflect the realities of government processes. In particular, NGOs can use their independence to react swiftly, while authorities must wait for elected representatives to reach consensus. Such differences will inevitably create problems for co-ordinated and partnered responses, and are best addressed by an appreciation, in preparedness, of the differences in capacities to react. Dr. Narsey showed that civil servants may not always have the same perspective as others by using the example of payments to affected farmers. Payments are made from a fund which will be reimbursed by all farmers, therefore a decision was made that all farmers will receive payment. This is despite the fact that some farmers are relatively unaffected and gaining record crop prices, and others are severely affected. In conclusion, Dr. Narsey stressed that in Fiji’s current situation more consensus was needed between elected representatives, NGOs, affected communities, and donors. He believes that a frank and open exchange of views and ideas might resolve how response to the drought could be enhanced and appropriate responsibilities for action be allocated. He accepts that all parties have their own perspectives and that these need to be considered and appreciated. SESSION SEVEN WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS ON THE PARTNERSHIP

THEME All Meeting participants, delegates and observers were divided into four working groups to discuss aspects of partnership in national disaster management programming. The results from group discussions were presented to the plenary as follows. 7.1 In-Country Partnerships Group I was asked to discuss the type and nature of relationships NDMO maintain or should maintain with various organisations at the national level (government and non-government organisations) as well as the community level (community-based organisations and non-government organisations). Mr. Faasala Casper from Development Service Exchange in the Solomon Islands presented the results of Group I. The Group identified a number of organisations and sectors with varying responsibilities in

18

disaster management, determined whether they had responsibilities in pre- or post-impact scenarios, and then determined whether the circumstances needed a full partnership, a relationship, or regular contact with the National Disaster Management Office to allow responsibilities to be fulfilled effectively. The results were displayed in a matrix: Org/Sector Pre- Post- Partnership Relations Contact Police/Defence Yes Yes Yes Agriculture Yes Yes Yes Marine Yes Yes Yes Health Yes Yes Yes Works Yes Yes Yes Planning Yes Yes Yes Finance Yes Yes Yes Transport Yes Yes Yes Education Yes Yes Yes Aviation Yes Yes Yes Meteorology Services Yes Yes Yes Minerals Yes Yes Yes Foreign Affairs Yes Yes Yes Telecom Yes Yes Yes Government Media Yes Yes Yes Red Cross Yes Yes Yes Local NGO Yes Yes Yes Umbrella NGO Yes Yes Yes International NGO Yes Yes Yes Village Councils Yes Yes Yes Womens Groups Yes Yes Church Groups Yes Yes School Groups Yes Yes Youth Groups Yes Yes Family Groups Yes Yes Yes Social Groups Yes Yes Trading Companies Yes Yes Retail Stores Yes Yes Engineering/ Construction Firms

Yes Yes

Manufacturing Firms Yes Yes Banks Yes Yes Yes Private Media Yes Yes Yes Private Utilities Yes Yes Yes Private Health Yes Yes Private Transport Companies

Yes Yes

The Group made a particular comment that there is a need to strengthen the relationship of local and umbrella NGOs with the NDMO. They also commented that village councils, school groups, and family groups form a vital link between communities and the NDMO in remote localities.

19

The group provided a series of recommendations on in-country partnerships (see Recommendations), and stated that these were aimed at meeting the problems of duplication and/or gaps in effective disaster management. 7.2 Partnerships with Donors Group II was asked to reflect on the partnership of NDMOs with donors. Since financial support for disaster management from Pacific island governments is still limited and outside technical assistance time bound, it is necessary for NDMOs to maintain strong donor links, in order to be able to fill these gaps until such time that government commitment is increasing. Ms. Niki Rattle, Secretary General of the Cook Islands Red Cross Society, presented the results of Group II. The Group agreed that each country would in some way deal differently with this issue. The Group concluded that there are varying degrees of trust between donors and countries. The need for accountability and continuous dialogue was stressed. The NDMO as a focal point for donors was important in avoiding duplication and/or gaps. Effective long-term strategic plans for disaster management development would ease donor concerns. Proper needs assessments in response were vital in securing donor assistance. The group provided examples of bilateral, multilateral and other donors, recognising that different donors had particular interests in particular sectors (e.g. pre- and post-impact disaster management), and that these interests could vary from country to country. The Group encouraged NDMOs to compile a list of these interests in each country to assist in meeting donor needs, and reminded the Meeting that the general public are also donors in response. The Group encouraged national governments to show more commitment to NDMOs in order to facilitate donor support. The Group provided a recommendation on this issue (see Recommendations). 7.3 Partnership with Technical Assistance Programs Group III was asked to discuss partnership aspects with technical assistance providers. The main issues to be raised were, how can NDMOs access assistance from various programs and how could these be effectively co-ordinated. Mr. Barton Bisiwei from VANGO in Vanuatu presented the results of Group III. The Group considered that an important consideration is the future of the Regional IDNDR Meetings after the Decade. They believed the annual forum for disaster managers, where various technical assistance programs had been linked into disaster management, needed to continue in a similar fashion. They also concluded that there was an urgent need to circulate an explanation of how the SPDRP would operate under the SOPAC umbrella, and what changes, if any, these arrangements would bring to national disaster management program development methodology. The Group also considered that the recent experience of the tsunami in Papua New Guinea highlighted a need for scientific response to become an integral part of disaster management, and that a plan for co-ordinating scientific response should be developed. Such a plan would: • recognise the importance of collecting data on the event and its impact as soon as possible after the

event so that critical information is not lost;

• recognise the value of scientific data to the mitigation process;

• help co-ordinate response and guarantee return of scientific information to the impacted community;

20

• minimise competition between diverse research interests, establish funding priority as part of donor response, and

• reinforce SOPAC’s disaster management role by linking it closely to its scientific program.

The Group presented recommendations from its deliberations (see Recommendations). 7.4 Mutual Assistance within the Region Group IV was asked to discuss the issue of mutual assistance within the South Pacific region in terms of its constraints and advantages, implementation arrangements and priority areas. Mr. Sakaria Taituave, Director of the NDMO Samoa, presented the results of Group IV. The Group believed that to date there had been an increasing use of expertise and information on a mutual basis, but that this could be enhanced as the region's expertise and knowledge increase. The Group considered that this could be done in a number of ways, but that formal arrangements should be made. They suggested that each country assess its resources, skills and expertise, provide details of these to other countries, and provide them upon request. The Group provided a series of recommendations on the suggested mechanism. In general discussion Mr. Alan Hodges of EMA Australia referred to a process currently underway in Australia to allow mutual assistance between States to occur, and suggested that the model may provide some guidance for developing the process in the region. 7.5 Summary of Recommendations Mr. Chung advised delegates that a number of recommendations had been produced during the Meeting, especially from the working groups. Some of these overlapped, or addressed a common issue from different directions. He suggested that the recommendations needed to be rationalised and targeted to specific organisations. In general discussion the Meeting agreed that team selected from delegates gather in Suva after the Meeting to produce a consolidated and rationalised list of recommendations for forwarding to specific organisations. SESSION EIGHT APPROVAL OF SPDRP WORK PLAN AND BUDGET The Chair called for endorsement of the SPDRP 1998-99 Work Plan and Budget, reminding delegates that the SOPAC Governing Council was to meet the following week, and asked for any discussion. In general discussion some delegates stated they were unsure if the program covered all activities being undertaken, and had some uncertainty over the arrangements for implementation. Mr. Chung of SPDRP and Mr. Simpson of SOPAC provided explanations, which showed that: • the transition period to complete the transfer of the SPDRP to SOPAC would not always make

arrangements ideal and patience is required;

• the SPDRP 1998-1999 work plan and budget had been developed over a period of nine months of discussion with individual countries based on their needs and priorities;

21

• the work plan reflects priority areas of countries compiled on a regional basis and within the resources available to SPDRP;

• individual country programs contain more activities than those shown on the SPDPR program; and

• countries could and should pursue other avenues of assistance for those additional activities.

CLOSING SESSION The Chair provided a brief summary of the Meeting, noting the agreed arrangements for rationalising and producing recommendations. He then called for offers to host the next Meeting. Mr. Alonzo Kyota, Director of the NDMO Palau, nominated Samoa as the next Meeting location. Mr. Sakaria Taituave, in response, offered Samoa as host of the Eighth South Pacific Regional IDNDR Disaster Management Meeting, subject to approval by the Samoan Cabinet. The Meeting agreed to Samoa’s offer. Timings, invitees and administrative arrangements will be advised in due course. The Chair invited closing remarks. Closing Remarks The Samoan representative, Mr. Sakaria Taituave, asked Mr. Francesco Pisano, Secretary of the IDNDR Scientific Technical Committee, whether the region would be invited to attend the closing ceremony to mark the end of IDNDR. Mr. Pisano thanked the various NDMOs, NGOs, IDNDR staff from Australia and Geneva, as well as the SPDRP and SOPAC for their participation and assistance during the meeting. He emphasised the need for the meeting to move forward to continue its mark on disaster management programs. Mr. Taituave spoke on behalf of the country delegates and thanked the outgoing Chair, Mr. Alan Hodges, the delegates, the IDNDR Secretariat, organisers and resource persons for co-ordinating the meeting and said they were looking forward to next year’s meeting. Mr. Alan Hodges expressed his appreciation for the group dynamics for the duration of the meeting. He particularly thanked the Chief Technical Adviser of the SPDRP, Mr. Joe Chung, and his team, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Regional Development, Mr. Joe Serulagilagi, and the Fiji government for hosting this year’s meeting. Mr. Pisano thanked the Chair and delegates for the manner in which the meeting was conducted. He added that he would be taking copie s of the country reports back with him to collate the information into the IDNDR report currently being prepared for the closing of the IDNDR. He stressed that although a phase would come to an end for the IDNDR, this would provide a way forward for its focal points. All efforts will be made to set aside funds to accommodate Pacific island delegates attending the closing ceremony next year in Geneva. The Meeting co-ordinator, Mr. Joe Chung, stressed the importance of partnership at the national level and also thanked delegates, donors, observers, theme speakers and resource persons. He also thanked the Australian IDNDR Committee, the rapporteur and the Secretariat staff.

22

Mr. Jone Bolaitamana of Fiji closed the meeting with a prayer.

23

ANNEX A

RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE

7TH REGIONAL IDNDR DISASTER MANAGEMENT MEETING

The Meeting agreed the following recommendations: To the SOPAC Governing Council 1. That the Council notes that the DRU Work Programme and Budget for 1999 which is reported in

the attached document "South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme: 1999 Work Programme and Budget", was endorsed by the delegates to the 7th Regional IDNDR Disaster Management Meeting. The delegates commended this work programme and budget to the Council for its approval.

2. That the Council approves a change in name from Disaster Reduction Unit (DRU) to Disaster Management Unit (DMU) in keeping with the same terminology used by most of the National Disaster Management Offices, and as an apt description of the wider roles and functions of the Unit.

3. That the Council considers designating the current IDNDR Meeting a Technical Advisory Group to Council on disaster management matters, recognising that the IDNDR Meetings will cease at the end of the Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction on 31st December 1999. Subject to funding, this meeting will provide a mechanism to review ongoing disaster management activities, particularly those of SPDRP Phase 2.

To the Pacific Island Countries 4. Noting the operational, financial and functional difficulties still encountered in successful

implementation of disaster management programmes/projects in countries, that Governments give serious consideration to upgrading disaster management as a subject/issue, commensurate with other national development plans and budgets.

5. That National Disaster Management Offices be officially recognised as the focal points for all disaster management matters.

6. That all disaster managers ensure that all organisations with a role in disaster management in their country operate in partnership to implement national programmes.

7. That countries, using instruments of agreement, provide mutual assistance to other countries on request for all areas of disaster management, and observe response operations in disaster affected countries in order to share experiences. (See Recommendation No.9)

8. That scientific response is recognised as an integral part of the disaster management process and endorses its inclusion by countries in their national disaster plans. (See Recommendation No.24)

To the Disaster Reduction Unit 9. That the DRU co-ordinates the arrangements and instruments of agreement for mutual disaster

management assistance between countries. (See Recommendation No.7)

24

10. That the DRU database be expanded and adequately resourced to access and facilitate the exchange of expertise throughout the region.

11. That a formal agreement be established through a Memorandum of Understanding between DRU, collaborating partners and other assistance providers, to guide the arrangements of financial and technical contributions toward regional and national disaster management arrangements.

12. That the DRU circulates an explanation of these arrangements.

13. That the DRU establishes a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for in-country disaster management programmes established by national focal points.

14. That the DRU, in conjunction with national focal points, compiles a regional report of the operational framework and achievements of the region during the Decade, to be presented at the Global IDNDR Closing Conference in July 1999.

15. That a distinct and visible capacity be set up within the UN system after the close of the Decade, to ensure effective and continued support for on-going international, regional and national efforts in disaster reduction. This permanent disaster reduction capacity should have a multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary mandate for co-ordination and ensure global geographic coverage. In this context the UNDMP-SPO will act as the regional centre for IDNDR matters, besides its operational responsibilities.

16. That the DRU develops a programme to document and promote traditional coping mechanisms in relation to natural disasters.

17. That the DRU notes the concern of some countries that the DRU should pay close attention to its work programme in the execution of SPDRP II.

18. That disaster management training will continue to be a significant programme of disaster reduction towards the new millennium and beyond and that the DRU formulates a framework of action for training sustainability within the region.

19. That the Regional Training Advisory Group (RDTAG) serves to guide and promote disaster management training programmes through the Regional Training Co-ordination Unit (RTCU). (See Recommendation No. 23)

20. That the DRU, in collaboration with other partners, examines the possible accreditation of disaster management courses within the region at certificate and higher level, and possible establishment of a regional training institution.

21. That the DRU gives priority to supporting implementation of its Community Vulnerability Objective through national NGOs, in partnership with Governments.

22. That intra-regional exchange of information be promoted on both sub-regional issues and on specific topics (e.g. earthquakes, droughts, sea-level rise etc.)

23. That the DRU recognises and supports the roles and functions of the Regional Training Co-ordination Unit (RTCU). (See Recommendation No.19)

24. That the DRU develops and implements a co-ordinated plan for scientific response to disasters and provides a register of available scientific response resources. (See Recommendation No.8)

25. That all data and resulting information gathered in scientific response be provided to the affected country at no cost.

26. That SOPAC, in upgrading computer technology for its national focal points, do likewise for National Disaster Management Offices to ensure compatibility.

25

To the Forum Secretariat 27. That the Forum Relief Trust Fund be available for disaster management mutual assistance initiatives

as well as disaster response. General 28. The Meeting accepts the Samoan representative’s offer to host the next Meeting in 1999, subject to

approval by the Samoan Cabinet. 29. The Meeting endorsed the Record of the 1997 Meeting as an accurate record of proceedings.

30. The Meeting adopted the draft agenda for the 1998 Meeting.

26

ANNEX B

OPENING CEREMONY

Opening Comments by

Mr. Alan Hodges, Chair of the Australian IDNDR Coordination Committee to be inserted

Opening Comments by

Mr. Shahrokh Mohammadi, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP Suva I have the pleasure to address this important meeting on behalf of UNDP, and provide to you a brief overview of the South Pacific Disaster Reduction Program (SPDRP). The high vulnerability of the South Pacific region to natural hazards necessitated special support through the United Nations, and UNDP decided in 1994 to fund the South Pacific Disaster Reduction Program (SPDRP). This program emerged within the context of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), in collaboration with the United Nations Department for Humanitarian Affairs (UNDHA) and under execution arrangements with the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). With cost sharing and parallel funding arrangements additional donor support of up to 2.3 million US dollars could be attracted. SPDRP was operational for about 3.5 years and contributed substantially to the development of disaster management capabilities in the South Pacific. The accomplishments of the SPDRP can be briefly listed as follows: • Establishing and strengthening national disaster management offices; • Producing national disaster management plans; • Providing training in a wide range of disciplines to strengthen the capacity of disaster management

teams to prepare for, and respond to natural hazards; • Improving co-ordination and collaboration between government agencies, NGOs and communities,

for disaster mitigation, preparedness and response; • Enhancing national and local awareness and capacity for implementation of disaster mitigation

programs; • Establishing and training of a rapid response team for the South Pacific, through the United Nations

Disaster Assessment and Co-ordination system (UNDAC). The effectiveness of this team was recently tested in the latest Tsunami disaster in PNG.

• Production and dissemination of disaster management related studies, guidelines, manuals and training materials.

27

A joint evaluation team, representing UNDP, UNDESA and the countries participating in the program assessed the achievements of the SPDRP in early 1998, at the end of project implementation. The evaluation resulted in a positive assessment of the program. It was evident, however, that despite considerable achievements by the program in putting in place the institutional and procedural infrastructure needed for enhanced disaster management capability in the region, there were still a number of weaknesses to be addressed to ensure the long-term sustainability of disaster management within the region. The evaluation team therefore recommended the continuation of the SPDRP into a second phase. This recommendation had been supported earlier by the 6th Regional Disaster Management Meeting in 1996 in Tonga, which stated that the South Pacific Project Office should formulate a follow up project to address remaining gaps. The SPDRP-Phase II was thus formulated to make operational and strengthen the achievements of Phase I. It focuses on four main areas: • Community vulnerability reduction, through capacity building at the community level. Disaster

management mechanisms that have been put in place at the national level need to be localised, with the participation of communities and civil society organisations (CSOs). In other words, bringing disaster preparedness and response capabilities to where it is mostly needed.

• Transforming disaster management training in the region from an externally driven activity into a nationally driven process, through development of national training policies and programs, and national training capabilities, supported by a regional co-ordination mechanism;

• Supporting awareness and capacity building for disaster mitigation at the national level. Disaster mitigation activities are long term in nature because of their multi-disciplinary nature, and need to be incorporated in the national development process in each country. This would require that disaster management is considered by governments as a national development priority, and thus, disaster management plans and activities are integrated into the national budgets in each country;

• Regional co-ordination and ownership of the program, through strengthening of regional co-ordination mechanisms and networking of national disaster management mechanisms, and by fully transferring disaster management implementation and co-ordination functions to SOPAC, the regional organisation mandated by the South Pacific Forum for this task by the end of the SPDRP-Phase II.

My colleagues from the SPPO will address these issues in more depth in the coming sessions. Finally, I must add that the SPDRP-Phase II is a joint program funded by UNDP and the Governments of Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand, and it will be executed by, and based at SOPAC. Implementation of Phase II of the program began in April under preparatory assistance arrangements, and the full program is expected to be approved in October. Total funding is expected to be above 2 million US dollars.

Keynote Address by

Mr. Francesco Pisano, Secretary of the IDNDR Scientific & Technical Committee

Disaster Reduction in the Twenty First Century

28

Ladies and Gentlemen, It is indeed an honour - and a great pleasure - for me to be given the opportunity to address this Seventh Regional IDNDR Meeting on behalf of Mr. Philippe Boulle, Director of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. At almost one year from the formal conclusion of the IDNDR, the good news is that we do not need anymore to convince the world of the central importance of the IDNDR message: in all quarters of society there is sound recognition that natural hazards, which are inevitable, need not result in human, economic and social disasters, and that it is possible to decrease our vulnerability to these threats. The bad news is that, beyond this conceptual awareness there lies the immense work we all have to do in the future to bring about concrete and effective action. Natural disasters are the most debilitating events a country can go through except for war. There is an impressive collection of figures to remind us that disasters have an important negative impact on the development of the economy and the pursuit of sustainable development. The United States estimate they lose 1 billion US dollars per week to disasters. The recent Chinese floods may cause damage exceeding 36 billion US dollars. I will pass on to the recent catastrophic events in Bangladesh and Mexico. Disasters wipe out a large part of the Gross National Product in many disaster prone countries. Yet, because of the human loss and suffering, there is a tendency to look at disasters only from a humanitarian angle. Such an approach may cause us to give absolute priority to the response to disasters. Preparedness for response is indeed an essential element of disaster management, as a part of a comprehensive approach to prevention. We should therefore continue to improve and strengthen our response capacity, while engaging in working together to build a "global culture of prevention". The world of the twenty-first century will inevitably be more complex and interdependent; so will natural and technological hazards. Statistics tell us that the number of major natural disasters in the last ten years was four times as high as in the '60s. The future will therefore put us face to face with the challenge of integrated disaster management and prevention. The only affordable solution is to invest in the reduction of vulnerability to natural hazards. In future, we will need to give increased attention to scientific research on natural phenomena, because progress in science and technology has proven successful in contributing to a better understanding of how natural hazards develop and behave. What is even more important, is the appropriate application of science and technology to vulnerable societies. We need to take into account that human factor when developing disaster prevention strategies and we must involve local communities in this process. This has been the raison d'etre and the logic behind the launching by the international community of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction in 1989. The IDNDR with its International Framework, will come to an end in 1999, and it is vital to ensure that the positive results achieved in these ten years are not lost. Activities related to disaster prevention must continue into the next century. We understand that many of the 141 IDNDR National Committees and focal points are committed to continuing their activities once the Decade is over. We welcome this decision. In this connection, the UN looks forward to receiving the recommendations of this IDNDR Regional

29

Conference concerning the need for International co-ordination of national disaster prevention efforts in the next century. For the final phase of the Decade, the IDNDR International Framework is working together with the IDNDR Secretariat to assess and consolidate progress made in the 1990s, and to determine the guidelines for addressing the issue of disasters reduction beyond the year 2000. Our partners in this endeavour include UN specialised agencies and programs, national and local governments, business coalitions, university networks, scientific associations and regional constituencies. The IDNDR will also have to produce a functional and institutional analysis of the arrangements required for implementing disaster reduction once the Decade is over. As indicated in the latest report of the UN Secretary-General on IDNDR, there will be need for a central point of reference in the UN system after the year 2000, to which UN organisations, national committees and other constituencies can relate for a co-ordinated approach. This is the message emerging from the regional and thematic conferences being held within the final phase of the Decade. The final declarations from Potsdam and Yerevan earlier this month are the most recent examples. The IDNDR closing process has been organised with a regional perspective, because the countries of a given region share similar political and economic realities. This conference provides us with a forum in which to propose recommendations for the future of disaster reduction in the next Century. Among other things, the participants in this conference should give attention to the following aspects: • the assessment of progress in disaster reduction during the past ten years; • the anticipations of trends in natural hazards in order to project related risks in the next century; • the definition of guidelines for future international needs. All the work from the regional conferences will culminate in the IDNDR International Program Forum to be held in Geneva in July 1999. At this International Forum, the regional aspects of disaster reduction will be merged with the substantive aspects of prevention of earthquakes, floods, forest fires and other hazards. To conclude, a new international approach and new arrangements to support multi-disciplinary efforts for prevention will have to be developed if we want to be prepared for increasingly interdependent and complex scenarios. The IDNDR is proud to have contributed with all its partners world -wide to build a bridge onto effective disaster reduction in the twenty-first century, which is already called the century of prevention.

Official Opening by

the Hon. Mesake E. Baisagale, Assistant Minister, Regional Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs

30

On behalf of the government of the Republic of Fiji Islands, my Minister, the Prime Minister and Minister responsible for disaster management, the Hon. Sitiveni Rabuka, I extend to you our warm welcome on this auspices occasion, the 7th South Pacific Regional IDNDR Disaster Management Meeting. Special welcome to Mr. Francesco Pisano from the IDNDR Secretariat in Geneva, Mr. Shahrokh Mohammadi, UNDP Deputy Resident Representative, Mr. Alan Hodges, Chairman of IDNDR Australia, members of the diplomatic corps, members of Parliament, regional delegates, professionals, government officials, invited guests, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasant task for me as the Assistant Minister responsible for disaster management in Fiji to share with you this morning the opening of this very important meeting. This is the second time that the Fiji government is hosting this annual event; the first was in Suva during the 3rd IDNDR disaster management meeting in 1994. I was informed that the meeting was relocated from Samoa to allow you, disaster managers, to be part of the SOPAC 27th Annual Council Meeting, being held next week in Suva. I note with appreciation this has put in operation the Forum decision for SOPAC to house and implement disaster management programs in the region. Going back in time, I recalled the United Nations General Assembly declaring the 1990s as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. The representative of the IDNDR Secretariat may want to correct me on this; but one major aim of the decade was to serve as a catalyst for a "change in emphasis" from disaster reactive response focussed on relief, to pre-disaster planning and disaster loss reduction. The second aim was to heighten national understanding of the need for, and benefits of linking disaster management initiatives to national development planning and programs. Disaster management encompasses all aspects of planning for, and responding to disasters. It includes both pre- and post disaster programs, projects and activities, designed to contribute to more effective response and recovery from adverse events and to reduce the risk they pose. Effective disaster management involves a wide range of people and disciplines. Those of you who work with, or have the potential to be more involved with the development and implementation of disaster management programs and activities, need to be familiar with: hazards in your country, national arrangements and strategies for disaster management and knowing your role in the disaster management process. In Fiji, there have been some strong advocacy for and implementation of disaster management programs for the benefits of our community. I believe that we are not different from your countries in this respect, but we may differ in how pro-active we are in finding solutions to problems that we encounter, how we prepare, and harness our resources, how we mitigate in the short- and the long-term, how we blend and co-ordinate our efforts to reduce or eliminate negative effects of natural disasters on our national development programs, community and people. The IDNDR era has brought a new dimension to Fiji's disaster management arrangements. Gone are the days of 'wait and see what is going to happen' but more towards pre-planning and building up national capacities in government in collaboration with the private sector, non-government organisations, social agencies, religious and traditional institutions, and together, with the financial and technical assistance of donors and international communities.

31

As a result, Fiji in 1995 adopted its National Disaster Management Plan. In this respect, the government in its pro-active approach, committed itself towards the development, promotion and implementation of measures to prevent and counter the impact of natural disasters in the country. The implementation of the Disaster Plan brought to the fore the need and necessity to have a legislation in place to provide the legal framework, direction and authority to disaster management programs in good times and especially during worse times of emergencies. In June this year, Fiji enacted its Natural Disaster Management Act with the aim of strengthening the National Plan making better provisions for performance by government and relevant agencies of their functions and duties in relation to natural disasters management activities and programs. The plan and legislation paved the way for a more collaborative approach with other sectors of the community, with the knowledge and common understanding that when disaster strikes, it does not choose who to impact first or second. The element of surprise and destruction can be lethal to any of us. The legislation also provides for the capacity strengthening of our National Disaster Management Office, the 'engine room' of disaster management here. Fiji has been one of the forerunners in disaster management training not only at its national, divisional or institutional levels. It has been accommodating to share and assist neighbouring Pacific Island countries in a network of promoting training as an investment towards disaster reduction programs to hazards that are common on our shores. United States OFDA has been instrumental in this regard, and likewise Emergency Management Australia and many others who would like to invest in disaster management training programs for the region. Our door is wide open to receive you. It is not far off to mention that, in the event this meeting prescribes to a learning institution for disaster management in the region, the Fiji government with the assistance of donor contributions and technical expertise, will only be too happy to house it for the region. This will definitely call for a collaborative approach and understanding by all of you, bearing in mind that as we move towards the new millennium, the paradigm of disaster management shifts likewise. We are the generations that lay the platform and foundation for the future of our children to be adopted in an environment free or reduced from the negative influences of natural, man-inflicted or technological disasters. Fiji has and will continue to play significant roles in the initiation of projects to better understand earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea level rises, climatic changes, tsunamis and promoting the Nadi centre as a regional institute for meteorology to better serve our weather forecast needs. I must acknowledge the perseverance of SOPAC to take on board the disaster management program for the region. It has been very successful under the UNDP and especially its department of humanitarian affairs during its first phase, which concluded last year. Phase II in its current implementation will provide the framework to develop and generate strategies for disaster reduction and to lead disaster management programs in the region to the 21st century. Fiji also played a pivotal part in this aspect being the chair of the regional disaster management sub-committee, to guide the transfer of SPDRP-Phase II to SOPAC, a regional body. We have also had our fair share of assistance to the provision of personnel under the UNDAC system of disaster assessments and surveys and also provide some cash donations for relief assistance to our

32

neighbours who suffered the wrath of natural calamities. We have also been housing the majority of regional institutions. Thus it is logical and conventional for us to host most regional and international meetings and conferences. Fiji has also contributed a lot to peacekeeping duties in the Middle East, other UN assignments and recently to our neighbours in Bougainville. It speaks volumes therefore of Fiji's contribution to the international and regional front. We will always be there, if called upon to help. However our national growth has not been a smooth one; we are affected by the Asian economic crisis, since our agricultural-based commodities and manufacturing exports depends on the global market of trade. The drought that is currently affecting the country, perhaps the worst recorded in history yet, has claimed more than $150million devastation to our national economy and has left hundred thousands of people without or much reduced basic necessities of life, i.e. food and water. The sad part is, its effect on our education system, which has affected many students in the western and northern division, for some of them do not have a decent lunch and bus fare to school. The sugar industry now has a projected income of ¼ of what it used to get. Ratoons cannot be planted and other rehabilitation activities cannot be put in place simply because the soil is completely dry and without any moisture. On the other extreme, the cyclone season is only a few weeks away and this may bring about the La Niña effect where rain and wind can bring about another dramatic factor for the people to suffer. This meeting will be the beacon of light to project the large-scale reduction of natural disasters towards the new millennium. We all have a part to play, and especially your Cupertino for the implementation of the South Pacific Disaster Reduction Program-Phase II, as the direction for us to emulate. We pray for the recent tsunami massacre in Aitape, Papua New Guinea, the tidal waves generated by cyclone Martin that overcame Manihiki in the Cook islands, and other countries that were affected by natural disasters and technological fatalities. These are realities that we have to face, come what may, and it is crucial therefore that we strengthen our national capacities to not only respond to disasters effectively, but also to work to mitigate pro-actively with the collaboration with multi-disciplinary sectors of our society. For us classified as small Pacific Island states, we still have to rely on technical and financial assistance from our bigger and developed partners, Australia and New Zealand. UNDP and its various arms, United States of America, Asian countries like Japan, China and Korea to name some, the European Union countries, international organisations and many others that I may not have mentioned. The wrath of natural calamities has been lethal to our environment and people, the process has been going on since the earth came abound, it will always be from generations to generations. Let us work together as a group of nations fighting for our survival. Technological upheavals created by man have added more sophistication to the occurrence of disasters. Let us be pro-active in our disaster planning arrangements. Let us mitigate for the longer term, to bring prosperity to our individual nations and future generations.

33

I acknowledge once again sponsors that have made this regional meeting possible. Also the international agencies and experts who have been providing financial and technical assistance. For those of you who are present here today, and especially country delegates, this is your calling. The onus is on you as front line managers in disaster management to take the reign of responsibilities and accountability, projecting our small island states and agencies to growth and prosperity, which will effectively reduce and nullify natural and technological disasters. Enjoy your stay in Fiji, and make the most of the warmth of our people. We still have that tendency to smile, even during this most difficult time. That is what the drought and natural disaster can never take away from us - our ever ready smile. I wish you well in your deliberations and may God continue to bless you and your families. With those comments, I have much pleasure in declaring this 7th South Pacific Regional IDNDR Disaster Management Meeting open.

34

ANNEX C

BRIEFINGS ON NATIONAL PROGRAMMES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

The Federated States of Micronesia

Presented by Mr. Ehson Johnson, Disaster Co-ordination Office Country Profile The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) is one of four (4) political subdivisions, which were united in the former United Nations Trusteeship "Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands". Three of these political subdivisions became Freely Associated States under separate Compacts of Free Association with the United States of America: the Republic of Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia. The fourth political subdivision was the Northern Mariana Islands, which became a Commonwealth of the United States. The Federated States of Micronesia itself is divided into four (4) political subdivisions (States) - Pohnpei, Chuuk, Yap & Kosrae - constituting of both volcanic high islands and low-lying coral atolls spanning over a vast ocean area of the size of the continental United States. For each State of the Federation, the existing infrastructure includes international airports, docks, hospitals and schools. The current population of the FSM is approximately 111,000 people. The capital seat of the Government is located in Pohnpei. Disaster/Emergency Management Program In the 1980s, the Government of the United States was continuing to transfer governmental responsibilities from the Government of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to the newly established Freely Associated States. Amongst others, the responsibility for managing disasters was passed on to the FSM National Government. The National Government then created the position of a Disaster Control Officer and gave it the mandate of establishing a disaster response/recovery program to provide assistance in times of disasters or emergencies. In the initial stage of its inception, the officer of the disaster controller was to serve as an interface with the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the implementation of its disaster assistance program. Later, the Congress of the Federated States of Micronesia expanded its program of disaster assistance by establishing a Disaster Relief Fund to provide assistance to disaster victims. Currently, the function of emergency management is with a Special Assistant to the President, who manages the program under the President's direct supervision. Each State or political subdivision of FSM has its own emergency/disaster management office, which works directly with the National Government's Emergency/Disaster Management Office. They implement their own program of assistance or in co-ordination with the National Government in case of the US Federal Disaster Assistance Program. US Federal Disaster Assistance Program As part of its obligations under the Compact of Free Association, the United States Federal Disaster Assistance is made available to FSM in the areas of Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, and other types of assistance which may be appropriate under a Presidential declaration of an emergency or major disaster. Aside from the funds approved for each project under the Public Assistance program, contingency funds are provided for program administration, training, equipment, and mitigation. In addition, FEMA dispatches its inspectors during declared disasters, to assist FSM with Preliminary Damage Assessments, and damage surveys reports on actual damages sustained during any given disaster.

35

National Government The FSM National Government co-ordinates its own disaster assistance program. The co-ordination of the Disaster/Emergency Management Program is provided by the Special Assistant to the President while other agencies of the National Government provide specialised and technical assistance to the States and Local (Municipal) governments when appropriate. State & Local Governments Each of FSM's States has its own disaster management office, which deals with all phases of disaster preparedness and response. Each of these offices co-ordinates with the FSM National Government Disaster Management Office when and if the response to a given disaster beyond the capability of the State. The same is true for the local governments where appropriate. Program Development FSM has yet to fully develop its own disaster assistance program and/or utilise the assistance made available by regional and bilateral agencies. The current emphasis to improve the national program by involving the State and Municipal governments so that they begin to utilise locally available resources, such as manpower and finances for preparedness and response activities, before requesting assistance from the National Government and subsequently other outside resources. During the last five years, there has been a marked increase in the involvement of the non-governmental organisations, especially in the provision of relief assistance to disaster victims throughout the FSM. Churches and communities have banded together to provide food and other relief supplies to families stricken from disasters. The recent mudslide disaster in Pohnpei had brought together an array of relief assistance from all sectors of the community, not only from Micronesian neighbours but from neighbours throughout the region. The aim of the National Government Disaster Assistance Program is to encourage the development and utilisation of available local resources to provide relief assistance during the times of disasters and to seek outside assistance only in situations when the magnitude and the impact of the disaster is beyond the capability of the stricken government to cope. Program Implementation Preparedness: The National Government assists the States in the development of disaster preparedness plans, which incorporate the specific needs and requirements of the State and then consolidate these plans into a National Disaster Preparedness Plan. Each plan includes Standard Operational Procedures, which assign responsibilities to individuals and agencies to ensure a co-ordinated effort during disaster operations and the recovery period. Contingency plans for emergency operations such as aeroplane crashes, oil spills, rescue operations, hazardous materials, epidemics, civil disturbances, and residential or forest fires are developed by responsible agencies in collaboration with the State's and the National Government's Disaster Management Offices, and are then incorporated into the National Disaster Preparedness Plan. Training: Training for disaster managers is provided through FEMA training programs or other regional and bilateral training programs. Public awareness and orientation programs are carried out by each State as funding becomes available.

36

Mitigation: Mitigation measures are designed to minimise the effects of future disasters, e.g. by meeting the newly developed building codes. Warning and Response: The responsibility of issuing warnings of impending disasters or emergencies lies with the Disaster Management Office. However, with regard to the actual issuance of warnings, the working relationship between meteorologists and disaster managers have allowed weather forecasts to be issued by meteorologists rather than disaster managers. Emergency managers then carry out the response activities required for immediate preparation and evacuation, while the meteorologists continue with the issuance of updated warnings and forecasts. This working relationship has improved delivery of warnings and expedited response activities.

Niue

Presented by Sergeant Tamaseko Elesoni, Police Department Country Profile and Disaster Management Structure Niue is a lone up-thrust coral atoll. Our closest neighbour is Tonga, which is about 480 kilometres to the south west. Situated at 19.5 degrees South and 169.55 degrees West, Niue is on the edge of the south-west Pacific cyclone belt and therefore vulnerable to the risk of natural disasters. Niue has a lower terrace, which runs around the Island, with an upper terrace 150m above sea level. The population of 2100 people is spread over 14 villages, which are mainly situated on the rim of the Island. The threat of tropical cyclones each year, represents the greatest risk. Other areas of concern are earthquakes, tsunami, fire and drought. Politically, Niue is a self-governing commonwealth country in free association with New Zealand. The Legislative Assembly consists of 20 members elected from village constituencies and the common roll, led by the Premier and three Cabinet Ministers. New Zealand as a partner remains responsible for Defence and Foreign Affairs, and also provides for the majority of budgetary support. Another significant source of funding is from Australia through their AusAID program In comparison with other small island states in the Pacific, Niue has developed an effective operational National Disaster Management Plan that provides a practical framework to address the threat from national disasters. The National Disaster Management Plan has been significantly improved since 1990, when parts of Niue experienced significant property damage due to the effects of tropical Cyclone Ofa. Recent changes to the membership of the National Disaster Council have injected additional expertise and specialised knowledge in areas that have previously been under represented, i.e. Meteorological Officer (following the commissioning of the Niue Meteorological Station), and the Manager of Niue Electrical Power Supply. In Niue, we share the development objectives of the SPDRP and the IDNDR for the South Pacific community and are focusing our efforts towards reducing disaster risk and loss of life, property, and social and economic disruption caused by natural disasters. National/Community Programs The Public Emergency Act of 1979 and the National Relief Fund of 1980 underpin the elements of our National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP). The membership of the National Disaster Council consists of:

37

• Secretary to the Government (Chairman) • Chief of Police (Deputy Chairman & Disaster Controller) • Director of Health • Director of Public Works • Manager - Meteorological Office • Manager - Electric Power Supply • General Manager - Broadcasting Corporation of Niue (BCN)

Other members can be co-opted, e.g Government Solicitor or Financial Secretary. Due to post-holder changes, as a result of the expiry of contracted terms in office, considerable co-ordinating effort is needed to ensure continuity is maintained, thereby allowing the Council to remain a cohesive decision making unit. The Council as a whole is promoting a "departmental ownership" mentality to encourage greater levels of service delivery. By involving the various heads of departments in Community Training Workshops a positive critique of their role and responsibilities is ensured. The National Disaster Council, the Village Councils and other Community Groups have identified eleven Project areas as a focus for the future. With assistance given by IDNDR, which we gratefully acknowledge, the following projects are currently being pursued:

• Portable computer equipment for the EOC, research and the development of management plans. • Production of a Disaster Management Training Video (in collaboration with BCN) • Johns' Ambulance First Aid training program (30 trainees - using local resource personnel) • Printed Community Awareness material (alerting system and related - written in Niuean and English

and available to every household) Future Disaster Management Activities DHA/SPO are currently considering the other projects and we are cautiously optimistic that some assistance will be available. We are actively pursuing membership of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society (IFRC). The Red Cross Headquarters in Geneva is currently considering our proposed legislative draft. Our "tree trimming program" remains an ongoing project. In October 1997, we received an in-country visit from two building code SPDRP consultants who have assisted in identifying some additional needs. Our proposed house roof-nailing project is currently a focus if the necessary resources can be found. Conclusion In conclusion, our recent report to DHA/SPO in accordance with SPDRP-Phase II, outlines in greater detail the direction in which we intend to progress for the future. Although in need of some revision, our National Disaster Management Plan provides a sound base. We are fortunate to have a very good community network through our Village Councils, who co-ordinate village implementation measures and act in the capacity of Community Working Groups (CWG's). I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important management meeting and look forward to applying some of the recommendations to our approach to Disaster Management in Niue. Project Proposals On behalf of the Niue National Disaster Council, the Chief of Police (the designated Disaster Controller), respectfully submits this proposal for skilled assistance and funding as outlined below: • Revise & reprint National Disaster Management Plan.

38

• Devise, draft and print Supplementary Emergency Plans ie. Earthquake, Tsunami, Fire and Drought. • Chainsaws to provide Village self-sufficiency/road access/dwelling house protection to fallen trees. • Village Disaster Preparedness Kits. • Dwelling house preventative roof nailing project (pilot scheme). • Emergency mobile generators to maintain radio repeater sites and provide “standby” electrical power

for EOC/Village Evacuation Centres. • Construct Emergency generator housing to maintain electrical power to National Radio/Television

Station/Emergency Operations Centre (EOC). These projects will elevate our National Disaster Management efforts immediately and in the future by supporting disaster management planning and implementation; risk mitigation; increasing community awareness; and contributing considerably towards self-sufficiency.

Papua New Guinea

Presented by Mr. Ludwig Kembu, National Disaster Emergency Services Operations PNG was impacted by a number of natural disasters in the years 1997 and 1998. The nationwide frost and drought devastated most parts of PNG, especially the highlands, Central and Morobe Provinces, as a result of the El Nino phenomenon in late 1997 and the early months of 1998. In April and May of 1998, flooding in Madang and east Sepik Provinces brought about more devastation to food gardens and homes. These floods left people homeless, and the Government with assistance from PNG Red Cross and other NGOs, moved in swiftly with temporary shelters and food & water supplies to save lives. In July 1998, massive tidal waves measuring 10-15 m, swept through Sissano villages in the Aitape District on the north west of PNG, killing over 2,000 people and destroying entire villages and government/mission properties. The responses undertaken by the Government both of the national and provincial levels were timely given the isolated location of the area. These disasters, especially frost and drought brought about massive economic losses, displacements, and disrupted the social lives of the people. The Aitape Tsunami was the worst natural disasters recorded in PNG and the South Pacific countries including Australia and New Zealand in terms of loss of lives. The national government in an effort to provide maximum assistance to the affected people declared a state of emergency in Sandaun provinces which Aitape is part of, to fast tract relief supplies and the recovery process. The National Emergency Operation was a great success, since they allowed for decisions through the process of emergency orders which were successful in achieving the main objectives of the emergency response operation and thus, alleviated further sufferings of the affected people. National Disasters & Emergency (NDES) Activities Review Corporate Plans for disaster related activities and incorporate them into the overall plans for the Department of Provincial and Local Government under its reform concepts. The corporate plans contain a number of objectives, which will involve changes in the emergency act and national procedures.

39

PALAU

Presented by Mr. Alonzo Kyota, National Disaster Emergency Office Brief Statement Immediately before, during and after a disaster, everyone in the community is affected in one way or another. Individuals and homes, businesses and properties, and the environment suffer from the effects of natural or man induced disasters. In this context, we can say disasters do not discriminate against sex, colour, age, race, religion, status, and region. In addition, the extent of devastation is proportional to the degree of preparedness and mitigation attained prior to the incident. Knowing these characteristics and the certainty of disasters eventually occurring, the Republic of Palau is taking steps to prepare its communities to better cope with the impacts of different types of disasters. The task is enormous. It involves introduction of new disaster management concepts and practices and therefore requires commitment from both the national and community level. Even with this combined effort, the project as a whole is beyond the means and expertise of the government of the Republic of Palau. It is therefore necessary to solicit monetary assistance and, particularly disaster management technical expertise from regional and international agencies and thereby make them partners in our endeavour to make the communities of the Republic of Palau resistant to disasters. Attending forums, such as the 7th Regional IDNDR Disaster Management Meeting, provides the opportunity for us to share and learn from each other's past experience, and to establish new contacts. In this spirit, we thank and welcome the assistance under SPDRP-Phase II, as we strive to achieve the goals and objectives of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction and beyond. Classification of Proposed Country Program Activities NEMO Activities: a) Community: • Identify vulnerabilities and risks on each island • Develop national community disaster reduction strategies with community organisers • Strengthen disaster management structure on the island training to community organisers, NGO, etc b) Training: • Conduct local Training for Instructors (TFI) Courses • Adapt & conduct IDM training to all islands • Tabletop exercise - Typhoon Support Plan; SAR, Hazardous Material Spills, • Training through the Disaster Assessment Co-ordination (UNDAC) Course • Fellowship training • Develop National Disaster Awareness and Education Programs c) Mitigation: • Establish a National Working Group • Promote good construction guidelines - National Building Code • All hazard risk assessment for the nation • Develop mitigation policies to incorporate measures into development planning

40

National Co-ordination Activities: a) Workshops: • Skills development in formulation of PEA Programs • Skills development in the conduct of community workshop • Skills development in Damage & Needs Assessment • Put National Disaster Plan into operation NEMO Disaster Management Assistance to Others: a) Plans: Overview development of support plans & SOPs for Search and Rescue, Oil Spill & Hazard Substances, and Airport Emergency Operating Procedures b) Others: Assist in launching of SPDRP publications and support materials. Implementation Arrangements for National Activities: a) Partners: • EMO • CAA - Community Organisers • State Government Officials • Traditional Chiefs • NGOs, Red Cross, etc • Education - teachers • Business Industry • National Emergency Committee (NEC) b) Support Training/ Material: • Training for Instructors (TFI) • Conduct IDM to Trainers • Provide training materials • Provide all hazard risk assessment materials c) Funding: • Solicit funding for the implementation of the program • Provide local funding where available • Solicit contribution in kind, if any (i.e. venue etc.) DMP-SPO Inputs a) Implementation • Create greater involvement of organisers in the country • Provide more funds for in-country training • Assist PIC NDMO program funding application to donors Future of Disaster Management Activities a) Foreign Assistance • Funding • Technical DM experts

41

b) Identify supporters of In-Country Disaster Management Arrangements • NEMO • Education - curriculum • Elected Leaders, national, local, and community level c) Identify and prioritise essential disaster management activities • All hazard risk assessment • Operationalise National Disaster Plan and support plans • Incorporate disaster mitigation into national development planning, e.g. building codes, land use

management, etc. • Legislation - Develop a clear definition of national disaster management policy at all levels d) Requirement for career development in disaster management • Training - workshop • Educational background • Autonomy • Cross training e) Identify partner agency/organisation • UNDHA –SPPO f) How can the partnership be developed or improved? • Assist in developing training policies and training. • Strengthen working relationship between partners.

Samoa

Presented by Mr. Sakaria Taituave, Disaster Management Office

1998 Priority Activities and Organisational Structure which Operates National Level Establishment of a National Disaster Community working group followed by a workshop sponsored by the SPDRP in April. This has been formed in order to link all agencies, which are involved in disaster management related activities at the community level and ensure the long-term sustainability of community disaster reduction activities. Regular meetings of the National Disaster Council to mobilise all necessary resources and direct all operations needed to suppress the fire during the massive bush fire in August and early September. A workshop was conducted on the 14 - 15 September 1998 for the National Disaster Management working group to formulate operational response procedures for forest fires. The aim of this plan was to provide the procedures to ensure immediate and effective activation of work that must be done to suppress the fire.

42

Mass Casualty Training and Exercise (17-21 August 1998) for Trainers who are directly involved in disaster management operations to improve their knowledge and skills in response and management procedures. Conducted by locals and personnel from the Centre of Excellence in Hawaii. Tony Brown of the Cook Islands and EMA also assisted in this training. Disaster Awareness Week Network (DAWN) will be in action for the whole week from 19 - 23 October 1998. The theme for this awareness program is 'Partnership in Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness'. It is aimed to inform and create increased awareness within communities and all sectors, to co-operate in disaster mitigation and preparedness activities. Activities included TV spots and advertisements, radio spots and advertisements, poster competitions, drama competition, poem competitions, drill exercises focusing on Tsunami and bush fire (with help from Centre of Excellence) and display booths. One of the objectives of the DAWN is to get all workplaces to submit their own disaster operational response procedure plans and test their evacuation plans. Community Level • The new national disaster management officer, following his recruitment in mid-July 1998, was

involved in training exercises and operational procedures for the bush fire. • The Red Cross is implementing its community programs on training for first aid and disaster

preparedness on an ongoing basis. • The Disaster Support Organisation (DSO) also reported their training programs in the community to

be completed by November this year. • Other sectors, which indirectly contributed to disaster preparedness in Samoa are programs of the

Health Department, the Labour inspectors in their occupational health and safety programs, Internal Affairs and Agriculture which promoted root crops.

• The DAWN also planned to get to the community through the media and activities in October. Links with Donors • South Pacific Disaster Management Training Meeting held at the Australian Emergency Management

Institute (EMA) from 26 - 30 January 1998 involved two participants from Samoa. • Workshop to establish Community Working Group (CWG) in April '98 (Apia) was sponsored by

SPDRP. • Introduction to Disaster Management Training in Honolulu in June '98, invited two participants from

Samoa (Centre of Excellence). • The Centre of Excellence from Hawaii conducted Mass Casualty Training and Exercise in Disaster

Management (1 7 - 21 August '98) in Apia. • UNDP through its office in Apia funded the community training programs of DSO. • Printing of the National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) by the SPDRP early this year. • Many other programs within the framework of the SPDRP, e.g. Production of Updated Savaii

Volcano Map and Response Plan, etc. • AusAID and the James Cook University Centre for Disaster Studies invited two participants for the

Training Conference in Cairns, Queensland Australia in November 1 - 4, 1998. Participation in Regional Activities • Participants in Regional IDNDR Disaster Management Meeting; • Participate in SOPAC Governing Council Meeting; • Participate in Regional GIS Workshop in Suva, convened by SOPAC; • Participate in Regional Vulnerability Reduction Training; • Participate in UNDAC Refresher Course.

43

Future Disaster Management Programs and Activities The National Disaster Management Officer thinks that the future programs and activities will be effective and have a positive impact. This is because the NDMO operates under the Prime Minister's Department (official point of contact) with the support of the National Disaster Council. The NDC Chairman is the Deputy Prime Minister, the Vice Chairman is the Secretary to the Prime Minister's Department, with the members being almost all government department heads, members of the Diplomatic Corps in Samoa and NGO's with the DSO and Red Cross leading the way. Also the compactness of Samoa with only two main islands and 2 smaller islands ensures easy access. Samoa is based on its cultural and traditional customs with strong village councils. A good approach will help to get the message through. For future disaster management programs, the Samoa NDMO thinks that we should dwell on the existing system that deals with: • Communities • Internal Affairs • Women Affairs • Health - HPS/Field workers • Building Inspectors • Labour Inspectors • Youth Groups through National Council of Churches • (NCC) • NGO'S: Red Cross and DSO. The NDMO at present without any staff, relies on the National Disaster Management Working Group as the staff to further outreach to the communities through their existing network. Conclusion Samoa would like to see the National Disaster Management Program, revised by the staff of the SPDRP to be implemented early next year. The core activities will focus on: • Community Disaster Reduction • Disaster Management Training • Implementation of Disaster Mitigation Measures • Strengthening National Co- ordination Samoa, through the Secretary for the Prime Minister's Department also wishes to work in partnership with the SPDRP and donors in order to realise its plans during coming years. S OI F U A.

Solomon Islands

Presented by Mr. Randall Biliki, National Disaster Management Office Background The Solomon Islands are amongst the most vulnerable island nations in the Pacific in many respects. One aspect of our vulnerability is due to our geographical location and our island communities being so

44

scattered. Another aspect is the current state of our economy that affects national programs and defers the level of support from government departments for our disaster management programs. A lot has happened since the SPDRP-Phase I was implemented in 1994 when awareness and support at the national level was minimal. As a direct result of the support provided under the SPDRP-Phase I regional training and in-country technical support components, the co-operation between the NDMO, some key government departments, non-government organisations and the Solomon Islands' Red Cross Society has improved. Such environment will provide the right atmosphere for the implementation of national programs currently being formulated under the support provided by SPDRP-Phase II. In preparing for the next stage of our programs under SPDRP-Phase II, we acknowle dge and must admit that we have been too ambitious in our programs during Phase I of SPDRP and have over estimated our capacities. As we learn from this, appropriate considerations will be given to ensure our programs under SPDRP-Phase II do recognise these weaknesses and develop appropriate strategies to ensure successful implementation of our programs. Hopefully appropriate measures are considered within SPDRP-Phase II to ensure some level of flexibility during the course of its implementation. National Programs Program Development: The first country visit of DMP-SPPO to assist us, identify and prioritise programs to be supported under SPDRP-Phase II was during July/August 1998. The visit enabled us to formulate our program and develop strategies for implementation. The process involved group discussions by the NDMO, a small team of individuals from other government departments and non-government organisations and the Solomon Islands' Red Cross Society. Inputs were also gathered from other key officials that were visited. The following activities are to be implemented over the next quarter of 1998 and up to second quarter of 1999. Community Reduction Component • National Workshop to Establish Community Work Group (CWG) • Develop Comprehensive Education and Awareness program • Training workshop for CWP • Recruitment of Program Co-ordinator Training • Incorporate disaster management training into Government Training Institute of Public Administration

and Management (IPAM) • Workshop to develop disaster management training policy & program • Establish Training Work Group • Establish Public Awareness Work Group • Adaptation of IDM course • Conduct National Workshop on Education and Awareness Program Development • Conduct IDM/TFI course • Develop Community Based Training Module Mitigation • Establish Mitigation Work Group • Identify Mitigation projects • Follow up on Savo Project

45

National Co-ordination • Complete review of NDM Plan • National Disaster Planning workshop • Establish Damage and Needs Assessment System • Conduct Table Top and Field Exercise NDMO Assistance to Others • Assist other NDMOs through the exchange/ fellowship programs • Provide Training support for NGOs and programs of support organisations The main focus of the program will be on establishing mechanisms to implement the Community Reduction Component. Training will continue to be given priority focus for implementation. Implementation Arrangement The program will be implemented in partnership with other government departments, NGOs, the Solomon Islands Red Cross Society and the private sector. Strong emphasis will be given to integrate some elements of the national programs with existing programs implemented by other support organisations such as the OSB Community Training Workshops implemented by NGOs and the Community Vulnerability Pilot Program implemented by the Solomon Islands Red Cross Society. The success of the program will depend very much on mechanisms set in place for better co-ordination of partner organisations and resources needed to implement the program. This has been one key weakness we have experienced so far. In view of this weakness and for our programs to be successful, it is critical that a designated program co-ordinator be recruited to co-ordinate programs. SPDRP Inputs • Funding support for recruitment of a program co-ordinator • Technical Assistance (Expert) for Community Training Module development and Training Equipment

Support • Engagement of local expert to assist NDMO finalise the NDM Plan

Tonga

Presented by Mr. T.P. Aho, National Disaster Management Office The Tonga National Programme was developed in a discussion process with a number of civil servants, NGO members and donor representatives who were invited to solicit their views and identify possible inputs and support. Eventually the programme was classified into four categories of activities, namely NDMO Core Activities, Assistance to Others, National Co-ordination Activities and Regional Activities. National Programme a) Community • Community activities are of high priority and will commence in early October 1998. • Members of Community Working Group (CWG) will include church leaders, police, government

officials, retired government officials and business agencies. • Similar CWGs but at community level will be co-ordinated nation wide.

46

• Public educated and awareness programs will be formulated and implemented. b) Training • Will focus at community and household level. • Develop a training plan. • Use radio and media. c) Mitigation • Follow up on Building Codes (currently under mandate of MLSNR). • Broaden volcano hazard mapping to geo-hazard mapping to include work by MLSNR on Cities

Project. d) National Co-ordination Clarify responsibility of NDMO in technological or man-made disasters. e) NDMO Assistance to Others Assist school curriculum development with regard to disaster management. f) Regional Activities Capture regional resources for the program: • Inputs from government will be available from indicated key agencies in the form of manpower,

equipment, support materials and funding as available. • JICA indicated its support in kind or cash particularly during emergencies. • Peace Corps has professional and technical personnel that could be co-ordinated with the NDMO

programme as appropriate, particularly where it involves schools. • National priority is always on people's life and health in the event of a natural disaster impacting on

communities. Water supply whether from rain catchments or articulated is treated on a priority basis. Implementation Arrangements All communities will be targeted, but the focus will be on the most vulnerable communities with closet proximity due to easy access. While most organisations can undertake activities at the community level only relevant government ministries, NGOs, church leaders, district town officers and youth leaders should be involved initially. However, other resourceful organisations would be reinstated as identified. Their experiences during past natural disasters will assist in the formulation of an action plan as well as helping the Office with other activities, such as immediate damage assessment. Since most of these people are not directly employed or retained by the Office, we cannot rely on their availability when we most need them as they do have other commitments and priorities. The need for co-ordination must always be highlighted so that the respective organisations do understand their involvement in disaster management. Other national projects with which we collaborate with is MLSNR in terms of environmental protection, especially foreshore and marine pollution resulting from fuel leaks, and foreign wastes being discarded along the coastline and port areas. Some NGOs do carry out their own projects of tree plantings at shorelines for sea spray protection, tree trimming and cartage of access rubbish from recreational areas along the beaches. Nuku'alofa is one of the four cities of the Pacific Cities Project that is implemented by SOPAC's Hazard Assessment Unit. Working through MLSNR, the output will be an integrated GIS database combining surface and subsurface geo-technical hazard data and infrastructure assets. Similarly, the Australian

47

Volcanological Investigation is completing volcano hazard and vulnerability maps (in GIS MapInfo) for Niuafoou. This work will be finalised in a national workshop to develop an Operational Support Plan, which will identify public education and awareness activities. We are hopeful that DMP-SPO will be able to seek funding through this approach and be able to keep donors and client countries interested. Furthermore, the NDMO still needs to continue and encourage in-country training with DMP-SPO support and the guidance from lessons learnt during recent natural disasters. Important areas will be damage and needs assessment, emergency and relief programme management and the identification of other priority areas. DMP-SPO inputs could be used more effectively by supporting NDMO activities through more frequent intervention visits, e.g. by assisting the NDMO in drafting its preliminary national programme. For Tonga to have a better grasp of SPDRP-Phase II and to contribute towards its implementation, DMP-SPO will provide on the spot assistance also in other areas such as education and awareness programme development. Ultimately the biggest problem Tonga's NDMO will face, is the threat from DMP-SPO pulling out before the whole programme is thoroughly accomplished and all objectives are fully achieved.

Future of Disaster Management Activities So far Tonga's NDMO relies on technical assistance provided by DMP-SPO which coincides with skill training of National Disaster Management Working Group Officers. In terms of mitigation activities, further research is urgently required to assess the vulnerability of squash cropping, which adversely impacts on soil and ground water systems. Hence this study will include various vulnerability assessments, and define the cost implications of damages to the social, health and economic welfare system of the people of Tonga. Further assistance is required from SOPAC to support and complete research work implemented by the Australian Volcanological Investigation. The NDMO would wish by the end of the year 2000 for an independent team to evaluate all natural disaster activities and operational mechanisms as related to available technology. The ongoing support to disaster management at the end of SPDRP-Phase II will concentrate on community work group members, TANGO and private enterprises and agencies. Disaster management has not been fully developed into a career path through accredited courses. However, this is definitely needed particularly in view of indicators showing no imminent inversion of the present trends towards more frequent and intensive natural disasters. Furthermore we need to strive for more co-operation to generate more political support and funding from national and international sources. Tonga is still without a Building Code although this has been mandated to the responsibility of MLSNR three years ago. A large variety of non-engineered building constructions have flourished which lack vital connections and mechanisms to tie down roofs. Lacking skills of supervision and inspection controllers compounds this. Consequently the housing situation remains highly vulnerable. A particular effort to adopt a Building Code is essential to underpin future and sustained development in the Kingdom of Tonga. In conclusion the author wishes to express the gratitude of the Government of the Kingdom of Tonga to the UNDP-DMP/SPO for their immense support by way of technical services, grants, funding and assistance over the part 12 months. Ofa atu.

Tuvalu

48

Presented by Mr. Pusineli Laafai, Office of the Prime Minister

Brief Country Profile Tuvalu is a Polynesian group of islands scattered over the north-west, south-east chain between Fiji to the South, and Kiribati to the North. It comprises nine low lying coral atolls, barely rising three metres above sea level, with a total landmass of 26 square kilometres. The capital island Funafuti is about 900 kilometres from Suva and 1,000 kilometres from Tarawa. Four of the islands are single atolls with inland saltwater ponds while the others consist of a ring of very narrow inlets and fringe islets and fringe reefs surrounding deep or shallow water lagoons. The atolls have very poor soil and no streams or rivers, which can provide potable water. Subsistence farming and fishing are the primary activities. Government revenues largely come from the sale of stamps, coins and remittances from overseas workers - notably seamen. The estimated population (1995) is 9,991 with a growth rate of 1.58%. Birth and death rates per 1,000 population are 24.82 and 9.091 respectively. The weather is tropical with slight seasonal temperature variations. The cyclone season extends from November to May. Tuvalu is an independent sovereign state adopting the Westminster model with a governor general representing the Queen as head of state, and a Prime Minister as head of government elected by the twelve members of the national parliament. Disaster Management Overview In November 1997 the Cabinet approved a new and much more detailed National Disaster Plan (NDP) for Tuvalu, repealing the original scant version in the General Administrative Orders adopted without subsequent amendments at independence in 1978. The new NDP officially endorsed the National Disaster Preparedness Working Group (NDPWG) chaired by the Assistant Secretary (General Administration) in the office of the Prime Minister, who is also manager of the National Disaster Management Unit. A position for a Disaster Co-ordinator to assist in the implementation of all disaster management activities and programmes was also approved, but appointed only in July this year. The Tuvalu NDP outlines the national structure and chain of command roles and responsibilities in times of emergency, and routine working procedures in normal operation. The National Disaster Committee advises the Cabinet on all matters. It comprises all Permanent Secretaries and the Commissioner of Police. It is chaired by the Secretary to Government as National Disaster Controller in an emergency operation. In such times all designated operating government agencies and non-government bodies report to the Disaster Controller. Disaster Committees on each of the outer islands do the same. In normal times, the NDPWG implements most disaster preparedness programmes as well as awareness training and promotion. The Working Group operates under the Secretary to Government. National Programmes Tuvalu participated in the SPDRP-Phase I halfway through and only managed to run one Introduction to Disaster Management Course for 18 government and NGO participants on Funafuti in late 1997. The IDM Course was launched in Tuvaluan on Nukufetau Island in December 1997. This was followed by an

49

in-country TFI course in February/March this year, which was also attended by 3 participants and one instructor from Kiribati. Between now and May 1999, the NDPWG plans to take the IDM course to the rest of the islands, including Funafuti. This has been and will all be possible through the kind assistance and funding of the Australian IDNDR Secretariat, which also funded the publication of 500 copies of an English version of the Tuvalu National Disaster Plan, and a handbook currently being produced in Tuvalu. For the next three years, the Working Group with support from the SPDRP Phase II, will seek to undertake the following activities: • Establish a network of community working groups; • Identify community training needs and formulate appropriate activities; • Conduct community vulnerability and risks assessments; • Assess the needs and priority areas for island community disaster reduction activities; • Promote and operationalise a national building code; • Develop and compile a handbook of community disaster strategies; • Develop and incorporate disaster mitigation measures into the national planning process; • Develop and integrate disaster management topics into the national planning process; • Develop and integrate disaster management topics into the national school curriculum; • Develop a national database on all disaster related material and information; and • Initiate and develop sectoral disaster plans for government ministries and NGO's. Tuvalu also has its National Red Cross Society, which plays a crucial role in receiving and distributing disaster relief. The local SDA Church also contributes tremendously through its Disaster Relief Agency (ADRA). Government receives other disaster relief donations and assistance. Whereas in the past, disaster relief operations have tended to be not co-ordinated and ineffective, recent combined efforts have recognised the need for a single national body to co-ordinate all relief operations. This will not only harmonise organisational and personnel relations, but also achieve cost effectiveness in terms of mobilising resources and manpower, and accounting for greater transparency. In fact an encompassing feature of the Working Group's activities under SPDRP-Phase II would be to bring about a greater sense of teamwork and accountability among all organisations, government agencies and the public. Essentially it would require building an institution that is based upon trust and generated out of fair and equitable treatment of victims whatever their locality and religion. Apart from the Red Cross Society and ADRA, few other peak national and island NGOs have also become disaster-conscious and willing to render assistance. Government assistance to all these groups would be in the form of training and capacity building, ultimately developing national community working groups on each island. Other potential disaster-related national programs pursued by Tuvalu include the protection of coastal areas from erosion and constructing greater capacity for water storage. Coastal areas are not only rebuilt/reclaimed with the use of seawalls, but are also to be planted with soil retaining trees that will additionally act as wind-breakers. Related environment and health protection projects such as waste management, good sanitation etc. will all be considered for disaster management support and promotion. For short-term food relief measures, the national parliament has floated the idea of concrete hurricane shelters on each island to be shocked with food items for rainy days!

50

Regional Activities Tuvalu benefited from training activities under SPDRP-Phase I with four locals having completed the two stages of the TFI program. Another 12 were trained in-country on IDM and TFI Courses. The Tuvalu Meteorological Office also runs its specific programs, which can be incorporated into our national disaster planning. So do projects run by the departments of agriculture, public works, health, fisheries etc. that will impact on the environment and its vulnerability to disasters. Actually some effort has been made for all national projects to undergo an environment impact assessment (EIA) to identify and determine the effects of the project on the environment, and to recommend remedial or compensatory measures. Implementation Arrangements Like most other Pacific countries, Tuvalu is lucky in terms of implementing its programs. Already there are community, island and national networks of NGO associations and government systems with which we have collaborated in delivering services and training. This does not mean that this is the most effective mode. Our Working Group, therefore, has planned to promote and support ongoing programs through the media. More specifically the Working Group will work closely with the National Red Cross Society, the National Association of NGOs, TANGO, and island councils in conducting training workshops and other community self-help activities. The departments of public works, agriculture and health are also directly involved in post-disaster assessment missions. Future of Disaster Management Activities Unfortunately, Tuvalu has not earlier recognised the necessity to establish a national disaster management office. Disasters are accepted either as a divine curse or blessing beyond the control of the ordinary mortals. Only since the introduction of the IDM course late last year, politicians and the public came to realise that they can do themselves a lot of good by applying some fundamental disaster management principles. Earlier efforts at disaster awareness training have always been undertaken by the Red Cross Society. These have not had a great deal of impact since government's direct involvement and support was lacking. Efforts to revise the national disaster plan have taken over 17 years. For the future it seems encouraging that Tuvalu is ready to look upon disaster management more seriously. Last year government took a historic step in creating a Rehabilitation Fund over half a million Australian dollars from its own resources. As the establishment of the Fund indicates, and as disasters become more frequent, disaster management might develop into a career opportunity in Tuvalu.

Vanuatu

51

Presented by Mr. Job Esau, National Disaster Management Office

National Disaster Policy Following cyclones Eric and Nigel in January 1985, the Vanuatu Government reviewed its disaster reduction arrangements and adopted the following policy: a. To recognise that disaster management is part of government's overall responsibility and to make

the best possible arrangements to deal with it; b. To concentrate on the three major aspects of preparedness, response and recovery and wider

measures, such as disaster mitigation and the inter-relationship of disasters and national development;

c. To apply in particular, the important principles of: • Optimum utilisation of available resources • Maintenance of appropriate levels of preparedness in order to achieve optimum utilisation. • To develop progressively programs of training and public awareness, in which community self-

reliance and self-help form important objectives. The National and NGO Disaster Plans are community based arrangements. They co-ordinate and work in conjunction with the plans and operational arrangements made by: • Government departments which have been allocated disaster-related roles and responsibilities. • Provincial Government Councils and Area Councils. • Non-Government Organisations which have been allocated disaster-related tasks. • Overseas authorities and organisation which are engaged in rendering assistance to the Vanuatu

Government in times of disaster. • Any other agency which may offer, or be called upon to render disaster related assistance to the

Vanuatu Government. The overall national responsibility for disaster arrangements rests with the Council Of Ministers. Ministerial authority is vested with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Internal Affairs, who is directly responsible to cabinet for ensuring that adequate measures for disaster preparedness and response exist at all times. The basic concept of this policy is on the effective utilisation and co-ordination of Government, NGO, private sector, and donor resources in support of these disaster management arrangements. The IDNDR theme of this year is "partnership in national disaster management programming." The NDMO and the Vanuatu Association of Non-Government Organization (VANGO) and other peak NGOs have put their efforts together to fulfil these policy arrangements contained in the national plan. VANGO has vigorously supported these arrangements through disaster preparedness training and awareness activities throughout the country with the participation of the NDMO, Government Agencies and ORSTOM. The Vanuatu Red Cross, ADRA, CCJD, World Vision and other NGOs have participated in many programs of the NDMO. These activities have reached the wider communities in a cascading process. Many community leaders and government staff have been trained by VANGO as trainers to further plan for community disaster reduction activities at the village level. These commitments were further demonstrated when numerous agencies and organisations participated in the national IDNDR Day in October 1997 in Port Vila, with each organisation displaying its exhibits, giving

52

speeches and organising community meetings during the week. The highlight of the day was the VMF demonstration of search and rescue operation on a mock fire exercise. NGOs and the NDMO jointly participated in and co-ordinated the following responsibilities: • National Disaster Executive Committee. • National Disaster Recovery Committee. • National Disaster Management Working Group. • Donor Agencies' briefings. • Conducting joint cyclone damage assessments. • Community training and awareness programs. • Participation in the IDNDR day activities in October. • Co-ordinating relief goods and their distribution. • Sharing of information and responsibilities. • Dissemination of information to the communities. • Consultation processes, logistics and support. • Preparation of the IDM module. • Publishing materials. • Promotion of self-reliance for household's food security. The NGO disaster policy, therefore, states that: • NGOs recognise that the prime responsibility for disaster reduction arrangements in Vanuatu rest with

the Vanuatu Government and that these arrangements are found in the national disaster emergency plan of the Government.

• NGOs agree to co-ordinate with and support the disaster reduction activities of the Government. • They also recognise their own responsibility to care for people in need and particularly those in

greatest need when disaster strikes. VANGO and other NGOs demonstrated this commitment by supporting national disaster reduction and relief assistance activities during the drought and cyclones of 1997 and 1998. They also provided assistance to many victims of household fire throughout the country. In essence we should explore the opportunities to further strengthen and promote this commitment to effectively inform the vulnerable and disadvantage communities throughout the country. Vanuatu National Disaster Management Program for 1998 SPDRP Support: • Institutional strengthening and capacity building. Completed TFI Hand-off Course. 3 participants

attended. • Ambae Tabletop Exercise. Postponed until 1999 due to droughts and cyclones last year and this

year. • Assist NDMO/GTC in IDM Course Development. Adaptation completed. IDM planned for Nov.

1998. In-Country Program: • Briefing of COM. Done during parliament session this year with MPs concern as part of our

institutional strengthening program. • International Agencies. FRANZ - Before cyclone season. • JICA - arrangement now in place. • Chinese Embassy.

53

• British High Commission. Technical Agencies: • UNELCO - Utilities and infrastructure development. • Hazards, prevention and Mitigation measures. • Participation in public education awareness programs. • Shell Company & Mobil Oil Company - Marine oil spill pollution. Disaster Planning: • Establishment of national disaster management working group. Impact of reform program. • Workshop for planners. Tafea Provincial Disaster Reduction • Workshop organised by VANGO, working in partnership. Ambae Plan: • Tabletop Exercise. Postponed due to PS Reform program. • Ambae plan finalised. Animal Exotic Disease Plan: • Development of Plan. 70% plan completed. To be finalised in 1999. Pest Exotic Disease Plan: • First training completed in Oct. 1997. 2nd Phase field officers training postponed to 1999. • Plan has been completed, but requires a wide range of awareness for the purpose of adaptation. • Other activities will be on an annual basis. National Disaster Emergency Plan: • On going but needs to be reformatted. National Disaster Act: • To be followed up. Currently not required but policies will still be applied. Education & Awareness: • Establishment of PEA team. Completed. Training and skills development required. Seminar: • Technical assistant in capacity building and skills development required from SPDRP. • PEA program development. Done with assistance from SPDRP. • Awareness. Ambae, Ambrym volcano -done in collaboration with ORSTOM. • Torba Province. Done in collaboration with VANGO. Training: • IDM adaptation. Final draft completed • TB conducted in Nov. 1998. • Solomon Island to participate. • Tafea Province workshop. Conducted jointly between NDMO, VANGO and ORSTOM. • Torba. Be conducted together with SANMA Province PENAMA. Will be considered in 1999. • MALAMPA. Will be considered in 1999. • Curriculum Development. It is an ongoing program with Curriculum Unit.

54

Disaster Mitigation: • Establishment of working group. Currently the following are already taking some leading role in

disaster management: UNELCO, Gas Depot, Shell Company, RVS, Tukoro, Mobile Oil Company, INTV Technical School, Helicopter Vanuatu, Vanuatu Shipping Company, Land Use Planning

• Luganville Sea Wall. SPDRP • National Building Code. SPDRP follow-up. Still awaiting Consultant's report. • Government Risk Management Manual. Committee has been set up and headed by Allied Risk

Consultants. Yet to be formally presented after final revision is done. • Marine Oil Spill Pollution Project. A new project under SPREP. It is co-ordinated by the

Environment Unit, Port and Marine, Shell company/NDMO.

NDMO Restructuring With the current Comprehensive Reform Program implemented by the Vanuatu Government, the NDMO has taken measures to restructure the NDMO facility. It will take on a new role and responsibilities in a new environment. This restructuring will strengthen the roles and responsibilities of the NDMO and its functions.

National Action Policies And Measures • Establish and or strengthen the current partnership between NDMO, government bureaucracies,

Donor Agencies, NGOs and Communities at both the National, Provincial and village level for rapid dissemination of information and warnings.

• Encourage, promote and strengthen where appropriate the attitude of self-reliance (self-help) and encourage and promote cultural and traditional systems such as traditional food preservation techniques for household food security, traditional weather forecasting and traditional cyclone proof housing.

• Collaborate with the South Pacific Community Program for regional household food security in collaboration with USP, Vanuatu Kava Store, VANGO and NFNC for the production of a publication on the preservation of traditional foods and traditional and appropriate processing foods.

• Establish and or strengthen disaster preparedness, mitigation and disaster management institutions including the formulation and adoption of a national building code.

• Education must be an effective tool in information dissemination for disaster reduction programs and activities throughout the country. This commitment must be demonstrated by the government and NGOs as a national priority in policy decisions.

55

ANNEX D

Partnership in National Disaster Management Programming

Theme Speakers

Consolidating Mutual Assistance in Disaster Management Within the Pacific:

Principles and Application

John R. Campbell Department of Geography

University of Waikato

Abstract The idea of mutual assistance in disaster reduction has at its roots the objective of reducing dependency among vulnerable "entities" such as people, groups, economic sectors and countries. In this paper I examine the application of this concept to the Pacific Island region. At the outset it is important to acknowledge that numerous traditional disaster management systems existed in the past, and many relied on mutual assistance practised at a variety of spatial scales. Some of these practices still remain (some in modified form) while others have fallen into disuse. New systems of mutual assistance (e.g. remittances) have also emerged. The paper outlines types of mutual assistance (from financial through to intellectual), possible foci of mutual assistance (from relief through to pre-disaster planning) and scales of mutual assistance (from inter-personal through relationships between the Pacific region and the international community). These are examined in terms of their appropriateness and likely utility for Pacific Island Countries. While the notion of mutual assistance finds considerable approval in international organisations and among NGOs, for example, there are numerous constraints to achieving workable, practicable and beneficial outcomes through mutual assistance in the region. These are reviewed and opportunities for success are evaluated. The paper concludes with a reminder that disaster vulnerability cannot be treated in isolation from the ongoing social and economic processes of change confronting most Pacific Island communities. Activities to promote mutual assistance in disaster reduction are unlikely to succeed unless a broader commitment to co-operation, at the various scales outlined, is achieved. Introduction This paper is somewhat of a potpourri. I have been asked to talk about mutual assistance in the Pacific Islands Region. More significantly I have been asked to consider principles for, and the practice of, consolidating mutual assistance. This is based on the very correct assumption that disaster management in Pacific Island Countries (PICs) already incorporates a considerable amount of mutual assistance among a great variety of parties involved in disaster reduction. It is also based on an assumption that we can do things better and that perhaps there are possibilities for improving disaster reduction activities by incorporating new and enhancing existing modes of mutual assistance. In writing this paper I have found there is little in the literature about mutual assistance in disaster reduction. In such an absence one is forced to fall back upon first principles. This paper therefore seeks to define the term (in its Pacific context), and to put forward some ideas for ways in which we can categorise various forms of mutual assistance. It then proceeds to briefly outline some examples of mutual assistance found traditionally and in the region today drawing out some of the changes that have occurred. One of the key elements is that there is often continuity in such change. While forms of mutual assistance might sometimes

56

appear to be different from their predecessors, often they are contemporary versions or adaptations of traditional practices. I conclude by putting forward some ideas for building on existing structures and listing some opportunities for further co-operation. What is Mutual Assistance? The idea of mutual assistance in disaster reduction has at its roots the objective of reducing dependency among vulnerable "entities" such as people, groups, economic sectors and countries. The term mutual assistance has an appealing ring to it. At face value it means helping each other. However, the word mutual can have two important connotations. First, it can imply reciprocity in the relationship between two or more individuals or groups. For example, mutual dislike is when two or more people have similarly negative views about each other. It is interesting that in anthropological terms, reciprocity was a salient characteristic of traditional Pacific Island societies. It referred to the process by which systems of obligation were established among various people based on the receipt and giving of gifts (Gregory 1994). There can be little doubt that traditionally in Pacific Island Countries, reciprocity played a very important role in the ways that communities and individuals coped with disasters (see for example Marshall 1979; Thaman 1982; Campbell 1985; Campbell 1990). The second connotation of the word mutual is that of sharing or having a common interest. In this sense mutual assistance takes on a different meaning, one that implies that all parties involved in the process of assistance benefit from it in some way. The two meanings may often overlap, but do not necessarily do so. They are both, however, applicable to traditional Pacific Island disaster response. In evaluating ideas for mutual assistance in disaster reduction in PICs it is important to ask ourselves if the assistance is truly mutual, and to ask if Pacific Island communities are indeed participating as equal partners in the activities that eventuate. Of course, both these meanings are relevant to our discussion of disaster management within the Pacific. An important aspect of the concept of mutual assistance is that it implies more than a one way relationship. It implies relationships that are not based on dependency. It also implies relationships that are not "independent". Rather, the notion of mutual assistance is one in which the interdependency of the partie s involved is the key factor. Thus mutual assistance is help that benefits both parties and that must result from some element of negotiation and agreement. An overriding principle in our efforts to better understand disaster processes, and to reduce their effects, is that disasters cannot be seen outside their cultural, social, economic and environmental contexts. By the same token, nor can our consideration of mutual assistance be conducted outside these same contextual influences. Moreover, it is critical to continually remind ourselves that these contexts are constantly changing. Types of Mutual Assistance We can categorise mutual assistance in relation to natural disaster reduction in a variety of ways. We can for example simply describe the forms of assistance given. Thus in Table 1 we have five categories of mutual assistance, the appropriateness of the various types depending on the circumstances of the parties involved in the relationship, the obligations inherent in the relationship (for example personal, inter-governmental, etc.) and the reasons for the assistance.

57

Table 1. Types of Mutual Assistance Type of Assistance Examples of Assistance Financial Intergovernmental transactions, intra-family remittances, transactions

between financial institutions and governments or individuals Material Building supplies, food supplies, planting materials Technological Weather forecasting equipment, search and rescue facilities, remote

sensing in post-disaster assessment Intellectual Traditional knowledge, sharing information about successes in

natural disaster reduction, sharing information about failures in natural disaster reduction

Spiritual Prayer, moral support The table can be further expanded into a matrix by categorising the assistance in terms of the types of disaster reduction activity the assistance is focussed upon, such as relief, rehabilitation and preparedness and mitigation activities. Figure 1 shows that certain types of assistance are likely to be more appropriate at certain stages in the disaster process. Thus, for example financial and material assistance are most likely to be of greatest priority during the relief and rehabilitation phases. It is at these times that shortages are likely to be at their highest levels and needs for money and materials (building supplies, food, planting materials) are most pressing. In comparison, provision of technological and intellectual resources may be of more utility in building appropriate and innovative mitigation programmes.

Figure 1. A matrix showing the various combinations of mutual assistance to be considered for Pacific island countries Scales of Mutual Assistance Mutual assistance activities may take place at a wide range of scales. Table 2 differentiates mutual assistance activities in terms of the scale of social units involved. Thus it ranges from assistance between individuals through to activities which take place between regional and international organisations. One of the more common types of assistance in the region is between nations although help between islands and

Rel ie f R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Mi t iga t ion

F i n a n c i a l

M a t e r i a l

T e c h n o l o g i c a l

I n t e l l e c t u a l

S p i r i t u a l

58

between villages is still important in a number of countries. Within villages people still offer considerable mutual assistance to each other. Fauolo (1993) provides a vivid account of households moving progressively to the remaining homes during the height of cyclone Ofa. In one village only three houses stood the following day but no lives were lost or major injuries sustained. It was a total community effort. In many cases these social scales are roughly commensurate with geographical scales. However, increasing individual mobility has seen individual and family forms of mutual assistance, for example, become increasingly global. Table 2. Scales of Mutual Assistance Scale of Activity Between:-

Examples of Mutual Assistance

Individuals Rescue, helping in garden, helping with rebuilding, sharing food and other goods

Households Provision of emergency shelter during event when other households lose their dwellings, sharing food and other goods

Extended Families Sharing resources including agricultural produce and other materials

Villages Temporary refuge to neighbouring communities devastated by disaster, food, temporary access to garden land or produce, exchange of materials, provision of land for relocation

Islands (or district, province, state, etc.)

Provision of emergency foods, provision of planting materials, provision of temporary refuge

Nations Food relief, disaster warning information, sharing expertise such as rebuilding disaster resistant homes, search and rescue, inter-governmental meetings and sharing information on all aspects of disaster reduction

Regional Organisations Funding regional projects, provision of multilateral assistance Not only is there potential for mutual assistance activities at these various scales of social organisation. It is important to recognise that there is potential for assistance between, or among the various scales. Indeed many such relations already exist. For example, individual members of households and extended families are often helped by the larger unit to which they belong. Similarly, in villages, assistance is given to households which have been badly impacted by a disaster, especially where the losses are unevenly spread (e.g. Paulson, 1993). Other forms of assistance between scales include assistance between the nation state and its individual citizens, villages or islands, although often the mutual aspects (e.g. shared benefit, or reciprocal nature) are not recognised. Such patterns may be characterised as "top down" and considered to foster "dependency". However, this not need be the case. For example, the nation state might well assist communities in becoming more disaster resistant by encouraging adoption of mitigation measures in agriculture and housing and better preparedness. The benefits to the state are reaped when extreme events occur and the costs of disasters are reduced. Mutual Assistance in the Traditional Setting In most Pacific island communities prior to colonisation there were relatively high levels of self-sufficiency in the face of natural disasters (Thaman, Meleisea et al. 1976). An important aspect of this self-sufficiency was the existence of traditional systems of mutual assistance. Table 3 summarises the various forms of mutual assistance found in traditional disaster reduction strategies. These included activities that were ongoing within communities and those that took place between communities.

Traditional Formsof Mutual Assistance

59

Figure 2. Mutual Assistance in Traditional Disaster Reduction Activities. Intra community forms of mutual assistance included simple things like helping each other out and being able to call on members of one's extended family or kinship obligations for reciprocal assistance. Many communities had divisions of labour with specialist builders, fishers and agriculturalists, navigators, medicinalists, religious experts and social and political leaders. Without systems of mutual obligation such specialised systems could not work. Yet, they often had important roles in the aftermath of disaster. Social leaders co-ordinated rationing and sharing of resources (e.g. Wilkes, 1854), builders oversaw rehousing and agriculturalists ensured the rehabilitation of gardens (e.g. Thompson, 1949). They also were important from the perspective of mitigation: properly constructed, many traditional houses in the Pacific region are highly resistant to extreme winds and restrictions on using gardens (e.g. first fruits ceremonies) ensured adequate supplies could be spread more evenly through time. Of equal importance were the relationships that existed between communities, often on different islands separated by considerable distances of ocean. Sets of rela tionships such as the solevu in eastern Fiji (Thompson 1949; Campbell 1985) or the suqe (graded society in which men rose in rank through trading in pigs, mats and shell money) in the Banks Islands of northern Vanuatu (Campbell 1990) were often anchored by ongoing exchange systems (in which islands with different resources complemented each other) and by alliances established through trade and marriage. While the very distance between some islands in these groupings may be seen as a hindrance to regular communication, it also served to ensure that in many cases not all communities were effected equally by natural extremes. A critical aspect of these systems of exchange was the production of surpluses that enabled the systems to be sustained. In many parts of the region such networks still exist, but rarely in the form or with the vigour of their traditional counterparts. A new religion, the introduction of cash trading, and the reorientation of ocean transport (contemporary shipping services) have led to their decline. Moreover, most islands now have deficits in terms of production rather than the surpluses needed to underpin the maintenance of the exchange systems (Campbell 1990).

60

Mutual Assistance in Contemporary Setting There are already in the Pacific region a number of examples of mutual assistance in natural disaster reduction. These include the use of remittances as a contemporary version of intra-village or intra-extended family assistance, co-operation among NGOs involved in a variety of natural disaster reduction activities, inter-governmental co-operative activities in disaster relief assistance, co-operative warning systems in the region and relationships between governments and regional and international organisations. When Western Samoa was devastated by Cyclones Ofa and Val there were a number of responses that could be classified as mutual assistance. One of the most noteworthy was a pouring in of assistance, both in money and in kind, from Samoans living overseas. Reports from Samoa at the time indicated that the flow of remittances was of such magnitude that it affected local commerce (incoming goods and food aid reduced demand for store bought goods) and money banked from remittances was at such a level that banks had difficulties finding borrowers (Pacific Islands Monthly, 1991). In a study of Samoan families in Hamilton, New Zealand, following Cyclone Val, (Seiuli 1993) showed that both the frequency and magnitude of remittances to Samoa increased. (Gillion 1994) provides evidence of increased magnitude of remittances to both the Cook Islands (Cyclone Sally) and Samoa (Ofa and Val) following disasters. Following Ofa, monetary remittances alone saw an increase of 70 per cent in annual remittances. But, the role played by expatriate communities goes well beyond the remitting of money. The remittance of goods is also extremely important as is the provision of labour and skills in the rebuilding process. Following Cyclone Ofa in Samoa, (Paulson 1993) found that help among households was an important response with gifts of taro given to households with greater losses. Paulson, however, observed that in villages with the greater degree of involvement in the market economy there was a lower level of inter-household help. Opportunities for Mutual Assistance Times of crisis often provide useful opportunities for the introduction of changes in ways of doing things. In Pacific Island Countries it is often in the period following disasters that people seek new options for natural disaster reduction. As time drags on, if the initiative is not taken, introducing new notions or approaches becomes increasingly difficult. However, most instances of mutual assistance in the immediate post disaster period are focussed on post disaster assessment, the provision of relief, and the conduct of search and rescue. These are important disaster reduction activities. They do not, however, serve to reduce the impacts of future events, and in some cases can serve to increase vulnerabilities to extreme events as localised coping mechanisms are undermined. Opportunities for long-term, mitigation oriented activities can also arise in the post disaster period and particularly can be incorporated into rehabilitation activities. An example includes rehousing programmes in which the focus is on rebuilding disaster resistant residences. The possibilities for mutual assistance in this area include sharing construction techniques (including traditional methods) and materials among Pacific Island Countries. Similarly, countries can learn from each other's experiences when disasters cause significant housing damage, or indeed when damages are less than might otherwise have been expected. A second example is the rebuilding of settlements in less exposed locations. There are many examples of where this has happened in Pacific Island Countries. Such relocation, when it involves moving to land belonging to other groups, is impossible without co-operation among communities, clans or other social groups. It is these cases that mutual assistance is critical. Relocation can be fraught with problems and

61

lead to considerable social instability unless careful negotiation and often traditional arrangements are made between those who are relocating and their "hosts." The internet also provides new opportunities for mutual co-operation in the region. Disaster mangers can now keep in touch more frequently and at limited costs. Equally, the South Pacific Disaster reduction Programme can maintain contacts with disaster professional throughout the region, share ideas and information and distribute resources quickly and efficiently. A Pacific disaster internet discussion group in which latest situation reports and other "breaking information" could also be distributed would be a very useful resource. Through such groups members can seek answers to problems from amongst all other members on the "list". This sharing of ideas and information can be highly beneficial. Mutual assistance among various government departments, especially those with responsibility for development activities, and international development agencies is also very important for long term disaster reduction. Here the partnerships will need to be forged between disaster management officials and development agencies. From the perspective of disaster reduction, the aim of such a partnership is to ensure that, at least, development projects do not increase vulnerability to disasters, and at best they incorporate measures that actually reduce vulnerability. Such partnerships are unlikely to be fully effective unless they also incorporate the communities involved. This can be achieved directly in relationships established between government departments and local communities (e.g. through island councils or village councils) and through the use of extension staff. It is often highly effective to include NGOs in the partnerships. NGOs often have considerable experience in post-disaster response, have strong grassroots networks, have personnel skilled in community activities, and are well placed to help initiate, facilitate, maintain and strengthen the partnerships that are needed to incorporate disaster reduction into development projects. There are also likely to be new opportunities for disaster managers to link with activities associated with the international response to global warming. Pacific Island countries have been identified in the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) as being among those nations which are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. While there is still scientific uncertainty, there may be changes in the patterns of occurrence of extreme climatic events. Under the Kyoto Protocol (established in 1997) to the UNFCCC, mechanisms have been created through which development projects in developing countries can be funded. This includes a proportion which will be allocated for adapting to the effects of climate change. It is quite likely that building resilience to natural hazards will be seen as appropriate targets for such funding as the benefits will be significant even if the adverse effects of climate change do not eventuate. Building on Existing Structures For mutual assistance to happen in the Pacific Region it is important that existing structures are identified and supported. This applies as much to traditional systems of reciprocity and shared assistance, as it does to more apparently contemporary systems. So-called development is often reflected in major tensions between traditional and non-traditional ways of doing things. In all parts of the world change seems to be the only constant. Nevertheless, where it is appropriate, it is important for such systems to be given assistance to ensure their sustainability. Areas where building on existing structures should ensure that opportunities for mutual assistance are not lost include the following: • Support traditional systems where still intact; • Where appropriate give assistance to apply traditional co-operative systems in contemporary context;

62

• Continue work on enhancing warning systems including building partnerships, • Between meteorological services in PICs; • Between meteorological services and disaster reduction offices in PICs; • Between meteorological services and the public so that warnings are understood and give rise to

appropriate public responses; • Ensure potential partners at all levels are aware of each other, what each other have to offer and each

other's needs; • The South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme is enabled to continue its critical role as a key co-

ordinator of partnerships throughout the region. It is equally important that not only do we build on existing structures, but also that we do not undermine existing and mutual forms of mutual assistance. Thus care must be taken that new forms of disaster assistance, mutual or otherwise, do not weaken existing systems. It is also important that disaster managers are ever vigilant to ensure that governmental policies and development programmes and projects (including those which are not disaster related) do not damage important systems of mutual assistance in the disaster context. Constraints to Mutual Assistance There are numerous constraints to achieving mutual assistance in natural disaster reduction. The first is in the degree to which assistance is truly mutual, and its corollary, the degree of equality in the partnership required among those individuals, groups, communities, agencies and/or governments involved in the relationship. Without interdependency in the relationships, whether they are between individuals in a village, between a village council and a government or between a Pacific Island government and that of a "donor" nation, assistance cannot be mutual. It is likely in such cases that the assistance will fail to achieve the desired ends, be inappropriate, be misused, be "wasted", or place considerable and unnecessary costs on the "recipients". These concerns aside, there are other important constraints to mutual assistance within the region. Not the least of these is the cost related to distance and the availability of appropriate infrastructure for transport communication among PICs and even within individual countries. For example, the provision of food relief following disasters could be made much more culturally acceptable if root crops and other foods could be exchanged among PICs. Instead most countries are dependent upon imported rice from agencies external to the region. Part of the problem does not lie in the unwillingness of PICs to help their neighbours in times of need, but in the unavailability of shipping between PICs. In many cases the costs of transport within PICs are greater than the costs of transport between PICs and Europe (Ward 1989). Similar constraints exist with aviation. As I have noted throughout this paper, mutual assistance implies partnership. This begs the question of just who one's partners should be. Not all communities within PICs have cordial relationships, and indeed there are stresses and strains in the relationships among countries in the region and in the relations between the region and the world beyond. Partnerships need to be complementary if they are able to be mutual. Within the region their may be a case for groupings of countries that for a variety of historical (e.g., traditional alliances, colonial background), cultural (e.g., common language, common housing styles) or environmental (e.g., shared experience of extreme events, similar island types - atolls, volcanic high islands, continental islands) reasons are suitable partners for natural disaster reduction. It may well be that a few well established partners can provide mutual assistance better than a larger and looser group with less in common.

63

Finally, perhaps the greatest constraint is that which confronts most of our attempts to reduce natural disasters in PICs. This is the issue of willingness to engage, particularly in the face of other pressing, competing priorities for government action. The issue is not one of seeking to establish partnerships for mutual assistance. Co-operation is a feature of traditional Pacific island societies and of the relations between nations. The problem is one of governments tending only to see disaster reduction as a priority when disasters strike. Conclusions I have sought to canvass a range of issues to do with mutual assistance in PICs. I have tended to stress the importance of traditional mechanisms of mutual assistance. While some have already fallen into disuse, others have been transformed and exist in new guises. Above all, it is important to stress that PICs and the people and communities that comprise them have great capabilities for disaster reduction and disaster response. They tend, in comparison with many other parts of the world to cope very well. Such resilience is in large part due to the systems of mutual assistance which can be found in villages, in nations and at the regional level. As we move towards the end of the International decade for Natural Disaster Reduction there remain a number of challenges for Pacific Island Countries. Continuing levels of international disaster assistance can no longer be guaranteed. There are growing and competing demands for humanitarian assistance and foreign aid budgets are being trimmed in many of the developed countries. It is also possible that global environmental changes may render the region more hazardous. From these perspectives it is of critical importance that systems of mutual assistance in the region are recognised and strengthened. References

Campbell, J. R. (1985). Dealing with disaster. Hurricane response in Fiji. Honolulu, Pacific Islands Development Program, East-West Center.

Campbell, J. R. (1990). “Disasters and development in historical context: tropical cyclone response in the Banks Islands, northern Vanuatu.” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 8(3): 401-424.

Fauolo, K. O. (1993). Afa fulifao o le 1991: disaster awareness and tropical cyclone response in Western Samoa. Department of Geography. Hamilton, New Zealand, University of Waikato.

Gillion, J. (1994). The role of mobility and exchange during disaster periods in the Pacific Islands. Department of Geography. Hamilton, University of Waikato: 51.

Gregory, C. A. (1994). Exchange and reciprocity. Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology. T. Ingold. London, Routledge.

Marshall, M. (1979). “Natural and unnatural disaster in the Mortlock Islands of Micronesia.” Human Organization 38(3): 265-272.

Pacific Islands Monthly (1991). Latest disaster is a flood of money. Pacific Islands Monthly. April, 1991. Paulson, D. D. (1993). “Hurricane hazard in Western Samoa.” Geographical Journal 83(1): 43-53.

64

Seiuli, B. M. S. (1993). The effects of Cyclone Val on the Samoan community in Hamilton: hidden linkages and family networks in the Aiga. Department of Geography. Hamilton, University of Waikato: 56.

Thaman, R. R. (1982). “Hurricane Isaac and Tonga: A Natural or Cultural Disaster.” Review 3(8): 22-35.

Thaman, R. R., M. Meleisea, and Makasiale. (1976). Agricultural diversity and traditional knowledge as insurance against natural disasters. Natural disaster prevention, preparedness and rehabilitation meeting, Suva, South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation (SPEC).

Thompson, L. (1949). “The relations of men, animals, and plants in an island community (Fiji).” American Anthropologist 5(2): 253-267.

Ward, R. G. (1989). “Earth's empty quarter? The Pacific Islands in a Pacific century.” Geographical Journal 155(2): 235-246.

Wilkes, C. (1854). Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838-1842. Philadelphia, Lea and Blanchard.

THE POLITICS AND PRACTICALITIES OF DROUGHT RELIEF IN FIJI

Dr. Wadan Narsey

Introduction The rect drought in the West and North has brought suffering and economic hardship to thousands of families who have lost large proportions or all of their crops and incomes. Families have had difficulty feeding themselves and thousands of children dropped out of school, before the extent of the problem was realised. The importance of the drought to Fiji's economy may be seen in the extent to which Government's expectations for growth of the Fiji economy has been totally upset. The 1998 Budget was predicated on an expected positive 1.5% growth for the Fiji economy in 1997, a 4% growth in 1998, and a 3% growth in 1999. It has turned out that the growth in 1997 has been negative 1.5%, in 1998 it is expected to be negative 4% and it is quite likely that 1999 will also see a negative growth rate. Fiji has rarely seen two years of negative growth, and certainly not since Independence in 1970 has it seen such an accumulative decline in economic growth.

Yet the non-sugar economy has been doing well: tourist arrivals are at record levels (and gross annual tourism earnings have exceeded sugar earnings); garments exports have expanded phenomenally; and copra and yaqona prices are at record highs, with exports also boosted. The overall negative growth in the economy has been almost entirely due to the decline in sugar production over 1997, and an even more calamitous drought induced decline is expected in 1998. One of the worst to hit Fiji this century, the drought is one of the effects of the El Nino phenomenon.

The sugar industry directly contributed more than 12% of the GDP in 1995; it employs some 20,000 farmers, some 10,000 cane cutters and other farm labourers; it feeds more than 150,000 people.

65

Because of the drought, a reduction in sugar exports of some $150 millions is expected. This cannot but have a disastrous effect on the Fijian economy. Not only would there be a comparable reduction in export revenues and sugar industry incomes including that of farmers, but imports would also rise, since subsistence productions of foods in the drought areas has also been drastically reduced if not destroyed altogether. The financial implications are significant, with an estimated $42 millions required for Crop Rehabilitation. Since many farmers and farm labourers will not see any cash incomes for another year, while funds had already been spent for the cane crops in the ground, an excess of 510 millions will be required for rations, and some $8 millions estimated to be required for urgent cash needs such as school fees, medical expenses etc. The drought-affected cane farmers, whose total existing debt has been estimated to be in excess of $105 millions, were not in a position to cope with the disaster. Equally, Government's financial position was itself precarious, having had budgetary deficits for several years, the most recent increase due to the National Bank of Fiji disaster. It was clear that the drought was a disaster of massive proportions, requiring a national response through a co-ordinated partnership between the Sugar Industry, the Government, the Donors and the private sector. Government guaranteed to pay, in kind, $23 millions for Crop Rehabilitation. The cane farmers' own Growers Fund Authority will lend another $27 millions- of which $19 millions will be for Crop Rehabilitation and $8 millions for the urgent cash needs. This $27 million will be repaid from the farmers' own incomes over the next five years. However, this assistance will be available to cane farmers, not to farm labourers, nor to other rural people affected by the drought. Government, Donors, NGOs, and the general public have responded positively with rations, water, and funds to pay for bus-fares and lunches of needy child ren of the drought affected people in general. But while the rain has started falling in the drought affected areas, the drought-hit families will not see cash incomes for another 9 to 12 months. It is cause for concern, therefore, that Government, Donors, NGOs and the public are not fully co-ordinating their efforts, some of which would not last for long, as the funds run out. Government and NGOs cannot agree on what their respective roles should be, and in particular, how the resources should be channelled, and how drought relief efforts should be implemented. Government Position Government relief efforts are initiated through the National Disaster Management Office, and the National Disaster Management Council. This Council is dominated by Permanent Secretaries, with a few relevant Government Departments (like the Met Office), Statutory Organisations (like Telecom), and some NGOs. While aid has been available from Donors and NGOs, a sticking point is that Government prefers that the aid is given directly to Government, which would then take overall responsibility for the relief efforts. But many Donors are not comfortable with this either, for a number of reasons. Donor Reservations Firstly, some NGOs are specifically prevented (by their constitution) from working through Government, in case it undermines their independence.

66

Second, with elections around the corner, Donors worry that Government may use the resources for political priorities, rather than purely humanitarian criteria. Third, some Donors are unhappy with what they perceive as the lack of initiative and efficiency in Government departments. Bureaucrats are reluctant to act unless superiors issue the appropriate directives. Civil servants also have their own normal responsibilities and functions to look after, especially during drought which may affect only one part of the country or only one economic activity, while the rest continues normally. Donors feel that with their own non-bureaucratic approach, non-profit imperatives and independence, they can survey the national damage and respond much more speedily with relief assistance. Fourth, Donors, because of their own political and strategic interests in aid-giving, want their efforts not only to be effective, but to be seen to be effective. Donors may therefore want their relief assistance to be concentrated in a priority area, so that the assistance can be sizeable and appreciated. Governments, on the other hand, feel responsible for the interests of all the affected areas in the country, and naturally wish to spread assistance (and to be seen to do so) over the whole of the affected areas. They also are held to account by tax-payers from every corner of the country, and painfully so prior to elections. Governments also do not wish to be seen to be weak, and unable to respond inadequately to disasters.

Some of the above concerns may be seen in the response to the drought.

Slow Declaration Donors will not call for international aid unless the Government declares a "Natural Disaster" at the national level. The National Disaster Management Office was reluctant to do this, as it felt it could cope with the crisis from internal resources. But the effects of a drought crept up on population, unlike a cyclone, which needs no announcing. And the current Government bureaucracy had little experience of coping with a drought. While the Met Office had warned by March of the impending drought, and NGOs and Opposition Parties had alerted Government and the public soon after, it was June before Government declared a Natural Disaster. Even then, donor calls for a comprehensive national drought survey conducted were not favourably received by Government, which felt that it had its own resources for obtaining the necessary data. But the Disaster Management Office is not well resourced. There is no fulltime office adequately staffed, to address the full range of concerns raised by disasters, which can no longer be treated as rare accidents, but be expected fairly frequently, over a ten year period. For the current drought, Government's first concern was for food and water supplies, but the broader needs of the affected population (education, health, etc) were not focussed on. Politically, it did not help that while drought-stricken farmers were requesting assistance, those who did have cane to harvest (including drought affected farmers), went on a harvest boycott to press their demands for help. It was

67

therefore late September (five months later), that Government agreed that a United Nations Team (UNDAC) would conduct a comprehensive Drought Impact Analysis Survey. Weaknesses in the 1998 Act While the 1998 Natural Disaster Management Act may seem to be quite comprehensive (especially for dealing with cyclones), there are weaknesses when it comes to disasters like the drought. To start with, the National Disaster Management Office clearly feels that the Act severely constrained it from declaring the current drought as a Natural Disaster too early. My reading of the Act is that it is not restrictive at all, as far as the declaration is concerned. The Act has few explicit expectations of Departments such as Education, Health or Agriculture, for co-ordination of total responses to disasters like the drought. It is not surprising that the Education Department, for instance, was not in the forefront of identifying children at risk, until well after the problem had achieved crisis proportions. Under the Act, once the Natural Disaster was declared, the National Disaster Controller could call for foreign assistance, but only through Foreign Affairs. Any resulting foreign assistance would then be co-ordinated through the Emergency Committee. But NGOs may also request assistance from their own international organisations, and under the Act, this assistance is to be co-ordinated by the District Officers, to avoid overlap and duplication. Unfortunately, the reality is that most NGOs do not go through District Officers. Secondly and more importantly, the District Officers may be able to observe duplication at the district level, but they are in no position to ensure that there is national co-ordination. Even if comprehensive and accurate District level reports were speedily sent to the National Disaster Management Office, the Office is not resourced adequately to compile and obtain the national picture and ensure national co-ordination. Current Efforts While Government is taking the bulk of the burden in terms of providing rations and water, it is currently unable to plan, on a long term and national basis, its drought assistance efforts. This is largely because NGOs like Red Cross, Save the Children Fund, the Navtarang Appeal, and other community organisations (such as Rotary and Apex Clubs) are independently addressing a whole range of needs including rations, bus fares and lunches for school children. Some NGOs (such as FCOSS) feel marginalised. Fortunately, some NGO efforts are being co-ordinated amongst themselves. But, under such a situation, it is difficult for the Disaster Management Office to be given the full range of in-depth accurate information about what assistance is being provided, in what form, to which areas, and for how long. There is a very real danger that after a few months of concentrated effort, once the initial efforts run out of funds and energy, there may be large gaps in disaster relief in some areas, while there may have been significant duplication in others. What Is to be Done? There is no doubt, that being the supreme authority, Government must be responsible for the overall planning and co-ordination of disaster responses. But this does not mean that Government must also implement all disaster responses. It is clear that current thinking (both Government and NGOs) see National Disaster responses as an ongoing exercise. Not only have cyclones visited quite frequently, but even drought may become a cyclic affair, corresponding to the El Nino effect, whose cycle may be become shorter. Thus the responses to national disasters may need to be seen as the regular provision of any other

68

good or service in the economy. Some may be provided by Government, but many are capable of being provided by the private sector, including Donor-funded NGOs. In the broad economic sphere, Government has already acknowledged that on the grounds of economic efficiency, it needs to divest some of its public enterprises to the private sector. Similarly, Government may wish to consider whether it is the best agent to implement some disaster response services, which Donors and NGOs clearly feel more capable of implementing. But there is no doubt that Government must be fully informed, and be allowed to co-ordinate and plan the relief efforts. It is therefore urgent that Government, Donors and NGOs come to clear mutual agreement on their respective roles, on what their responses should be to national disasters like the drought. Failure to co-ordinate may create unnecessary suffering, a few months from now, in the current drought. Failure to agree on well-thought out rules now, will unfortunately also mean that when similar disasters strike, the same disagreements will emerge, and similar problems be created.

69

ANNEX E

PARTICIPANTS LIST

Country Delegates & Non-Governmental Oranisations COOK ISLANDS 1. Mr. Anthony Brown

Director National Disaster Management Office

P.O. Box 101 Rarotonga, Cook Islands Ph: wk: 682-29609 hm: 26220 Mobile: 682-55226 Fax: wk:682-29331; hm:26220 Email: [email protected]

2. Ms. Niki Rattle

Secretary-General Cook Is. Red Cross Society P.O. Box 888 Rarotonga, Cook Is. Ph: 682-22598 Fax: 682-22598

FIJI 3. Mr. Akapusi Tuifagalele

Head of Unit Disaster Management Office Ministry of Regional Dev, & Multi- Ethnic Affairs P.O. Box 2219, Govt. Buildings Suva, Fiji Ph: 679-313400 Fax: 679-303256/313434

4. Mr. Josefa Serulagilagi

Permanent Secretary Ministry of Regional Dev. & Multi- Ethnic Affairs P.O. Box 2219 Government Buildings Suva, Fiji Ph: 679-313400 Fax: 679-303256

5. Mr. Jone Bolaitamana

Principal Assistant Secretary Ministry of Regional Dev. & Multi- Ethnic Affairs P.O. Box 2219 Government Buildings Suva, Fiji Ph: 679-313400 Fax: 679-303256

6. Mr. Poasa Ravea

Deputy Secretary Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs P.O. Box 2219 Government Buildings Suva, Fiji Ph: 679-313400 Fax: 679-303256

7. Mr. Mustapha Mohammed

Vice President Community Information and Counselling Centre Nadi District Council of Social Services P.O. Box 9497 Nadi Airport, FIJI Ph: 679-701600/723764/723446 Fax: 679-

FSM 8. Ehson Johnson

Disaster Coordinator Disaster Coordination Office FSM Government P.S. 123, Palikir

70

Pohnpei, Fed. States of Micronesia Ph: 691-3202810 or 3202649 Fax: 691-3202785

9. Mr. John Sohlith

Emergency Management Coordinator State of Yap FSM Ph: 691-350 2166 Fax: 691-350 4430

NIUE 10. Mr. Tamaseko Elesoni

Sergeant Niue Police Department P.O. Box 69 Alofi, Niue Ph: 683-4333 Fax: 683-4324

11. Mr. Sifa Ioane

Mutalau Village Council Member c/- Stanley Kalauni External Affairs Officer Premier’s Department P.O. Box 40 Niue Ph: 683-4200 Fax: 683-4206 or 4232

PAPUA NEW GUINEA 12. Mr. Ludwig Kembu

Director-General National Disaster & Emergency Services Department of the Prime Minister P.O. Box 4970 Boroko, NCD Papua New Guinea Ph: 675-3011053 Fax: 675-3203725

PALAU 13. Mr. Alonzo Kyota

Civil Preparedness Officer National Disaster Emergency Office Office of the Vice President P.O. Box 100 Koror, 96940

Palau Ph: 680-488 2249 or 2422 Fax: 680-488 3312

14. Mr. Selestino Otong

Chairman Red Cross Disaster Preparedness Committee P.O. Box 6043 Koror 96940 Palau Ph: 680-488-5781 or 488-5780 Fax: 680-488-4540

SAMOA 15. Mr. Sakaria Taituave

Disaster Management Officer Disaster Management Office Prime Minister’s Department P.O. Box L 1861 Apia, SAMOA Ph: 685-23636 or 21742 Fax: 685-21822

SOLOMON ISLANDS 16. Mr. Randall Biliki

Director National Disaster Management Office Ministry of Home Affairs P.O. Box G11 Honiara, Solomon Islands Ph: 677-23662 Fax: 677-23661

17. Mr. Faásala Casper

Development Services Exchange P.O. Box 556 Honiara, Solomon Islands Ph: 677-23760 Fax: 677-21339

TONGA 18. Mr. Pilimi ‘Aho

Deputy Director NDMO Ministry of Works & National Disaster Activities P.O. Box 52

71

Nuku’alofa, Tonga Ph: 676-23100 Fax: 676-23102

19. Mrs. Pamela Lino

Assistant President TANGO P.O. Box 456 Nukualofa, Tonga Ph: 676-21360 Fax: 676-24158

TUVALU 20. Mr. Pusineli Laafai Assistant Secretary Office of the Prime Minister

Private Mail Bag Funafuti,Tuvalu Ph: 688-20113 Fax: 688-20843

21. Ms. Sunema Makatui Tuvalu Red Cross Society

P.O. Box 14 Funafuti Tuvalu Ph: 688-20746 Fax: 688-20800

VANUATU 22. Mr. Job Esau

Director National Disaster Management Office Police Headquartes PMB 014 Port Vila, Vanuatu Ph: 678-23745 Fax: 678-22800

23. Mr. Barton Bisiwei

Association of NGOs VANGOV Private Mail Bag, 096 Bougainville House Port Vila Vanuatu Ph: 678-26034 Fax: 678-26034

Other Organisations

AUSTRALIAN AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (AusAID) FIJI 24. Mr. Geoff Adlide

First Secretary Development Cooperation AusAID P.O. Box 214 Suva Ph: 679-382475 Fax: 679-382695 Email: [email protected]

25. Mr. John Davidson Counsellor, Development Assistance AusAID P.O. Box 214 Suva Ph: 679-382475

Fax: 679-382695 Email: [email protected]

AUSTRALIAN VOLCANOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 26. Mr. Paul W. Taylor

Volcanologist P.O. Box 291 Pymble NSW 2073 Australia Ph: 612-9498 2615 Fax: 612- 9498 2002 Email: [email protected]

AUSTRALIAN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ORGANISATION

72

27. Mr. Ken Granger Leader AGSO Geohazards Risk Mitigation Group GPO Box 762 Brisbane, QLD, 4001 Australia Ph: 617-3239 8671 Fax: 617-3239 8679 Email: [email protected]

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY 28. Mr. Geoff Crane Deputy Regio nal Director Bureau of Meteorology GPO Box 413 Brisbane 4001 Australia Ph: 679-617-3239 5741 Fax: 679-3221 4895 Email: [email protected] AMERICAN RED CROSS 29. Douglas Allen

Intl Emergency Response Manager International Services American Red Cross 2025 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 U.S.A. Ph: 1-202-728 6679 Fax: 1-202-728 6404 Email: [email protected]

CENTRE FOR EARTHQUAKE RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIA (CERA) 30. Dr. Jack Rynn

Consultant CERA P.O. Box 276 Indooroopilly, Qld 4068 Australia Ph: 617-3374 2260 Fax: 617 3878 1252 Email:

CENTER OF EXCELLENCE 31. Ms. Ellen Lynch

Center of Excellence MCPA-DM PRMC 1 Jarrett White Road Tripler AMC, HI 96859-5000 Ph: 1-808-433 7035 Fax: 1-808-433 1757 Email: [email protected] COMMUNITY SAFETY TRAINING CONSULTANCIES (CSTC) 32. Mr. Tony Madigan

Community Safety Training Consultancies P.O. Box 30 Newport, Victoria 3015 Australia Ph: 613-9391 3157 Fax: 613-9391 3156 Email: [email protected]

DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PACIFIC (DFID) 33. Ms. Jackie Creighton

Head DFID Pacific Private Mail Bag Suva, Fiji Ph: 679-301744 Fax: 679-301218 Email: [email protected]

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA (EMA) 34. Mr. Alan Hodges

Director General EMA Chair, Australian IDNDR Coordination Committee P.O. Box 1020 Dickson ACT 2602 Australia Ph: 61 26 266 5183 Fax: 61 26 257 7665

73

Email: [email protected] 35. Mr. Phil Stenchion

EMA P.O. Box 1020 Dickson ACT 2602 Australia Ph: 61 26 266 5441 Fax: 61 26 257 1490 Email: [email protected]

36. Ms. Pip Marks

Manager Australian IDNDR Secretariat EMA P.O. Box 1020 Dickson ACT 2602 Australia Ph: 61 26 266 5408 Fax: 61 26 266 5029 Email: [email protected]

FOUNDATION FOR THE PEOPLES OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL 37. Ms. Kathy Fry

FSPI P.O. Box 951 Port Vila, Vanuatu Ph: 678-22915 Fax: 678-24510 Email: [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF RED CROSS (IFRC) 38. Mr. Alan Bradbury

Regional Disaster Preparedness Delegate International Federation of Red Cross P.O. Box 2507 Suva, Fiji Ph: 679 311855 Fax: 679- 311406 Email: [email protected]

JAPAN MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER (JAMSTEC)

39. Dr. Kazuhiro Kitazawa JAMSTEC 2-15 Natsushima Yokosuka 237-0061 Japan Ph: 81-468 67 3923 Fax:81-468 66 3061 Email: [email protected]

JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY .40. Ms. Linda Berry

James Cook University Centre for Disaster Studies James Cook University of North Qld. Cairns Campus P.O. Box 6811 Brisbane Australia Ph 617 40 421 215 Fax: 617 40 421 214 Email: [email protected]

MASSEY UNIVERSITY 41. Dr. Shane Cronin

Institute of Natural Resources Massey University Private Bag 11-222 Palmerston North New Zealand Ph: 64-6 356 9099

Fax: 64-6 350 5632 Email: [email protected] NEW ZEALAND EMBASSY 42. Ms. Isabel Calvert

First Secretary New Zealand Embassy P.O. Box 1378 Suva, Fiji Ph: 679- 311422 Fax: 679-300842

74

Email: [email protected] OVERSEAS SERVICE BUREAU 43. Mr. Robert Mister

Project Manager Pacific and Africa Projects Unit P.O. Box 350 Fitzroy, VIC 3065 Australia Ph: 613 9279 1788 Fax: 613 9419 1098 Email: [email protected]

SOUTH PACIFIC APPLIED GEOSCIENCE COMMISSION (SOPAC) 44. Mr. Alf Simpson

Director SOPAC Private Mail Bag Suva, Fiji Ph: 679 381377 Fax: 679 370040 Email: [email protected]

45. Dr. Russell Howorth

Program Manager SOPAC Private Mail Bag Suva, Fiji Ph: 679 381377 Fax: 679 370040 Email: [email protected]

46. Dr. Graham Shorten

Coastal Engineering Geologist SOPAC Hazard Assessment Unit Private Mail Bag Suva, Fiji Ph: 679 381377 Fax: 679 370040 Email: [email protected]

47. Les Allinson Information Technology Manager

Information Technology Unit SOPAC Private Mail Bag Suva Ph: 679-381377 Fax: 679-370040 Email: [email protected] 48. Dr. Wolf Forstreuter GIS Remote Sensing Specialist Information Technology Unit SOPAC Private Mail Bag Suva, Fiji Ph: 679-381377 Fax: 679-370040 Email: [email protected] 49. Mr. David Scott

Water Resouce Unit SOPAC Private Mail Bag Suva, Fiji Ph: 679-381377 Fax: 679-370040 Email: [email protected]

50. Mr. Andrew Butcher

Human Resources Development SOPAC Private Mail Bag Suva Ph: 679-381377 Fax: 679-370040 Email: [email protected]

SECRETARIAT OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY 52. Mr. Ian Rolls

Pacific Community Private Mail Bag Suva Ph: 679-370733 Fax: 679-370021 Email: [email protected]

53. Dr. Peter Saville

75

Animal Health Adviser Pacific Community Private Mail Bag Suva Ph: 679-370733 Fax: 679-370021 Email: [email protected]

TROPICAL CYCLONE WARNING UPGRADE PROJECT (TCWUP) 51. Mr. Neville Koop

Project Coordinator EU Cyclone Warning System Upgrade Project c/- Fiji Meteorological Service Private Mail Bag Nadi Airport, Fiji Ph: 679 724888 Fax: 679 720430 Email: [email protected]

PARLIAMENT 54. Dr. Wadan Narsey, MP

Office of the Opposition Opposition Spokesman Economics & Finance

Fiji Parliament Suva, Fiji

Ph: 679-305811 Fax: 679-305317

UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO 55. Dr. John Campbell

Geography Department University of Waikato Te Whare Wananga o Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton NEW ZEALAND Ph: 647-8562889

Fax: 647-8562158 Email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT/ OFFICE FOR FOREIGN DISASTER ASSISTANCE (USAID/OFDA) 56. Ms. Joanne Burke

Field Adviser South Pacific & Asia USAID/OFDA 275 Aurora Avenue Davis, California 95616 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ph: 1 530 758 6709 Fax: 1 530 750 2925 Email: [email protected]

57. Mr. Charles Setchell, AICP

Urban Planning and Urban Disaster Mitigation Specialist U.S. Agency for International Development BHR/OFDA/PMPP, 8.07.095, RRB 1300 Pennsylavania Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20523 United States of America Ph: 1-202-712 0281 Fax: 1-202-216 3707 Email: [email protected]

UNITED NATIONS

IDNDR, Geneva 58. Mr. Francesco Pisano

IDNDR Secretariat United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

76

Palais des Nations CH1211, Geneva 10 SWITZERLAND Ph: 4122-733 8869 Fax: 4122-788 0391 Email: [email protected]

UNDP, Suva 59. Mr. Shahrokh Mohammadi

Deputy Resident Representative UNDP Private Mail Bag Suva, FIJI Ph: 679 312500 Fax: 679 301718 Email: [email protected]

UNDP, Samoa 60. Mr. Fiu Mataese Elisara Laulu

Assistant Resident Representative UNDP Private Mail Bag, Apia, Samoa Ph: 685-23670, 23671, 23672 Fax: 685-23555 Email: [email protected]

UNDMP-SPO 61. Mr. Joseph Chung

Chief Technical Adviser UN Disaster Management Programme (South Pacific Office) c/- UNDP Private Mail Bag Suva, Fiji Ph: 679 303239 Fax: 679 304942 Email: [email protected]

62. Mr. Atu Kaloumaira

Disaster Mitigation Adviser Disaster Management Programme South Pacific Office c/- UNDP Private Mail Bag Suva, Fiji Ph: 679 303239

77

Fax: 679 304942 Email: [email protected]

63. Mr. Joeli Rokovada

Training Assistant Disaster Management Programme South Pacific Office c/- UNDP Private Mail Bag Suva, Fiji Ph: 679 303239 Fax: 679 304942 Email: [email protected]

64. Ms. Angelika Planitz

Associate Expert Disaster Management Programme South Pacific Office c/- UNDP Private Mail Bag Suva, Fiji Ph: 679 312500 Fax: 679 301718 Email: [email protected]

78

ANNEX F

MEETING AGENDA

THEME: Partnership in National Disaster Management Programme

WEDNESDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 1998

Opening Session: 08:00 - 09:30 Welcome & Opening Prayer Opening Comments:

• IDNDR Australia Coordination Committee - Alan Hodges, Chairman, Canberra • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – Shahrokh Mohammadi,

Deputy Resident Representative, Suva Keynote Address:

• IDNDR Secretariat – Franceso Pisano, Secretary, Scientific and Technical Committee for IDNDR, Geneva

Official Opening: • Fiji – Hon. Mesake E. Baisagale, Assistant Minister for Regional Development

and Multi-Ethnic Affairs Official Photograph 09:30 - 10:00 Morning Tea

Session One: 10:00 - 10:30 • Election of Chairperson - Alan Hodges, Chairman, IDNDR Australia

• Review of Recommendations and Actions of 1997 IDNDR Meeting – Phil Stenchion, EMA, Australia

• Adoption of 1997 Conference Report - Chair • Introduction and Adoption of 1998 Meeting Agenda - Atu Kaloumaira, SPDRP

Session Two: 10:30 - 11:30 Presentations by SPDRP Partner Organisations:

• UNDP’s New Role in Disaster Management - John Rogge, Programme Manager, UNDP Disaster Management Programme, Geneva

• The Future of SPDRP within SOPAC - Alfred Simpson, Director, SOPAC, Suva • Partnership with Donor Agencies: The AusAID Perspective – John Davidson,

Counsellor, Australian High Commission,Suva • New Zealand's Funding Priorities in Disaster Management - Isabel Calvert, First

Secretary, New Zealand High Commission, Suva Session Three: 11:30 - 13:00 • Implementation Overview on SPDRP II & 1999 Work Programme - Angelika

Planitz, SPDRP • Briefings on National Programmes and Implementation Strategies – Heads of

National Disaster Management Offices (in alphabetical order): Cook Islands; Fiji Islands; Federated States of Micronesia; Kiribati; Marshall Islands; Niue;

79

Papua New Guinea 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch 14:00 - 15:00 • Briefings on National Programmes and Implementation Strategies continued - Heads

of Disaster Management Offices: Palau; Samoa; Solomon Islands; Tonga; Tuvalu; Vanuatu

15:00 - 15:30 Afternoon Tea Session Four:

15:30 - 16:45

Agency Perspectives on Partnership in National Disaster Management Programme: Regional Community Organisations : Effective Outreaching to the Community Level and Partnership with Government • Pacific Island Association of NGOs (PIANGO) – Robert Mister OSB,Australia • Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (FSP) - Kathy Fry, Regional

Manager, Vanuatu • International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) - Alan

Bradbury, Regional Disaster Preparedness Delegate, Suva 16:45 - 17:00 Round-up Discussion for the Day OPTIONAL SESSION VIDEO PRESENTATION, AITAPE TSUNAMI

– Phil Stenchion, EMA, Australia THURSDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 1998

Session Four (continued): 08:00–10:00

Agency Perspectives on Partnership in National Disaster Management Programme: Training and Human Resource Development • In-country Activities of Emergency Management Australia (EMA) - Alan Hodges,

Director General, EMA, Canberra • Accessing Training Resources - Joanne Burke, Field Advisor, Office of US

Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), USA • Academically Accredited Courses in Disaster Management – Tony

Madigan,Community Safety Training and Consultancies • Capacitating with “Pacific Coastal Communities Project" - Graham Shorten,

Coastal Engineering Geologist, SOPAC Information Management • Media and the Community – Ian Rolls, Secretariat for the Pacific Community,

Suva • Information Technology & Exchange – Ellen Lynch, Center of Excellence, Hawaii • Web Site for Disaster Information – Peter Saville, Pacific Community, Suva

10:00 - 10:30 Morning Tea 10:30 –12:00

• GIS and Remote Sensing Applied in Disaster Management – Wolf Forstreuter, Information Technology Unit, SOPAC

• Development of Disaster Management Information System - Les Allinson, Information Technology Unit , SOPAC

80

Natural Hazards • Upgrading Tropical Cyclone Warning Systems - Neville Koop, Project

Coordinator, SOPAC • The Value of ENSO Forecasts – Chip Guard, Water & Energy Research

Institute, University of Guam,USA • Water Resources Management – Dave Scott, SOPAC

Session Five: 12:00 - 13:00 Comments From Observers 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch Session Six: 14:00 - 15:00 Partnership in National Disaster Management Programme: Theme Speakers

• Principles and Applications to Consolidating Mutual Assistance in Disaster

Management Within the Pacific - John Campbell, Department of Geography, University of Waikato, New Zealand

• Politics, Policies and Practicalities of Developing Partnership Within Pacific Island Communities – Hon Dr. Wadan Narsey, Fiji.

15:00 - 15:30 Afternoon Tea Session Seven: 15:30 - 16:45 Work Group Discussions on the Partnership Theme:

• Group 1: In-country Partnerships • Group 2: Partnership with Donors • Group 3: Partnership with Technical Assistance Programmes • Group 4: Mutual Assistance within the Region

16:45 –17:30 • Reports for Work Groups 17:30 –17:45 Round up discussion FRIDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 1998 Session Eight : 08:00 - 09:30 Discuss approval of Work Plan and Budget Closing Session: 09:30– 10:00 • Conference Summary

• Next Meeting • Other Business (Evaluation Forms etc.)

• Closing Comments • Closing Prayer

10:00– 10:30 Morning Tea 10:30 - 17:00 Board Bus for Field Trip & Transfer to Suva

81

ANNEX G

Working Groups Group I Topic: In-country Partnerships Members : Shahrokh Mohammadi (UNDP, Fiji)

Pilimi A'ho (NDMO, Tonga) Job Esau (NDMO, Vanuatu) Selestino Otong (Red Cross, Palau) Pusinelli Laafai (NDMO, Tuvalu) Sifa Ioane (Mutalau Village Council, Niue) Faasala Casper (DSE, Solomon Islands) Paul Taylor (Australia Volcanological Organisation) Ian Rolls (SPC, Fiji) Charles Setchell (USAid/OFDA) Mustapha Mohammed (FCOSS, Fiji)

Facilitator : Kathy Fry (FSP, Vanuatu) Group II Topic: Partnerships with Donors Members : Peter Saville (SPC, Suva)

Randall Biliki (NDMO, Solomon Islands) Pamela Lino (TANGO, Tonga) Poasa Ravea (NDMO, Fiji) Niki Rattle (Red Cross, Cook Islands) Alan Bradbury (IFRC) Jackie Creighton (British Aid/DFID) Dr. Jack Rynn (CERA) Dr. Wadan Narsey (Fiji) Francesco Pisano (Geneva)

Facilitator : Fiu Mataese laulu (UNDP, Samoa)

82

Group III Topic: Partnerships with Technical Assistance Programs Members : Dr. Kazuhiro Kitazawa (JAMSTEC, Japan)

Akapusi Tuifagalele (NDMO, Fiji) Barton Bisiwei (VANGO, Vanuatu) Sunema Maakatui (Red Cross, Tuvalu) Alonzo Kyota (MDEO, Palau) John Sohlith (FSM) Joanne Burke (USAid/OFDA) Tony Madigan (Community Safety Training & Consultancies) Graham Shorten (SOPAC, Fiji) Ken Granger (AGSO) Shane Cronin (Massey University, New Zealand)

Facilitator : Dr. Russell Howorth (SOPAC) Group IV Topic: Mutual Assistance within the Region Members : Ellen Lynch (COE, Hawaii)

Anthony Brown (NDMO, Cook Islands) Ehson Johnson (DCO, FSM) Jone Bolaitamana (NDMO, Fiji) Ludwig Kembu (NDES, Papua New Guinea) Sakaraia Taituave (NDMO, Samoa) Robert Mister (OSB/PIANGO) Tamaseko Elesoni (DO, Niue) Neville Koop (EU Cyclone Warning System Upgrade Project) Linda Berry (James Cook University, Australia) Geoff Crane (Australia Met Bureau

Facilitator : Dr. John Campbell (University of Waikato)

83

ANNEX H

MEETING EVALUATION

The number of completed evaluation forms received was 15. A. Meeting Content In this section, you are asked to evaluate the various issues that were discussed at the meeting. Use a scale of 1 to 7 to evaluate each session of the meeting (1 = poor, 4 = average, 7 = excellent). Also, comment on how each session could be improved. Opening: Opening comments/keynote address/official opening R7 (4) 6 (5) 5 (4) 4 (1) 3 (1)

Comments: - Excellent, very appropriate - Substantive aspects treated - Couple of speakers not loud enough - Too long - Very late start was not good

Session 1: Election of Chairperson, review of recommendations and actions of 1997 IDNDR

meeting, etc. R7 (9) 6 (3) 5 (2) 2 (1)

Comments: - Fast - Maintained the tradition for host country to chair - Very appropriate - Prompt & brief with a bit of humour - Good review - Seemed disjointed; needs more comments from country delegates

Session 2: Presentations by SPDRP Partner Organisations R7 (5) 6 (5) 5 (3) 4 (1) 3 (1)

Comments: - Clear and brief - Good - A little overdone - The two presentations by SOPAC & AusAID were very informative - Some were unclear - Absence of UNDP and NZ disappointing

84

Session 3: Implementation Overview on SPDRP 2 & 1999 Work Program R7 (5) 6 (5) 5 (4) 4 (1)

Comments: - Clear and brief - Good - Good - More time needed - Most informative - Forward looking - Very good and very clear - Some confusion - Valuable and well presented real progress being made

Session4: Agency Perspectives on Partnership in National Disaster Management R7 (2) 6 (2) 5 (7) 4 (3) - (1)

Comments: - More time needed - Need to space out presentations - Nearly put us to sleep; training presentation was good - Too much time allocated - Too much detail - Not enough emphasis put on `partnership’ by some speakers - Valuable and well presented - Clear but academically argumentative - Too compact and very technical

Session 5: Other Observers and Donors R7 (2) 6 (5) 5 (3) 4 (2) 3 (1) - (2)

Comments: - Excellent - Good - Sufficient comments was given by several observers - Fair contribution - Not much input - Distantly related

Session 6: Partnership in National Disaster Management Programmes: Theme Speakers R7 (3) 6 (6) 5 (5) 4 (1)

Comments: - Interesting & enriching - Very appropriate, particularly the political speaker - Relevant - Useful insights into role of NGOs - Fair contribution - Reasonable scenarios

85

- Too compact and very technical

Session 7: Work Group discussions on the Theme R7 (7) 6 (4) 4 (2) 2 (1) - (1)

Comments: - Very open discussion - Great PIC contribution - Best part of meeting - Good discussion - Time was too short - Fair - Poorly organised

Session 8: Reports from Work Groups to plenary R7 (6) 6 (5) 4 (1) - (3)

Comments: - Great amount of information - PIC involvement - Good presentation - Fair contribution

Session 9: Conference summary and closing R7 (5) 6 (2) 4 (1) - (7)

B. Meeting Organisation 1. Meeting planning/preparation R7 (3) 6 (6) 5 (1) 4 (1) - (4)

Comments: - Had no idea about planning/preparation- basically an in-country matter - Good - Well done - Following the tradition of IDNDR meeting - No problem

2. Pre-work - Country Inputs R6 (5) Comments:

86

5 (4) 4 (2) - (4)

- Incomplete/late submission - Good - Not applicable for observers - Some not prepared - No problem

3. Information and Instruction about the meeting R7 (4) 6 (4) 5 (2) 4 (1) 3 (2) - (2)

Comments: - Very little material provided in advance. E-mail documents should be in an

easily read format. - Accommodation arrangement confusing - Appropriate and sufficient - Good - No problem

4. Meeting format R7 (4) 6 (3) 5 (5) 4 (1) 2 (1) - (1)

Comments: - Arrangement too tight - There should be at least 5 minutes break after each speaker - Adequate - Fair - No problem - Good

5. Organisation before and during meeting R7 (3) 6 (4) 5 (3) 4 (2) 2 (1) - (2)

Comments: - Hotel arrangement not good - Being the first ones to be here, we were left unattended - Fair - As usual! - No problem

6. Financial arrangements: R7 (7) 6 (2) 4 (1) - (5)

Comments: - Excellent - Very generous - keep it up - Problems when cashing cheques - No problem

87

7. Quality of facilities R7 (7) 6 (3) 5 (3) - (2)

Comments: - Good - Excellent - Not available in Tuvalu - No problems

8. Time Management R7 (1) 6 (3) 5 (1) 4 (6) 3 (1) 1 (2) - (1)

Comments: - No discipline imposed on speakers - Too rushed - Consider another extra day. Compressed presentation. - Pacific time - Long winded academics - Need more time for conference and less time for cocktail - Rushed all the time - Good except for opening ceremony

9. Duration of Meeting R7 (2) 6 (6) 5 (3) 4 (2) 3 (1) - (1)

Comments: - Too short - Start on time & finish on time - Sufficient - Far too short - Just right

10. Travel arrangements R7 (6) 6 (2) 5 (2) 3 (1) - (4)

Comments: - Made my own arrangements - Complete ticket arrangements/PTA - Very good - As long as Air Marshall flies

11. Meeting Logistics R7 (7) 6 (4) 5 (1) 4 (1) - (2)

Comments: - Excellent - Good

88

12. General administration R7 (6) 6 (6) 4 (1) - (2)

Comments: - As usual - Excellent - Very good

13. Did this meeting meet your personal expectation? Yes - 13 No - 1 First meeting, no real expectation. No comment - 1 14. Who else do you think could have been included in the meeting and why? - Very sad that our NGO did not turn up to the meeting. There should be at least two participants

from each country. - Quite pleased - We need to include our NGO rep - The very people who started this off - None, two from each country is enough 15. Session you enjoyed most - Work Group discussions (3) - All sessions (5) - Country presentations (2) - Last session (1) - No comment (4) 16. Session you did not enjoy and why - None (5) - Working Group (1) - The missing speakers’paper (1) - No comment (8) 17. Aspects of the meeting that you want to see again in future - No comments (6) - In-country reports & implementation overview on SPDRP 2 (1) - Work group discussions & report to plenary (5) - Country presentation (1) - Donor presentation, but good selection (1) - Extend timing for sessions (1) 18. Was it useful to have a theme for the meeting? Please explain.

89

- Yes (13 - No comment (2) - To know what the meeting is all about - General information and awareness of goal - Provides a goal to aim for - Kept the meeting on focus, though some presentations missed this - Good theme; we need to work in partnership - Focus is indispensable to sensible conclusions 19. How relevant were the presentations/overall meeting discussions to the the me? - Quite relevant - Less than expected (for country presentations). With no concrete recommendation for partnership in

the future (for agency presentation) - For the first time in this annual meeting, I found the presentations were all relevant to the meeting - Probably less than half actually addressed the theme in more than a token way - Excellent presentations - Some presentations interesting but not relevant - Some were relevant, others not – a mixed bag - Several of the speakers’ talks were really commercials for that person’s organisation own end. They

were not really directed at the meeting theme, and only used the word `PARTNERSHIP’ to justify their talk.

- Consequently, a significant part of the meeting was swarmed by these singular talks - Very good - No comment (2) 20. Identify specific needs (regional/sub-regional) you want included in future meeting - Go back to at least 3 days meeting where there is one day for technical presentations - Continue to include some political comment - Proper consideration of recommendations by delegates at the meeting - We need to look at our own programme and then communicate our specific needs to the secretariat

at a later time - Country presentation (to cover progress made, etc. - Agency reports on status of partnership - Systematic assessment of achievement since previous meeting - Program evaluation. Give priority to countries yet to implement their programs & address

constraints, etc. - Sustainability of information management system at regional and national level - Ownership of disaster management programme in countries - NGOs involvement in country programme - Group sharing on issues - More training/follow up/long term plans - Uniformity of programme activities to promote partnership as a possible theme 21. What else could be done to improve future meeting?

90

- Devote more time for country presentations/case studies - Exercise strict time management during meeting - Current format is good – well balanced between country delegates and partners - To continue to hold VISIBLE annual meetings in the tradition of IDNDR, also beyond year 2,000 - For new people, need to clarify procedures and processes regarding project proposals, country

programme implementation, disaster programme management, etc - Better programming to ensure that agenda can accommodate presentations/discussions - Chair to strictly exercise time management - More technical/expertise involvement in presentations - Allow for more group work/discussions and cut down on individual presentations - Attend to meeting recommendations - Allow host country to have more delegates, at least 4 and the rest 2 22. Suggestions and additional comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the meeting - Lack of trust between agencies and donors - Meeting room arrangement unsatisfactory due to projectors and screen position - Certain problems should be discussed outside the meeting room - Presentations/discussions done in a rush due to lack of time - Dialogue between delegates, secretariat and donors - Opportunity for all stakeholders to meet, talk/know each other, share experience and to maintain

future contact - Too many lectures - Not getting all papers from speakers - Report from meeting should be available as soon as possible after the meeting - A specific stand alone declaration should be issued at every meeting, to increase political visibility

and attract the media - Not enough time given to country delegates and too much time given to outside agencies - The theme was good - Bonding of all countries through the IDNDR Partnership - Work group discussions to be held during early part of meeting to ensure the recommendations are

thoroughly discussed and given proper attention - Strong point of meeting was the continued open interaction/dialogue between all the people formally

in the meeting and socially. 23. Taking everything into account, overall, how do you rate this meeting?

A rating of 1 indicates poor, 4 is average and 7 is excellent

R7 (4) 6 (8) 5 (1) 4 (1) - (1)

91

ANNEX J

RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE JOINT METEOROLOGIST AND DISASTER MANAGERS WORKSHOP

Nadi, Fiji 21-22 September 1998

Regarding the EMWIN System 1. A regional mechanism be either established or identified to co-ordinate the development of EMWIN in

the region, including the identification and delivery of relevant country information for inclusion within the EMWIN database.

2. EMWIN user training be provided to NDMOs and selected key disaster management and emergency response officials from each recipient country. It is suggested that an initial regional EMWIN workshop be convened as soon as possible following the completion of the installation. Following the regional workshop, in-country training should be provided for each country. Further training incorporated within an overall skills development course to enhance operational decision-making would provide additional benefits to the region.

3. UNDHA – SPPO be included as a priority for the installation of an EMWIN system. This would enhance the ongoing development of EMWIN within the region. The pager alerting facility would provide a viable solution to the problems associated with out of hours contact.

4. The United States National Weather Services (USNWS) are encouraged to consider how the EMWIN broadcast might be extended to the Western Pacific in order to ensure countries in this region have access to EMWIN data. When appropriate, countries in this region should become involved in EMWIN installation and training as is currently proposed for the Eastern and Central Pacific.

5. The region would benefit from any arrangements to provide two-way communication via EMWIN, and all organisations and institutions which may be able to facilitate this are encouraged to investigate the possibilities for providing this additional capacity within the present EMWIN system.

Regarding Regional Systems 1. RSMC Nadi and UNDHA – SPPO take action to establish formal operational procedures, including

pre-warning briefings on developing weather systems and direct out-of-hours personal home contact to provide UNDHA officials with maximum lead time for their own response role. These liaison procedures should include the relay of regional support advices from Wellington, Brisbane and Honolulu warning centres. The procedures should in particular provide early advice to UNDHA where there is more than one cyclone active in the region or more than one country simultaneously threatened. The formal procedures might also include the option of the establishment of an emergency management liaison officer system within Nadi RSMC once a cyclone warning has been issued, to provide the link to emergency response officials in the countries under threat, if it is considered necessary.

2. Investigations be undertaken into the value of establishing formal operational procedures to utilise the facilities of National Surveillance Centres (NSC) to enhance regional communication links during the threat of a cyclone. The Fiji NSC in Suva might be set up as a regional communications headquarters.

3. The South Pacific Applied Geo-Sciences Commission (SOPAC) Disaster Reduction Unit (DRU) be

92

invited to participate in future sessions of the Regional Association V Tropical Cyclone Committee to support the views of disaster management agencies from member countries in the region.

4. The regional meteorologists/disaster managers meetings be convened annually in conjunction with either the annual session of Disaster Managers or the annual meeting of Regional Meteorological Service Directors, whichever is the most convenient. The importance of submitting recommendations to the sessions of the relevant regional organisations should be considered when considering the timing of the meeting.

Regarding National Systems 1. Guidelines be developed to assist national officials in NDMOs and National Meteorological Services to

develop effective operational procedures that will enhance the formal and informal arrangements between the two services during operational and non operational periods, particularly pre-cyclone season preparedness activities and public awareness programmes. Each country should ensure that the operating procedures prepared are compatible with their national disaster plan and reflect their national circumstances.

2. Within the operational procedures for tropical cyclones, consideration be given to the establishment of an emergency management liaison officer system within national meteorological services once a cyclone warning has been issued to provide the link to emergency response officials. This system would be similar to that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hurricane Liaison Team at the Miami National Hurricane Centre in the US.

3. Funding support be provided to assist countries in the establishment of direct telephone or radio linkages between the National Disaster Management Office, the National Emergency Operation Centre and the Meteorological Service, and that further support be provided to lobby national Telecom services regarding the use of the direct link on a “free during emergencies” basis or other concession rate.

4. Consideration be given to expanding cyclone warning messages issued by national meteorological services to include community preparedness information as determined by the emergency management officials, and, if appropriate, formal arrangements to facilitate this process be included within the operating procedures governing the exchange and broadcasting of information.

5. Where appropriate national weather services should introduce the concept of abbreviated warning messages as a strategy to overcome the delay in dissemination of warnings owing to localisation problems such as time taken to translate and disseminate warnings. A proforma could be developed to standardise the structure of these messages.

6. A training course be designed to improve the knowledge and skills of all people involved in the complete warning system, particularly the roles, responsibilities and constraints of the respective services. This training should also aim to improve operational decision making skills through specific simulated exercise scenarios. Instruction on the EMWIN system should also be incorporated within this training. Existing training resources developed for the region could be used or adapted for this purpose.

7. Media information kits be designed, developed and disseminated to the countries of the region. These kits should include guidelines to assist the media with the development of internal operational procedures.

8. Guidelines be developed to assist the countries of the region in the design and conduct of briefing (pre impact) and debriefing (post impact/operation) sessions.

9. SPDRP II to undertake training to support the development of more comprehensive education and awareness programmes which also include the use of pre-recorded messages and information broadcasts.