While the eCentre’s strength lies in its network of partners and resources worldwide, it also maintains a small secretariat that coordinates and implements its activities.  The eCentre Secretariat is located within the UNHCR Representation in Tokyo, Japan and is headed by a Regional Training Coordinator, a UNHCR staff member.  In addition to coordinating the eCentre’s training activities, the Regional Training Coordinator acts as an advisor on matters relating to emergency and security preparedness in the region, with a view to strengthening collaboration among the network or responders to humanitarian emergencies. The eCentre Secretariat is further supported by a consultant in Tokyo and an administrative assistant Bangkok.

From the eCentre Coordinator

Challenges to Effective Emergency Preparedness and Response in the Asia-Pacific Region

Panelist Speaking Notes of the eCentre Coordinator for the Strengthening Emergency Preparedness and Response in the Asia-Pacific Region Symposium, 10 June 2010, Tokyo, Japan

I will begin with a bit of a paradox.  The full title of the eCentre is the Regional Centre for Emergency Training in International Humanitarian Response--but we are not an emergency activity.  As eCentre Coordinator for the past four years I have contributed to many emergency response training, contingency planning and similar activities--but in fact what I was doing could not be called emergency response.  What we do does not put food in the hands of hungry people, or a roof over the head of the displaced.  Rather, it develops the capacity of others to do so more ably and professionally in future emergencies.  It does not fix an urgent need short-term need; rather, it contributes to building a more effective response in the long term.  Strengthening preparedness for emergencies, contradictory though it may seem at first, is not an emergency activity at all; it is a development activity.  This I think is an important message for those who might see in emergency preparedness the word “emergency” and imagine something short-term and by extension short-sighted; quite the opposite, it is a long term measure that adds to the resiliency and stability of the region. 

Because time is short I would like to focus my comments this afternoon on one challenge to effective emergency response that I see in my function as eCentre Coordinator, and what the eCentre is doing to address this.  The area is understanding and acceptance of international emergency standards, particularly as they apply to the areas of protection and human rights.  I think this is particularly important as these are a key to an effective response, and to upholding the concept of human security which can be at risk in emergencies. 

When I speak of International Standards I am sure that the emergency managers in the room will understand what I am talking about, but because not all others might, I would like to give you a concrete example.  Imagine a disaster occurs, say an earthquake; people are displaced, response organizations mobilize.  There is intense activity as assessments are made, initial supplies are delivered, and after a certain threshold is passed we declare that we are past the emergency phase.  Now the inevitable question comes: was our response a success?  To this, the responders will almost invariably reply yes.  But on what do they base their judgement?  Yes, we may have delivered many supplies, but were they enough, or the right goods, or did they reach the people who needed them most?  Often, when you ask the same question about success to the affected people, the response is quite different. 

At this point you may be asking, how do I know this if I haven’t been doing emergency response for the past four years!  The answer is that I see this regularly in the training that the eCentre conducts.  eCentre training tends to be very active, and typically we will start with an exercise that exposes people to the complexity of an emergency situation, with multiple responders trying to meet the needs of affected people.  Afterward we evaluate our own success.  Usually the responders give a glowing appraisal; we delivered so many relief supplies, etc.  The view of the affected people, however, is often completely different.  The disparity in the assessment of the two is often very revealing.  So who is right?

The way to approach the answer is through standards—standards based on international legal instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention, and made operational by documents like the Sphere Guidelines and UNHCR Emergency Handbook.  If you had time to stop at the eCentre display just outside the auditorium you will have seen examples of just such emergency standards, in areas like food and nutrition, water and sanitation, security management, and others. 

So, what is not to like about clear emergency standards?  Well, for many, nothing at all; in many cases the problem is simply a lack of awareness and exposure; many professionals welcome standards as a tool to help them be more effective in their work. 

However, for countries whose resources are limited, standards can be a source of anxiety.  They seem to risk laying bare the gap between what would be wished for and what capabilities on the ground actually allow.  We seek to replace this fear with another paradigm.  Standards can be a powerful planning tool for responders struggling to prioritize and quantify needs.  They can be a tool of advocacy as well—donors will fund to standards!  In short, standards are the friend of the professional, as they help clarify expectations, communicate requirements and evaluate results.  Our preferred method for achieving this paradigm shift is not through lectures, but rather through interactive exercises that allow participants to use the standards in a realistic setting and see how they can be an effective tool for them. 

It is one thing when the standards we are discussing are purely technical.  However, the matter can be quite different when the standards concern protection of human rights.  When the standard is, for example, that a refugee should never be forced to return to the country where they feel fear, this can stir controversy.  Or that women, men, girls and boys have different needs and those differences should be addressed systematically.  These issues can be sensitive in some settings, with some audiences.  Some governments have a limited acceptance for discussion of these subjects, seeing them as foreign importations, at odds with local values.  Some tend to see refugees and other disaster-affected people through a lens of state security; as such, input from rights-based agencies can be seen as a challenge to sovereignty.  These attitudes can have a large impact on the quality of response, and on human security in emergencies.

In facing this, the eCentre has found Disaster Management a useful entry point.  The Asia-Pacific region is one of the world’s most disaster-affected regions, and governments are eager to build capacity to respond to these hazards.  While UNHCR’s traditional focus is on man-made disasters, there are many common threads: contingency planning, emergency assessment, meeting needs of displaced persons and coordination among others.  Sharing expertise in these common areas without strings attached builds both capacities and trust.  And ultimately, a discussion about standards of shelter or sanitation in a disaster is a discussion of human rights by other words, and improved coordination will lead to more concerted response in the next emergency, regardless of its provenance. 

What is more, we have seen that this approach can build trust and open space to raise more sensitive subjects.  In South Asia, the eCentre has for four years now partnered with disaster managers of the nine countries South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, or SAARC, in organizing discussions of standards in emergency and disaster management.  In the beginning partners were cautious, but in the last few years they have requested sessions on gender issues in emergencies and human rights in disasters, something unthinkable at the outset.  The human rights session was co-presented by UNHCR and India’s National Human Rights Commission, who presented draft legislation it is developing to support national disaster planning. 

In sum, raising emergency standards, particularly where they concern protection and human rights can have a positive affect on the response received by affected people, and improved response ultimately increases the stability and resiliency of the region.  Thanks to the help of its supporters the Government of Japan and the Government of Australia, and partner JICA, I believe the eCentre has been able to make a contribution in this area, and I hope it will continue to do so in years to come. 

I will end by posing three questions.  First, given that promoting a standards-based approach can strengthen emergency response, what more should we be doing?  By we, I don’t mean the eCentre alone, but many other partners who share UNHCR’s commitment to achieving better response.  Second, how can we make the impact of what we are doing concrete, more results-based, more lasting?  Finally, the question I am most often asked by those from outside the region: why is there only an eCentre for Asia?  How can similar capacity development opportunities be brought to other regions with equally great needs?  I will end on these questions, thank you for your attention.

Life-or-Death Negotiation at the Border of Suremia

UNHCR eCentre Training in Responding to Refugee Emergencies Offers for Lessons for Peacebuilders as well

Fleeing from persecution in their home country of “Mardon,” Wachira and his family have reached the border of neighboring “Suremia.”  But there they have been stopped by Suremian border guards who may prevent them from entering the country.  The fate of Wachira and his family hinges on the efforts of a small team of humanitarian workers, who must negotiate with officials for safe access and asylum for these refugees.

Refugees fleeing persecution in their home country may be denied asylum unless humanitarian workers can intervene to resolve the situation, in a training simulation organized by the UNHCR eCentre with support from the Royal Thai Army in Pran Buri, Thailand.

Although sadly this drama is enacted for real in many parts of the world, Wachira’s story, like Mardon and Suremia, are fictitious.  They are part of a realistic simulation run by the Tokyo-based UNHCR Regional Centre for Emergency Training in International Humanitarian Response, or eCentre, in its humanitarian response training workshops held in Pran Buri, Thailand.  In simulations supported by the Royal Thai Army and over 100 “actors,” workshop participants, humanitarian workers from over 40 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, will have to use quick thinking, understanding of international standards and good negotiation skills to resolve the situation.

This humanitarian worker will need good listening and negotiating skills to ensure that refugees’ basic rights are respected.

It should come as no surprise that eCentre training emphasizes responding to refugee emergencies.  After all, ensuring the right to asylum of people fleeing persecution and war, and preventing their forcible return to the place where they feel afraid, are at the core of UNHCR’s humanitarian mandate. 

What might not be expected, however, is that the same scenario can be found in training offered by the UN Department of Peacekeeping for high-ranking peacebuilders.  In 2004, when UNDPKO sought to develop a course for senior staff deploying to post-conflict areas, they turned to UNHCR to create a module on humanitarian assistance.  eCentre staff undertook the development of the module, providing cases from real experiences involving refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in post-conflict situations.  This training is used today to help prepare senior peacebuilders to face the complex challenges of today’s “multidimensional” peacebuilding environment.

But why do peacebuilders need to know about issues of forced displacement?  Isn’t this a “humanitarian” problem, handled by “specialized” agencies like UNHCR? 
Humanitarian problems are invariably linked to political conflict and instability, and addressing them effectively supports the broader objectives of preventing the reoccurrence of conflict and peacebuilding. 

Specifically, the safe and sustainable return of refugees and IDPs plays a vital role in achieving the broader goals of preventing the reoccurrence of conflict and building a lasting peace.  Significant UNHCR repatriation efforts have recently worked alongside and cooperated with peacebuilding efforts in Afghanistan, the Balkans, Burundi, East Timor, Liberia and Sierra Leone.  While ensuring the conditions for return with safety and dignity is fundamentally a responsibility of the host government, peacebuilders are often a part of the solution through presence, liaison, monitoring, reporting of problems, capacity building, logistics and infrastructure support, and other activities.  

Another important issue of mutual concern is maintaining the civilian character of refugee and IDP settlements and camps.  The presence of armed elements in camps can increase the risk of attacks from the country of origin, fuel tensions with the local community, lead to recruitment of refugees and endanger staff safety.  Again, separating armed elements is fundamentally a government responsibility, but humanitarian and peacebuilding actors alike may assist through monitoring, training, advising, reporting and other supporting activities.

Finally, because unstable countries are found in unstable regions, even those working in a post-conflict environment cannot exclude the possibility of an influx of refugees from a neighboring country.   This lesson has been underscored in recent experiences in the Balkans, West Africa, Central Africa and the Middle East.  Such a situation, however unwanted, may jeopardize hard-earned gains in building peace if not successfully handled.

The refugees will be granted asylum for the time being, but further negotiations will be needed to ensure their safety and basic rights.

On the Suremia border our humanitarian team has persuaded border authorities to grant the refugees temporary asylum pending further instructions from their headquarters.  While more negotiations will be needed at the capital, Wachira and his family will sleep safely tonight.  Respect for human rights and international law have been preserved, and this will reinforce overall efforts for peace and stability in Suremia.  Most important, future aid workers and peacebuilders, whether undergoing training with the eCentre or DPKO, will leave with a better appreciation of the need to balance immediate humanitarian needs and long-term peacebuilding strategies.  In this way, people facing Wachira’s plight for real can hope to enjoy life and liberty today, and lasting peace and stability tomorrow.

Lesson number one: the person who coined the saying that getting there is half the fun probably wasn’t clinging to the side of a farm tractor grinding its way over the 46 km of mud-soaked roads connecting the Fly River boat ramp to the East Awin refugee settlement.  That is, unless the definition of fun being used includes being splashed with muck from an oversized tractor wheel, second-degree sunburn and watching with chagrin as the refugees sharing the journey--oblivious to the hardships-- laugh and joke their way through the ride.

Lesson number two: carry lots of water--or good climbing shoes.  East Awin is a Bring-Your-Own kind of place; anti-globalizationists will be content to know there is still at least one spot that Starbucks hasn’t reached.  Or potable water, for that matter.  If, like me, you find that you have underestimated your body’s need for this precious liquid, relax: a plentiful and delicious source is available in the form of wild rambutans—at least for those with the daring and treeclimbing skills to pluck them.  Fortunately for me, there were refugees up to the task, who nimbly scaled the highest branches to produce the succulent fruit, refusing out of principle or pity to accept any payment from the hopelessly out-of-place “waitman.”

Lesson number three: “bagarap” is in no way a profanity; it is a perfectly respectable verb meaning “to ruin.”  Example: “the tractor ride did completely bagarap my clothes.”  Anyone who has read the essay by Mark Twain in which he laments the final-syllable stress of the German word “damit,” will reflect with regret on the consolation that would have been his had he only discovered Tok Pisin.

Of course, this is just a start; befitting one of the greatest regions of human diversity (over 800 different societies, 1/5 of the world’s known languages), the lessons offered by this astoundingly rich country are equally varied.  As is often the case when working around refugees, many of these come from witnessing the courage and resilience of people who have lost so much, and the sacrifices made by those who endure daily hardships to help them.

This trip also highlighted the unique versatility of the eCentre, which in two short weeks was able to support the UN Country Team through an emergency management workshop in Port Moresby, security assessments in East Awin and a contingency planning workshop in the Western Province.  The highly diverse group of participants, representing government, civil society and UN staff, appreciated the eCentre’s interactive and participatory methodology, and the contingency planning session succeeded in validating and updating response measures for a mass arrival of refugees.  The events were also notable as an effective collaboration, as the cooperation of the UNOCHA and UNHCR offices in Papua New Guinea added depth to the session contents and made the results cost-effective for all. 

The UN Country Team has expressed interest in following up these workshops with a similar event in 2008.  If the eCentre is again invited to participate, this would certainly not bagarap my schedule.  Only, about that tractor…

Michael Dell’Amico is the Coordinator of the UNHCR eCentre based in Tokyo, Japan.  The eCentre provides training for NGO, government and UN staff in the Asia-Pacific region with the goal of improving response to humanitarian emergencies.