Case Studies on the Facilitation and Regulation of International Disaster Relief: Offers and Requests for Assistance

International Guidelines and Commitments UN GA Res 46/182 Humanitarian assistance should be provided with the consent of the affected country and in principle on the basis of an appeal by the affected country. IDRL Guidelines: If an affected state determines that a disaster situation exceeds national coping capacities, it should seek international and/or regional assistance to address the needs of affected persons Model Act for the Facilitation and Regulation of International Disaster Relief and Initial Recovery Assistance PM/President may request international disaster assistance – generalised request or directed to specific international actors. Shall be accompanied by information on the type of assistance required, and on the procedures for making offers / providing assistance

Year Emergency Country Government Response 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Indonesia Government declared Aceh ‘open’ to international assistance and requested the UN to coordinate 2005 Kashmir earthquake Pakistan Government requested international assistance 2006 Java earthquake No formal request; Government welcomed assistance and made specific requests to a number of partners 2007 Cyclone Sidr Bangladesh No formal request for international assistance 2008 Cyclone Nargis Myanmar No request; Government imposed significant restrictions on humanitarian access Sichuan earthquake China Welcomed but did not request international assistance. 2009 Sumatra earthquake Typhoon Ketsana Philippines Formally requested international assistance 2010 Monsoon floods No request for international assistance 2011 Thailand Welcomed but did not request international assistance. Government departments made their own specific requests. Tropical Storm Washi Formally accepted the offer of assistance made by the UN on behalf of the international community. 2012 Typhoon Bopha

Implications for International Response where no request for assistance Many donors have policies stating that assistance will be provided on the basis of a request/appeal Traditionally, no request for assistance = no ‘activation of the humanitarian system’ (HCT, UNDAC, clusters, financing etc) Increasingly, national governments are empowered to select only parts of the system, but the system still adapting to this new way of working. Ambiguities regarding the role of these tools and services in the absence of a generalised request for assistance

Thailand/Cambodia Floods 2011 International assistance welcomed but not requested Some frustration amongst international actors: “every meeting, there was a sense that our hands were tied, that we could only do so much.” Requests at ministerial / departmental level, but these didn’t amount to an ‘appeal for assistance’ in the sense of Res 46/182. “The Thai Government said that they welcome assistance but many agencies do not work that way.’ Many agencies provided assistance, based on bilateral negotiations, existing partnerships, diversion of country office budgets or own agency ERFs. But the absence of a formal appeal had significant implications for international humanitarian financing and coordination.

Thailand/Cambodia Floods 2011 Humanitarian Coordination HCT informally activated, ‘purposefully adopted a low-key approach’. Regarded as useful, but slow to get started. Informal clusters: also regarding as serving useful purpose, also slow to get started. Cambodia Formal activation of the humanitarian system not seen as required. Ambiguities regarding coordinating role of NCDM in the absence of a formal request for assistance. Eventually WFP/NGOs began convening inter-agency coordination meetings – but not until three weeks into disaster.

Case Study: Philippines Year Disaster Government Response International response 2009 Typhoon Ketsana Formal request for international assistance. International appeal; humanitarian coordination mechanisms utilised 2011 Tropical Storm Washi Govt did not request but formally accepted international assistance 2012 Luzon Floods No request for assistance; but govt departments made specific requests to international agencies No appeal; international agencies already in country provided assistance based on specific requests Typhoon Bopha 2013 Typhoon Haiyan

What distinguishes the Philippines? Humanitarian infrastructure (clusters, HCT etc) already there, obviating the need to consider ‘trigger’ for activation Humanitarian architecture to a large extent institutionalised within govt systems

Vanuatu: Cyclone Pam Public, generalised appeal for international assistance Flood of new agencies, low awareness regarding national laws, procedures, structures Disaster Act not adhered to (nor enforced) Huge pressure on national coordination structures Disaster Act: international agencies wishing to provide assistance much channel their interest through the MFA

Conclusion Disconnect between international guidelines and policies regarding offers/requests, and national practice. UNGA Res and many donor policies assume a generalised appeal, when often this is not the case Sometimes also a disconnect between national laws/policies and national practice And sometimes laws and policies are in place, but neither adhered to, nor enforced (Vanuatu).

Looking ahead… International actors should review guidelines & procedures for compatibility with national practices regarding requests for international assistance. National laws/policies should describe the process for offers/requests that fit with national practice Much greater awareness needed amongst international actors regarding national laws/policies for international assistance. ‘Guide for international responders’ on national systems and structures? International community needs to affirm commitment to work with & support national systems – remove the assumption in many international humanitarian documents that international actors will be in the lead.

rebecca.barber@savethechildren.org.au