IFRC Asia Pacific SoPs for disaster response and early recovery 2012

Why have the SoPs been developed? confusion on practical roles and responsibilities align procedures to the IFRC Secretariat decentralisation to Zones streamline decision making and improve timeliness clarify and create regularity for predictable response The AP SoPs have been developed enable the IFRC secretariat to be better position to support National Societies with regard to their disaster response and early recovery operations. In developing the SoPs the IFRC Secretariat drew on the outcomes of previous consultation processes (i.e. the 2008 DM Improvement project), evaluations and other reviews. The key areas that have been addressed through the development of the SoPs are: - The confusion on practical roles and responsibilities of different IFRC staff i.e. Management and Technical and offices i.e. country, region, zone, Geneva - The reorganization of the IFRC Secretariat based on the decentralisation of management to Zones. This also includes the zone technical units i.e. DMU working together with the Geneva and other zone units as global teams. - Emphasis on streamlining decision making to ensure clarity as well as to improve timeliness of IFRC Secretariat responses to NS requests and needs - And to clarify and create regularity for predictable response from the IFRC Secretariat within the IFRC policy, rules and procedures

Guide IFRC action and reinforce the internal procedures for IFRC Secretariat the majority of responses to disasters are within the capabilities of National Societies a single communication line between the Country Team and the Zone (global DM team) In summary the SoPs guide the IFRC Secretariat action. It is important to note that while National Societies should be aware of the Secretariat procedures, the SoPs are an internal procedures for IFRC Secretariat and all Secretariat staff are required to follow them. They further set out how the IFRC Secretariat should interact with the operating NS, partners NS, and ICRC The SoPS do not mean that the IFRC Secretariat will be come operational or impose onto the NS. The SoPs reinforce the FACT that the majority of responses to disasters are within the capabilities of National Societies. If a NS capacity is exceeded the SoPs guide the IFRC Secretariat how to mobilise complementary support. That while the entire IFRC Secretariat (country, region, zone, Geneva) are there to support an operating NS. It is important that there be a single communication line between the Country Team and the AP Zone ( who represents global DM team). The AP Zone will work with the responsible IFRC Office to mobilise the different resources.

Challenges in communication and decision making Geneva Zone Region To provide an example of the challenges faced in the past the following diagram should be presented Imagine there is a country which is facing a disaster situation. In this country there is the NS who is supported by an IFRC office. In support of this office within AP the IFRC Secretariat has offices located at the Region, Zone and Geneva. Each office is staffed with management and technical representatives that provide specific services. If needed at this point explain that Geneva provides global directions, strategy and representation, the Zone is responsible for programming across AP and has a direct role in times of disaster response and early recovery, the Region is focused on long-term programming and capacity building. In the past at the onset of a disaster the NS or the IFRC country office may have been contacted by representatives from the zone, region and Geneva. These people may have contacted a single person in the NS or Country Office, or they may have contacted many people. This situation was often overbearing and created much confusion resulting in multiple decisions and a lack of clear direction on how to support a NS and even if support was needed. within the IFRC Secretariat it was agreed that any formal decision making was to be agreed by a representative of all 4 offices i.e. decision by ‘committee’ which was often confusing and delayed. Country NS IFRC

Two tiers for disaster response Geneva Represents Secretariat or the ‘global DM team’ Leads Operations Coordination Facilitates Int’l assistance Global DM Team Zone Regional Country Team Looking to the current SoPs we need to first review the impact of the decentralization process. Within AP structures we still have country, region, zone and Geneva offices, however the IFRC Secretariat has moved towards a 2 – tiered approach where - the Zone and Geneva work as a global DM team which is represented by the Zone Office. - the regional and country offices are focused at the country level. This is automatically the country office. However where there is no country office the regional office plays the role of the country office. Note there are no longer regional functions related to disaster response. Country Office Represents IFRC or - region, zone, RDRT/FACT, PNS Any external HR joins country office Leads Operation implementation Country

Way forward within SoPs Global DM team Zone Region The SoPs represent the communication lines and decision making locations based on the 2 – tiered approach. Where you have the country team – made up of the NS and IFRC – who lead the implementation of the operation Who talk directly to the global DM team – represented by the Zone office. The regional delegation is still present, however they are contribute information and advice formally through the zone office. And informally provide support through the Head of Country Office. The Regional office does not make decisions related to the implementation or the coordination of international support. Country Team NS IFRC

Key Concepts - Country Team Comprises of a NS and IFRC representative from a NS this will be typically the Secretary General or Head of DM from the IFRC this can vary: the Country Representative or DM/Technical Delegate a representative from the DMU, Regional Office, RDRT/FACT/ERU, PNS DMU will initiate direct contact with the Country Team With in the SoPs there are a number of key concepts. The first is the concept of a country team. This concept reinforces that it is not the NS or the IFRC Secretariat who make guide operational decision making in times of international supported disaster response, but it is a process of the NS and IFRC Secretariat working together in relation to the operation. Within this concept the NS leads implementation while the IFRC Secretariat supports the NS within the its mandated function.

Key Concepts - Operations Management & Coordination Operations Management (National) The NS is the operational lead and manages the implementation The management of an operation is at the Country Level If needed IFRC supports the NS through the Country Team Operations Coordination (International) The DMU is the international lead and coordinates the facilitation of international assistance Facilitates management approval within Global team – Zone/Geneva The Zone is the contact point for NS & International Organisations, outside of the country affected The second is to clarify that Operations Management is conducted at the country level. Decision making regarding the practical implementation of an operation will not take place outside of the affected country. If additional resources i.e. HR, finance, material etc. are required they will be provided to the country, not the region or zone offices. The second is that operations coordination i.e. the decision on the type of tools and their facilitation. is undertaken at the zone office. The zone then connect in with the various offices who manage the mobilization of the tools.

Key Concepts - International Assistance International Assistance is considered any material, financial or physical assistance mobilised from outside of the affected country is considered international assistance. If a Partner National Society has a physical presence within the affected country and is able to provided assistance within the scope of their programming agreements i.e. activities of a CBDP/DRR programme, contingency allowances, pre-procured relief stock etc, this will not be considered international assistance. However if the Partner National Society mobilises additional material, financial or physical resources within the programme agreements, but from outside the affected country this will be considered international assistance The third key concept is that of International Assistance. This clarifies that in certain disasters it may be possible for a NS to be assisted by in-country partners without needing to elevate the situation to an international emergency appeal. Furthermore this concept recognizes the presence of long-term partnership and relationships that can be drawn upon for mytually beneficial outcomes. As such the clarification of what is and what is not international assistance is specified as….. see text on slide

SoP review - Process April 2010 – 2011 - within which 8 operations where reviewed A total of 93 people contributed of - 52% > 10 years experience Process included: Desk top analysis of evaluations, reports and other documents Semi-structured interviews a reference group was form to address the recommendations the DMU then actioned the reference groups recommendations Final outcome – updated version of the SoPs The SoPs were first introduced in April 2010 and all operations which have been undertaken since this time have been supported within the framework of the SoPs. As with all procedures it is important to review their application to ensure that they are relevant and support rather than hinder the achievement of our objectives. General points SoP Review period: 01/04/10 – 01/04/11 (within which 8 operations where reviewed) Review undertook: Desk top analysis of evaluations, reports and other documents In total 93 people provided feedback 52% of which has more than 10 years experience An on-line survey – to which 78 people responded The Federation Secretariat HQ in Geneva   10 (12%) The Federation Secretariat zone office 14 (19%) The Federation Secretariat regional office 4 (7%) The Federation Secretariat country office 15 (20%) The Operating National Society 4 (5%) The Participating National Society 29 (37%) Semi-structured interviews – to which 60 people participated 10 (17%) 14 (23%) 12 (20%) 16 (26%) Process for addressing the review outcomes included Initial analysis of the report which identified 33 specific points The formation of a reference group including 14 people from IFRC CO, RO, Zone, Geneva and PNS The reference group reviewed all 33 points and a collective way forward was identified The DMU then addressed the reference groups recommendations in an updated version

SoP Review key findings All respondents (93) expressed their satisfaction with the fact that the AP SOPs have been put in place 40% felt they are comprehensive and detailed 27% feel the text allows for individual interpretation 33% recommended additional provisions to processes The institution of the Country Team was well accepted.

SoP Review key findings Clarifying terminology coordinate, facilitate and support were often seen as synonyms for decision-making A related issue involves the use of the terms “shall” and “may” in SOPs Clarifying decision making decision-making powers are not clearly delegated in the AP SOPs management and technical lines of communication. criteria for international support should be clearly stipulated in the AP SOPs. criteria for triggering a request for international assistance. Clarifying wider linkages a more precise timeline for action in the procedures, specifying who is doing what at what stage. greater reference to other systems and procedures in the IFRC the request, mobilisation and briefing processes for Global tools. Key findings included: All of the interviewees have expressed their satisfaction with the fact that the AP SOPs have been put in place and bring some clarity, following a period of confusion during the IFRC decentralization process. According to the on-line survey 40% of the respondents feel that AP SOPs are comprehensive and detailed enough 27.3% think that the text of AP SOPs allows individual interpretations and 32.7% say that additional provisions are needed to further clarify the text. To facilitate adherence, organizational procedures must be unambiguous and must ensure common understanding. For example, the terms like ‘may’ have been pointed out. Some interviewees felt there is a tendency to understand the terms coordinate, facilitate and support as synonyms for decision-making, while decision-making powers are not clearly delegated in the AP SOPs A related issue involves the use of the terms “shall” and “may” in SOPs The SoPs would benefit from further clarification on management and technical lines of communication. The role of zone technical units (communications, HR, Logistics) and regional and Geneva offices as well as ICRC requires further elaboration It appears that a number of interviewees would appreciate a more precise timeline for action in the procedures, specifying who is doing what at what stage. A number of interviewees pointed out that criteria for international support should be clearly stipulated in the AP SOPs. As well as criteria for triggering a request for international assistance. There needs to be greater reference to other systems and procedures in the IFRC. Including clearer reference to the request, mobilisation and briefing processes for Global tools. The institution of the Country Team appears to be already well accepted. It facilitates closer working relations and better coordination between the International Federation and the National Society, in line with the International Federation’s responsibility to provide support and assistance to the National Society

Main points addressed Tried to maintain a short and to the point document. Work processes have been presented in 10 flow charts. Addressed language such as facilitate, may, shall Incorporated further details on regional and Geneva offices as well as ICRC Incorporated further references to other IFRC technical units, and processes Referenced decision making points as well as responsibilities Referenced processes for when a NS does not have the capacity to lead an operation implementation Main points addressed in the review: Tried to maintain a short and to the point document. Work processes have been presented in 10 flow charts. Have addressed language such as facilitate, may, shall Incorporated further details on regional and Geneva offices as well as ICRC Incorporated further references to other IFRC technical units, and processes Referenced decision making points as well as responsibilities Referenced processes for when a NS does not have the capacity to lead an operation implementation The recommendations based on these included: Keep the document short. Present the work processes graphically. Use the language that is clear and easy to understand. Share the AP SOPs widely. Acknowledge the global context and strengthen linkages with global procedures Streamline the work processes and clarify further the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders To be useful and consistent, the SOPs need to remain current. Whenever there is a relevant organizational change, SOPs should be updated and re-approved, too.

Final points - core values remain the same management and communication lines are unchanged but have been emphasised and highlighted for clarity.  the role of operational lead and international lead remain central to the process as does that of the country team, which continues to be the key platform for implementing disaster response. While the updated version 2.0 of the SoPs has seen much improvement. It is important to remember that the core values remain the same where - management and communication lines are unchanged but have been emphasised and highlighted for clarity.  - the role of operational lead and international lead remain central to the process - as does that of the country team, which continues to be the key platform for implementing disaster response. Looking to the future the SoPs will be reviewed annually on their anniversary (april each year). This will typically be an internal process, however periodically there will be an externally driven review undertaken similar to the process conducted in 2011.

IFRC Global SoPs - Global SoPs Geneva Zone Regional AP SoPs Country In addition to the AP zone updating and streamlining its working relationships in support of NS disaster response and early recovery operations through the development of the SoPs. The IFRC Secretariat is looking globally at how the Geneva and Zone based DM staff work within the ‘global DM team’. This initiative will build on and provide the overarching frame for existing SOPs for global tools and Zone level SOPs for disaster response. In addition, it will further develop the framework for designating roles and responsibilities between Geneva and Zone offices that the Senior Management Team (SMT) agreed on November 2010, in those aspects pertaining to disaster response. The development of Global SOPs for disaster response complements other initiatives in the Secretariat, such as the Business Processes Improvement Initiative (BPII) and the development of a Disaster Management Strategic Operating Framework (DM-SOF). It will contribute to advancing Strategic Aim 1 (save lives, protect livelihoods, and strengthen recovery from disasters and crisis) and Enabling Action 3 (function effectively as the IFRC) of Strategy 2020. To clarify the relationship between the global and AP SoPs. It is important to understand that the AP SoPs guide how the IFRC Secretariat works together within AP. While the global SoPs define how the IFRC Secretariat works within the ‘global DM’ team, i.e. Geneva and Zones. Country