Emergency Response Preparedness Approach

Transcription

1 Emergency Response Preparedness Approach Background Inter-Agency Emergency Response Preparedness (ERP) is an action-oriented approach to enhance readiness for humanitarian response. The ERP approach seeks to improve effectiveness by reducing both time and effort and enhancing predictability through establishing predefined roles, responsibilities and coordination mechanisms. ERP is particularly focused on the country level. The ERP process can be applied to any emergency management/humanitarian coordination mechanism/structure. The ERP approach has three inter-related levels of planning: Joint level. This level builds the over-arching framework to guide the collective action of all potential responders, including sector/cluster groups and individual agencies. Ideally, governments would lead this. Where this is not feasible, the HCT should ensure appropriate coordination between the different stakeholders. Sector/Cluster level. 1 This level of planning is used when there is likely to be more than one agency involved in the provision of assistance in a functional area. This situation is the norm, especially as far as international responders are concerned. Whenever possible, leads of functional areas within the international response system should closely coordinate with corresponding government functional lead counterparts. A critical issue is that agreed structures used for preparedness should not change dramatically for response coordination, as this will cause confusion, waste time and possibly cost lives. Agency level. The ERP approach does not direct the form of Agency level planning and procedures. To enable and foster overall coherence, however, agency planning should be aligned with Sector/Cluster and joint planning. All three levels are closely linked, with Agency and Sector/Cluster levels supporting and, at the same time, being supported/coordinated by the Joint level. The ERP approach has four components as shown in the Diagram below: Risk Assessment and Monitoring. Providing a common understanding of potential risks and an ability to detect changes in the risk, including anticipatory warning where evidence warrants. 2 Minimum Preparedness Actions. Providing predictable minimum levels of preparedness to effectively and efficiently respond to any type of emergency ensuring continuity of operations 1 An example of a functional area might be provision of emergency shelter. For a government functional leads might be line ministries. International responders in the IASC system use the cluster or sectoral approach depending on the situation. The critical issue being that arrangements are agreed as part of preparedness. 2 Some agencies undertake a further degree of analysis at this stage, in many cases to determine capacity gaps.

2 2 through a set of standard preparedness actions. This includes an agreement on the response coordination structure tailored to the local context. Contingency Response Planning. (Note: the name of this section will be finalized based on the outcomes of the discussions surrounding response planning in the Inter-Agency Transformative Agenda). A Contingency Response Plan is developed in a coherent manner as further information on a risk and the situation becomes available. It will include identification of priority early actions to further strengthen readiness for the anticipated response and mitigate the impact based on the most likely scenario of the specific risk. 3 Once the risk materializes, a Response Plan is developed based on the Contingency Response Plan. The Response Plan is critical to inform resource mobilisation through humanitarian funding mechanisms. Standard Operating Procedures for Emergency Response for both the Joint and the sector/cluster level. These SOPs cover actions for the first 7 days after a risk evolves into a crisis. Risk Assessment and Monitoring Joint level: The first step of ERP is to assess the risks which all or part of a country's population face and which might impede, challenge or affect a humanitarian organization's capacity to provide assistance. In the absence of an international standard for risk assessment, the ERP uses a risk 3 Some agencies refer to this stage in planning in various ways, e.g. Contingency Plan, CONOPS, Emergency Readiness Plans etc.

3 3 assessment methodology adapted from DSS security risk management. (See Annex A) If available, individual agency and national risk profiles, as well as scientific research documentation and indicators that may help to better identify and monitor the evolution of the risks, should be consulted and included in the assessment. The identified risks are ranked according to their seriousness. This is a combination of foreseen impact and likelihood. 4 The expected outcome of the risk assessment is a commonly agreed Country Risk Profile, which also includes indicators and triggers to be monitored using available early warning mechanisms and tools, including the early warning element of the IASC Early Warning-Early Action process. This comprises a twice-annual Early Warning report as well as ongoing monitoring and warning. Sector/Cluster level: Sector/Cluster preparedness is based on the risks commonly agreed upon at the Joint level. This is important to avoid fragmentation and to ensure coherence in emergency preparedness within and across functions. Those responsible for leadership of a functional area should use the commonly agreed Country Risk Profile and determine how the identified risks will affect specific functional activities and actions of the sector/cluster to deliver humanitarian assistance to affected populations. Agency level: A similar approach is recommended at the individual Agency level. Minimum Preparedness Actions A list of practical Minimum Preparedness Actions (MPAs) should be implemented in order to mainstream a minimum level of emergency preparedness across potential responders in the Country. MPAs are based on a multi-hazard approach and are not risk-specific. The focus of these actions is on coordination arrangements, cross-cutting issues necessary to be addressed to ensure coherence and response readiness in any kind of emergency and continuity of operations. The process ensures that roles and responsibilities, cross cutting operation modalities and effective coordination mechanisms at the Joint level, the Sector/Cluster level and between Sectors/Clusters, are clearly defined and agreed to by the different response actors. Based on the status of the MPAs, specific activities will need to be implemented to advance the MPAs. These activities should clearly identify responsibilities, budget (if relevant), and timeframe for completion. Joint Level: At the Joint level MPAs cover 5 main areas (see Annex B): Arrangements for coordination (government, inter agency, sector/cluster, inter cluster, civ-mil) Arrangements for assessment (collation of relevant pre-crisis information and arrangements for multi-sectoral rapid assessments) Arrangements for Planning, Monitoring and Resource Mobilization 4 Once the most prominent risks are identified they are scored using a scale of 1 to 5 to reflect their perceived impact and likelihood of occurrence. Multiplying these two variables will give a product that will indicate the seriousness low, medium or high of a given risk.

4 4 Capacity Building/Training Arrangements for Information Management /Public Information Sector/Cluster level: At this level a similar list of minimum preparedness actions is identified and implemented for relevant areas of responsibility. These actions build on those at the Joint level and are specifically tailored to the requirements, structure and mandates of the specific sector/cluster. Note: We will need to identify cluster/sector MPAs or at least examples based on discussions with the cluster SWG but they will mirror some of the joint level for coordination, assessment, planning monitoring, RM, CD/training, IM but in addition, mapping of sector partners and agreement of sector standards and protocols Agency level: A similar approach is recommended at the individual Agency level. Contingency Response Planning Once a risk is anticipated as imminent because of apparent evidence, or when a specific high impact, sudden-onset event can be identified in terms of location and potential impact, a Contingency Response Plan is developed. The objective is to bring all relevant actors to an advanced level of readiness to respond to the effects of the specific risk identified. A Contingency Response Plan should be developed in a way that it can be readily and seamlessly transformed into a Response Plan when the emergency hits and it should inform resource mobilisation to ensure an effective response. 5 A suggested template for drafting the Contingency Response Plan and the Response Plan is outlined in Annex C (Note: Will need to be harmonized with final template of IA Strategic Response Plan). The evolution of plans and resourcing mechanisms is shown at Annex D. Contingency Response Plans and Response Plans should be developed at all levels of planning, with the Sector/Cluster and Agency levels supporting and, at the same time, being supported/coordinated by the Joint level. The plan will include the identification of priority early actions to be implemented to further strengthen readiness for the anticipated response (i.e. pre-positioning, training, simulation ). For some risks, particularly those deriving from slow-onset situations, there may be actions that can be taken well in advance to mitigate the effects of the emerging risk, based on anticipatory warning through the IASC Early Warning-Early Action process and related monitoring 6. Standard Operating Procedures 5 This approach informs and is coherent with mechanisms and tools identified as part of the IASC Transformative Agenda. 6 An example is controlled destocking of livestock or increasing safety nets in risk areas

5 5 The ERP approach also includes SOPs for the first 7 days after a crisis strikes. (See Annex E a replication of the Checklist in the IASC RC/HC Handbook for Emergency Preparedness and Response - update in development)) SOPs are meant to guide responders in their initial emergency response when rapid decision-making is required and critical actions cannot be overlooked. They outline clear roles and responsibilities and focus on continuity of operations, rapid scale-up of humanitarian assistance and effective coordination at the Joint and Sector/Cluster levels. 7 The SOPs facilitate decision-making on the prioritization of needs and immediate life-saving interventions, on how to better identify initial steps in the response and on how to coordinate with elements outside the country. The effectiveness of this approach is enhanced when individual agencies develop internal SOPs that are coherent with the Joint and Sector/Cluster levels version. Monitoring Emergency Readiness One of the advantages of the ERP approach is that it allows monitoring of the state of readiness. For ease of comparing risk against action this is included in the Risk Profile and Action template at Annex A. In addition monitoring can be undertaken with basic, freely available web-based tools, such as the OCHA Preparedness Tracker. 8 A standard approach also facilitates tracking of actions in simulations conducted to enhance readiness, such as analysing if and how well the SOPs are being applied. Annexes: A. Risk Assessment B. Interagency Minimum Preparedness Actions C. Interagency Contingency Response Plan Template D. Plan and Resourcing Evolution E. SOP Checklist 7 In the international response system these SOPs are those that have been developed for Resident/Humanitarian Coordinators. 8 OCHA to insert preparedness tracker link