EMERGENCY RISK REDUCTION

 In the last blog, I discussed advantages and challenges of relief programming in a disaster. I will now discuss “development model” considerations in an international disaster response.

 By definition, the international NGO (INGO) is present because the host country is considered “under-developed” by one or more recognized international indices. The lack of development is usually sectoral, i.e. food security, medical care, water, shelter, sanitation. International agencies with a long term presence in the country have the same commitment to effectiveness-of-programming as those responding to a quick onset disaster. Therefore, INGO development offices often work through local NGO partners for program implementation. Due to their long term presence, a relationship should be established to strengthen and capacity build the local NGO. This relationship requires time and commitment from the INGO over years or decades.

In a quick onset emergency, the established INGO usually gears up to provide a response.

• The agency has a foothold in-country and able to reach those affected almost immediately.
• The agency knows the cultural, social, and political mechanisms to get a relief effort underway.
• The agency is able to assess and report back to the INGO home office, guiding HQ toward the size and focus of a response.

The irony is that the INGO may become similar to a local NGO – underestimating and becoming easily overwhelmed by the scope of the relief effort.  Depending on the host country, the agency may have experience in the same emergency response, a different emergency response, or no emergency response experience. At the same time as its relief effort, the INGO should be committed to maintain its development programming.

Depending on the size of the disaster and its impact, the headquarters may strengthen the response by bringing in resources. These might take the form of specialized personnel, equipment, or supplies — either to be deployed at the country office, field office, or into affected communities. The timing of this decision is crucial and is often made with incomplete information. This is due to the time lag between the decision to respond and the resources actually being deployed.

Because of the compressed timeframe during relief, the country office sometimes feels that its input is not properly acknowledged.

• The country office team may feel discounted in their relief efforts thus far.
• The country office may feel that the HQ response has not been adequate.
• The field office, having been ignored in past years, suddenly becomes a focus, but only because of the disaster.
• The country office, knowing the large cash inputs from donors for the relief, feels slighted with the lack of money for development, which they feel is more cost-effective.
• Certain offices within the country team may feel overwhelmed by administrative, human resource, financial, and logistics duties placed on them by the relief effort – without adequate staff support or proper compensation.

The reality is that the existing country office and the entering relief team both have strengths and need to work in harmony with each other. The advantages of the country office are numerous. The staff knows the country, the culture, the ethnicities, and the language within the country. In addition, an established country office probably has the trust of government ministries and knows the political environment, the mechanisms to get endorsement of programs, and the most efficient way of implementing programs. The country office is very likely set up with financial, human resources, logistics, administration, and other departments necessary for a relief program.

A rapid-deployment relief office also has advantages.

• The team should be well trained in responding to quick onset disasters.
• The team carries with it a toolkit for setting up a swift response to the disaster. Depending on the organization, this may include Search and Rescue, rapid needs assessment, and emergency provision of shelter, food, water, clothing, and medical care.
• The relief team should carry with it the “tools” with which to implement a quick response, such as communications, computer systems, and transport, In addition, procurement and reporting becomes streamlined and more effective.

In short, decisions during relief are arrived at and implemented in a much shorter timeframe than those during development.

Conclusion

The ‘development team’ approach and the ‘relief team’ approach both have advantages. Each program should recognize the strengths of the other. The relief program can learn from the stability and insights of the existing country team. The development program can learn from the efficient relief structure and its decision-making process.  Without synergy created from each program within the same agency, neither is efficient. Both programs suffer. And more importantly and often overlooked, the people whose lives have been affected will suffer.

Thanks for reading.

Monty