Executive Analysis

EXECUTIVE ANALYSIS

Background. The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) conducted a workshop based on feedback from the region desiring an opportunity to explore how nations share information for the purpose of preventing/preparing for disasters and ways to improve these processes. There was a sense work had been done on disaster response and recovery but that there was a gap in preventative or mitigation information sharing. The workshop provided a forum for security practitioners and disaster experts to improve regional understanding and cooperation in this vital area of disaster management.

Objectives. The objectives of the workshop were to:

1) Develop understanding of information-sharing as essential to resiliency and mitigation

2) Propose categories of information to be shared

3) Share current strategies and methodologies

4) Identify key indicators of disaster resiliency and their sources

5) Analyze gaps in information sharing

6) Recommend next steps to improve sharing

Workshop Findings.

Lack of a tradition of sharing information within organizations/nations/internationally
No incentives for organizations/nations to share information
Region lacks an overarching body to coordinate and develop an information sharing system
Progress is being made globally but, no agreed upon standards for data compatibility, disaster terminology (lexicon) or collaboration tools.
A number of indicators of current conditions were identified during the workshop
Existing disaster management models are insufficiently reliable to base strategic decision on.
The region needs additional forums for face to face networking and dialogue
Information overload is a double edged sword; decision-makers need more and more information but cannot handle it.
Nations and regional organizations do not have or allocate sufficient funds for risk reduction and resiliency; the money goes to disaster response and recovery. It was recognized that while response and recovery are absolutely essential, risk reduction and resiliency pays great ROI in the long term.

Survey Results.

1. Develop Understanding of Information-Sharing as Essential to Resiliency and Mitigation.

Increased abilities to exchange information and perspectives on crisis resiliency and mitigation
Strengthened and identified the importance and challenges of information-sharing

Increased knowledge on available tools, e.g. Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

2. Current & Propose Categories of Information to be Shared.

Knowledge on available resources and tools
Lessons learned and case studies from other countries
Ways to increase information-sharing with other countries

3. Identify Key Indicators of Disaster Resiliency and their Sources (Covered Under Section 2, Workshop Findings, #5).

Population dynamics and growth rates, infant mortality rates, key wildlife indicators (biodiversity), women’s health and gender equality (Gender Empowerment Measure), literacy rates, building codes and legislation, levels of government corruption, and freedom of the press are several of the indicators of vulnerability identified.

4. Analyze Gaps in Information-Sharing.

Need for improved coordination and collaboration between countries
Need for a standardized international portal

Need for increased private sector participation and information

5. Recommend Next Steps to Improve Sharing.

Share information and educate others on crisis resiliency
Use and contribute information to web-based tools
Expand their current network
Establish and strengthen existing early warning systems

Overall Assessment. The workshop achieved its objectives. Analysis of participants’ survey feedback showed they (1) Increased abilities to exchange information and perspectives on crisis resiliency and mitigation; strengthening and identifying the importance and challenges of information-sharing; and increasing their knowledge on available tools; (2) identified current & propose categories of information to be shared to include available resources; lessons learned, and case studies (3) identify key indicators of disaster resiliency and their sources to include population dynamics and growth rates, infant mortality rates, biodiversity, women’s health and gender equality, literacy rates, building codes and legislation, levels of government corruption, and freedom of the press; (4) analyzed gaps in information-sharing such as the need for improved coordination and collaboration, a standardized international portal, and increased private sector participation; and (5) recommended next steps to improve sharing by planning to share information; educate others on crisis resiliency; use and contribute information to web-based tools; expand their current network; and establish/strengthen existing early warning systems.

INFORMATION SHARING FOR CRISIS RESILIENCY – BEYOND RESPONSE AND RECOVERY WORKSHOP

FULL REPORT ANALYSIS

Prepared by

Denise U. McDonald

APCSS Management Analyst

Report Date: 26 August 2008

SECTION 1: Background

Purpose. The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) conducted a workshop based on feedback from nations in the region desiring an opportunity to explore how nations share information for the purpose of preventing or preparing for disasters and ways to improve that process. There was a sense that much work had been done on disaster response and recovery but that there was a gap in preventative or mitigation information sharing. This workshop provided a forum for senior security practitioners and disaster experts to improve regional understanding and cooperation on this vital area of disaster management.

Objectives. The objectives of the workshop were to:

1)Develop understanding of information-sharing as essential to resiliency and mitigation

2)Propose categories of information to be shared

3) Share current strategies and methodologies

4)Identify key indicators of disaster resiliency and their sources

5)Analyze gaps in information sharing

6) Recommend next steps to improve sharing

SECTION 2: Workshop Findings

There is a lack of a tradition in the sharing information within and across organizations/nations/internationally. In most instances the reverse is true; information is hoarded as a source of power.

Organizations/nations find there are no incentives to share information. Within nations, stove-piped structures incentivize upward flows of information and penalize cross-agency flows. The diverse functions and missions of international organizations reduce the perceived need/value in sharing information. As a positive note, these attitudes appear to be eroding as more people see the benefits of sharing information.

The region lacks an overarching body that can coordinate and develop an information sharing system. Information sharing is captive to a nascent and disjointed system of regional and international organizations, none of which is empowered to establish effective information sharing regimes.

Although progress is being made at the global (UN) level, there are still no agreed upon standards for data compatibility, disaster terminology (lexicon) or collaboration tools. Several categories of information need to be included in any information sharing regime included: demographics, adherence to standards, early warning capabilities, local knowledge, geospatial information, private sector information, inventory of supplies and existing resources, and metadata.

A number of indicators of current conditions were identified during the workshop: social, economic, cultural and political. Population dynamics and growth rates, infant mortality rates, key wildlife indicators (biodiversity), women’s health and gender equality (Gender Empowerment Measure), literacy rates, building codes and legislation, levels of government corruption, and freedom of the press are several of the indicators of vulnerability identified. In addition to the list of key indicators, issues and challenges associated were also recognized, some of which included barriers in the collection of data (lack of data and surveillance due to security issues), lack of coordination between separate sectors (bureaucratic barriers), lack of urgency for information sharing in national/international organizations in the pre-disaster phase, and the absence of international standards or procedures in the data collection process.

Existing disaster management models are unreliable to base strategic decision on. While there are reliable models for specific disasters (e.g. flooding, tsunami) there is no consensus on what constitutes best practices for disaster management which could then be abstracted into a model for analysis and planning.

The region needs additional forums for face to face networking and dialogue. Examples of current information sharing practices are Relief Web, PDC and other information sharing portals, global/regional organizations (ASEAN, AR, and UNISDR), the Hyogo Framework, and Singapore C2 Center.

Information overload is a double edged sword; decision-makers need more and more information but cannot handle it. No effective tool exist highlighting important information from the bulk of unrelated information. There is a recognition that the quantity of information will almost certainly increase but no certainty of relief from the time consuming necessity to deal with the volume.

Nations and regional organizations do not have or allocate sufficient funds for risk reduction and resiliency; the money goes to disaster response and recovery. Workshop participates recognized that while response and recovery are absolutely essential, risk reduction and resiliency pay great ROI in the long term.

SECTION 3: Action Plans / Next Steps

Complete national action plans as agreed to by the Hyogo Framework (Individual Nations). This was seen as a necessary first step to enable coordinated and collaborative information sharing.

Nations create an academic disaster management institute within its academic structure. While some nations have such institutions, most have, if anything, a government agency responsible for planning and reaction. A network of research think tanks working together to produce the theoretical underpinnings of good policy and planning is needed.

Increase and incentivize (through education, regulation, etc.) private/public resourcing and coordination of end-to-end information networks. Explore agencies/businesses that have money/credibility to facilitate information sharing possibilities. The private/public interface was seen as important and recognized as leading in many aspects of disaster preparedness planning.

Improve effectiveness and prominence of existing regional coordinating bodies. Establish mechanisms within regional organizations to manage information saturation by completing national action plans in support of the Hyogo Framework and link to each other through collaborative tools and models built to an international standard (e.g. ISO). Develop a schedule of events to bring key players together to discuss progress.

Develop and socialize international standards (e.g. ISO) including collaborative tools and models. Create or empower an international overarching disaster risk reduction body assigned to develop international standards for definitions, terminology, compatibility for information sharing

Create dialogue to harmonize conflicting/inconsistent national laws using existing forums. Laws often prohibit the type of information that can be shared and with whom. The mix of laws across the regional nations makes multilateral information sharing extremely difficult and time consuming.

Create a more robust, joint, integrated regional task force with the authority and resources to improve and develop an information sharing network. Tied to the earlier discussion of regional organizations and think tanks, this recommendation gets to the notion a special purpose organization for information sharing is needed. The ‘task force’ construct was chosen indicating the organization would be temporary and action focused.

APCSS to have follow-up conferences/communications discussing progress in concert with agencies/businesses that have the money/credibility to facilitate information sharing. The synchronized effort by APCSS, PDC, and COE proved to be effective. Participants recommended continued building of relationships, seeking to enable each other by balancing strengths and weaknesses, and removing redundancy (e.g. COE as the bridge to the United Nations; PDC as the bridge to ASEAN).

Using regional organizations (ARF, SAARC, and PIF) create a regionally focused grant program for risk reduction and resiliency transcending national border limitations. Grant programs currently focus heavily on specific nations; regional or transnational programs are less likely to find a sponsor. The solution offered are regionally focused organizations generating their own grant programs to incentivize those broader approaches to risk reduction and resiliency. This group clearly indicated information sharing programs should be a priority for such regional grants.

SECTION 4: Participants’ Survey Analysis

Survey Methodology. The Outreach Survey was administered to 100% of the 48 participants. The survey was comprised of 7 qualitative questions, a rating scale question on logistical support, and an additional comment section.

Qualitative Results.

1. Develop Understanding of Information-Sharing as Essential to Resiliency and Mitigation.

Ability to Exchange Information & Perspectives. The workshop developed understanding of information-sharing as essential to resiliency and mitigation by increasing participants’ abilities to exchange information and perspectives on crisis resiliency and mitigation. Participants stated the broad information shared and exchanged among different countries and institutions broadened their perspectives on crisis resiliency. Participants shared their views and expanded ideas by interacting with others. One participated expressed the fact, “They gained a better understanding of what other country partners are doing to help mitigate disaster and improve their preventative efforts.”

Importance & Challenges of Information-Sharing. The workshop strengthened and identified the importance and challenges of information-sharing developing a better understanding of information-sharing as essential to resiliency and mitigation. They realized if information-sharing is done properly, many lives would be saved and all nations would hugely benefit. The workshop highlighted the amount of work to be done and the challenges still to be overcome. One participant summed it up by stating, “Information sharing is now recognized as the key to effective preventive and preparedness aspects of crisis management.”

Knowledge on Available Tools. Participants increased their knowledge of available tools to develop a better understanding of information-sharing as essential to resiliency and mitigation. These tools will enable participants to better fill the gaps and meet the challenges of disaster preparedness. Additional tools, like Geographic Information Systems (GIS) website, provide participants with a ready source of information and a technical means of information-sharing.

2. Current & Propose Categories of Information to be Shared (Covers Objectives 2 & 3).

Resources & Tools Available. Attendees resoundingly declared they plan to share their new-found knowledge on available resources and tools with others when they return to their countries. They plan to post links on their own websites to other valuable websites, like GIS, and share information on early warning systems. The more information each country has access to, the better informed and prepared for any crisis they will be.

Case Studies & Lessons Learned. The lessons learned and case studies from other countries will be shared. Participates stated different approaches taken by different countries are worth discussion. They saw “examples of simple, practical solutions illustrated by other country presentations as effective ways to deal with disasters and warnings.” Learning from past crises helps ensure a better disaster preparedness and response in the future.

Ways to Increase Information-Sharing. Some plan to address ways of increasing information-sharing with other countries by discussing the difficulty of multi-lateral info sharing and propose ways to address the problem. They want to build relationships with other countries and standardize information-sharing to improve communication and, ultimately, improve crisis resiliency among all nations.

3. Identify Key Indicators of Disaster Resiliency and their Sources (Covered Under Section 2, Workshop Findings, #5). A number of indicators of current conditions were identified during the workshop: social, economic, cultural and political. Population dynamics and growth rates, infant mortality rates, key wildlife indicators (biodiversity), women’s health and gender equality (Gender Empowerment Measure), literacy rates, building codes and legislation, levels of government corruption, and freedom of the press are several of the indicators of vulnerability identified. In addition to the list of key indicators, issues and challenges associated were also recognized, some of which included barriers in the collection of data (lack of data and surveillance due to security issues), lack of coordination between separate sectors (bureaucratic barriers), lack of urgency for information sharing in national/international organizations in the pre-disaster phase, and the absence of international standards or procedures in the data collection process.

4. Analyze Gaps in Information-Sharing.

Improve Coordination & Collaboration. Participants identified the need for improved coordination and collaboration between countries as a barrier to information-sharing. They see the need for increased sharing of best practices, after action reports, etc. between countries since many experience similar kinds of disasters and could learn from others experiences through improved information sharing. They even mentioned establishing regional or international associations that establish and share best practices to make more consistent techniques possible within the international, and more specifically the Asia-Pacific region. Improved coordination and collaboration among nations lead to better communication and, ultimately, better crisis resiliency.

Standardized International Portal. Many identified the need for a standardized international portal for improved information-sharing. Information-sharing would be greatly improved with a single point, international, transparent, and common language web portal. Participants want the use of standardized software applications as an information sharing platform.” With these web-based tools, an internationally recognized catalogue can be developed for all nations to utilize and share information on disaster preparedness and response.

Private Sector Participation & Information. Participants were concerned with the lack of private sector participation and information sharing. They believe the inclusion of private sector participants in the workshop to present their companies disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plans; as well as the assistance they could provide during a disaster would have been beneficial. This additional information is seen as vital to complete information-sharing and disaster preparedness, response, and recovery planning.