Working Group discussions

Following these presentations, the participants broke into groups. Each group received a specific task and a general set of instruction.

Group Tasks

Group 1

As a result of the tsunami, everyone has something in place now. Use the checklist provided (Annex 3) as a tool to evaluate where your information management and coordination system is at present and what you need to do to ensure your system remains in place and is effective for the next disaster.

Group 2

The overall goal of the FAO project was to enhance the capacity of governments to coordinate tsunami assistance and manage information. What were the achievements of the FAO OSRO/RAS/503/CHA project and how was its impact perceived by the Ministries? Of these achievements, which ones are sustainable? Which ones will governments maintain and develop?

Review the coordination role of FAO in the tsunami emergency and rehabilitation activities.

Group 3

Discuss the way forward in terms of information management, exchange and coordination mechanisms in the transition phase from rehabilitation to development and longer-term projects in the sectors of agriculture, fisheries and forestry. How will the existing coordination mechanisms evolve in the post rehabilitation environment? How will they serve the long-term vision of development? Is there a vision?

Group 4

What are the values and benefits in a regional (Asia-wide) approach? Are there potential drawbacks to regional approaches? Who are the regional actors? Are countries building back better or just building back newer (i.e. replacing losses)?

Outcomes of the group discussions

Group 1: Evaluating the state of information management systems

• Mr M. Mazahim Hanifa, Livelihood Economic Recovery Officer (Chair)
• Mr Udhoro Kosih Anggoro, Executive Secretary, DG of Food Crops
• Mr P.A.G.S. Nandakumara, Assistant Conservator of Forest
• Mr Leslie Joseph, ERCU Senior Fisheries Consultant
• Mr Chaiyanam Dissataporn, LDD
• Mr Simon Wilkinson, Communications Manager
• Mr Sugianto Saman, GIS/Remote Sensing Expert

Group 1 Discussion

The headings are taken from the checklist provided (Annex 3). The text in blue denotes the edited comments added by the Rapporteurs during their presentation to Plenary.

1. Define the audience: Government agencies, NGOs, Donors, communities and organization, private sector.

All the relevant stakeholder groups should be included. In our experience, in the early stages of an emergency, universities and NGOs were not well engaged yet they played an important role. This aspect of coordination can be improved as there is now wider recognition of the role they play.

2. Define the stakeholders: Line ministries, NGOs, universities, INGOs, FAO, collaborating agencies, research institutes.

3. Define the requirements for information:

• should be done by experienced personnel
• baseline data essential
• need standardized data collection
• develop indicators in collaboration with relevant stakeholders to ensure people can contribute to a common information framework
• number of people and extent of land and asset lost needs to be validated
• asset recovery
• livelihoods recovered
• production increases, exports, inputs, price changes
• provision, exchange of data and information, meetings, report and report dissemination of data and information
• collaborative planning at regional, district and local levels

Ideally, data gathering needs to be done by experienced personnel. In a large-scale disaster these people are not always available.

Baseline data is essential to information management systems, otherwise there is nothing to measure against. In too many cases we saw that baseline data was either lacking or inadequate. Sadly, in some cases there is still not sufficient baseline data two years after the disaster.

Information systems could be improved with the use of standardized indicators developed in collaboration with the public sector and NGOs. This would help ensure that the data collected was useful to the end users. Standardized indicators would also help determine what kind of baseline data is needed, data priorities, the tools needed to gather the data, and training needs for personnel. Such a common framework in terms of indicators would greatly facilitate information exchange.

4. Reviewing 1 and 3 in context of budget: Information systems are often asked to deliver far more than the available funding can support. Be realistic about what is achievable.

We need livelihood indicators in addition to technical indicators. The latter do not say much about human welfare. An important consideration is the budget available as systems are often expected to provide data and information far beyond what the resources allow.

5. Define the unit of assessment, e.g. village, subdistrict, and district: Information collected at all levels (but including local level). Budget constraints may dictate what is feasible and what is not.

Generally, we need information at all levels, from villages, subdistricts, and districts down to individual households. “Information” has to be built up from small sets of data.

6. Define the population of concern: Individual, family, household. Depends on indicators of concern and also affected by budget. Other non-population based approaches may be necessary such as surveys of donor activity, village headmen, or needs-based surveys.

Budgets are an issue here as well. Certain data sets may be desirable but there may be no budget available to collect that data. For example, it is desirable to have detailed data on the projects donors are running, and household surveys, but gathering such information can be prohibitively expensive.

7. Define the time period for which data will be collected: Depends on the situation, but an “exit strategy” is a key consideration. Need to build on existing institutions that are around for the long-term. An exit strategy should be part of the initial plan and project design of the information system or else the system is likely to collapse when the funding is withdrawn.

Recovery assessment and sample surveys are another key consideration. Projects are set up for a limited time period but often there is little or no thought given to how to sustain a project after the funding period. We need an exit strategy developed during the project phase that at least estimates the ongoing operating costs of an information management system.

8. Data collection, analysis and reporting mechanisms

• Indicators and data collection tools should be jointly developed in collaboration with stakeholders. Consider how the information can be useful to other stakeholders and explore partnerships.
• Information collection is expensive and time consuming. Use a “minimum data requirement approach” for affected sectors. Only gather information to support defined objectives, do not collect information without a clear need.
• Data collection at local level by local agencies using participatory approaches is highly cost effective and can produce high quality data.
• Data collection needs to be done by trained people, not necessarily experts, but people who have had at least basic training.
• A database should be simple, appropriate, sustainable for future use, and realistic for line agencies to maintain.
• Periodic Review of information.
• Information management model.
• Dissemination: Web, e-mail, printed reports, flyers or posters for communities in local languages.

Data exchange should use multiple mechanisms and appropriate channels. Websites and e-mail are appropriate for large international organizations and well-resourced government agencies. For local organizations or less well-resourced agencies, telephone and fax machines may be the appropriate channel. Unless we can translate information into local languages it probably is not going to be of much use. This sounds obvious but it does not always happen due largely to under funding or simply neglecting to add this line item to a budget.

Damage assessment: the precondition is the baseline information

• still needs to be developed in some cases
• needs a collaborative approach, through sector experienced personal at four different administrative levels (national, divisional, district and village), complete census, revalidation
• indicators: people affected, families household; assets lost (type/number), extent affected, livelihoods indicators

Government agencies need to consider emergency information needs in their current data collection policies.

Project formulation

• Needs-based for specific sectors and areas
• Collaborative planning at local level
• Community participation

Based on our collective experience, we see a need to concentrate on specific sectors and a need for a livelihoods approach. Too many organizations are still divided along sectoral lines, even internally.

Project monitoring

• A government line agency should take the lead role in data collection
• Standardized data collection form to be used by all actors
• Approach should be to gather minimum sectoral data to meet specific objectives
• Only collect information relevant to your objectives – do not waste resources collecting information you do not need.

Recovery Indicators

• Recovery by number and or extent, include livelihoods indicators

Impact indicators

• Production changes
• Income changes
• Import/export trends
• Price changes

These need to include production and income changes, import trends, price changes; some indicators can be used to indirectly measure household income changes and debt levels, for example, in Thailand the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives has such data. Trends are important, so it is useful to collect data on a periodic basis.

Recovery assessment

• Periodic sample surveys (versus indicators)

Databases

• Use simple, appropriate and sustainable technology
• Try to build systems and capacity that can be reused in the future
• Should be owned and maintained by line agencies (organizations that will persist over the long term)

Often it is better to use simple tools like Microsoft Excel than more complex database systems that require advanced knowledge and expertise. The people managing the data have to have the skills to use the software.

Information exchange and dissemination

• Periodic meetings and workshops of relevant stakeholders (local, at different scales)
• Use dissemination media that suit the target audiences. A range of approaches will be required (websites, e-mail, reports, leaflets)
• Use of local languages important (especially for leaflets)

It is important to have meetings with stakeholders. Local meetings are particularly useful. Use appropriate dissemination channels and do not rely on passive techniques, for example, just put your data on a website and expect people to find it. We need to “push” the information out to those who need it.

Group 2: Achievements of the FAO OSRO/RAS/503/CHA project and how its impact was perceived by the Ministries

• Ms Tri Agustin Satriani, Head of Sub-Division of Agricultural Tool and Machines, Indonesia
• Ms Aminath Rishaadh, Assistant Data Processing Officer, Maldives
• Mr James Terjanian , Information Management Specialist, Maldives
• Mr Shantha Emitiyagoda, Deputy Director of Agriculture Extension, Sri Lanka
• Ms Abby Branavakumar, Consultant, Sri Lanka
• Mrs Suksa Malakarn, Director of Phang Nga Provincial MOAC, Thailand
• Ms Chantima Tanyacharoen, Deputy of Phang Nga Provincial MOAC, Thailand
• Mr Apinan Kamnalrut, FAO National Consultant

Project achievements

Overall, the project helped people realize the importance of Information Management and Coordination.

We consider it as an achievement that overall the FAO project has got people talking and improving data collection. The data we are talking about is useful for emergencies of course, but it is also useful to other projects. The government agencies involved agree that more resources should be made available for this kind of work.

SRI LANKA

Agriculture

• A survey was carried out to find out the ‘Impact of Relief and Aid’ granted to the Agriculture Sector and affected farmers by the tsunami. The survey was solely carried out upon the request of the Government.
• Officers from the Department of Agriculture were trained on data collection, data analysis and Participatory Rural/Rapid Appraisal methodologies.
• A workshop was held to disseminate the findings of the workshop attended by officers from the Department and Ministry of Agriculture and recommendations were identified.

Fisheries and forestry

• On request by the Ministry of Fisheries, a database was designed for vessel registration and was identified as a priority.
• A website was designed to provide information on the coordination mechanisms of the project for the fisheries, agriculture and forestry sectors.
• Training needs were identified and implemented for officers of the Ministry of Fisheries for the use and updating of the database.
• A cross sectoral workshop was held with officers from the Ministries of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture participating to stress the importance of information management and coordination mechanisms within partner ministries.

Perceptions of Ministries

• The FAO project was greatly needed and is very much appreciated. Overall, the project is seen as a significant and successful intervention.
• There was too little time to implement the project. Given more time, more activities could have been identified.
• Not enough activities were identified for information and coordination mechanisms in the agriculture sector.
• The security situation in some countries was a significant factor in project implementation.

Sustainable achievements

• The vessels database and the website for the Ministry of Fisheries.
• Training on data collection, analysis and PRA methodologies for government officials.
• Final Report, “The impact of aid granted to the agriculture sector and affected farmers”.

MALDIVES

Agriculture and fisheries

• A database was created to collect information on damages, beneficiary data, donor information and tsunami rehabilitation activities.
• A planning workshop was held to disseminate information in the database, to enhance the information flow in the ministries, to identify bottlenecks and formulate plans to eliminate constraints.
• Training was provided for data collectors, including software training applicable to data collection. There was consultation regarding the data collectors’ needs for improved data collection and a sensitization of the collectors regarding the importance of accurate and reliable data on fisheries and agriculture for each island.
• An analysis was done on information collection, and the importance of maintaining the database to enhance the information flow within the ministry was stressed on.
• A working group was formed for Information Management; it set focal points for updating the database.
• A household survey was planned to be carried out on socio-economic data for planning purposes, and data was analysed.
• A workshop was held to review coordination mechanisms in the Maldives.
• A partner consultation exercise was undertaken.
• Support to data analysis was provided.

The database will be maintained by the Ministry. It will be used for project management as well as emergencies and considered “very useful”. Training for data collectors to continue using feedback from the data collectors to improve the training. The working group will continue and will help ensure the sustainability of the database. The household survey will continue.

Perceptions of Ministries

Overall, the Project is greatly appreciated and considered to be “highly useful” for planning and data analysis for a wide range of programmes.

• Time period given for project implementation was too short to implement many desired activities.
• Some of the activities were “rushed”.

Sustainable achievements:

• The database, household survey data and training for data collectors, which will be further developed.
• Working Group will be further developed.
• Data analysis to be further developed.

THAILAND

National level; established in Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and FAO

• A workshop was held to review coordination mechanisms. It was attended by implementing agencies, donors and government officials.
• A Post-tsunami Rehabilitation Unit was established in the Department of Fisheries in collaboration with the FAO.
• A website was developed (Andaman Forum) detailing status of the rehabilitation, projects, and donor contacts.
• Training given to staff in the Rehabilitation Unit on the analysis of information and information flow between agencies.
• Trained data collectors on “coordination” at the national and provincial levels.

All activities were replicated on the provincial level. There were workshops in two provinces. Information was collected on “who, what and where”, i.e. who has what information and where it is. The Ministry plans to continue the work of the units established and will use these units for future disaster response. At this stage, it is assumed that the Units will be maintained for 4-5 years. The project is very much appreciated. There were some limitations in terms of capacity of data collectors to get data from some agencies, but this can be improved.

Provincial level

• The same model was applied at the provincial level, i.e. Units were established in Provincial Offices of Agriculture and Cooperatives in Phang Nga and Ranong Provinces.
• The information database developed is the Adaman Forum Website, www.phangngapoc.net and www.ranongpoc.net. Information is uploaded to the provincial website detailing status of the rehabilitation, projects, and donor contacts.
• A workshop was held to review coordination mechanisms. It was attended by implementing agencies, donors and government officials.

Perceptions of Ministries

The most serious limitation was/is the capacity of data collectors.

Sustainable achievements

• The DOF-FAO Post-tsunami Rehabilitation Coordination Unit
• The DOF-FAO Andaman Forum website
• Provincial Post-tsunami Rehabilitation and Information Centres
• National and Provincial level training

INDONESIA

Project achievements

• Computer training
• Data collection training
• Review information and coordination
• Survey of rehabilitation and coordination mechanisms (who, what, where)
• Database created on coordination mechanism
• Report on effectiveness of coordination; frequency of reporting
• GeoDatabase for fisheries sector
• Workshop on “information coordination for all” for government officers

The computer and data collection training will be sustained, the database is to be maintained and developed, and the Ministry hopes to further develop reporting mechanisms.

Perception of Ministries

“Very useful” for Government. There should be more interventions. Short time span for project implementation.

Many initiatives need to be further developed. Governments and other national agencies, including local NGOs, need more support and would like more resources to continue building on what they have achieved.

Sustainable achievements

• Maintain the GeoDatabase
• The “who, what, where” database
• Computer training and data collection training

Group 3: Information management, exchange and coordination mechanisms in the transition phase from rehabilitation to development. Is there a vision?

• Ms Zaha Waheed, Deputy Director, Planning and Coordination Services
• Mr Marc Bellemans, Senior Emergency & Rehabilitation Coordinator, Sri Lanka
• Mr David Green, Senior Information Consultant, Australia
• Mr Saeful Rachman, Deputy Director of Watershed Management Supervision, Indonesia
• Mr Yon Fernandez De Larrinoa Arcal, Emergency Coordinator, Maldives
• Mr Aekachai Pruekampai, Director of Ranong Provincial MOAC, Thailand
• Mr Pongpun Nualsri, Thailand
• Mr Vimol Jirathanawat, Director, Information Technology Centre, Thailand
• Mr Chaowalit Silapathong, Director, Geo-Informatics Office, Thailand
• Ms Hilde Niggemann, Senior Operations Officer and Coordinator of TCEO Asia
• Mr Eri Indrawan, Deputy Director for Technical Cooperation

1. Is there a vision? Yes. Building Back Better. The Strategy: Rebuild with improved standards taking the opportunity to use the additional resources made available by donors such as FAO. Rebuild by consulting and involving more communities.

2. How do coordination mechanisms serve the long-term vision of development?

• It speeds up the development process.
• Coordination in emergency situations is more effective if there are pre-arrangements with donors in place.
• New proposals, i.e. following the disaster, need to fit into in National Development Plans.
• Instruments developed for the emergency can and should be effectively reintegrated into the long-term vision of the country (e.g. poverty alleviation in Banda Aceh; community self-reliance in Thailand).
• Information and data needs to fit the bigger picture.
• Needs for information and coordination change and need to be adapted.
• Donor conditionalities must take into account country needs as reflected in National Development Plans.
• We need to also address the sectors not covered by relief (e.g. irrigation; mechanization, infrastructure).
• Participatory approaches and ownership must be promoted even during the emergency phase.
• The emergency has “set the clock back” in terms of national development. One “positive” in this situation is that it opens up some scope for flexibility in terms of policy and planning. Once the initial rebuilding is done we should stop and re-examine and redefine long-term targets.
• Project design and implementation are important.
• In-country national disaster “cells” should review regularly the coordination mechanisms with line Ministries on a sectoral basis.

3. How will the existing coordination mechanisms evolve in the post rehabilitation environment?

• Making inventory of available data and tools, selecting some and discarding others.
• Inventory of who is doing what, where and when?

4. What is the way forward in terms of information management and transition mechanisms from emergency to development?

• Transition is currently not effective.
• Joint effort between countries, donors and the UN.
• Transition needs planning and continued funding.
• It will be essential to maintain the institutional memory of the emergency.
• Transition should be kept in mind since the beginning of the emergency.
• Transition does not happen by itself.

Group 4: Values and benefits in a regional, Asia-wide approach

• Mr Rajendra Aryal, Senior Emergency and Rehabilitation Coordinator
• Mr Tariful Islam, Land Use Planning (LUP) & GIS Advisor, CCB-NREM Project of Seila Programme, Seila Task Force Secretariat
• Mr Hadimulyo Mulyono, Assistant Minister for Cooperation and Inter-agency Relations, MMAF
• Ms Waraporn Prompoj, Chief of International Cooperation Group, Foreign Affairs Division
• Mr Bambang Budhianto, Head of Planning Division, DG of Food Crops
• Ms Patchanee Chaivanit, Krabi Provincial Office of Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

Benefits of a regional approach

• Possibility of information exchange between the countries.
• Enhanced cooperation through sharing of information.
• Sharing of experience gained, lessons learned and best practices from each other.
• Common strategy with time frame.
• Opportunity to pull resources together for a rapid response to disaster (human, financial, technical).
• Cost optimization through sharing of information (e.g. early warning system, fisheries resources).
• Could provide an opportunity to identify sectoral focal point (e.g. FAO for fisheries, IUCN for natural resources) leading to recommendation to act on.

Drawbacks of a regional approach

• Slow while responding, depends on the players (e.g. government, donors, implementing agencies).
• Too many actors involved.
• Lack of capacity, different levels of capacity.
• Willingness to share information not always optimal.
• Differences in quality of information from different sources.

Regional actors

• National governments: the prime actors
• ASEAN (political and cooperational)
• ODA Donors (Embassies)
• UN Agencies and Banks
• INGOs, NGOs (e.g. CARE, MERCY, OXFAM, WWF, Red Cross, etc.)
• Private sector (e.g. Coca Cola, Rolls Royce)
• Other regional organization (e.g. NACA, SEAFDEC)

Are countries building back better?

• “Better” means in terms of local needs, not the donors’ needs.
• The process has begun to build back better, but time is still needed and learning process and involvement of community should be included.
• More investment needed on technology, research and development, extension services, quality maintenance, and marketing.
• There are new opportunities to redesign damaged areas for the betterment of livelihoods (e.g. Phi Phi Island in Thailand).

Consequences of a disaster

• Loss of life, property and assets.
• Brings people together, sharing experiences together.
• Could change the way of life (e.g. some resolution of conflict in Aceh).
• Change in political will.
• Can promote unity among people by altering hierarchies.

Conclusions and recommendations

• Regional approach should be promoted on disaster preparedness and response.
• Identification of a regional organization as sectoral focal point.
• Regional strategy should be outlined for each sector on preparedness and should be transformed at operational level.
• MOU between the countries in line with the regional strategy for each sector.
• Cross-country interaction for experience sharing (through bilateral cooperation and/or regional organizations).