achieving a more

Achieving a more appropriate and fit-for-purpose humanitarian ecosystem in the Pacific: Literature review on the localisation of humanitarian action

May 2016 Prepared for Australian Red Cross by Nicole Rencoret and Louise Searle, Humanitarian Advisory Group

Research Support: Ayla Black Phot

o: IF

RC/N

avne

et N

aray

an

Literature review on the localisation of humanitarian action in the Pacific2

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

ACRONYMS 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

1. INTRODUCTION 7

1.1 Background 7

1.2 Purpose 9

1.3 Scope 9

1.4 Definitions 9

1.5 Research question and areas of inquiry 9

2. METHODOLOGY 10

2.1 Findings on the available evidence 11

2.2 Limitations 11

2.2.1 Timing and resources 11

2.2.2 Access to locally-generated information 11

3. FINDINGS: KEY TRENDS AND MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING AND INFLUENCING HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN THE PACIFIC 12

3.1 Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation 14

3.2 Humanitarian architecture and partnerships 14

3.2.1 Regional 15

3.2.2 National 16

3.3 Humanitarian policy, legal frameworks and accountability 18

3.4 Humanitarian financing 19

4. DISCUSSION: CHALLENGES, CONSTRAINTS, RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES 21

4.1 Overview 22

4.2 Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation 22

4.3 Humanitarian architecture and partnerships 23

4.4 Humanitarian policy, legal frameworks and accountability 23

4.5 Humanitarian financing 24

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25

5.1 Conclusion 26

5.2 Recommendations 26

BIBLIOGRAPHY 28

APPENDICES 34

Appendix 1: Availability of information by country and document design 34

Acronyms 3

Acronyms

AusMAT Australian Medical Assistance Team

CDAC Communicating with Disaster Affected Communities Network

COP21 21st Conference of the Parties

CROP Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific

DFAT Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FRANZ France, Australia, and New Zealand Agreement

GHA Global Humanitarian Assistance

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

IASC Inter Agency Standing Committee

IATI International Aid Transparency Initiative

IDP Internally Displaced Person

IDRL International Disaster Response Law

IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross Red Crescent

IHL International Humanitarian Law

IHRL International Human Rights LAw

INFORM Index for Risk Management

NDMO National Disaster Management Office

NGO Non-Government Organisation

NZMAT New Zealand Medical Assistance Team

OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

PCRAFI Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative

PICTs Pacific Island Countries and Territories

PIF Pacific Islands Forum

PHAP Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and Protection

PHT Pacific Humanitarian Team

RAMSI Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands

SIDS Small Island Developing States

SMEs Small- and medium-sized enterprises

SPC Secretariat for the Pacific Community

SPREP Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USP University of the South Pacific

VANGO Vanuatu Association of NGOs

VHT Vanuatu Humanitarian Team

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organisation

WHS World Humanitarian Summit

WVI World Vision International


Executive Summary

2. The unique Pacific humanitarian architecture and partnerships

a) The coordination role of the Pacific Humanitarian Team

b) The current appetite for Pacific-to-Pacific intra-regional support and capacity exchange among Pacific Island Countries and Territories is strong

c) National coordination mechanisms are under-resourced

d) The Vanuatu Humanitarian Team is considered a strong model, but was overwhelmed during the response to Tropical Cylone Pam

e) Non-humanitarian actors are increasingly engaged in disaster response activities in the Pacific, including the military, private sector entities and diaspora.

3. Humanitarian policy, legal frameworks and accountability

a) International Disaster Response Law (IDRL) guidelines have been adopted by several PICTs including the Cook Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu

b) The Pacific Islands Forum has served as a means of uniting PICTs to speak in one voice on issues of common concern during important international meetings on disaster risk reduction, climate change and sustainable development

4. Humanitarian financing

a) Existing funding and aid tracking mechanisms do not adequatly capture direct funding to national and local actors

b) Globally-identified financing issues such as transparency and donor appetite for risk are relevant to the Pacific.

The World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016 is widely expected to produce a new wave of humanitarian reform. While previous reforms emphasised improved coordination of the various elements of the system–as a means to improve effectiveness and secure better humanitarian outcomes – the anticipated new generation of change will target the architecture of the system itself. Stronger leadership and roles for national and local actors are likely to be a feature of a refreshed, more inclusive, humanitarian system that leverages the comparative advantage of international, regional, national and local actors.

This study is a systematic literature review examining localisation in the context of the Pacific region. Commissioned by Australian Red Cross, it analyses the available evidence of key trends and challenges impacting on supporting a more localised and differentiated humanitarian ecosystem in the Pacific.

Key Findings

The current body of knowledge on localisation in the Pacific is largely aspirational: articulating what needs to happen rather than current practice. The emerging evidence on practice in the Pacific is mostly descriptive in nature, with little or no definition of success, and no examination of outcomes and impact. The majority of literature on localisation in the Pacific and globally, is generated by international actors.

Four key themes that inform and shape the localisation agenda in the Pacific region have strongly and consistently emerged from the literature:

1. The centrality and relevance of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation to humanitarian action in the Pacific

a) Preparedness, mitigation, adaptation and response are inherently integrated within the humanitarian response system in the Pacific

b) Traditional knowledge and community networks are already key elements of approaches to disaster risk reduction, early warning and adaptation

c) The displacement and migration effects of climate change.

Executive Summary 5

Recommendations

Based on the available evidence, this report recommends:

To the wider community of humanitarian actors within the Pacific region:

Recommended actions Theme

1 Research the implications of a more localised humanitarian response in the Pacific for the internal organisation policy and structures of donors, international NGOs and the UN, and for their interactions with regional, national, provincial and local actors. Identify specific areas for strengthening NDMO capacity and resources in a new localisation-focused humanitarian architecture

Humanitarian policy, legal frameworks and accountability;

The unique Pacific humanitarian architecture and partnerships

2 Investigate how partnerships with ‘new’ actors such as the private sector and diaspora can be harnessed to achieve a more localised response in the Pacific


3 Identify potential aid tracking mechanisms NDMOs across the Pacific can use to identify, track and advocate for more localised humanitarian financing

Humanitarian financing

To donors of Pacific humanitarian aid:

Recommended action Theme

4 Synthesise and document learning and evidence from prior direct funding to national and local partners, using a case study approach


5 Invest in systematic analysis of internal risk tolerance, and identify and cost any new risk mitigation strategies needed to faciliate a more localised response


6 Review resource streams and strengthen transparency of resource flows to enable national governments to obtain a more accurate and complete picture of needs and gaps across the Pacific. Strengthen the accessibility of data reported through the IATI initiative, potentially modelling reporting on DFID’s development tracker (https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/)


To the wider Red Cross Red Crescent Movement:


7 Identify examples of how the IDRL Guidelines are improving the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian action in the Pacific

Humanitarian policy, legal frameworks and accountability

8 Invest in documenting a series of comparative case studies on localisation in conflict, natural disaster and urban settings–based on the Movement’s experience partnering with local and national societies, and other national and local actors, with a focus on defining success and developing indicators for assessing impact on humanitarian outcomes


To the Australian Red Cross:


9 Invest in documenting a series of Pacific case studies on localisation based on the Society’s experience partnering with local and national societies and other national and local actors, with a focus on defining success and developing indicators for assessing impact on humanitarian outcomes. Case studies could focus on Melanesian PICTs, looking at recent experiences in Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands; and, while not a sub-region of focus for the Australia Red Cross, Micronesian PICTs including the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau in the context of drought/slow onset disaster

The unique Pacific humanitarian architecture and partnerships;

The centrality and relevance of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation to humanitarian action in the Pacific

10 Initiate a review of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement architecture in the Pacific and any implications on internal organisational policy and structure for adopting more localised humanitarian action



1. What is the experience of national and local actors interacting with the Pacific humanitarian architecture?

2. What changes to internal organisational policy and structures need to occur within donors, international NGOs and the UN, to faciliate more localised humanitarian action in the Pacific?

3. What is the relationship between national and local actors, and improved relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and connectedness of humanitarian action?

4. To what extent do traditional notions of ‘capacity-building’ of local partners need to be transformed to faciliate more localised Pacific humanitarian action?

The following key research questions are recommended:

Phot

o: P

NG

Red

Cro

ss/A

na Z

arko

vic

1. Introduction 7

1. Introduction

The idea that locally-rooted responses to crisis and poverty are more effective, is not new – it has been the bedrock of international development theory and practice, and international peacebuilding efforts, for more than thirty years. There is an established expectation that humanitarian actors will carry out their work in a manner that strengthens local capacities and enables local leaders and organisations in their capacity as first responders (Groupe URD et al, 2014).

However, the emerging localisation agenda for humanitarian action is not just about incorporating capacity-building efforts into traditional systems for aid planning, funding and delivery of programs and services. Rather, a change in mindset and a more dramatic paradigm shift to the international aid architecture is envisaged – a more inclusive architecture, whereby humanitarians act in a complementary fashion on the basis of their comparative advantage in relation to the situation on the ground, rather than a single ‘one size fits all’ model (Barber, 2015; Bennett, 2016; Zyck and Krebs, 2015).

1.1 Background

One Humanity: shared responsibility. The vision for change outlined in the 2016 Report of the Secretary-General for the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) includes an expression of frustration with the international aid architecture and calls for a process of fundamental change (UN General Assembly, A/70/709). The WHS process has been a key trigger for the rise in discourse shifting towards a more differentiated, localised humanitarian response architecture and is expected to be one of the products of a highly anticipated wave of post-summit humanitarian reform.

‘There is frustration on the part of Governments and local organisations that struggle to be seen by the international community as the primary agents of response and to access resources and feel that their governance and coordination structures are being pushed aside by international actors rather than respected and strengthened.’

(UN General Assembly, 2016)

Phot

o: IF

RC/R

ob F

ew


Timeline: The localisation imperative – key drivers of change

1994

Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief – commitment to attempt to build disaster response on local capacities

2007

Global Humanitarian Platform Principles of Partnership – introduced a commitment to equality, transparency, result-oriented approach, responsibility and complementarity

1991

A/RES/46/182 on strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations

2003

Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative – strengthening local capacity

2007

IFRC 30th International Conference – Resolution 4 – adoption of the IDRL Guidelines and reaffirming the sovereign right of states to

coordinate, regulate and monitor assistance, and the supporting role of international actors

2009

CDAC network – collective work to make communicating with communities an integral part of emergency response

2010

Local to Global Protection initiative – documentation and promotion of local perspectives on protection, survival and recovery in

major crises

2014

Samoa Pathway – calling for increased resilience to the impacts of climate change, strengthening of national capacity and increased financing for disaster risk reduction, disaster response and recovery

2015

IFRC World Disasters Report – focus on local actors and humanitarian action

2015

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – local and national actors, partnerships and opportunities for localisation in implementing the sustainable development agenda

2016

World Humanitarian Summit – Agenda for Humanity

2011

Nansen Initiative – on protection in the context of cross-border movements due to disasters and the effects of climate change

2014

Core Humanitarian Standard – enable local leaders and organisations in their capacity as first responders

2015

Charter4Change – over 100 national and local organisations from 37 countries have endorsed the Charter, calling on their

international partners to sign eight commitments

2015

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 – building national and local capacities to reduce disaster risk for

more resilient communities

2015

Paris Agreement – legally binding accountability framework and support for nations vulnerable to effects of climate change

1. Introduction 9

Who are national and local actors?

‘By national and local actors we also refer to community-based organisations, businesses, industry associations, academic and research entities, religious institutions and others. However, the focus … is on government institutions, National Societies and national NGOs.”

(Zyck and Krebs, 2015)

1.5 Research question and areas of inquiry

The review of literature is guided by, and answers, the following key question:

What is the available evidence of key trends and challenges impacting on supporting a more localised and differentiated humanitarian ecosystem in the Pacific?

Areas of enquiry include the scope, reach and effectiveness of localised humanitarian action in the Pacific, the experience of international agencies engaging in localised humanitarian action, and evidence about success and impact. It includes enquiry into the perspective and role of donors, and evidence about perceived and actual constraints to localisation, as well as opportunities for the humanitarian system and Australian Red Cross.

1.2 Purpose

Commissioned by the Australian Red Cross, this literature review provides a critical analysis of the current body of knowledge about localisation of humanitarian action in the Pacific region. The study aims to establish an evidence-base on localisation in the Pacific by understanding the major factors affecting and influencing the current system and the contribution of local, national, regional and global actors. The study provides a synthesis of key trends and challenges impacting on the achievement of a more localised and differentiated response, forming key questions for future research. It is expected this review and subsequent research will inform internal strategy, operations and implementation and be leveraged to influence government, other donors, and the broader humanitarian sector.

1.3 Scope

This study focuses on localisation of humanitarian action within Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs). Global literature, and literature from regions and countries outside the Pacific, is included based on its materiality, credibility and relevance to the study. The review prioritises regional data and data from countries where the Australian Red Cross has a focus – Fiji, Vanuatu, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. However, data from all Pacific Island Countries and Territories is considered within the scope of the review.

The scope of literature searched includes research and evaluation reports, journals and articles as well as unpublished internal Red Cross Red Crescent movement documents, and a search of online local media. While no dates are included as research parameters, more than 85 percent was published between 2013 and 2016, emphasising the currency of findings.

1.4 Definitions

The localised humanitarian action discourse is relatively new, and terminology is not yet settled in the literature. In particular, the terms ‘local’ and ‘national’ are sometimes used interchangeably and homogenously–‘local’ sometimes refers to community-level actors, and at other times, refers more broadly to all non-international actors. For the purposes of this study, the approach adopted by Zyck and Krebs (2015) is followed, whereby a distinction between national and local actors is maintained, however references to a more ‘localised’ response incorporates the actions of both.


2. Methodology

The study is a systematic desk-based review of secondary data from academic journals and publically available grey literature, supplemented by a search for unpublished literature sourced through professional networks in Australia and Fiji.

Phot

o: N

ZRC/

Jane

Uss

her

2. Methodology 11

Key search terms

• Pacific [Pacific Island; Pacific Island Country or Territory]

• Humanitarian [humanitarian action; humanitarian response; disaster; emergency; emergency management; disaster preparedness; humanitarian system; humanitarian ecosystem;]

• Local [localised; differentiated; national; remote management; local partners; partnership]

• Red Cross [Red Crescent; national society; national societies]

• NGO [non-governmental organisation; non-governmental organisation; nongovernmental organisation; nongovernmental organisation]

• National Disaster Management Organisation [National Disaster Management Agency]

• Accountability [to affected populations]

• Humanitarian financing

• Risk [risk management]

• Effectiveness

• Disaster law

• Leadership

• Governance

• Complimentarity

• Humanitarian-development divide [humanitarian-development continuum; Linking Relief and Development]

• Humanitarian Coordination

Approximately ninety documents were reviewed, assessed and classified according to the availability of information by country or context, and the type of document design, such as journal article, report, or media article (see Appendix 2).

2.1 Findings on the available evidence

The evidence is almost exclusively drawn from publicly-available grey literature such as policy documents or issues papers. There is currently very little research or published academic writing on localised humanitarian action globally. Pacific-focused academic literature is exclusively focused on localisation in the context of disaster risk reduction/climate change adaptation.

The evidence is heavily weighted towards materials produced by international humanitarian actors, including the United Nations, international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and think tanks and policy institutions. English-language national and local perspectives on localised humanitarian action in the Pacific are currently confined to online media reports, mainly relating to Tropical Cyclone Pam affecting Vanuatu in March 2015, and Tropical Cyclone Winston affecting Fiji in February 2016.

The evidence is largely aspirational–articulating what needs to happen rather than current practice. The emerging evidence on current practice in the Pacific is mostly descriptive in nature, with little or no definition of success, and no examination of outcomes and impact.

2.2 Limitations

2.2.1 Timing and resources

The research was conducted with a total of 10 days of personnel input over a concentrated period of four weeks, allowing for development of the literature review strategy (one day), article retrieval, analysis and drafting (seven days) and finalisation following feedback (two days).

2.2.2 Access to locally-generated information

The study only examined publically-available literature written in English language, or other English-language documents sourced directly through the Australian Red Cross. Media reports are a small, but important source of local perspectives and anecdotal evidence on localised humanitarian action in this study. However only a small proportion of Pacific-based media reports are available in English and online and the extent to which these perspectives are reflected similarly in other media is not known.


3. Findings: Key Trends and Major Factors Affecting and Influencing Humanitarian Action in the Pacific

Phot

o: IF

RC

3. Findings 13

This section identifies key trends that have emerged throughout the literature review, describing major factors affecting and influencing humanitarian action and grouping them together by themes for consideration in terms of their implications for localisation in the Pacific. Recent experience following Tropical Cyclones Winston and Pam provides specific examples of contributions made by local, national, regional and international actors during the responses.

Humanitarian action in the Pacific is largely about reducing risk as well as preparation, response and recovery following natural hazard-related disasters. As Small Island Developing States (SIDS), PICTs face a unique set of challenges, including logistical difficulties due to their remoteness and their geographically widespread islands that make

localisation a natural obligation. Furthermore, PICTs’ small economies are vulnerable to being overwhelmed by disasters due to their economic capacity and limited resources, posing challenges for poor communities across the region already dependent on aid (Peters and Budimir, 2015).

According to the the Index for Risk Management (INFORM) which ranks countries according to their level of risk based on a range of indicators, the Solomon Islands is the Pacific nation with the highest level of risk, followed by Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. While Fiji has a relatively high level of exposure to hazards, factors relating to its lower vulnerability and higher coping capacity place it at a lower level of overall risk in comparison to its neighbours in the region.

l Solomon Islands 5.6

l Papua New Guinea 5.1

l Vanuatu 4.6

l Kiribati 4.5

l Marshall Islands 4.2

l Federated States of Micronesia 3.9

l Tonga 3.3

l Fiji 3.3

l Tuvalu 3.1

l Palau 2.7

l Nauru 2.5

l Australia 2.3

l Samoa 2.3

l New Zealand 2.0

INFORM risk for Pacific Island countries and territories (10 being the highest risk, 1 being the lowest)

l HIGH RISK l MEDIUM RISK l LOW RISK


PHAP, 2015, Zyck and Krebs, 2015). In the aftermath of Tropical Cyclone Winston, local Fijian Red Cross volunteers were trained and provided psychosocial support to affected communities.

Local chapters of faith-based organisations also play an important role in community mobilization, sharing early warning messages and supporting preparedness, response and recovery, benefitting from access to funding and in-depth knowledge of local needs as well as trust from community members (WHS, 2015d).

3.2 Humanitarian architecture and partnerships

Global literature on localised humanitarian action explores the current positions of local and national actors and consider how these would look in a new, more inclusive international humanitarian architecture with improved partnerships with national and local actors, allowing them to achieve their full potential to enhance humanitarian performance (Zyck and Krebs, 2015; Ramalingam, 2015). Similarly, members of the humanitarian community in the Pacific have been discussing localisation in WHS-related consultations, considering the different context relative to other regions, the closeness in its relationship to climate change and displacement and the Pacific humanitarian architecture.

“Once a disaster hits a Pacific Islander and his or her life is being threatened, the very first reaction is to seek help within the family unit, if the help is unavailable or is beyond the family coping capacity, the next line of assistance is to seek help from extended family. If for some reasons no help is forthcoming from extended family the next level of assistance comes from people within the community. Volunteers are normally provided by strong and loving members of the wider community. The next line of help comes from NGOs and Red Cross within the countries. Beyond that Government may provide the next level of assistance. Once a state of public emergence is declared, we now know that even Government cannot cope with the disaster. This is why the international community’s help is sought.”

(WHS, 2015c)

3.1 Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptationReducing their risk in the face of a changing climate is a natural part of a Pacific Islander’s way of life (Fletcher et al, 2013). The 2015-16 El Niño events have been blamed for recent drought affecting the Federated States of Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands and Palau – with the latter two declaring states of emergency and natural disaster in response to the El Niño-induced drought – as well as Tropical Cyclone Winston that struck Fiji in February 2016 (OCHA, 2016a). Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation are therefore an integral part of humanitarian action in the Pacific.

Studies on disasters and climate change in the Pacific emphasises the importance of climate change adaptation both at the national level through strong and supported humanitarian response institutions (Gero et al, 2015) as well as at the local level by drawing on traditional knowledge and community networks for disaster risk reduction activities such as early warning and adaptation strategies (Fletcher et al, 2013; Johnston 2014). WHS consultations highlighted the need to promote both traditional and scientific (weather forecasting) practices as complementary mechanisms for disaster preparedness in PICTs (IFRC, 2015c; PHAP, 2015).

Managing disaster risk in a changing climate carries humanitarian implications for Pacific Island populations at risk of displacement and potential migration due to rising sea levels (Nansen Initiative Secretariat, 2013; Drauna, 2016). Pacific actors recognise the importance of reinforcing global targets for international initiatives to prevent displacement and for consideration in their planning for population movement as reflected in the Samoa Pathway, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement.

Displaced populations find integration in their host communities difficult due to lack of resources, including land (IFRC, 2015c). The relocation of people from Papua New Guinea’s Carteret Islands to Bougainville highlighted that careful management of the negative effects of displacement of island populations is required to address issues related to integration into local communities as well as the re-establishment of livelihoods (Ferris et al, 2011).

Pacific local actors contribute traditional knowledge for reducing disaster risk and strengthening community coping capacity, as well as provide support through community networks of which outsiders may not have sufficient contextual knowledge and understanding, risking assistance that does not reflect actual needs (IFRC, 2015c;

3. Findings 15

Figure 1: Linkages between PHT and national coordination structures

Source: PHT, 2013a

3.2.1 Regional

Established in 2011, the Pacific Humanitarian Team (PHT) is a network of partners in the region that was created with the aim of improving country and regional level disaster preparedness and response through more predictable and accountable coordination arrangements using the principles of the IASC cluster approach (PHT, 2015).

In its Position Statement 2014-2020, the PHT strongly states the importance of nationally led humanitarian coordination articulating its emphasis on supporting

governments, drawing on the strengths of its partners. PHT partners organized by cluster at the regional level support national capacity and coordination arrangements adopted by the affected government “in a coordinated manner and according to their comparative advantage” (PHT, 2013a: 21).

Figure 1 illustrates how the PHT regional clusters and national coordination structures can interlink in an emergency.


Discussions in the context of the Pacific Humanitarian Partnership and WHS regional consultation meetings highlighted the appetite for ‘Pacific-to-Pacific’ bilateral support and exchange among PICTs (IFRC, 2015c; WHS, 2015c), for example the deployment and embedding in local structures of Fijian midwives to Vanuatu following Tropical Cyclone Pam, and medical assistance teams sent by Australia and New Zealand (AusMAT and NZMAT) for Tropical Cyclones Winston and Pam. Intra-organisational regional partnerships and strong relationships such as those among Red Cross Red Crescent operations was also highlighted as an area of strength in the response to Tropical Cyclone Pam (Dunn et al, 2015).

Regional organisations and initiatives such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group and those falling under the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) such as the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC), the Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and the University of the South Pacific (USP) were mentioned as playing potentially stronger roles in regional contingency planning, risk reduction and potentially serving as regional emergency surge capacity (WHS, 2015c). For example, SPC supports the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative1 (PCRAFI) provides participating PICTs access to a pooled regional insurance facility which has provided payouts to Tonga and Vanuatu.

1 http://pcrafi.sopac.org

3.2.2 National

Pacific National Disaster Management Offices (NDMOs) are responsible for leading national coordination and supporting local humanitarian action, interacting with the international humanitarian community as well as regional partners including the PHT, engaging in global and regional debate.

NDMOs play a critical leadership role in humanitarian action yet lack both the capacity and resources to fulfil their core activities, sometimes opting for international secondments to maintain disaster response capacity (PHT, 2015). While national and provincial lessons learned exercises following Tropical Cyclone Pam were government-led, they were indirectly funded through external international and regional actors.

Recent experience in disaster response in Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands reveals that national coordination for these disasters were government-led and are comparable in structure to that put forward by the IASC cluster approach, adapted according to the national context and the specific needs of each disaster. A comparison of these is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Pacific Coordination in Practice: National coordination structures adopted for Tropical Cyclone Winston (Fiji–2016), Tropical Cyclone Pam (Vanuatu–2015) and the 2014 floods in the Solomon Islands

Theme Fiji: TC Winston: National Cluster

Fiji: Cluster Coordinator and Co-lead

Vanuatu TC Pam: National Cluster

Vanuatu: Cluster Coordinator and Co-lead

Solomon Islands Floods: National Cluster

Solomon Islands: Cluster Coordinator and Co-lead

Camp Coordination and Camp Management

IDP Working Group IDP and Social Welfare Cluster

Ministry of Women, Youth and Culture and the Ministry of Provincial Government

Oxfam/OHCHR/UNHCR

Distribution Distribution Planning Working Group

Early Recovery Livelihoods Cluster

Ministry of Rural Development

FAO/UNDP

Education Education Cluster

Ministry of Education

Education Cluster Ministry of Education and Training

Education Cluster

Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development

UNICEF/Save the Children



3. Findings 17

Theme Fiji: TC Winston: National Cluster

Fiji: Cluster Coordinator and Co-lead

Vanuatu TC Pam: National Cluster

Vanuatu: Cluster Coordinator and Co-lead

Solomon Islands Floods: National Cluster

Solomon Islands: Cluster Coordinator and Co-lead

Emergency Tele-communications

Emergency Telecommunications Working Group

Food security Food Security Cluster

Department of Agriculture

Food Security and Agriculture Cluster

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, Fisheries and Biosecurity

FAO/WFP Secretariat for the Pacific Community/ GIZ/FAO

Health Health Cluster Ministry of Health

Health and Nutrition Cluster

Ministry of Health Health and Nutrition Cluster

Ministry of Health and Medical Services

WHO/UNICEF WHO WHO

Infrastructure Public Works and Utilities Cluster

Ministry of Works, Transport and Public Utilities

Infrastructure Working Group

Infrastructure Cluster

Ministry of Infrastructure and Development

WFP UNDP

Logistics Logistics Cluster Ministry of Finance

Logistics Cluster NDMO Logistics Cluster

Ministry of Finance and Treasury

WFP Joint Police Operations Centre/ Vanuatu Red Cross

World Vision/WFP

Protection Safety and Protection Cluster

Ministry for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation

Gender and Protection Cluster

Ministry of Justice and Community Services

IDP and Social Welfare Cluster

Ministry of Women, Youth and Culture and the Ministry of Provincial Government

UNICEF/UN Women

CARE International/Save the Children

Oxfam/OHCHR/UNHCR

Shelter Shelter Cluster Ministry of Local Government, Urban Development, Housing & Environment

Shelter Working Group

Department of Public Works

Shelter Cluster Ministry of Lands

IFRC IFRC IFRC

Water, Sanita-tion and Hygiene (WASH)

WASH Cluster Ministry of Health/NDMO

WASH Cluster Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources

WASH Cluster Ministry of Health and Medical Services

UNICEF UNICEF WVI/UNICEF

Coordination Coordination Cluster

NDMO Coordination Cluster NDMO Coordination NDMO

OCHA OCHA OCHA

Assessments Information Management Working Group

Information Management and Assessment Working Group

Assessment Taskforce

NDMO

OCHA

Civil Military Coor-dination

Civil Military Coordination Working Group

Sources: Flash Appeal: Fiji – Tropical Cyclone Winston (OCHA, 2016c), Flash Appeal: Emergency Response Plan for Vanuatu – Tropical Cyclone Pam (OCHA, 2015), Solomon Islands Humanitarian Action Plan (Government of the Solomon Islands, 2014)


telecommunications, tourism and banking services. As businesses operating in the region they have contextual knowledge, drawing on their presence across the region and benefiting from relationships with local suppliers supporting disaster response as well as kickstarting recovery and livelihoods (Rencoret/Humanitarian Advisory Group, 2015). Public-private partnerships with small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) promote disaster preparedness and encouraging local resilience through the establishment of food banks across remote island groups (UNDP, 2015).

“A ‘Kautaha4’ strategy will allow key Pacific peoples, in New Zealand and Australia, to speak together to find synergies in what we can practically and realistically have to offer humanitarian efforts. It will allow us to talanoa5 towards a positive strategic direction, together…It is in effect, “reaching out, back and with” to our indigenous, cultural, ethnic and geographical heart.”

(FVSAI-HAWAI’I, Alliant International University, USA; Pacific Centre, Massey University, New Zealand; and PacificWIN & Vagahau Niue Trust, New Zealand)

A significant contributor to humanitarian action is the Pacific diaspora, largely supporting by remittances sent to family members affected by disasters in their home countries. However, the potential for diaspora engagement drawing on their contextual understanding and networks is relatively untapped, with greater thought needed as to how they can be more engaged in humanitarian response (PHAP, 2015; FVSAI-HAWAI’I et al, 2015).

3.3 Humanitarian policy, legal frameworks and accountability

At the international level there are a range of global policies and legal frameworks which guide humanitarian action including those relating to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and the Guidelines for the domestic facilitation and regulation or international disaster relief and initial recovery assistance, the International Disaster Response Law (IDRL) Guidelines.

The IDRL guidelines have been recognised by Pacific actors in the context of the Pacific Islands Forum as well as in WHS regional consultations for their clarity on areas such as triggers for international response and managing international assistance (IFRC, 2014; WHS, 2015c). Pacific

4 Kautaha: Together, in unison5 Talanoa: Paper

Established in 2011 and funded by international donors, the Vanuatu Humanitarian Team2 (VHT) is led by Oxfam and is composed of mostly international humanitarian organisations, with local representation by the Vanuatu Red Cross and Vanuatu Association of NGOs (VANGO). While the VHT was considered relatively strong – recognised as a national model for the Pacific (VHT, 2016; ACMC, 2015)–it was nevertheless overwhelmed by the sudden influx of international aid triggered by the request for international assistance following Tropical Cyclone Pam (Barber, 2015; Care International and Ministry of Justice and Community Services, 2015).

Local actors are widely recognised as first responders to disasters in the Pacific while often simultaneously being a part of the affected population, more likely to be accountable to families, friends and fellow citizens affected by the disaster (Gingerich and Cohen, 2015; Walton, 2015). The remoteness of many Pacific islands and communities means that following a disaster it can take weeks for external aid to arrive, resulting in an even more critical role for local actors in building community resilience (IFRC, 2015c; Johnston, 2014). Local community leaders may also serve as focal points for coordination with national actors as seen by the turaga-ni-koro’s (village headsmen) role during the Tropical Cyclone Winston response (Mala, 2016).

The geographical challenges faced by many PICTs and limited national logistical capacities available in individual countries means that military support may be required and form part of the humanitarian architecture as seen in Fiji and Vanuatu. Pacific humanitarian actors are familiar with and appreciate military agreements and partnerships in operation in the Pacific region, however, they emphasise that such initiatives be civilian-led (WHS, 2015d) and the need for close collaboration between civil and military actors to facilitate understanding of military assets and capabilities (ACMC, 2015).

Examples of Pacific military partnerships include the trilateral FRANZ agreement (involving the militaries of France, Australia and New Zealand) – drawn on for both Tropical Cyclone Winston and Tropical Cyclone Pam – and the US-led Pacific Endeavour civ-mil exercise targeted at 21 Pacific partner-nation militaries focusing on communications and interoperability in disaster response. The Australia-led Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) is another example of military engagement in the region, drawing on the armed forces and police of both countries in addition to those of Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Tonga with policing capacity contributed by a further ten PICTs.3

Businesses are increasingly engaging in humanitarian action in the Pacific from sectors as diverse as logistics,

2 https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/vanuatu/vanuatu-humanitarian-team

3 http://www.ramsi.org

3. Findings 19

Red Cross societies in Tonga and Vanuatu have conducted reviews of legal and policy frameworks in their respective countries against the recommendations contained in the IDRL Guidelines, and in the Cook Islands similar efforts prompted the adoption of standard operating procedures and a model emergency decree in 2014.

The Pacific Islands Forum has also served as a means of uniting PICTs to speak in one voice on issues of common concern during important international meetings on disaster risk reduction, climate change and sustainable development in 2015, including the Third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) and the UN Sustainable Development Summit (SPREP 2015).

In the context and lead up to the World Humanitarian Summit initiatives advocating for the development of policy on localised humanitarian response have emerged such as the Charter for Change: Localisation of Humanitarian Aid, encouraging humanitarian organisations to commit to delivery change “so that southern-based national actors can play an increased and more prominent role in humanitarian response” (Charter for Change, 2016).

Eight commitments to localisation: The Charter for Change

1. Increase direct funding to southern-based NGOs for humanitarian action

2. Reaffirm the Principles of Partnership (Global Humanitarian Platform 2007)

3. Increase transparency around resource transfers to southern-based national and local NGOs

4. Stop undermining local capacity

5. Emphasise the importance of national actors

6. Address subcontracting

7. Robust orgainsational support and capacity strengthening

8. Communication to the media and the public about partners

3.4 Humanitarian financing

According to the State of the Humanitarian System, four out of five humanitarian organisations working in-country in 2014 were national or local NGOs (ALNAP, 2015). Yet these actors reportedly received a mere 1.6 per cent of

international humanitarian funding during the period 2010-14 (GHA, 2015), attributed to a perception among donors that “it is much riskier than non-localised aid, where the donor appears more able to manage directly the risks of funds being misspent.” (McKechnie and Davies, 2013: 8).

The current discourse of how humanitarian financing can facilitate a locally-led humanitarian response has been described as ‘politically smart’ (Booth and Unsworth, 2014), requiring a shift of power from international to national and local actors (Obrecht, 2014). Among the policy options on humanitarian financing being proposed in the lead up to the WHS are calls for easier access to existing, scaled up and new humanitarian funding streams by national actors (CAFOD, 2013). An increase in the percentage of donors’ humanitarian funding going to national governments and national NGOs as part of a ‘Grand Bargain’ whereby donors not just give more, but give better, through increased flexibility and transparency with a longer term focus (High-Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing Report to the Secretary-General, 2016; CAFOD, 2016). In the Pacific there are already examples emerging of key donors to PICTs increasingly adopting bilateral arrangements for resilience programmes, advocating for partner country government prioritization and budget allocations for risk reduction (Scott, 2015).

A lack of transparency by donors on their funding practices makes it difficult to identify which national and local actors – whether directly or through subcontracting arrangements–actually receive international funding due to a lack of consistent or transparent reporting through UN or other databases (Zyck and Krebs, 2015; Els and Carstensen, 2015). Donors’ inconsistency in reporting given their commitments to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) standard pose further challenges to affected governments attempting to understand the aid flows into their country as experienced in Vanuatu following Tropical Cyclone Pam (Glennie and Rabinowitz, 2013; Davies, 2016; Thomas, 2016).

Data on funding of Pacific local and national humanitarian actors often goes unreported; while international donors to PICTs may report funding against humanitarian appeals through OCHA’s Financial Tracking System, it is not always clear how these funds are actually delivered. Donor reporting against Flash Appeals for both Tropical Cyclones Winston and Pam suggest that donors continue to favour international NGOs, with bilateral funding between donor and affected governments tend to come in the form of in-kind arrangements (such as deploying medical teams, sending relief supplies or providing logistics and military support) (OCHA, 2016b).


“The international humanitarian system—the vast UN-led network in which Oxfam and other international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, and others play key roles—is not saving as many lives as it could because of deep design flaws that perpetuate an unsustainable reliance by aid recipients on international donors.

How do we right this wrong? By shifting more power, resources, and responsibility from the international actors—UN agencies, wealthy donor countries, large INGOs, and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement—to local actors, including Red Cross/Red Crescent local chapters, national governments, national NGOs, local NGOs, community-based groups, and other civil society organizations.”

(Cohen and Gingerich, 2016)

Furthermore, financing initiatives aimed at supporting localisation which may or may not involve directly funding national or local actors and not provided against specific humanitarian appeals may not be captured in data on donor funding such as the the Australian Government’s Pacific Humanitarian Challenge.6

6 http://pacifichumanitarianchallenge.org

Private fundraising initiatives by individuals living in Fiji, Fijians and friends of Fiji living abroad as well as members of the Fijian diaspora emerged following Tropical Cyclone Winston, using online fundraising tools7 to raise and transmit funds to locally-led projects. National fundraising mechanisms encouraging private contributions have also benefited from the internet including a national relief fund launched by the Fijian Prime Minister following Tropical Cyclone Winston (Government of Fiji, 2016). Such mechanisms are often not captured in traditional humanitarian financial reporting, resulting in the total amount of funds flowing into a country contributing to humanitarian action and their impact being unknown.

An additional layer of complexity when it comes to financing local and national humanitarian action is the overlap with other funding mechanisms such those related to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation (Peters and Budimir, 2015). Figure 2 shows how these mechanisms overlap in PICTs.

The following section takes these four themes and discusses each in turn – identifying the challenges, constraints and risks they present, along with potential opportunities for progressing a more localised humanitarian architecture in the Pacific.

7 Examples of fundraising using gofundme: https://www.gofundme.com/3aresmws; https://www.gofundme.com/fijiatheart; https://www.gofundme.com/v8r3h2h8; https://www.gofundme.com/sosfiji; https://www.gofundme.com/foodforfiji

Source: Peters and Budimir, 2015

Figure 2: Overlap of humanitarian, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation financing

4. Discussion 21

4. Discussion: Challenges, Constraints, Risks and OpportunitiesThis section will discuss the four themes that emerged in the findings in terms of the implications for localisation in the Pacific, considering the challenges, constraints and risks they pose as well as potential opportunities they present for humanitarian actors.

Phot

o: IF

RC/V

anua

tu R

ed C

ross

Soc

iety


4.1 Overview

The literature reviewed for this paper – almost exclusively drawn from publically-available grey literature of the past two years – reveals a weak evidence base on localised humanitarian action in the Pacific, with the existing body of knowledge on current practice mostly descriptive in nature. Both global and Pacific-focused literature are aspirational in nature, agreeing on the importance of and need for more localised humanitarian action; however, neither specifies what defines successful localisation nor explores its impact.

“The global humanitarian system is overstretched, investing inadequately in risk reduction and prevention, and providing assistance that is often insufficient, inappropriate, and late…This system must change, with locally led humanitarian action whenever possible; adequate funding to state and non-state actors in affected countries; and stronger partnerships between international and local actors, focusing on strengthening local capacity.”

(Gingerich and Cohen, 2015)

The WHS process has been a key trigger for the rise in discourse shifting towards localisation, emerging over the last 12 months in the lead up to the Summit. For example, discussions on humanitarian financing in the context of WHS have been increasingly driven by donors articulating their intentions to change the way they fund humanitarian action.

While the global literature provides some examples of what has and hasn’t worked in other regions there is little material beyond anecdotal evidence on the Pacific experience of localisation, with most emerging in consultations in the context of the WHS. The inconsistent interpretation and application of the term ‘local’ across the literature poses challenges in understanding the mechanics of what is require to make localisation actually happen.

The existing body of knowledge offers little analysis of how current trends in the region are impacting or supporting localised humanitarian action in the Pacific. There is no differentiation in neither the global nor the Pacific discourse between Melanesian, Micronesian and Polynesian PICTs and the potential similarities and differences in their experiences of localisation. Recent experience following disasters in Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands may offer opportunities for conducting a critical review of localisation in Melanesian PICTs.

While recognising Micronesia is not a region of focus for the Australian Red Cross, the current El Nino-induced drought affecting the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau could offer further opportunities in conducting research on localised humanitarian in another sub-region in the context of a slow-onset disaster.

4.2 Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation

The particularity of the Pacific region in terms of the closeness in the relationship between humanitarian action, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation is reflected by the lower prioritisation given to these issues in the global literature on localisation. This relationship emerged strongly in the academic Pacific-focused literature reviewed, which highlighted PICTs’ traditional knowledge and community networks – including those of faith-based networks – as opportunities for further research and partnerships to reduce disaster risk and build local resilience.

While there are potential risks associated with the use of traditional knowledge for disaster risk reduction – for example, the use of outdated practices in the context of unpredictable and extreme weather patterns caused by climate change – there are also opportunities for innovation promoting the fusion of traditional and modern practices for local adaptation capacities. (WHS, 2015d).

The issues surrounding displacement and migration as potential consequences of rising sea levels appears consistently in recent grey literature in the context of WHS, often with reference to global discourse and policy on disaster risk reduction, climate change and SIDS. Consultations with Pacific actors in the context of the Nansen Initiative produced a series of climate change mitigation and adaption measures for local, national, regional and international actors to consider for the prevention of displacement and planning of population movement, avoiding negative impacts of relocation related to issues of nationhood, control over land and sea territory, sovereignty, culture and livelihoods (Nansen Initiative Secretariat, 2013).

Initiatives such as the Kiribati Government’s purchase of land in Fiji as an ‘insurance policy’ against the threat of rising sea levels (Keating, 2015) have received international attention yet there is little discussion on the implications this on both the affected and host communities, ensuring ‘migration with dignity’.

4. Discussion 23

4.3 Humanitarian architecture and partnerships

Discussions on a new, more inclusive humanitarian architecture promoting have emerged strongly in both the global and Pacific literature, accompanied by a widespread expectation that the current humanitarian system must change; however, there is no discussion on whether humanitarian organisations may be required to change to reflect this inclusivity and renewed focus on localisation.

It should be noted that the need for more localised humanitarian action is argued in the literature almost entirely by international humanitarian actors, including PICTs‘ key donors. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s forthcoming revised humanitarian policy is expected to have a stronger emphasis on localisation, focusing its efforts on building national government capacity and reinforcing local capacities by ensuring they are not marginalised by international humanitarian actors (DFAT, forthcoming; D’Crus, 2016).

WHS consultations saw Pacific actors speak in a strong and unified voice on the need for more Pacific-to-Pacific cooperation and coordination through regional mechanisms such as the PHT, CROP organisations and sub-regional fora such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group, bolstering support for and strengthening under-resourced and low-capacity NDMOs. Such intra-regional cooperation could benefit from the experiences of other regions, such as that of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) (ALNAP, 2010; Barber, 2013). The contributions of military actors, the private sector and the Pacific diaspora were recognised in Pacific literature, although there was little discussion on whether and how these partnerships can be activated more systematically and how these groups can engage with the overall humanitarian architecture.

National humanitarian coordination structures have shown how the IASC cluster approach can be adapted according to specific Pacific contexts and disasters, with government-led clusters being supported by international and regional actors. However, the success of localised humanitarian action is contingent on the functionality and effectiveness of national coordination mechanisms, which may require further adaption to ensure the inclusion of both national and local humanitarian actors (WHS, 2015d).

The literature also spoke strongly about the importance of local actors as first responders, recognising their role in increasing the resilience of communities due to logistical challenges associated with the delivery of external aid to remote and geographically scattered Pacific Islands. As noted earlier, the terms ‘local’ and ‘national’ are sometimes

used interchangeably and homogenously in the literature which poses challenges for Pacific contexts in which national humanitarian actors could be located on distant island, potentially disconnected from local humanitarian actors working at the village level.

There is no clear agreement on how local actors could be positioned and how they would interact with national, regional and international actors in a new humanitarian architecture supporting localisation. Global literature recognises the complexities of a more inclusive humanitarian system with more assertive governments and engaging municipal authorities and grassroots groups, posing challenges to traditional humanitarian actors and the current system of humanitarian coordination (Ferris, 2011).

4.4 Humanitarian policy, legal frameworks and accountability

Pacific literature shows how international humanitarian policy and legal frameworks such as the Paris Agreement and IDRL Guidelines can play a key role in providing practical guidance and shaping national leadership and more localised humanitarian action. Progress has been made in PICTs on obtaining regional and national buy-in to develop disaster policies that articulate triggers for requesting international assistance as well as communicate national strategies and structures for more predictable and effective humanitarian action; such progress and can serve as momentum for international and regional advocacy efforts for more widespread adoption and application of the IDRL Guidelines in national disaster preparedness and response. There is also scope for an analysis of how addressing IDRL principles in PICTs disaster policies and legislation has improved national humanitarian action (or not).

While there is discussion of how conflict may be an ‘exception’ requiring a neutral and impartial internationally-led response according to the humanitarian imperative (Obrecht, 2014; Audet, 2011), no clear picture has been painted of how localisation ‘looks’ or might ‘look’ in conflict, compared to natural disaster contexts – or the extent to which the intended outcomes of a localised approcah may be compromised in such settings. The Pacific region, where humanitarian action largely relates to natural disasters, is well placed to implement a localised ‘Pacific-style’ disaster response system, avoiding the complexities and potential incongruity of localisation in the context of conflict, which other regions face.


While there is no current literature that gauges the interest or commitment of humanitarian organisations with operations in the Pacific region for the newly created Charter for Change, the initiative represents an additional opportunity for advocacy among international, regional and national actors to increase funding and promote greater transparency among donors around their funding to Pacific national NGOs. International humanitarian organisations could also use the opportunity to reflect on and improve their internal structures and operations to better support localisation.

Stronger humanitarian policies and legal frameworks form the basis for improved accountability. The research revealed a separation in the discourse on localisation from literature on accountability to affected populations as well as on inclusion. Accountability mechanisms for localised humanitarian action were notably absent in the literature; nor was the issue of capacities required to ensure accountability addressed. There was no mention of the impact and outcomes of localisation in the literature, nor were mechanisms of accountability discussed. This is an important area of focus that merits further research and consideration for its linkages to and implications for other issues raised in this paper, such as humanitarian architecture and humanitarian financing.

4.5 Humanitarian financing

Funding for national and local actors was consistently raised in the literature as a positive step towards more localised humanitarian action in the Pacific. The global literature speaks quite strongly about the need for donors to adopt a new approach to overcome skepticism about the effective management of funds by local actors; however, it does not address the need for sufficient capacity and training among local actors to fulfil the often complex and bureaucratic administrative and reporting procedures required by different donors and humanitarian, disaster risk reduction and climate change mechanisms.

The literature calls on donors to increase transparency in their reporting of aid, providing clear and accessible data on activities they are funding, by whom and at what level they are delivered. There are opportunities for donors and their international and national actors to establish clear agreements on reporting and tracking aid, which in turn could serve as a means of identifying the impacts of increased direct funding to national and local actors.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations 25

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Phot

o: IF

RC/N

avne

et N

aray

an


5.1 Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to establish an evidence-base on localisation of humanitarian action in the Pacific region by understanding the major factors affecting and influencing the current system, and the contribution of local, national, regional and global actors. The localisation agenda is closely linked to the forthcoming World Humanitarian Summit and forecasts significant changes to the international aid architecture, including planning, funding and delivery of programs and services.

The review of literature has identified that humanitarian action in the Pacific is focused on reducing risks as well as preparation, response and recovery for natural hazard-related disasters. The unique challenges in this island region, including logistical difficulties due to remote and dispersed countries and territories makes localisation a natural obligation. Four key themes that inform and shape the localisation agenda in the Pacific region have strongly and consistently emerged from the literature:

1. The centrality and relevance of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation to humanitarian action in the Pacific

2. The unique Pacific humanitarian architecture and partnerships

3. Humanitarian policy, legal frameworks and accountability

4. Humanitarian financing.

The review also identified a number of research and evidence gaps in the localisation discourse. To date, the body of evidence around localisation is almost exclusively drawn from policy and issues papers. There is limited research or evidence about what works, when, why and for whom within a more localised approach, and there is a need to better understand the impacts, including whether or not a more localised humanitarian response results in better outcomes for affected populations.

The synthesis of literature and the clear emergence of core themes has informed the development of key recommendations. It is envisaged that the research evidence and recommendations together will contribute to Australian Red Cross’s understanding of localisation and guide their strategy and operations going forward.

5.2 Recommendations

The following key research questions are recommended:

1. What is the experience of national and local actors interacting with the Pacific humanitarian architecture?

2. What changes to internal organisational policy and structures need to occur within donors, international NGOs and the UN, to faciliate more localised humanitarian action in the Pacific?

3. What is the relationship between national and local actors, and improved relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and connectedneess of humanitarian action?

4. To what extent do traditional notions of ‘capacity-building’ of local partners need to be transformed to faciliate more localised Pacific humanitarian action?

5. Conclusion and Recommendations 27

Based on the available evidence, this report recommends:

To the wider community of humanitarian actors within the Pacific region:

Recommended actions Theme

1 Research the implications of a more localised humanitarian response in the Pacific for the internal organisation policy and structures of donors, international NGOs and the UN, and for their interactions with regional, national, provincial and local actors. Identify specific areas for strengthening NDMO capacity and resources in a new localisation-focused humanitarian architecture

Humanitarian policy, legal frameworks and accountability;


2 Investigate how partnerships with ‘new’ actors such as the private sector and diaspora can be harnessed to achieve a more localised response in the Pacific


3 Identify potential aid tracking mechanisms NDMOs across the Pacific can use to identify, track and advocate for more localised humanitarian financing


To donors of Pacific humaitarian aid:


4 Synthesise and document learning and evidence from prior direct funding to national and local partners, using a case study approach


5 Invest in systematic analysis of internal risk tolerance, and identify and cost any new risk mitigation strategies needed to faciliate a more localised response


6 Review resource streams and strengthen transparency of resource flows to enable national governments to obtain a more accurate and complete picture of needs and gaps across the Pacific. Strengthen the accessibility of data reported through the IATI initiative, potentially modelling reporting on DFID’s development tracker (https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/)


To the wider Red Cross Red Crescent Movement:


7 Identify examples of how the IDRL Guidelines are improving the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian action in the Pacific


8 Invest in documenting a series of comparative case studies on localisation in conflict, natural disaster and urban settings–based on the Movement’s experience partnering with local and national socieites, and other national and local actors, with a focus on defining success and developing indicators for assessing impact on humanitarian outcomes


To Australian Red Cross:


9 Invest in documenting a series of Pacific case studies on localisation based on the Society’s experience partnering with local and national societies and other national and local actors, with a focus on defining success and developing indicators for assessing impact on humanitarian outcomes. Case studies could focus on Melanesian PICTs, looking at recent experiences in Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands; and, while not a sub-region of focus for the Australia Red Cross, Micronesian PICTs including the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau in the context of drought/slow onset disaster

The unique Pacific humanitarian architecture and partnerships;

The centrality and relevance of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation to humanitarian action in the Pacific

10 Initiate a review of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement architecture in the Pacific and any implications on internal organisational policy and structure for adopting more localised humanitarian action



Bibliography

1. Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) 2010, ‘The role of national governments in international humanitarian response to disasters’, 26th ALNAP Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, ALNAP, 16-17 November, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.alnap.org/resource/6062>.

2. ALNAP 2015, The State of the Humanitarian System 2015, ALNAP, accessed 15 April 2016, <http://www.alnap.org/resource/21236.aspx>.

3. Alonso, A and Brugha, R 2006, ‘Rehabilitating the health system after conflict in East Timor: a shift from NGO to government leadership’, Health Policy and Planning, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 206-216.

4. Audet, F 2011, ‘What future role for local organisations? A reflection on the need for humanitarian capacity-building’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 93, no. 884, pp.1151-1164.

5. Australian Civil Military Centre 2015, Post Tropical Cyclone Pam Roundtable with Civil Society, Australian Civil Military Centre, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.acmc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ACMC_Cyclone-Pam_Roundtable_Outcomes.pdf>.

6. Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, forthcoming, Humanitarian Strategy, DFAT.

7. Balpe, A 2015, World Humanitarian Summit Pacific Consultations, IFRC, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/node/498290>.

8. Barber, R 2013, Localising the Humanitarian Toolkit: Lessons from Recent Philippines Disasters, Save the Children and ASEAN Agreement for Disaster Management and Emergency Response Partnership Group, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.savethechildren.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/6558/Localising_the_Humanitarian_Toolkit_-_SC_Report_Aug_2013.pdf>.

9. Barber, R 2015, One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Tailoring the International Response to the National Need Following Vanuatu’s Cyclone Pam - A contribution to the Pacific Regional Consultation for the World Humanitarian Summit, Save the Children Australia, CARE Australia, Oxfam Australia and World Vision Australia, 1 June.

10. Bennett, C 2016, Time to Let Go: Remaking humanitarian action for the modern era, Humanitarian Policy Group, April 2016.

11. Booth, D and Unsworth, S 2014, Politically smart, locally led development, Overseas Development Institute, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9204.pdf>.

12. Brabant, KV 2016, ‘Five Ways to Make Aid Locally Sourced’, The Guardian, 2 March, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/mar/01/the-aid-localisation-debate-five-issues-for-the-world-humanitarian-summit?CMP=share_btn_tw>.

13. CAFOD 2013, Funding at the Sharp End: Investing in National NGO Response Capacity, CAFOD, accessed 15 April 2016, <http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/CAFOD%20national%20ngo%20financing%20study%20July%202013%20%283%29.pdf>.

14. CAFOD 2016, Localisation of Humanitarian Financing: Policy options for the Grand Bargain for bi-lateral donors, CAFOD, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://cafod.org.uk/content/download/28979/327361/version/1/file/Localisation%20of%20humanitarian%20financing%20CAFOD%20proposals%20for%20the%20Grand%20Bargain%20March%202016.pdf>.

15. Care International and Ministry of Justice and Community Services 2015, Tropical Cyclone Pam: Lessons Learned Workshop Report, Gender and Protection Cluster, Port Vila, 5 May.

16. Charter 4 Change 2015, Charter for Change: Localisation of Humanitarian Aid, Charter 4 Change, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://charter4change.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/charter-for-change-july-20152.pdf>.

17. CHS Alliance 2015, ‘On the Road to Istanbul: How Can the World Humanitarian Summit Make Humanitarian Response More Effective?’, Humanitarian Accountability Report, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/CHS-Alliance-HAR-2015.pdf>.

Bibliography 29

18. Cohen, M 2015, Is the International Humanitarian System hitting a tipping point on ‘going local’?, Oxfam, 1 October, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/is-the-international-humanitarian-system-hitting-a-tipping-point-on-going-local/>.

19. Cohen, M and Gingerich, T 2015a, Summary- Turning the Humanitarian System on its Head: Saving lives and livelihoods by strengthening local capacity and shifting leadership to local actors, Oxfam America.

20. Cohen, M and Gingerich, T 2015b, Turning the Humanitarian System on its Head: Saving lives and livelihoods by strengthening local capacity and shifting leadership to local actors, Oxfam America.

21. Cohen, M and Gingerich, T 2016, Righting the wrong: Strengthening local humanitarian leadership to save lives and strengthen communities, Oxfam America.

22. D’Crus, Z 2016, Localising Humanitarian Action – What it Means for Aid in the Pacific, Australian Institute of International Affairs, 8 January, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australian_outlook/localising-humanitarian-action-what-it-means-for-aid-in-the-pacific/>.

23. Davies, R 2016, ‘Aid transparency: how to track Australian aid to activity level’, DevPolicy Blog, 14 April, accessed 14 April 2016, <http://devpolicy.org/aid-transparency-track-australian-aid-activity-level-20160414/>.

24. Delaney, M and Ocharan, J 2012, Local Capacity in Humanitarian Response: Vision or mirage?, Oxfam America, 14 March, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/local-capacity-in-humanitarian-response.pdf-1.pdf>.

25. Drauna, P 2016, ‘My Family Wants To Relocate: Miller To Prime Minister’, Fiji Sun, 13 April, accessed 15 April 2016, <http://fijisun.com.fj/2016/04/14/my-family-wants-to-relocate-miller-to-prime-minister/>.

26. Dunn, S, Nainoca, F, Bains, A and Lyons, M 2015, Real time evaluation of the IFRC response to Tropical Cyclone Pam: Final Report, International Federation of the Red Cross.

27. Els, C and Carstensen, N 2015, Funding for national and local humanitarian actors, Local 2 Global Protection, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.local2global.info/wp-content/uploads/funding_flows.html>.

28. Ferris, E 2011, ‘Megatrends and the future of humanitarian action’, International Review of The Red Cross, vol. 93, no. 884, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/review/2011/irrc-884-ferris.pdf>.

29. Ferris, E, Cernea, M and Petz, D 2011, On the front line of climate change and displacement learning from and with Pacific Island Countries, The Brookings Institution – London School of Economics Project on Internal Displacement, accessed 14 April 2016, <http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/9/idp-climate-change/09_idp_climate_change.pdf>.

30. Fletcher, SM, Thiessen, J, Gero, A, Rumsey, M, Kuruppu, N and Willets, J 2013, ‘Traditional Coping Strategies and Disaster Response: Examples from the South Pacific Region’, Journal of Environmental and Public Health, vol. 2013.

31. Gero, A, Fletcher, S, Rumsey, M, Thiessen, J, Kuruppu, N, Buchan, J, Daly, J and Willetts, J 2015, ‘Disasters and climate change in the Pacific: adaptive capacity of humanitarian response organisations’, Climate and Development, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 35-46.

32. Glennie, J and Rabinowitz, G 2013, Localising Aid: A Whole of Society Approach, Overseas Development Institute, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8457.pdf>.

33. Glennie, J, Ali, A, King, M, McKechnie, A and Rabinowitz, G 2012, Localising Aid: Can Using Local Actors Strengthen Them?, Overseas Development Institute, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7789.pdf>.

34. Glennie, J, McKechnie, A, Rabinowitz, G and Ali, A 2013, Localising Aid: Sustaining change in the public, private and civil society sectors, Overseas Development Institute, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8284.pdf>.

35. Global Climate Change Alliance 2012, The Solomon Islands Climate Assistance Programme, European Commission, accessed 13 April 2016, <http://www.gcca.eu/national-programmes/pacific/gcca-solomon-islands-climate-assistance-programme>.


36. Global Humanitarian Assistance, 2015, Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2015, Global Humanitarian Assistance, accessed 15 April 2016, <http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/report/gha-report-2015>.

37. Government of Fiji 2016, ‘Fijian Government establishes disaster relief funds’, Fijian Government, 22 February, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.fiji.gov.fj/Media-Center/Press-Releases/FIJIAN-GOVERNMENT-ESTABLISHES-DISASTER-RELIEF-FUND.aspx>.

38. Government of the Solomon Islands 2014, Honiara & Guadalcanal Flash Floods: Humanitarian Action Plan, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/20140425_SI_HAP_Floods_edition%201.pdf>.

39. Groupe URD, HAP International, People in Aid and the Sphere Project 2014, Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability, accessed 17 April 2016, <http://www.corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%20Standard%20-%20English.pdf>.

40. Harvey, P 2013, ‘International humanitarian actors and governments in areas of conflict: challenges, obligations, and opportunities’, Disasters, vol. 37, no. S2, pp. S151-S170.

41. High-Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing 2016, Too important to fail - addressing the humanitarian financing gap, United Nations, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/%5BHLP%20Report%5D%20Too%20important%20to%20fail—addressing%20the%20humanitarian%20financing%20gap.pdf>.

42. Hofman, M and Tiller, S 2015, ‘Recently noticed’ aid actors: MSF’s interaction with a changing humanitarian landscape, Humanitarian Practice Network, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://odihpn.org/magazine/%C2%91recently-noticed%C2%92-aid-actors-msf%C2%92s-interaction-with-a-changing-humanitarian-landscape/>.

43. International Committee of the Red Cross 2011, ‘Humanitarian debate: Law, policy, action; The future of humanitarian action’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 93, no. 884, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/international-review/review-884/review-884-all.pdf>.

44. International Council of Voluntary Agencies 2015, Partnership: From Principles to Practice, ICVA.

45. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2014, ‘IFRC and PIF sign new IDRL agreement’, IFRC, 1 March, accessed 14 April 2016, <http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-law/news/asia-pacific/ifrc-and-pif-sign-new-idrl-agreement-64678/>.

46. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2015a, Tropical Cyclone Pam Response Lessons Learned, Shelter Cluster Vanuatu, 1 June.

47. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2015b, World Disasters Report 2015: Focus on local actors, the key to humanitarian effectiveness, IFRC.

48. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2015c, World Humanitarian Summit Pacific Consultations: International Red Cross Red Crescent Movement Findings and Recommendations, IFRC, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/node/498290>.

49. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2016, Red Cross provides psycho-social support to the communities affected by Cyclone Winston, IFRC, accessed 15 April 2016, <http://www.ifrc.org/en/news-and-media/news-stories/asia-pacific/fiji/red-cross-provides-psycho-social-support-to-the-communities-affected-by-cyclone-winston--72011/>.

50. International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2016a, Unsolicited donations after disaster: generosity gone awry, International Federation of the Red Cross, 1 April, accessed 12 April 216, <http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-law/news/asia-pacific/unsolicited-donations-after-disaster--generosity-gone-awry-72079/>.

51. Johnston, I 2014, ‘Disaster management and climate change adaptation: a remote island perspective’, Disaster Prevention and Management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 123-137.

52. Keating, J 2015, ‘Climate Change May Soon Force This Island Nation to Relocate Its Entire Population’, Slate, 30 November, accessed 14 April 2016, <http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/30/kiribati_president_thanks_fiji_at_paris_climate_talks.html>.

Bibliography 31

53. Kent, R, Armstrong, J, and Obrecht, A 2013, The Future of Non-Governmental Organisations in the Humanitarian Sector: Global Transformations and Their Consequences, Humanitarian Futures Programme, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.humanitarianfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Future-of-Humanitarian-NGOs-HFP-Discussion-Paper-Aug2013-1-copy1.pdf>.

54. Kisia, J 2015, Localising humanitarian response can help better meet the needs of crisis affected people, World Humanitarian Summit, 4 September, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://blog.worldhumanitariansummit.org/entries/localising-humanitarian-response-2/>.

55. Lancaster, R 2009, ‘Intervening Interests: Humanitarian and Pro-Democratic Intervention in the Asia-Pacific’, Australian International Law Journal, vol. 16, pp. 103-131.

56. Leoni, B 2015, ‘Sendai Framework can keep us above water: Kiribati’s President’, UNISDR, 1 December, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.unisdr.org/archive/46902>.

57. Local 2 Global Protection 2015a, ‘Concept Note: Strengthening local responses to rapid-onset emergencies and conflict’, Local 2 Global Protection, 4 September.

58. Local 2 Global Protection 2015b, Input for Literature Review Draft – Terms of

59. Local 2 Global Protection 2015c, Terms of Reference Programme Development Consultant for L2GP, Local 2 Global Protection.

60. Local 2 Global Protection 2016, Funding for national and local humanitarian actors, Local 2 Global Protection, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.local2global.info/wp-content/uploads/funding_flows.html>.

61. Mala, S 2016, ‘Villagers start new life’, Fiji Sun Online, 29 February, accessed 14 April 2016, <http://fijisun.com.fj/2016/02/29/villagers-start-new-life/>.

62. McAdam, J 2015, Submission to the World Humanitarian Summit Regional Consultation for the Pacific, UNSW Australia, 27 May, accessed 13 April 2016, <https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/node/493017>.

63. McKechnie, A and Davies F 2013, Localising Aid: Is it Worth the Risk?, Overseas Development Institute, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8456.pdf>.

64. Memon, N 2015, ‘Localising Humanitarian Actions’, The News on Sunday – Pakistan, 26 July, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://tns.thenews.com.pk/localising-humanitarian-actions/#.VwyJG4SQkvY>.

65. Muguruza, CC 2015, Towards more effective global humanitarian action: How the EU can contribute, European Parliament’s Committee on Development, 1 June.

66. Nansen Initiative Secretariat 2013, Desk review on cross- border displacement in the context of natural disasters in the Pacific: A discussion paper drafted in preparation for the Nansen Initiative Regional Consultation in the Pacific.

67. National Disaster Management Office Solomon Islands (NDMO) 2014, National disaster management office applauds resilient families, as 96 more people choose to repatriate, NDMO, 11 August, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://reliefweb.int/report/solomon-islands/national-disaster-management-office-applauds-resilient-families-96-more>.

68. Neal, A 2015, Changing the Way We Respond, Charter for Change, 1 September, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://charter4change.org/2015/09/01/changing-the-way-we-respond/>.

69. Nightingale, K 2012, Building the future of humanitarian aid: Local capacity and partnerships in emergency assistance, Christian Aid, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.alnap.org/resource/9151>.

70. Obrecht, A 2014, ‘De-Internationalising’ Humanitarian Action: Rethinking the ‘Global-Local’ Relationship, IRIS, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.iris-france.org/docs/kfm_docs/docs/obs_questions_humanitaires/eng-obshuma-obrecht-octobre2014.pdf>.

71. Pacific Humanitarian Team 2015, Pacific Humanitarian Partnership Meeting, UN OCHA, 28-29 October, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://pacifichumanitarian.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/241015-PHP-2015_Booklet_small.pdf>.

72. Pacific Humanitarian Team, 2013, Emergency Preparedness & Response Plan: A Guide to Inter-Agency Humanitarian Action in the Pacific, Pacific Humanitarian Team, accessed 15 April 2016, <http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Emergency%20Preparedness%20and%20Response%20Plan.pdf>.


73. Pacific Humanitarian Team, 2013a, Pacific Humanitarian Team: Position Statement 2014-2020. Pacific Humanitarian Team, accessed 15 April 2016, <http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/PHT_Position_Statement_2014-20.pdf>.

74. Peters, K and Budimir, M 2015, Humanitarian Trends and Challenges for the Pacific Region: Paper prepared by ODI for the World Humanitarian Summit’s Regional Consultation, 30 June – 2 July 2015, Auckland, New Zealand, Overseas Development Institute, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/bitcache/a8838cfc96a33a23d2bd5693acfdcad6dd2a5ed3?vid=542279&disposition=inline&op=view>.

75. Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and Protection 2015, Live online consultation: Localizing preparedness and response in South and Central Asia – Summary report of the online consultation event organized on 14 July 2015 by PHAP in support of the World Humanitarian Summit, Professionals in Humanitarain Assistance and Protection, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://phap.org/sites/phap.org/files/civicrm/persist/contribute/files/150714-Localizing-preparedness-and-response-in-SC-Asia-event-report.pdf>.

76. Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and Protection 2015a, Live online consultation for the Pacific Region: Summary Report of the online consultation event, Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and Protection , 2 June, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/file/501087/view/545855>.

77. Rabinowitz, G 2013, Localising Aid to NGOs: Issues and Challenges Highlighted by a Multi-Country Study, Overseas Development Institute, 4 July, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.odi.org/comment/7578-local-capacity-localising-aid-ngos-donors-hiv-aids>.

78. Ramalingam, B, Gray, B and Cerruti, G, 2013, Missed Opportunities: The Case for Strengthening National and Local Partnership-Based Humanitarian Responses. ActionAid, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Oxfam GB and Tearfund, accessed 15 April 2016, <http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/partnering-in-emergencies-report.pdf>.

79. Rencoret, N and Humanitarian Advisory Group 2015, Private Sector Engagement in Humanitarian Action in the Pacific, HAG.

80. Scott, R 2015, Financing in Crisis? Making humanitarian finance fit for the future, OECD, Working Paper 22.

81. Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme 2015, The voice of the Pacific and the Paris Agreement, SPREP, accessed 15 April 2016, <https://www.sprep.org/climate-change/the-voice-of-the-pacific-and-the-paris-agreement>.

82. Seybolt, TB 2009, ‘Harmonizing the Humanitarian Aid Network: Adaptive Change in a Complex System’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1027-1050.

83. Shelter Cluster Vanuatu and International Federation of the Red Cross 2015, Tropical Cyclone Pam Humanitarian Action Plan – Final Report, Public Works Department.

84. Sriskandarajah, D 2016, Moving the Needle on Localisation, World Humanitarian Summit, 15 january, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://blog.worldhumanitariansummit.org/entries/moving-to-localisation/>.

85. Srodecki, J 2015, Can you bring together the Global and the Local in Humanitarian Action?, World Vision International, 4 November, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.wvi.org/disaster-management/blogpost/can-you-bring-together-global-and-local-humanitarian-action>.

86. Start Network 2014, How can Donor Requirements be Reformed to Better Support Efforts to Strengthen Local Humanitarian Capacity?, Christian Aid, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://programme.christianaid.org.uk/programme-policy-practice/sites/default/files/2016-03/how-can-donor-requirements-be-reformed-discussion-paper-oct-2014.pdf>.

87. Tafea Provincial Disaster Committee and Care International 2015, Lessons Learnt from Tropical Cyclone Pam, Tafea Provincial Disaster Committee, 1 June.

88. Teall, R 2015, Local actors and the humanitarian architecture, WhyDev, 25 November, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.whydev.org/local-actors-and-the-humanitarian-architecture/>.

89. Thomas, A 2016, ‘Vanuatu: In search of the aid’, Al Jazeera, 14 April, accessed 15 April 2016, < http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/asia/2016/04/vanuatu-cyclone-aid-160414164351368.html>.

Bibliography 33

90. UN Development Programme 2015, Food security projects give remote island communities long-term disaster resilience, 27 March, accessed 14 April 2016, <http://www.asia-pacific.undp.org/content/rbap/en/home/presscenter/articles/2015/03/27/food-security-projects-give-remote-island-communities-long-term-disaster-resilience.html>.

91. UN General Assembly 2016, One humanity: shared responsibility. Report of the Secretary-General for the World Humanitarian Summit (2 February 2016, A/70/709).

92. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2015, Flash Appeal: Emergency Response Plan for Vanuatu – Tropical Cyclone Pam, OCHA, accessed 15 April 2016, <http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Vanuatu-TCPam_flash_appeal_final%2024MAR2015.pdf>.

93. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2016, El Nino: Overview of impact, projected humanitarian needs and response, OCHA, accessed 15 April 2016, <https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/OCHA_ElNino_Overview_13Apr2016.pdf>.

94. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2016, Financial Tracking System, OCHA, accessed 12 April 2016, < https://fts.unocha.org>.

95. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2016, Flash Appeal: Fiji - Tropical Cyclone Winston, OCHA, accessed 15 April 2016, < http://reliefweb.int/report/fiji/fiji-flash-appeal-tropical-cyclone-winston-february-may-2016>.

96. UN Women Fiji Multi-Country Office 2015, World Humanitarian Summit Pacific Consultation Position Paper: Gender Equality and Pacific Humanitarian Response, UN Women, accessed 13 April 2016, <https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/node/498633>.

97. Vanuatu Humanitarian Team 2016, History of the VHT, Humanitarian Response, accessed 15 April 2016, <https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/vanuatu/history-vht>.

98. Vanuatu National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) 2015, Tropical Cyclone Pam – Lessons Learned Workshop Report, NDMO.

99. Vanuatu Red Cross Society 2015, Cyclone Pam ‘Lessons Learnt’ Workshop, Vanuatu Red Cross Society, 10 July.

100. Walton, P 2015, Strengthening local actors key to effective disaster response, Dev Policy Blog, 24 September, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://devpolicy.org/strengthening-local-actors-key-to-effective-disaster-response-20150924/>.

101. World Health Organisation Western Pacific Region (WHO) 2014, Solomon Islands Flash Floods : Health Situation Report No 2, WHO, 16 April, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.wpro.who.int/southpacific/programmes/health_sector/emergencies/WHO-HEALTH-Sitrep2-2014-04-16.pdf>.

102. World Humanitarian Summit 2015, Regional Consultation for the Pacific, World Humanitarian Summit, 30 June – 2 July, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/file/502935/view/547995>.

103. World Humanitarian Summit 2015a, Pacific voices heard on humanitarian action, World Humanitarian Summit, 9 July, accessed 10 April 2016, <http://blog.worldhumanitariansummit.org/entries/pacific/>.

104. World Humanitarian Summit 2015b, Online Consultation Summary Report: Pacific Region, World Humanitarian Summit, accessed 13 April 2016, <https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/bitcache/245d95672092fc9f69270f54c8270d36777db3a8?vid=545855&disposition=inline&op=view>.

105. World Humanitarian Summit 2015c, Regional Consultation for the Pacific: Final Report, World Humanitarian Summit, 30 June – 2 July, accessed 12 April 2016, <https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/file/502935/view/547995>.

106. World Humanitarian Summit 2015d, Preparatory Stakeholder Analysis – World Humanitarian Summit Regional Consultation for the Pacific, World Humanitarian Summit, accessed 13 April 2016, <https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/file/497849/view/542285>.

107. World Vision Solomon Islands 2014, Flood Response 2014, World Vision Solomon Islands, accessed 13 April 2016, <http://www.wvi.org/sites/default/files/Fact%20Sheet_2014%20Flood%20Response_FINAL_0.pdf>.

108. Zyck, SA, and Krebs, HB 2015, Localising Humanitarianism: Improving Effectiveness through Inclusive Action, Humanitarian Policy Group, accessed 12 April 2016, <http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9720.pdf>.


Table 1: Availability of information by country

Country/Region Number of documents

reviewed

Fiji 6

Vanuatu 12

Solomon Islands 6

Kiribati 2

Pacific 22

Asia 7

Asia-Pacific 2

Other/Global/

Unspecified51

Table 2: Availability of information by document design

Full-text

study or

abstract

Evaluation

or Lessons

Learned

Program

document

Internal

reports

Think piece,

op-ed and/or

blog

Policy or

strategy

Case study or

good practice

example

Other

Number of

documents14 6 7 4 29 4 28 16

Appendices

Appendix 1: Availability of information by country and document design